Darwin's Illusion

[John53]

Mostly, you are up against ideological dogma that some person told the believer is how they should believe.

And the JW's never get it wrong. 1918, 1925, 1975.

 

[blü 2]

DARWIN CALLED IT SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST BUT IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOU CALL IT, IT IS WRONG.

Call it strong is best, fast is better, or stay awake to live and it is all wrong. Nature doesn't select for fitness or anything else.

IT IS WRONG!!!

It is just Darwin's illusion.

This is a neat summary of all your answers ─ no evidence, no argument reasoned from that evidence, no examples to clarify your claims, nothing but bald baseless assertion.

Not that I'm the first to point this out, and I fear I won't be the last, but really, if you indeed have a case to make, you've done a thorough job of hiding it where it'll never be found.

 

[blü 2]

This is simple and the evidence abounds. More importantly it is logical and conforms with all known experiment.

There you go yet again!

Asked to state what the evidence is, you state "the evidence abounds".

But you were asked to state clearly WHAT EVIDENCE, if any, ABOUNDS.

So please, without further avoidance, nonsense, or blather, STATE CLEARLY IN YOUR OWN WORDS THE EVIDENCE ON WHICH YOU BASE YOUR CLAIM.

Set it out so the evidence and the reasoning from that evidence are perfectly clear to the uninformed reader.

Yes, it'll be a totally novel experience for you, but who knows, you might actually enjoy it!

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

There you go yet again!

Asked to state what the evidence is, you state "the evidence abounds".

But you were asked to state clearly WHAT EVIDENCE, if any, ABOUNDS.

So please, without further avoidance, nonsense, or blather, STATE CLEARLY IN YOUR OWN WORDS THE EVIDENCE ON WHICH YOU BASE YOUR CLAIM.

Set it out so the evidence and the reasoning from that evidence are perfectly clear to the uninformed reader.

Yes, it'll be a totally novel experience for you, but who knows, you might actually enjoy it!

He doesn't have to as long he is subjective and just states how he thinks. That is true btw and the evidence of that is also in this thread.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

He doesn't have to as long he is subjective and just states how he thinks. That is true btw and the evidence of that is also in this thread.

Then we can just ignore him and his baseless claims. Let him enjoy his private belief system where it will flourish best then. In his mind.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

And the JW's never get it wrong. 1918, 1925, 1975.

Hindsight is perfect and those weren't really the claims they were at the time. Of course.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

A fateful decision:

View attachment 76502

Success as a species does have its fitness costs.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

There you go yet again!

Asked to state what the evidence is, you state "the evidence abounds".

But you were asked to state clearly WHAT EVIDENCE, if any, ABOUNDS.

So please, without further avoidance, nonsense, or blather, STATE CLEARLY IN YOUR OWN WORDS THE EVIDENCE ON WHICH YOU BASE YOUR CLAIM.

Set it out so the evidence and the reasoning from that evidence are perfectly clear to the uninformed reader.

Yes, it'll be a totally novel experience for you, but who knows, you might actually enjoy it!

I think we've seen what amounts to the A game.

What follows will be nothing more than the same lather, rinse, repeat endless commercial interlude.

 

[blü 2]

He doesn't have to as long he is subjective and just states how he thinks. That is true btw and the evidence of that is also in this thread.

He's the one who asserted he has evidence. Let's see it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

And the JW's never get it wrong. 1918, 1925, 1975.

It was a personal discovery of a recognized condition that some people just appear to purposefully cease learning. At some point and with a certain type of person, the conclusion seems to be that everything they will need to know they have learned and everything else is viewed as nonsense in need of attack as a threat to the closed mind and rationalization.

It isn't a condition unique to religious belief and some can believe and learn. But it does seem to be encountered more frequently among the more rigid ideologies that penalize individuals for straying and asking questions.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

He's the one who asserted he has evidence. Let's see it.

Good luck to us all.

 

[Audie]

I have and found a few things of value but mostly violence, racism and misogyny. And I found praying was nothing more than talking to myself.

There's no wisdom in the Bible that isn't
found elsewhere. And in a more readable,
less fanciful ambiguous form.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Then we can just ignore him and his baseless claims. Let him enjoy his private belief system where it will flourish best then. In his mind.

Here it is as a former civil servant. I tried to act in accordance with law. Now it is not the same as science, but they have the following in common. You need to understand how that works cognitively to do both. But from that I can do that in some sense, doesn't follow that other people can do that as such. So they are everywhere and not just in this thread.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

He's the one who asserted he has evidence. Let's see it.

But he doesn't have it, he just says he have it. That is true btw and not objective as say gravity.

 

[John53]

It was a personal discovery of a recognized condition that some people just appear to purposefully cease learning. At some point and with a certain type of person, the conclusion seems to be that everything they will need to know they have learned and everything else is viewed as nonsense in need of attack as a threat to the closed mind and rationalization.

It isn't a condition unique to religious belief and some can believe and learn. But it does seem to be encountered more frequently among the more rigid ideologies that penalize individuals for straying and asking questions.

I must be weird, I enjoy learning things and I don't mind being proven wrong. Getting people to offer up the evidence to learn from seems to be the difficult bit.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

But he doesn't have it, he just says he have it. That is true btw and not objective as say gravity.

I consider that he has a responsibility or a duty to present it. The choice not to puts a question to his credibility at his own expense. Failure is only the fault of the person making the claim.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I consider that he has a responsibility or a duty to present it. The choice not to puts a question to his credibility at his own expense. Failure is only the fault of the person making the claim.

Yeah, and I also of that opinion/norm, but that is what it is.

 

[blü 2]

But he doesn't have it, he just says he have it. That is true btw and not objective as say gravity.

Then let him say "I have no evidence". That will save a lot of time.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I told you the flaws in the experiment when you posted it.

And people have pointed out to you how you were mistaken about that.
But as always, it's in one ear and out the other.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Then let him say "I have no evidence". That will save a lot of time.

He won't because his standard of evidence is subjective. Where as you are special, because you are not at all subjective. You are as you nothing, that is how objective you are.