Darwin's Illusion

[It Aint Necessarily So]

you fail to understand that my concern is the scientific theory of evolution. the theory has failed as a scientific theory. it's a verifiable fact. do you understand?

If you were correct, you could verify it here. You could show your sound, evidenced argument that shows that natural selection applied to genetic variation in populations over generations did not produce the tree of life. But you can't, because the theory is correct, and correct ideas cannot be falsified.

there is no crisis in the science

Yes, I know. The crisis is with creationism and has been since the repudiation of the ID program by the Dover trial, and a series of embarrassing debunkings of false claims of irreducible complexity in biological systems.

The truth of God will resonate within your inner being, you can tell it’s the truth but ultimately, your choice to accept or deny God depends on nothing but your “free will”.

Truth is already resonating in me. I've found my path, and it doesn't involve god beliefs or religions. I have no reason to believe that you have truth, but I do have reason to believe that a god belief meets some need in you not present in those who are comfortable with one.

abiogenesis is axiomatic because it’s considered as true (the only option) independent of any evidence

That's incorrect three times:
[1] Science assumes nothing. It studies nature as it finds it without prejudice (unlike the ID people looking for irreducible complexity) and tells us what it finds.
[2] We *have* a growing body of evidence in support of naturalistic abiogenesis, but not enough yet, and none for creationism.
[3] That's not the definition of axiom. Your definition - belief independent of sufficient supporting evidence - would include the creationist worldview and all faith-based beliefs.

The notion that one of two must be correct is a false dichotomy. Other options may be possible (such as panspermia).

That is not a third option for the origin of life in the universe. There is only naturalistic abiogenesis and supernatural intelligent design. If panspermia occurs, it occurs following one of those two.

there is no evidence that nucleotides, nucleic acids or self-replication exist in "nature" outside the living cell

Not for you, perhaps: All of the bases in DNA and RNA have now been found in meteorites

Adaptation/microevolution never leads to macroevolution.

Sure it does. How are you going to stop it?

Artificial selection may produce variations of species with specific/favorable phenotypic traits otherwise there will be reproductive barriers that prevent the creation of new species.

If that were true, you could demonstrate how you know to be so. If that were a fact, interested students of the sciences would know it the way creationists would have learned it - from science.

Interactions of matter don’t give rise to consciousness.

You don't know that. You assume it because you think it suggests a role for consciousness and thus a god as a primordial substance. But you have a problem. No god can be the conscious creator of consciousness.

Beyond consciousness there is no qualia of any kind. The materialistic realm doesn’t support qualia. Beyond consciousness there is no photos or sounds, there is no colors, light or dark, there is no music, there is only waves, lots of waves of varying length/frequency/strength vibrating in every direction, that’s it.

That's not an argument against a materialistic understanding of consciousness.

Ring species variants are technically the same species even if the distant ends cannot naturally interbreed.

If they can't interbreed, then they are a different species technically.

The ToE (the notion of randomness) is the most ridiculous scientific theory in the history of mankind

And by coincidence, one that challenges your faith-based beliefs, which apparently don't meet your definition of ridiculous.

Can we see design/purpose in every entity in our fine-tuned universe?

You just made an implied argument against an omnipotent intelligent designer for the universe. Just as this deity would need to discover how its own consciousness arises in order to create conscious animal life, it needed to discover the laws that nature imposed on matter and set parameters accordingly.

Can we see God’s digital signature in the DNA of every living cell?

No, but we can find Venters in some: Secret Messages Coded Into DNA Of Venter Synthetic Bacteria

Do you understand the difference between the naturalistic code and Venter's words? Only one is intelligently designed. Only one needed a conscious author. We can tell the difference between the natural code and Venter's insertions. One needs to learn English and Venter's substitution code to interpret his inserted sequences, which do nothing except serve as watermarks to protect his patents, but no intelligence is necessary to translate natural sequences into proteins.

 

[cladking]

A holistic view of as many puzzle pieces as possible is crucial for the logical process towards connecting the dots of reality.

Actually, a holistic interdisciplinary diverse field spanning the formal, natural, social, and applied sciences does exist. It’s called “Systems Science" and is concerned with the understanding of systems in nature, society, cognition, engineering, technology and science.

