Darwin's Illusion

[John53]

Have you had a chance to use Google Scholar yet? It is pretty useful. The problem I encounter these days is rather ubiquitous among scientists or anyone interested in finding out what has been researched and learned. Too much available to find the time to wade through or subjects that haven't received the attention they need and there isn't much to find. Those are equally difficult problems, that differ in scope, but not in function to learning.

Not yet, I was dragged off to a neighbourhood gathering yesterday. I will today.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Not yet, I was dragged off to a neighbourhood gathering yesterday. I will today.

You make that sound like a bad thing. Then I think about that when it happens to me. So, yeah I do get that.

I hope you find it useful.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Not yet, I was dragged off to a neighbourhood gathering yesterday. I will today.

It's suddenly raining a deluge here. And the tomatoes and peppers only just started getting planted too. It was hard work watching that.

 

[blü 2]

Empiricism is not science and induction is word play, not science.

Science is based on empiricism ─ do you know what empiricism is? ─ and induction ─ since you clearly don't know what induction is, it means that if your experiment gives a consistent repeatable result then it's legitimate to generalize your result unless and until you strike a counterexample.

It invented science.

Creationism invented science? Well, just about every culture we know of has an origin-of-everything story, where one or more imaginary beings bring the world into existence, but in the 21st century CE I think Creationism has been vastly more of a problem than a help, the popularizing of magical explanations instead of factual.

But if magic is your level, don't let me interfere.

Life has far more in common with religion than science.

In what sense? Without science we wouldn't even know what life was.

Living a life with only scientific perspective and no spirituality is not a good thing for most individuals. No, don't run out and adopt a family of beliefs but we should accept and embrace the fact that we have no answers.

But of course we have an enormous number of answers, and at the same time an enormous number of ongoing enquiries, into how reality works, so you can travel by plane (and not on angel's wings) and take advantage of modern medicine (and not that your pains are because someone's sticking pins in a doll) ─ and on and on and on and on.


Now where's that definition of consciousness?

And where's that definition of free will?

Is it indeed the case that you don't know what you're talking about, or can you explain the terms you like to use?

 

[cladking]

Science is based on empiricism ─ do you know what empiricism is? ─ and induction ─ since you clearly don't know what induction is, it means that if your experiment gives a consistent repeatable result then it's legitimate to generalize your result unless and until you strike a counterexample.

Of course empiricism is something. But at its root science is just observation and experiment. "Empiricism" is an abstraction that means different things to different people. Essentially it is evidence and logic which is observation and experiment. "Induction" has many meanings as well but it is essentially extrapolation or interpolation of taxonomies or other abstractions.

Creationism invented science?

Religion (religious people) invented science.

In what sense? Without science we wouldn't even know what life was.

Since life is consciousness you still don't know.

Now where's that definition of consciousness?

You really can't see it can you. I've defined it better in the last 300 pages than any single other word in the unabridged dictionary and you can't see it. Unlike other definitions I've even defined it in terms that might be quantified someday.

And where's that definition of free will?

Uh huh.

You won't see this either but the simplest definition is that it is what consciousness does.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I was thinking about the claim of writing posts here to satisfy some potential readers that don't participate. Especially in relation to claims that supporting evidence has been provided a multitude of times. Alluding that the evidence is some way covert, defying recognition for all except special people. That sounds much more like the presentation of a belief system than imparting knowledge consistent with the scientific method. Part of the scientific method is to communicate the methods, findings, analysis and conclusions so that others can know it, understand it and accept or reject it.

If the evidence is really there, but is covertly intermingled in the text of posts so that it is unseen and functionally not there, is it a valid criticism that others are ignoring it?

What would make a person refuse to present evidence or claim to have presented it when they have not?

If the evidence truly has been previously presented, is it a sound assumption to conclude that non-participating readers would be aware of it and it would not need repeating? Is the claim to be writing for them serious given that flaw?

For that matter, is it sound to conclude there are any unseen readers of any significant numbers at all for a thread? Of what value is there to claiming such a following that cannot be verified? Is it a sound assumption that if such readers exist, efforts to write to them are beneficial to the author? Even if such readers exist, there is nothing to indicate they favor the position of some author claiming to write for them.

Is the real value of claiming to write for an unseen audience with the audience that can be seen in an attempt to use it as some means to elevate a position on facts irrelevant to the position?

If we write here, there will very likely be some readership that does not participate. Also likely, these will be transitory observers that don't care enough to participate, so writing to them wouldn't seem like an effort with much direct value. The only value I could see for making such a claim is the belief that the person making it thinks they are the only person here that is correct. They are dispensing revealed truth. And this brings us back to the evidence that they never include in their writing.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

How can a person define terms continually, yet no one sees the results of any effort to do so?

So many questions. No answers. I wonder why?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Why do those that know everything have to rely on the twisting of words?

Did creationists really invent science? Or is that just more semantics for lack of any sort of rigorous, in depth response with evidence and explanation.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Is science just observation and experiment?

What is the evidence for this?

How do observation and experiment explain things or is there a better description of what science is?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I have come to the conclusion, through repeated experience, that my questions will not get answered, but they still come to mind as I read through these posts.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why do those that know everything have to rely on the twisting of words?

Did creationists really invent science? Or is that just more semantics for lack of any sort of rigorous, in depth response with evidence and explanation.

If we are playing word games there were no creationists before Darwin wrote and published his On the Origin of Species.

