• 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

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I think you mustta missed this from #6075; My definition was quoted. I present definitions and evidence and they remain unseen or gainsaid.
I looked there and didn't see to what you referred. I don't know why you didn't quote yourself in your reply above to remove ambiguity and save this step. If you want to proceed with this sub-thread, I'll need you to be explicit, something like, "Here's is my definition of [definendum]: '[definiens]'." I can work with that, but not what you posted instead.
I must parse the many definitions and connotations of every word to reflect your beliefs; your intent. I'm sure I do this quite adequately.
I wish I could say that I could do the same with your words. As you know by now, I seldom know what you mean. I literally do not know what you mean by sudden (or gradual), language, life, or consciousness. You can fix that, but you'll need to provide definitions that allow me to correctly identify which things you would use such words with and which fall outside of the extension of your definition. Does cladking consider the sun alive or the pull of gravity a language between massive objects? Maybe. I can't answer. But I'll bet you can answer them both about me and every other poster on this thread.

Incidentally, what does cladking mean to you? Can I get a concise, direct answer such that I could explain it to somebody else? Maybe it means a fashion expert of some sort.
You can't count what doesn't exist
One, two, three, four, five, six, seven dwarfs.
everything that exists is unique.
Unique things can be counted.

On a related tangent, are you familiar with what countable and uncountable nouns mean in grammar? Furniture is an uncountable noun, but table and chair are countable, thus the furniture comprised one table and four chairs, but furniture itself isn't counted, as in there were two furnitures. Less is the adjective for uncountable nouns (less furniture, less money, less water) but fewer for countable nouns (fewer chairs, fewer dollars, fewer ounces), which is why this drives some language purists nuts:

1684177590309.png

this orange plus that apple still don't make two of anything.
They do to me.
There is no such thing as unconscious life.
Yet consciousness appears on nobody else's list of the qualities that define life. Being cellular does. Being organic does. Growth and repair do. Metabolism does. Reproduction does. But being aware doesn't.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
It is evidenced and tested to the point that disbelief would be obtuse in the extreme, but, as we've explained countless times, nothing in science is beyond question, or proven.
I understand the logic, but there are problems with proclaimed data, such as dates. Anyway I won't go into it now. So you say evolution the theory of has been tested.?
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
What does that even mean?

Maybe I shouldn't be reading this first thing after a nap.
Lol. It's hard sometimes wake up. It means that according to the Bible, water was there before horses came about.
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
Incidentally, what does cladking mean to you?

Lol.

ROFL.

You found my weak point. It's an entire gestalt. A zeitgeist.

I've never really answered this question before because it is apt in so many ways and says so much. Suffice to say I'm wrapped up like a mummy and see kings (living and dead) with no clothes.
 

John53

I go leaps and bounds
Premium Member
You won't be able to see this but even if I lead every evidential statement with "you won't be able to see this" and end it with "you can't see this" you still can't see this. You miss the point. Yes, it is a sort of magic, our species can't see what it doesn't believe. Some years ago a scientist discovered the stones on all four sides of the Great pyramid are different at the bottom in an isosceles shape about 40' high and extending nearly to the corners at the bases. These are clearly visible but no Egyptologists had ever reported nor studied them. They are not consistent with Egyptological "theory" so are invisible.

The difference is they didn't just make a claim, they provided the measurements as evidence to back up the claim. You're just making claims without supporting evidence.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I understand the logic, but there are problems with proclaimed data, such as dates. Anyway I won't go into it now. So you say evolution the theory of has been tested.?
Sorry, if you understand the logic then you that would only mean that you are lying. And I do not think that you are lying. You refuse to understand the logic, that is not the same as understanding it. And no, you have never found any problems with the dates. In fact like most creationists you are afraid to discuss why you are wrong.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Which is relevant how?