In fact, Peter A. Corning the author of the article below "Beyond the modern synthesis” is not only a biologist but also, he is a complex systems scientist Director of the Institute for the Study of Complex Systems, in Seattle, Washington and was the President of the International Society for the Systems Sciences.

Beyond the modern synthesis: A framework for a more inclusive biological synthesis - ScienceDirect

It's a shame few understand this.

Relating disparate and unique bits of information to understanding systems and processes and how they all interrelate is a building block of paradigm formation and derives from consciousness itself since it is chiefly pattern recognition which is one of the largest components of consciousness.

I really appreciate your work. You are doing more to dismantle Darwin's illusion than I could in a life time. Science changes one funeral at a time in part because ancient ruins of models ae still inhabited. People can't seem to look out the window and notice there are no longer any walls.

 

[cladking]

And yet we have vast amounts of evidence that species do actually evolve from one another. Merely asserting, without evidence, that adaptation cannot generate new species, is not going to persuade any thinking person, is it?

Yes. They change.

It's how and why in dispute.

 

[cladking]

You don't know that. You assume it because you think it suggests a role for consciousness and thus a god as a primordial substance. But you have a problem. No god can be the conscious creator of consciousness.

Without understanding consciousness or even having a working definition it is pretty brazen saying what Anyone can or can't do or whether it can arise naturally or not.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you’re wrong and your wishful thinking and empty claims are meaningless.

Why should anyone take your empty claims seriously?

It’s the typical nonsense of yours.

First, the scientific article is by Peter A. Corning. He is an American biologist, consultant, and complex systems scientist, Director of the Institute for the Study of Complex Systems, in Seattle, Washington. Its neither an opinion nor Corning is working outside his area of expertise.

Peter A. Corning
Peter Corning - Wikipedia

Second, the article is published by “Elsevier”, a global leader scientific journal that uses highest standards to ensure the scientific value of the publications. Elsevier serves the global research community, publishing over 600,000 peer-reviewed articles in 2022. More than 99% of the Nobel Laureates in science have published in Elsevier journals since the year 2000.

Elsevier-corporate-brochure-2023.pdf

Again, see the link below and attached PDF for the scientific article by Peter A. Corning.
Beyond the modern synthesis: A framework for a more inclusive biological synthesis - ScienceDirect

These scientific articles that get published in top peer reviewed scientific journals are taken seriously among scientists in the field. On the other hand, laymen such as yourself may not be even aware of it. Your empty claims are totally meaningless. Do you understand?

My argument is very specific and clear that the scientific theory of evolution (MS) is false and I demonstrated why multiple times. I’m not concerned about any false axioms. On the other hand, your typical response is nothing but denial/wishful thinking. If you still insist that you are a monkey, it’s Ok, I’ll take your word for it but sorry, I’ll still not take your meaningless denial and empty arguments seriously.

You still do not know what a peer reviewed work is. Yes, Elsevier is a well known publisher. And they seem to have quite a range of journals that they publish. Some of them are well respected. Some of them are not. In fact I should say quite a few are not well respected. In fact so many of Elsevier's journals are not only not well respected but thought to be predatory that the publisher is now widely viewed as predatory publisher:

Elsevier now officially a “predatory” publisher

For a number of years now, publishers who expect losing revenue in a transition to Open Access have been spreading fear about journals which claim to perform peer-review on submitted manuscripts, but then collect the publishing fee of a few […] <a class="more-link"...

bjoern.brembs.net

But even if that was not true, it still would not be a peer reviewed article. Not everything that you read in peer reviewed journals are peer reviewed. They often have letters and opinion pieces. Nature for example has invited researchers to publish works for lay people in their journal. Jack Szostak, a Nobel Prize winning biochemist wrote an article for them on abiogenesis. It was not peer reviewed, It was never presented as being peer reviewed. Yet at least one chemist, James Tour a at one time well respected synthetic chemist, claimed that it was in a series of his talks. He of all people should have know that it was an informal piece. That is what your article was, It was not peer reviewed, it was just that man's opinion.

This was already explained to you and yet you continue to defend it and worse yet try to appeal to the large numbers of Elsevier rather than to how well respected a publisher is. This only confirms that your knowledge of science is very low. And I can say that because mine is only slightly higher. And I have at least an inkling of how little I know.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It's a shame few understand this.