 

[YoursTrue]

This thread is not about comparative theology, but every claim must have a reference. You are a Christian. Your reference is the Bible. Jesus (PBUH) taught about hell/eternal place of punishment more than anyone else in the Bible. Here are some examples:

1- “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.”
(Matthew 25:41)

2- “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
(Matthew 25:46)

3- “But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister [a] will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’[c] is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.”
(Matthew 5:22)

4- “If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.”
(Matthew 5:30-29)

5- “In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.”
(Luke 16:23-24)

6- “If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out. [44] 45 And if your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two feet and be thrown into hell. [46] [c] 47 And if your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell
(Mark 9:43-47)

7- “But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after your body has been killed, has authority to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him.”
(Luke 12:5)

The test (of earthly life) brings out who you are. “Who you are” is permanent. Your eternal settlement must be consistent with who you are.

Since the thread is not about hell-fire or what happens after death -- I shall refrain from going into detail about your post. Meantime, going back to the topic, did death "evolve" from life? What do you think? Remember here -- I'm speaking of death. And evolution. Did it evolve?

 

[YoursTrue]

Is science just observation and experiment?

What is the evidence for this?

How do observation and experiment explain things or is there a better description of what science is?

Some people (I have read this) actually believe that evolution is a tested theory. (It is? Now if something is tested BEYOND QUESTION as to fitting in with a theory, would you call that proof that -- the theory is true in the absolute, final sense? Maybe some will.

 

[John53]

Some people (I have read this) actually believe that evolution is a tested theory. (It is? Now if something is tested BEYOND QUESTION as to fitting in with a theory, would you call that proof that -- the theory is true in the absolute, final sense? Maybe some will.

I don't believe any theory is tested beyond question.

Show me where you read it, I'm almost certain you have it out of context.

 

[blü 2]

Of course empiricism is something. But at its root science is just observation and experiment.

You left out the part about reasoning from observation and experiment, and drawing useful and useable conclusions on an inductive basis.

And you forgot to mention that the justification for reasoned enquiry, of which science and scientific method are one branch, is that (unlike religion, unlike any other system of thought) it actually works to improve our understanding of the world external to the self.

Religion (religious people) invented science.

Yes, because before there was science there was only supernatural belief to explain the natural world. Rivers, glades, mountains, caves, hunting areas, had gods and spirits of their own to account for the different experiences they conveyed. Then some of them, but not least the ancient Greeks, started to get systematic in their observations. Some of them worked out the world was spherical, for instance, and conducted experiments with (for example) noon shadows in places of different latitude, to make their point.

Just to be clear, you do agree that the world is an oblate sphere, don't you? And that it's part of a solar system centered on the sun?

Since life is consciousness you still don't know.

Please don't tell me what I know or don't know ─ not, at least, till you've persuaded me that you have any idea what you're talking about when you speak of consciousness, when you speak of free will.

Your silence on these matters is deafening.

And please don't use the old creo trick of pretending you've already done it.

I gave you my definitions in a couple of sentences. For the nth time, where n is a large number, what is your definition of 'consciousness'? What is your definition of 'free will'?

Please either make your statement or admit you don't know.

 

[cladking]

You left out the part about reasoning from observation and experiment, and drawing useful and useable conclusions on an inductive basis.

And you forgot to mention that the justification for reasoned enquiry, of which science and scientific method are one branch, is that (unlike religion, unlike any other system of thought) it actually works to improve our understanding of the world external to the self.

Science works because of experiment. Not because of evidence and logic and certainly not inductive reasoning.

Only prediction can demonstrate true understanding.

Your silence on these matters is deafening.

Your inability to see what you will not see is blinding.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You left out the part about reasoning from observation and experiment, and drawing useful and useable conclusions on an inductive basis.

And you forgot to mention that the justification for reasoned enquiry, of which science and scientific method are one branch, is that (unlike religion, unlike any other system of thought) it actually works to improve our understanding of the world external to the self.


Yes, because before there was science there was only supernatural belief to explain the natural world. Rivers, glades, mountains, caves, hunting areas, had gods and spirits of their own to account for the different experiences they conveyed. Then some of them, but not least the ancient Greeks, started to get systematic in their observations. Some of them worked out the world was spherical, for instance, and conducted experiments with (for example) noon shadows in places of different latitude, to make their point.

Just to be clear, you do agree that the world is an oblate sphere, don't you? And that it's part of a solar system centered on the sun?

Please don't tell me what I know or don't know ─ not, at least, till you've persuaded me that you have any idea what you're talking about when you speak of consciousness, when you speak of free will.

Your silence on these matters is deafening.

And please don't use the old creo trick of pretending you've already done it.

I gave you my definitions in a couple of sentences. For the nth time, where n is a large number, what is your definition of 'consciousness'? What is your definition of 'free will'?

Please either make your statement or admit you don't know.

Looks like you aren't going to get anything reasonable by way of a meaningful response. Too bad, I was curious to see if you might.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Science works, because it is a rigorous, repeatable methodology to understand the natural world using evidence, logic and reason. Evidence is obtained through experiment, but experiment is not the only means to obtain evidence.

Science works, because it produces consistent results that can be seen, experienced, used and repeated.

Science works, because the theories, tests, results and conclusions are repeatedly challenged.

Science works, because those practicing science, learn from their findings and their mistakes.

The ultimate expression of science are models/theories that explain the evidence.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Scientific experiments are not some sort of magic ritual that imbues science with some immaterial essence of revealed truth.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it see. It is so obvious, it screams.

 

[YoursTrue]

I don't believe any theory is tested beyond question.

Show me where you read it, I'm almost certain you have it out of context.

Someone here said it. I don't have time to go back and look for it, sorry. If I come across it again I will let you know.