Darwin's Illusion

[exchemist]

I think she thinks that evolutionists think that one day a fish gave birth to a human.

People like this go out of their way to avoid learning anything about the subject. They rightly fear that if they did, they would be in a difficult spot with their naïve religious convictions. I can see why they might do that.

What beats me though is why they then come and try to argue about it, with people that have learnt about it, when all they can bring to the table is pure, stubborn, wilful ignorance. What do they hope to achieve by doing that?

 

[gnostic]

I've defined "consciousness" many many times in countless hundreds of words. I suppose now that we've finally gotten past "life is consciousness" and "free will" is what it does I can do it again.

You haven’t defined “consciousness”. And you certainly never EXPLAIN WHAT consciousness is, nor HOW it work.

And “life is consciousness” is a claim, not a definition to “consciousness”. Nor is it definition to “life”.

They (“life” & “consciousness”) are not synonymous words for each other.

As I said, you are making claims, repeating the same erroneous of claim, over and over again, without defining or explaining WHAT is consciousness or HOW consciousness work.

Plus, most of your examples on “consciousness”, would only apply to humans, not to many of the animals (especially to non-arthropodic invertebrates), and the warped consciousness of yours certainly don’t apply to the other eukaryotes, eg plants, fungi & protists, or to the prokaryotes, eg bacteria & archaea.

Consciousness, in the biological contexts, would only apply to animals with central nervous systems (CNS), such as the brain and spinal cord. Some animals don’t have CNS, such as sponges and corals.

This is why I think you are biology-illiterate. What you don’t know or don’t understand, you would make up some BS craps of claims. Even when you have been corrected, you refuses to learn...and that’s why you irritate so many people, and they never take your claims seriously..

 

[Valjean]

I think she thinks that evolutionists think that one day a fish gave birth to a human.

I can't understand why millions of small changes accumulating into big changes is so hard to swallow.

 

[cladking]

You haven’t defined “consciousness”. And you certainly never EXPLAIN WHAT consciousness is, nor HOW it work.

And we were making so much progress.

I was going to make a more comprehensive definition now but why bother. Would you like for me to define "metaphysics" again.

You don't remember any of those quotes from Ancient Language that helped to understand how they experienced consciousness or saw change in species, do you?

Believers in science don't just have all the answers, they know they have all the answers and don't need to prove it because nothing in science can be proven. Believers have it all tied up with a pretty little bow.

 

[Aupmanyav]

So what religious do, is a part of the universe and can be explained with science, but not natural science.

What religions do can also be explained by greed, narcissism, megalomania and the desire to dominate.

 

[blü 2]

I was going to make a more comprehensive definition now but why bother.

Now now! You have no idea what you mean by 'consciousness' or you'd have stated it clearly the first of the very many times I've asked you.

Believers in science don't just have all the answers, they know they have all the answers and don't need to prove it because nothing in science can be proven.

Unfortunately, that reveals how completely and utterly you fail to understand what science is and what science does.

Science is always a work in progress, never has absolute answers ─ only the best answers available at the time.

 

[cladking]

Science is always a work in progress, never has absolute answers ─ only the best answers available at the time.

And the best answer available to believers; science is right because it's science and the best answer.

Around and round it goes. Start with the assumptions and go around and around mowing everything in your path.

 

[blü 2]

And the best answer available to believers; science is right because it's science and the best answer.

Who makes your weather forecasts possible ─ the scientists and technicians, or your 'don't know what I mean when I say consciousness' team?

Who made the Covid vaccines ─ the scientists and technicians, or your 'don't know what I mean when I say consciousness' team?

Who worked out the problem and the possible solutions to climate change ─ the scientists and technicians, or your 'don't know what I mean when I say consciousness' team?

 

[YoursTrue]

I think she thinks that evolutionists think that one day a fish gave birth to a human.

(lol) You think wrong. kind of sad you won't face your own thinking. So for the record, don't you and others that believe in evolution (the theory of per Darwin and his successors) believe fish were the forebearers of humankind?

 

[YoursTrue]

This is why I said you had a weak grasp of parables and analogies.

The reference was: "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink." Do you understand what this means?

Dan was referring to your propensity for ignoring or turning up your nose at information when we 'lead you to it', when he changed it to "...can't make it see."

It means that if you evolved from a horse, you may be drinking contaminated water. But actually scientists (?) say you most likely evolved from a fish -- and many of them are dying anyway from bad water and traps. Oh well. So they drink whether they want to or not. If they're swimming.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What religions do can also be explained by greed, narcissism, megalomania and the desire to dominate.

Yes, in some cases. But it is still natural and now you have to with only evidence, show that it is wrong. But you can't do that with evidence.

 

[gnostic]

was going to make a more comprehensive definition now but why bother. Would you like for me to define "metaphysics" again.

You have never define metaphysics.

Your repeated uses of metaphysics being the “basis of science”, is really redundant, as there are number of other “basis of science” that are even more better suited philosophies, eg Methodological Naturalism, Empiricism, Logical Positivism, etc.

And the first one, Methodological Naturalism offer the real-world approach to more science techniques.

It rendered your “basis of science” as meaningless sophism.

If you really want to properly define consciousness or metaphysics, don’t give me utterly useless dribbles.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You have never define metaphysics.

Your repeated uses of metaphysics being the “basis of science”, is really redundant, as there are number of other “basis of science” that are even more better suited philosophies, eg Methodological Naturalism, Empiricism, Logical Positivism, etc.

And the first one, Methodological Naturalism offer the real-world approach to more science techniques.

It rendered your “basis of science” as meaningless sophism.

If you really want to properly define consciousness or metaphysics, don’t give me utterly useless dribbles.