I don't think anybody posting here understands what either you or LIIA believe, just what you reject - the theory of evolution. Neither of you can falsify it, yet you have rejected it anyway. Critical thinkers won't do that without a reason, and only falsification of the theory is reason enough.

Without understanding consciousness or even having a working definition it is pretty brazen saying what Anyone can or can't do or whether it can arise naturally or not.

I answered, "You don't know that. You assume it because you think it suggests a role for consciousness and thus a god as a primordial substance. But you have a problem. No god can be the conscious creator of consciousness" in response to the bare, unsupported claim, "Interactions of matter don’t give rise to consciousness."

Why don't you attempt to rebut the claim if you consider it wrong. Do you disagree with the "you don't know that" part? I doubt that you think he does know it. Or maybe you disagree with my reason for him making that statement, which I notice you didn't consider brazen. Or maybe you think it's brazen to state that an intelligent designer can't be the inventor of consciousness. Is that the brazen claim in your estimation? Do you think a conscious agent invented consciousness or might have?

 

[cladking]

I don't think anybody posting here understands what either you or LIIA believe, just what you reject - the theory of evolution.

The thrust of the post concerns an overall understanding and it is this that is sorely lacking and for which very few, even the best scientists, are capable of understanding. Paradigms tend to be very exclusionary with little overlap between cosmology and evolution. No Egyptologist cares much about about astronomy or astrology, or for that matter, chemistry. Yet in reality all things are related. In reality there are overarching paradigms whether they are known or not; the exact same laws of physics (if there were such a thing) apply to building pyramids as apply to landing a man on the moon. LIIA came to his conclusions by a different route than I but we tend to be in close agreement. It is quite apparent that Darwin was wrong. LIIA came at it scientifically and I got here through a backdoor. While his science can be disputed the fact is that many believe Evolution is wrong and have copious evidence to support their position. His arguments are being gainsaid and handwaved rather than being addressed. My arguments mostly meet semantics and wordplay. One poster still won't accept the definition of "metaphysics" after it has been spelled out dozens of times.

Neither of you can falsify it, yet you have rejected it anyway.

I believe we both have (there are other posters here who have also made valid points).

This is despite the fact that ultimately "Evolution" is an extraordinary claim without any evidence. I would remind people that "interpretation" is never really evidence and the fossil record suggests only that species change rather than how or why they change.

Why don't you attempt to rebut the claim if you consider it wrong.

What I consider "wrong" is any statement about consciousness or any word without a defined referent. I make many statements about "consciousness" because I have provided numerous definitions for it. Perhaps I am wrong but that only makes "consciousness" to be without a referent when I use the term. Unless others use it as a synonym for "awareness" then it has no referent for them either.

I believe "consciousness" arose and became more acute, pervasive, and ubiquitous to help individuals. I have no means of knowing whether it evolved gradually in fits and starts or a God conferred it on everybody. I believe it is an emergent property of the structure of the life of its many individuals.

Without consciousness there can be no life. Life is consciousness. What isn't conscious is either dead or never alive. With consciousness all things live and like all life all things live as individuals and are conscious as individuals. This is hard for homo omnisciencis to see because we all engage in some groupthink: We accept the assumptions and circular conclusions of one group or another. This is because only homo omnisciencis experiences thought and act on beliefs while having a language complex enough to convey such ideas.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The thrust of the post concerns an overall understanding and it is this that is sorely lacking and for which very few, even the best scientists, are capable of understanding.

Nobody here seems to understand either of you. Now you add that the best scientists can't understand you either. Have you ever considered an alternative hypothesis to account for that apart from they're all too thick to understand?

LIIA came to his conclusions by a different route than I but we tend to be in close agreement. It is quite apparent that Darwin was wrong.

You two don't seem to overlap at all except in your rejection of the theory.

I believe we both have

You believe that you have both falsified the theory of evolution? The scientific and critical thinking communities disagree. They seem to think that the support for the theory remains robust.

"Evolution" is an extraordinary claim without any evidence.

No evidence for you, perhaps.

I believe "consciousness" arose and became more acute, pervasive, and ubiquitous to help individuals. I have no means of knowing whether it evolved gradually in fits and starts or a God conferred it on everybody.

You seem to think that consciousness arose to be helpful. Is that correct?

I believe it is an emergent property of the structure of the life of its many individuals.

