-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Darwin's Illusion
- Thread starter Neuropteron
- Start date
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
OK, you're not god, but you're beyond me. So -- have a good evening.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I rather doubt that since he has utterly failed in his other arguments. Do you have any clue as to what it was?
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
All right, I give in. What's your theory? Puleeze explain so I can understand it. Not with binary etc. terms. Thanks. If possible on your part. Thank you again.
There is no evidence that all living things think. Where's your evidence? Where's your experiments?
There is no such thing as Homo omnisciencis. Did you forget?
Humans experience thought. Other animals seem to experience thought too. You remember dogs don't you?
Why would I say something ridiculous like that when I can leave that to others?
You mention incessantly that your are a metaphysician and thoroughly immersed in metaphysics, but it occurs to me that you never, ever make any sort of philosophical argument or actually introduce metaphysics into the conversation. You just make empty claims as if they are fact and keep right on going when you are corrected as if the correction never occurred. I wonder why a person claiming to advance a philosophy never actually interjects that philosophy into the discussion. Curious and strange.
It doesn't mean they do, but you seem to be claiming you can legitimately make an argument from ignorance. You do realize that is a fallacy right?
Communications Consultant | Prairie Dog Communications
Sustainability communications consultingwww.prairiedogcommunications.com
Just because we don't understand then doesn't mean they don't have language.
I didn't say that some animals do not communicate, but there is no evidence that they communicate as you describe or any evidence to even consider your claims about the so called language of other animals.
For someone that intimates their vast knowledge of all things, you seem rather exceptionally short on being able to support your claims. That results don't fit the advertisements. I often feel like I'm being told this is a Ferrari and I should buy it when claim is really just a beat up old Fiat junker.
Show me. What words? How was this vocabulary determined? Do they come when you call them? Do they sit on command? As is your usual, you offer no evidence and no argument. Just a bald claim with no reason to accept it and plenty to just dismiss it.
Is that what you really want? Do you want others not to understand you? Do you want them to dismiss your claims?
So you say, but I've no reason to accept this claim. You've offered nothing for anyone to review. Just another claim sitting there all lonely and empty.
So you say, but I've no reason to accept this claim. You've offered nothing for anyone to review. Just another claim sitting there all lonely and empty.
So not 40,000 years old. Just a 5,000 year old religious text.
You didn't say anything about the Pyramid text to support your case, so why stop at making claims about some alleged other language?
I don't know what a believer is. Clearly you use it derogatorily to anyone that doesn't buy your pig in a poke. But really? Isn't it more likely you just don't have any evidence and don't understand how science works.
Here's another example of the inconsistent logic you rely on. You claim the evidence can't be seen at the same time that it must be seen to be handwaved away. It's interesting to see this put to practice.
Homo sapiens history begins 300,000 years ago and continues right up to now. I see no reason to believe some fan fiction version of reality that doesn't have any evidence to review and test.
I asked you not to mention tea leaves. Ok. I accept that you don't know anything about paleontology or the fossil record, but this evidence is not read like tea leaves. It has serious validity and I think deep down you know that even if you don't understand it or you wouldn't be working so hard to handwave it away.
There is evidence only of Homo sapiens. Homo omnisciencis exists only with you and no where else. It is not a valid name. There is no reason to apply it. It doesn't describe any real species. It isn't science. It is your imagination
This has been so widely refuted on this forum that I'm not even going to waste my time with further comment.
Fossils are not used to determine what an individual was thinking. You have some very strange beliefs by any standard I can think of, but they are not facts and they not science.
I can't imagine a language that has never been shown to exist could be translated. Maybe I'll write a story and translate it. Since you say it has never been translated, then you can't really refute my translation can you?
It doesn't look like anything to me, since no one has presented any evidence it even exists. Why do you think gobbledygook looks like some sort of religio-magic? Does all gobbledygook look like that to you or is it more meaningless hyperbole?
Since you never present any evidence to back up your claims there is nothing really to say.
Wouldn't you rather actually present something that others can consider? I guess not. This seems like a situation where a person just thrives on the attention even when it is negative. That seems to be the conclusion I'm coming to. That you just want to think out loud and have people comment on it and keep it alive.
Imagine that. They had pie back then too. I like blueberry myself. Or blackberry. You know what would really be good is a blackberry cobbler with two scoops of vanilla ice cream.
I don't know what to tell you about your belief system other than it isn't something I'm interested in. I'm starting to lose interest and patience with someone that doesn't support their claims and acts as if it is all fact. I don't see you listening to anyone, so I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that you don't listen to me.
Last edited:
It's the first time I seen you mention it. Yes, we know you disagree and we also know you never explain why or refute the conclusions of scientists.
Correct.
You're welcome to provide the evidence and arguments to support these beliefs. Not that history indicates that you will. But there is a first time for everything.