Wait, don't bother explaining. Sadly it makes a lot more sense than the other stuff I read in here a few minutes ago.
Here's the point: you believe we evolved from fishes, etc. I believe that God created man. And fishes. I did not always believe that way. Now I do. I no longer am going to argue the subject with the many. Do I think various species intermingled and caused a different herd, or type of flock, including humans with longer legs and lighter skin? Yes. Do I think that's the Darwinian concept of evolution? (No.) (So have a nice day.)
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Here's the point: you believe we evolved from fishes, etc. I believe that God created man. And fishes. I did not always believe that way. Now I do. I no longer am going to argue the subject with the many. Do I think various species intermingled and caused a different herd, or type of flock, including humans with longer legs and lighter skin? Yes. Do I think that's the Darwinian concept of evolution? (No.) (So have a nice day.)
Correction, since our beliefs are evidence based and demonstrable we know. You only have a religious book that fails again and again which means that you just believe.

Why is it so important to you to try to lower others to your level? And I am not even going to deal with your statement about evolution, except to point out that it does once again demonstrate that you have no understanding of the theory at all.
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
But being aware doesn't.

I didn't say "aware". I said "conscious". "Awareness" is almost a synonym "thinking" and only humans experience thought. "Thought" is the comparison of sensory input to models. Other species simply know what consciousness is, we do not. Another definition of "awareness" is when we look at something. Ancients referred to this as an event being in the center of the eye. When one looked at something one could observe it in the center of the eye.

Yet consciousness appears on nobody else's list of the qualities that define life.

And this is why when I say "consciousness is life and life is consciousness" that it is invisible. I have different models and paradigms to hold my knowledge and don't use taxonomies; I don't even believe in species.
Unique things can be counted.

To what end? When you count on rotten mcintosh apple plus one mandarin orange and a three legged stool what do you get?


Yet consciousness appears on nobody else's list of the qualities that define life. Being cellular does. Being organic does. Growth and repair do. Metabolism does. Reproduction does. But being aware doesn't.

Life lives and these things are part of living. Consciousness can't make an individual thrive if it is sick, lame, or severely injured.

I wish I could say that I could do the same with your words.

I understand the problem. My words are intended literally and I use a lot of tautology. The usage of tautologies is an attempt to tell the reader what I mean.
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
1684189199421.png


I always assume they mean you can have many multiples of items so long as you have ten or fewer items. I get some funny looks when I have 30 or forty individual things but they ring up almost as fast as 10 "items".

That's the difference. I always assume people make perfect sense so I parse it to make sense.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
You won't be able to see this but even if I lead every evidential statement with "you won't be able to see this" and end it with "you can't see this" you still can't see this. You miss the point.
If only you stopped all this blather and stated clearly what the point is.

Start by stating clearly what you mean by "consciousness".

Follow that by stating clearly what you mean by "free will".

If you can't do that, please state clearly that you can't do that.
 

Dan From Smithville

He who controls the spice controls the universe.
Staff member
Premium Member
Most modern English translations of the Bible relied on the Masoretic Text (MT) as their main source when translating the Old Testament.

If we were to compare the generations of patriarchs in Genesis (5:1-32 & 11:10-32, eg from the creation of Adam to birth of Abraham) the numbers of years in MT differed to the other sources, such as Greek Septuagint (eg Codex Vaticanus) and the Samaritan Pentateuch.

sourcesnumbers of years (age of patriarch when son was born)
Masoretic Text1948
Septuagint (Codex Vaticanus)3314
Samaritan Pentateuch2249


I have noticed that the Latin source - the Vulgate Bible - match the years with the Masoretic Text.

Anyway, calculating the age of earth based on the Bible, will vary widely, depending on the source being used.
I agree. What you report reflects criticism of the entire venture that I have seen previously.
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
If only you stopped all this blather and stated clearly what the point is.

Start by stating clearly what you mean by "consciousness".

Follow that by stating clearly what you mean by "free will".

If you can't do that, please state clearly that you can't do that.

How many times????????????????????????????????

Life is consciousness, behavior is what it does, and free will is how it does it.

Nature selects for behavior, not fitness because all individuals are equally fit. Even when "fitter" individuals do survive preferentially they just make a fitter species, not a new one.