So do I. LIIA, like most monotheists, disagrees.

Without consciousness there can be no life.

Evidence refutes you.

only homo omnisciencis experiences thought and act on beliefs.

Does that include my dogs? They do that, too. You should see them when they see or hear a cat.

 

[cladking]

Now you add that the best scientists can't understand you either.

NO!!!

I said even the best scientists often don't understand that all of reality is interdependent. Even the best scientists often don't understand that all experiment applies to all of reality all of the time. Even the best scientists might not understand there is an intimate connection between all branches of science and that some paradigm might apply to all branches.

Plenty of people understand me even if many fewer agree.

 

[cladking]

You seem to think that consciousness arose to be helpful. Is that correct?

I don't know. I hate the terminology. "Consciousness" arose because life couldn't exist without it. It might have arisen in fits and starts as life became more complex. It is the means by which every individual (except homo omnisciencis) survives.

It is definitional to life.

"To be helpful" could be interpreted to suggest a conscious agent or intention is behind it. It most probably is not intentional in most senses of the word. All intention is individual or possibly Devine.

Does that include my dogs? They do that, too. You should see them when they see or hear a cat.

You are interpreting evidence based on beliefs and models.

Evidence refutes you.

You are interpreting evidence based on beliefs and models.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I don't know. I hate the terminology. "Consciousness" arose because life couldn't exist without it.

There is no evidence for that. Given that prokaryotes don't exhibit consciousness and NO ONE has ever presented any evidence that they do or even could. And since the first living things appear to be some sort of prokaryote, then life preceded consciousness.

Since you never present evidence for your claims and either run away or play word games, there is no reason to consider your claim as anything more than something you speculate on imagination.

It might have arisen in fits and starts as life became more complex.

More of your contradiction revealing the internal inconsistency of your posts. "Life couldn't exist without it" followed by "it might have arisen in fits and starts as life became more complex" and later in the same post, "it is definitional to life".

Which is it dude? You can't go both directions when you are running away.

More word games and that expertise you tout. Is it an expertise in word games?

It is the means by which every individual (except homo omnisciencis) survives.

I'm pretty confident that Homo omnisciensis survives on balloon juice. They are a monophagous, nebulous sort of non-entity.

It is definitional to life.

No it isn't.

All evidence and experiment tells us that it is not definitional to life.

More of your word games.

"To be helpful" could be interpreted to suggest a conscious agent or intention is behind it. It most probably is not intentional in most senses of the word. All intention is individual or possibly Devine.

If there was any evidence for a conscious agent, that would be nice. But so far...None.

You are interpreting evidence based on beliefs and models.

Since you provide no evidence and a lot of what you claim as fact seems to be made up, it appears you are the one claiming things based on belief.

You are interpreting evidence based on beliefs and models.

Since you provide no evidence and a lot of what you claim as fact seems to be made up, it appears you are the one claiming things based on belief.

All evidence and experiment refutes you.

I thought you should know.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Plenty of people understand me even if many fewer agree.

Name someone we can verify.

I don't know that anyone agrees with you. The best I would say that I've seen is "the enemy of my enemy" association and I'm pretty sure those people really don't agree with your claims either.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The thrust of the post concerns an overall understanding and it is this that is sorely lacking and for which very few, even the best scientists, are capable of understanding. Paradigms tend to be very exclusionary with little overlap between cosmology and evolution. No Egyptologist cares much about about astronomy or astrology, or for that matter, chemistry. Yet in reality all things are related. In reality there are overarching paradigms whether they are known or not; the exact same laws of physics (if there were such a thing) apply to building pyramids as apply to landing a man on the moon. LIIA came to his conclusions by a different route than I but we tend to be in close agreement. It is quite apparent that Darwin was wrong. LIIA came at it scientifically and I got here through a backdoor. While his science can be disputed the fact is that many believe Evolution is wrong and have copious evidence to support their position. His arguments are being gainsaid and handwaved rather than being addressed. My arguments mostly meet semantics and wordplay. One poster still won't accept the definition of "metaphysics" after it has been spelled out dozens of times.

There are not that many that agree with the position that a scientific controversy means that any random belief is now acceptable as science. Just you guys and some other creationists as far as I have seen.

You don't really offer to define what you mean, with the exception of your failed attempt to redefine genetic bottleneck into something it isn't and citing it as an example of things that it isn't an example of.