That may be the most accurate statement you've ever made.
That mysterious theory that is around but never found? You've mentioned this theory constantly, but never presented it. Is it more speculation?
Do you realize the extent of your claim here? What you are saying is that those that see reality as your claimed digital don't think. Think about that a bit.
Do you even know the difference between analog and digital? I wonder.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
If it's above your pay grade, then how are you able or qualified to evaluate it as one of the "best arguments you ever saw"?
cladking
Well-Known Member
Some people can judge the cohesiveness, consistency, and comprehensiveness of an argument without agreeing or disagreeing with it. Meanwhile Darwin's argument for Evolution is very weak and relies principally on the way things "seem". Life is not fit, it is conscious!
cladking
Well-Known Member
I often say that all individuals are equally "fit" but it's also true that they are all equally unfit.
All individuals have some achilles heel and some environment in which they would do poorly or perish.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
I don't see how that was a valid answer to my question
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Which doesn't matter. What matters is who they perform in the actual environment they find themselves in.
Pinguins wouldn't be fit if they found themselves on the Saharah desert.
But they don't.... instead, they find themselves in an environment to which they are excellently adapted and thus in which they are very fit.
cladking
Well-Known Member
All of our assumptions are false and are part and parcel of a confused language. There was once a world wide advanced civilization that spoke a different kind of language and used a different kind of science. The language became too complex over 12 centuries until it had to be abandoned in an event we know only as the "tower of babel". Much of the writing from after this era was an attempt to preserve knowledge that failed. Most of this writing evolved into what we call "religion" which is why the Bible is "accurate" and science so often is not. False assumptions and bad interpretation of experiment are the primary problems.
Holy books (including the Koran) derive from 40,000 years of science.
I want to offer a different perspective. I agree that the story exists to account for the diversity of mutually unintelligible languages in the world, and unlike the naturalistic explanation for the evolution of the tree of families of languages, it does so from a moral perspective, which is to be expected in the shadow of a belief in a tri-omni god and a world that is much less than what that god could have made. i would add to your comment that they are all understood as punishments for disobedience. It's why we can't understand one another, why Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed (likely from an impact from space), why marine fossils appear on the highest mountaintops (a private hypothesis), and why life is hard and short rather than paradisical.
The area I wanted to quibble over is the use of the word allegory. I contend that it is inappropriate to call these myths allegorical when what they are were best but incorrect guesses to explain observed phenomena life linguistic diversity. How is that different? An allegory is a specific literary form. It is fiction with a substitution of invented characters and events for known historical characters and events. Gulliver's Travels is a political allegory in which fantastical fictional characters substitute for prominent historical figures like Walpole in the British politics of Swift's era, symbolized by the rope dancer Flimnap. We know what these things stand for as did their author, and they are specific, not place-holders for what is not known.
That's not what these myths are. They are erroneous attempts to explain the reality the mythicists found around them. I think that the reason that such language is eschewed by believers (and even many unbelievers who esteem myths) is because the word allegory implies that the authors had knowledge of the actual historical event as Swift did when he wrote Gulliver's Travels, and really don't want to use language like wrong guesses.
What do you think? Is the Tower of Babel story an allegory where it's authors chose the Tower to symbolize mutatis mutandis the naturalistic evolution of language, or a speculation?
Suggestion. Don't conflate God, which usually means the god of Abraham, with gods, which includes other conceptions of the word including polytheism. How about, "Does God exist" or "Is there a god or gods?" or both?
You might know that there is good evidence to support that life on Earth may be Martian in origin. Abiogenesis could well have occurred on Mars with its solid crust, atmosphere, oceans, and magnetic field long before the much larger Earth had cooled sufficiently to begin doing the same, as well as some indirect evidence of life on Mars found by the Martian rovers. Mars suffered a huge impact similar to the moon generating impact Earth suffered, which could well have showered the earth with Martian rock and maybe life.
These are the kinds of comments that confound others. You believe what you consider an impossible mistranslation to be literally true
Is this a typo? If not, it can be rejected out of hand. It's unpronounceable, and the symbols aren't ancient or modern Egyptian.
I Googled the characters and found something surprising: "The S3H builds on the successes of ADAM Audio’s most popular studio monitors, the S3A and S3X-H, and, like its predecessors, sets new standards in terms of technical innovation and design." ADAM Audio? Is this a coincidence?
I've also commented on your use of shorthand. What do you think this means to your readers? I'm guessing that you mean either that observation is greater than logic if these symbols are to be understood mathematically, or else, observation preceded logic, as if you meant arrows like "->" rather than greater-than signs. Or maybe you meant something else altogether. I would have recommended writing your thoughts out longhand rather than trying to symbolize them with ambiguous characters.
More enigma. For much of the anglophone world, thinking and experiencing thought are synonymous. You apparently understand those words differently, but the reader is left to guess what you might have meant here if it's not the standard meaning of those words, or why you would write that if you do understand the words the way most others do.