Reality is a series of sudden events which unfold based from earlier events. Change in species depends from behavior which is determined by genetics as expressed through consciousness, learning, and free will. Change in species results chiefly from mutation and the selection of unusual behavior in near extinction events. Everything is sudden, not just speciation and change in species.

This can not be stated more clearly. Darwin was wrong because his assumptions were wrong. Neither experiment nor logic supports his beliefs.
 

Dan From Smithville

He who controls the spice controls the universe.
Staff member
Premium Member
What makes the most sense is the simplest narrative that can account for the appearance of man in history as we find him. Human history is consistent with naturalistic explanations of human biological, psychological, and cultural evolution. If that doesn't make sense to you, it would if you learned more. I illustrated the evidence of these things occurring a few pages back on this thread in a section that began "I think we can also suss out the origin of the concepts of intelligence and creativity."

Your argument is analogous to the creationists' use of the Cambrian explosion to serve as evidence of the creation of the kinds as outlined in Genesis. You also want to compress a long time in terms of individual human lives but a relatively short piece of human history - the time between when the only records of man were things like tools and nomadic campsites and when there was evidence of settled civilization and written records - into a single act of creation.

Agreed. I just wrote this on another thread in response to a creationist's claim that, "I have more answers and more sensible answers than "it assembled itself" :

"What you have are not what I would call answers, which need to be demonstrably correct claims. What you have are unfalsifiable claims, which have no explanatory or predictive power." This is a paraphrasing of your comment. We can't call anything fact, true, correct, knowledge, etc. unless we can demonstrate that empirically, which means accurately predicting outcomes not accurately predicted without that idea.

Do you have a hypothesis for why that is the case for you? It's not for me. In your estimation, what's the difference between us that accounts for our different experiences posting? People see my evidence and arguments, even if they aren't convinced by them.

If you believe that evolution is possible, and that if it occurred, we should find "snapshots" of its progress in the fossil record, then you can understand those fossils as being consistent with that expected evidence.

Do you believe that gradual change turned your grandmother's grandmother from a little girl into an old woman? If so, why?

If there were physical evidence of that transformation remaining, what might it look like? What if you found a scrapbook of her with a birthday photo every year from youth to old age? Would those pictures be a record of slow change, or would that be a rash hypothesis in your estimation because it can only be believed if one believes it possible?

You've moved the goalposts. Identical was not mentioned. "This can be done by placing two apples in a container, then proceeding to place another two apples in the same container." And why aren't the four apples placed in the container identical to the four found there a moment later?

What would unconscious life look like? A tree seems to be unconscious, like a human zygote. Why do you say it's not? Because it grows? Because it demonstrates tropism?
I can't find any reason to engage someone with invisible evidence, an unwillingness to explain or discuss, word games and responses with a vestiture of arrogance and seemingly false humility.

But as always, I am enjoying your responses. It's a nice contrast.
 

Dan From Smithville

He who controls the spice controls the universe.
Staff member
Premium Member
If only you stopped all this blather and stated clearly what the point is.

Start by stating clearly what you mean by "consciousness".

Follow that by stating clearly what you mean by "free will".

If you can't do that, please state clearly that you can't do that.
I was about to say good luck again, but reality beat me to it.
 

Dan From Smithville

He who controls the spice controls the universe.
Staff member
Premium Member
Then let's count non-identical things: one, two, done.
That's what I was thinking too. You can have many non-identical things. More than 0 and 1.
You can't have meant what this appears to mean. Certainly you understand that one can put two apples lying beside a jar into the jar provided the jar's capacity is sufficient, so what do you actually mean instead?
Couldn't figure that out either. As always, cryptic.
I asked, "What would unconscious life look like?" So now the word life has had its extension modified to include things called nonliving by others. I can now have no idea what you mean when you call something alive if rocks are included. And why do you call applesauce unconscious but not apple trees? What behavior tells you that one is awake but not the other?
It strange to think that there are conscious rocks out there. But I especially don't want to run into a conscious corps. Zombies. Hate em.
 
Top