Your entire position of redefining words to fit conditions you appear to imagine are correct when they are not has all the appearance of word games.

I believe we both have (there are other posters here who have also made valid points).

Neither of you have refuted the theory of evolution. From my position, neither of you know that much biology or science to refute anything. Couple that with all the word play, and nothing appears to have been done.

This is despite the fact that ultimately "Evolution" is an extraordinary claim without any evidence.

Evolution is a theory that explains the evidence and there is a lot of evidence. I can't imagine someone claiming to have a voice here not knowing about all that evidence. It's just sad.

I would remind people that "interpretation" is never really evidence and the fossil record suggests only that species change rather than how or why they change.

So what. You admit it is evidence of change. Other evidence indicates how.

What I consider "wrong" is any statement about consciousness or any word without a defined referent.

That's interesting since you are the one making most of the claims about consciousness. We consider them wrong too. For lack of evidence.

I make many statements about "consciousness" because I have provided numerous definitions for it.

Not really. Show us. You've not once presented any evidence for the claims you make about consciousness. You believe. You pontificate. You get called out for lack of evidence and reason. You ignore all of that and pontificate more.

Perhaps I am wrong

I am in complete agreement with this.

but that only makes "consciousness" to be without a referent when I use the term.

And without evidence when you make claims about it.

Unless others use it as a synonym for "awareness" then it has no referent for them either.

Things that have consciousness seem to possess some awareness. I'm aware of people that make claims about things that they refuse to support with evidence.

I believe "consciousness" arose and became more acute, pervasive, and ubiquitous to help individuals.

I could see selection favoring consciousness and those that possess the trait as being more fit.

I have no means of knowing whether it evolved gradually in fits and starts or a God conferred it on everybody.

You can't have it being definitional to life and evolving to it's present condition over time. Are you aware of anything involving your claims?

I believe it is an emergent property of the structure of the life of its many individuals.

I think it is an emergent property.

Without consciousness there can be no life.

Back to that again are we. Consistency is a strong suit with you I see.

Life is consciousness.

Definitely back to that after tossing around evolving gradually or with fits and starts. I'd hate to ride with you from St. Louis to New York. We'd end up in Mexico if you drive like you claim about consciousness.

What isn't conscious is either dead or never alive.

That fits with the evidence. You got one.

With consciousness all things live and like all life all things live as individuals and are conscious as individuals.

Not all living things, but some.

This is hard for homo omnisciencis to see because we all engage in some groupthink

A made up species can't see or engage in groupthink.

: We accept the assumptions and circular conclusions of one group or another.

I don't accept yours. I'm doing something right.

This is because only homo omnisciencis experiences thought and act on beliefs while having a language complex enough to convey such ideas.

A made up species cannot experience thought, belief or have language.

Of what value is there in erroneously applying secret personal nomenclature to Homo sapiens and declaring us dead and replaced?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes. They change.

It's how and why in dispute.

Only by those that want their personal belief substituted for science, evidence and reason.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Without understanding consciousness or even having a working definition it is pretty brazen saying what Anyone can or can't do or whether it can arise naturally or not.

Without any evidence it is pretty brazen to make claims and expect anyone to consider them seriously.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No argument in our language can be logical because our language is illogical.

Indeed!!! Which is why consciousness is so important.

You say "indeed" and in the next breath you expose how you didn't understand it at all.

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".

Adaption = evolution

The murder of large numbers of individuals based on genetic traits in an experiment shows adaptation.

That makes no sense at all.

Yes! They are fit. So why in the world would they change?

If the environment changes, then either they'll change along with it in response to those changes in selection pressures or go extinct.

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.

Except that it means exactly that.

 

[cladking]

I could see selection favoring consciousness and those that possess the trait as being more fit.

You're om the right track.

Consciousness is memory, pattern recognition, and "awareness" which all are far more important to survival than speed, strength, or tolerance to poisons introduced in the lab. Consciousness prevents a tasty individual from sleeping in the open, flying into a dust storm, or ignoring a large predator. It tells the individual where and how to find food, reproduce, and when to seek shelter. It is the be all end all of all life and it is even controlled by glands and or hard wiring that supply pain or pleasure to make and to experience the results of choices. Free will and life are synonyms because dead things and things never alive have no free will and no consciousness.