Somebody beat me to this already, but do you really want to say that you read an argument, understood it, were convinced by it, and now can't begin to paraphrase it at all a few days later?
What does that mean from a pragmatic perspective? How would reality appear if it were analog, and what would have to be true about the world to justify using that word? Are you saying that reality is digital? If so, what does that mean precisely?
Here's an article that you might find interesting:
"There is some evidence suggesting that our physical reality could be a simulated virtual reality rather than an objective world that exists independently of the observer. Any virtual reality world will be based on information processing. That means everything is ultimately digitised or pixelated down to a minimum size that cannot be subdivided further: bits. This appears to mimic our reality according to the theory of quantum mechanics, which rules the world of atoms and particles. It states there is a smallest, discrete unit of energy, length and time. Similarly, elementary particles, which make up all the visible matter in the universe, are the smallest units of matter. To put it simply, our world is pixelated."
cladking
Well-Known Member
No argument in our language can be logical because our language is illogical.
Indeed!!! Which is why consciousness is so important. When large numbers of perfectly fit individuals can not survive a change in the niche then the species quickly adapts to the new conditions. This is "Adaptation" not "Evolution". The murder of large numbers of individuals based on genetic traits in an experiment shows adaptation.
Yes! They are fit. So why in the world would they change? As I've said numerous times all things change in reality. Nothing is static. But that doesn't mean that species gradually Evolve because f survival of the fittest.
cladking
Well-Known Member
This is mentioned in the Pyramid Texts. The Great Pyramid is constructed of billions of nummulites from locally quarried limestone.
As I've said numerous times; the language was confused. When a confused language speaker "translates" Ancient Language which was literal he creates a confused literal meaning. This is what we see. The "tower" of babel may have been the most famous place that the law changing the official language was recorded or the place where the body met to draft that law. It could be any number of things and still literally true. Our job as with all writing and speech is to deduce the intended meaning and we must assume it is literally true and accurate in order to determine that meaning.
Everyone makes sense in terms of their premises but ancient people made sense in terms of their understanding of what we call "the laws of physics" which are no more than a glimpse at the logic of which all reality is composed. What Egyptologists do to Ancient Language isn't so much a "mistranslation" as a gross misinterpretation. Again I suggest I Corinthians 14.
Interpretation is everything. And this includes the paradigms we use to understand experiment.
"Observation (then) Logic" instead of "Observation (then) Experiment"
This is the fundamental difference between these sciences. They could use logic because their language was naturally logical. We see only what we believe. Their science was fundamentally different at the most basic level.
No. The word wasn't translated until recently and most modern translations are less good than older ones. They call it "Sah" now and it's a specific star in Betelgeuse. It was transliterated as "S3h" which meant the same thing. This was the specific star by which "Adam" (the first human who was a mutant) is remembered.
I hate to tell you this but once you start looking into these things you'll find such "coincidences" impossibly common. Bear in mind though that the search engines are designed to return hits and advertising even where northing exists. It will get far worse from here. This especially applies to language because all language converges at Ancient Language.
If I were a mystical sort I'd be speculating on racial memory or other such "nonsense". Keep in mind though that we are all born speaking Ancient Language and this may not entirely leave every individual. We might all be able to bring something up when the broccas area sleeps.
I don't know.
My understanding of the words is little different. The difference is in the referent. We are what we think. we define ourselves in terms of thought and abstraction. Animals don't really "think" at all. I probably should say animal "thought" is the comparison of sensory input to experience and knowledge. It is very fast. There is a delay in humans and we actually decide to do something before we are even conscious of having made the decision. This is where our thought resides; immediately after reality itself. Animals don't do this so don't experience it. The pyramid builders didn't really think; not in terms we can recognize. We think in words, and they acted on physical law as they understood it. They were a force of nature and we are a product of our beliefs. They were a tool, an extension, of reality itself. We can't see reality except through the kaleidoscope of our models and beliefs.
It means assumptions are in error and interpretations are wrong. It means it should be possible to invent new hypothesis and design new experiment.
Last edited:
cladking
Well-Known Member
It never occurred to me before but the implication here is that if we could observe a homo sapien it would appear to be acting on instinct most of the time. He would run around sniffing and peering with no clear destination apparent. Most of his activity would appear to serve no function other than the needs and whims of the moment. The differences to our species are extremely dramatic. We look the same and have numerous similarities but these would be nearly invisible to the observer. The different aspect of each individual would even disguise the similarities in appearance.
These people were not like us.
cladking
Well-Known Member
And to a homo sapien we would look like sleepwalkers with no awareness of or interaction with our surroundings. We would look like automatons or clock works. Closer observation would show we each have a unique reality and a different language. We would seem to be a product of our technology, almost as though a car gave birth to its driver.