Without consciousness life can not exist and all consciousness is individual. So why did Darwin ignore the most fundamental characteristic/ aspect of life in proposing the means and cause of change in species? Consciousness adapts and learns making quantitative and qualitative improvements on itself even within a lifetime. It's absurd to believe as Darwin did that a collection of individuals called a "species" would not also change in ways to improve the degree and effectiveness of its members' consciousnesses.

Homo omnisciencis want to believe that it is the crown of creation and no superior species once built civilizations and pyramids because by extension each homo omnisciencis is superior to all plants, animals, and previous incarnations of "itself". If there's one true statement that can be said in modern language it's "by God, we'll each believe what we choose to believe"; and we all choose to believe.

 

[cladking]

Of what value is there in erroneously applying secret personal nomenclature to Homo sapiens and declaring us dead and replaced?

I believe that the story of a single universal language for all humans was literally and exactly true and that the version of this story in the Bible is a confused rendition of a speciation event. We are unlike the previous species in every important detail.

This is in no way "secret". It makes countless predictions which can be studied and then proven iff true. It would also open up a new kind kind of science and will show the true nature of change in species as Darwin had it all wrong.

It's not we who are all dead; it is the species from which we originated. It was a species that invented the means for survival until we could invent modern science. That means ironically shows the actual nature of change in species.

 

[cladking]

Adaption = evolution

No. "Adaptation" is a rapid change in species caused by sudden changes in a niche.

There is no such thing as "Evolution". All change in species is sudden and are not caused by "survival of the fittest". Obviously "adaptation" has similarities to survival of the fittest but this forces a poor perspective to define it in such a way.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You're om the right track.

I've been on the right track the entire time. I haven't seen you on that track.

Consciousness is memory, pattern recognition, and "awareness" which all are far more important to survival than speed, strength, or tolerance to poisons introduced in the lab.

Unless of course you are being chased by a fast, strong predator or opponent or you've been bitten by a venomous snake. Then speed, strength and tolerance to toxins would be more important. Selection is relative.

Consciousness prevents a tasty individual from sleeping in the open, flying into a dust storm, or ignoring a large predator.

Stimulus/response could achieve that too.

It tells the individual where and how to find food, reproduce, and when to seek shelter.

Some, but others don't use consciousness.

It is the be all end all of all life

No evidence to accept that wild claim.

and it is even controlled by glands and or hard wiring that supply pain or pleasure to make and to experience the results of choices

So evidence it isn't the end all and be all of life, since it is controlled by something.

. Free will and life are synonyms because dead things and things never alive have no free will and no consciousness.

Life is not a synonym of consciousness. We've already refuted this claim many times. Remember, prokaryotes don't exhibit consciousness and the first living things were prokaryotes. So, living things preceded consciousness and those prokaryotes do not exhibit free will either.

Without consciousness life can not exist

Already been refuted.

and all consciousness is individual.

As far as the evidence indicates.

So why did Darwin ignore the most fundamental characteristic/ aspect of life in proposing the means and cause of change in species?

Because it isn't fundamental to determining evolution and there is no evidence it is the cause of change in species. Recall those prokaryotes.

Consciousness adapts and learns making quantitative and qualitative improvements on itself even within a lifetime.

I admit that humans learn and improve themselves and are conscious. I don't know that all conscious organisms do this. Your claim is not evidence that they do. Since you don't provide evidence and make nebulous or irrelevant, obvious claims that are not in contention, nothing for me to agree with.

It's absurd to believe as Darwin did that a collection of individuals called a "species" would not also change in ways to improve the degree and effectiveness of its members' consciousnesses.

Darwin did accept change in species. Do you not know what the theory of evolution says? Seriously!

Homo omnisciencis want to believe that it is the crown of creation and no superior species once built civilizations and pyramids because by extension each homo omnisciencis is superior to all plants, animals, and previous incarnations of "itself". If there's one true statement that can be said in modern language it's "by God, we'll each believe what we choose to believe"; and we all choose to believe.

I suppose you can say anything you want about a fictional species that doesn't exist. I think they are caramel flavored, reproduce through insinuation and all have mullets. You know what? They do. Imaginary things can be whatever we want them to be.

Your posts are very grandiose. Since this is all belief without evidence, I don't believe it. No reason to even consider it.