The fun thing is that you leave out the non-correspondence ones as for philosophies. What I mean is that for truth as such, you could also have mentioned versions based on coherence, social ones, pragmatic, phenomenological and other non-correspondence ones.

So we are all products of nature and nurture even for what science is.

 

[blü 2]

(lol) You think wrong. kind of sad you won't face your own thinking. So for the record, don't you and others that believe in evolution (the theory of per Darwin and his successors) believe fish were the forebearers of humankind?

Here's an outline of human evolution (which I confess I haven't updated for a decade, but the basics are in order) ─

Human evolution goes from the most basic form of life (protobionts, presently undefined)
to the single cell (Prokaryota) 3.7 bya
to nucleated multicelled (Eukaryota) [though some say Eu- was before or simultaneous with Pro-] 1.7 bya
to bilateral symmetry (Bilateria) ›555 mya
to a stomach with two openings [mouth and anus] (Deuterostomia) ›555 mya
to a notochord [‘spinal chord’] (Chordata) ›555 mya
— Ordovician - Silurian Extinction 440–450 mya
to a backbone (Vertebrata) ›525 mya
to a movable lower jaw (Gnathostomata) ›385 mya
to four legs (Tetrapoda) ›385 mya
— Late Devonian Extinction From ~360 to 375 mya
to eggs with water retention suitable for dry land (Amniota) ›340 mya
to eye sockets each with a single opening into the skull (Synapsida) ›324 mya
to mammal-like reptiles (Therapsida) ~274 mya
to ‘dog teeth’ (Cynodontia) ~260 mya
— Permian-Triassic Extinction 251 mya
to milk glands (Mammalia) ~200 mya
to vivipars and monotremes (Theriiformes) ›160 mya
to modern vivipars (Holotheria)
to proto-placentals and marsupials (Theria)
to placentals and certain extinct non-marsupials (Eutheria) ›160 mya
to placentals (Placentalia) ~110 mya
to all mammals except the Xenarthra [sloth, armadillo, anteater] (Epitheria) ~100 mya
to bats, primates, treeshrews (Archonta) ~100 mya
— Cretaceous-Tertiary Extinction 65.5 mya
to tarsiers, monkeys, apes (Haplorrhini) ~63 mya
to New and Old World monkeys and apes (Simiiformes) ~40 mya
to Old World monkeys and gibbons (Catarrhini) ~35 mya
to apes [great apes and gibbons] (Hominoidea) ~29 mya
to hominids / great apes [orangutans, gorillas, chimps, Homo] (Hominidae) ~25 mya
to hominins [gorillas, chimps, Homo, H. floresiensis, H. Denisova] (Homininae) ~4.5 mya
to Homo [H. sapiens, H. Neanderthalis, ] (Homo) ~2.4 mya
to Homo sapiens [Homo sapiens Idaltu, Homo sapiens sapiens] (Homo sapiens) 250 kya
to Homo sapiens sapiens.

So you can see that our ancestors separated from the fish line about 385 mya, came ashore maybe 365 mya, became mammals maybe 275 mya, primates maybe 100 mya, then hominids say 25 mya, genus Homo say 2.5 mya, Y-chromosomal Adam maybe 250 kya, mitochondrial Eve maybe 150 kya, and here we are.

Yes, you and fish have a common ancestor ─ because on the present evidence there is at the start one kind of cell which had the excellent quality of being able to reproduce itself. (The study which seeks to find a satisfactory description of that cell ─ the processes of abiogenesis ─ is of course a work in progress.)

But that research, like the list above, works with examinable evidence, and draws conclusions and explains them openly; so if you want to disagree, all you have to do is learn enough and understand enough about evolution and biology to avoid looking like a dope, and then present your own fact-based and openly reasoned conclusions to show that the theory of evolution is in fundamental error.

If it's any encouragement, there's a Nobel Prize in it for the winner.

Funny how no creationist has done anything like that already, eh?

 

[cladking]

You have never define metaphysics.

Since you refuse to communicate you have won the argument.

Since you have won the argument reality magically becomes survival of the fittest causing gradual change.


In your world Darwin is right by definition and only your definitions apply to every word. I won't even know what I mean by this post until you read it.

 

[cladking]

Who makes your weather forecasts possible ─ the scientists and technicians, or your 'don't know what I mean when I say consciousness' team?

Who made the Covid vaccines ─ the scientists and technicians, or your 'don't know what I mean when I say consciousness' team?

Who worked out the problem and the possible solutions to climate change ─ the scientists and technicians, or your 'don't know what I mean when I say consciousness' team?

So a beautiful spring day and vaccines are made possible by scientists and heat, covid, and storms come from God (from pure chance).

You see what you believe. You believe science works through "empirical evidence" therefore a "scientist" is the one who is best at seeing such "evidence".

Look and See Science" rules the earth and believers simply don't understand how real science works.

 

[John53]

So a beautiful spring day and vaccines are made possible by scientists and heat, covid, and storms come from God (from pure chance).

You see what you believe. You believe science works through "empirical evidence" therefore a "scientist" is the one who is best at seeing such "evidence".

Look and See Science" rules the earth and believers simply don't understand how real science works.

You do realise weather forecasting predicts the weather not creates it? In fact doesn't even influence it in the slightest.

 

[cladking]

In fact doesn't even influence it in the slightest.

You couldn't be more wrong if you believed in science.

All weather is determined by previous forecasts.

When a butterfly flaps its wings in China it creates a hurricane. When a forecaster predicts hot weather it creates a blizzard of air conditioner sales at Menards.

When a pundit predicts a century of rising temperatures it creates fields of windmills and billions of dollars worth of generating stations plowed into the earth.

This is the way reality works. It's real complicated but believers and modern science know everything.

 

[John53]

You couldn't be more wrong if you believed in science.

All weather is determined by previous forecasts.

When a butterfly flaps its wings in China it creates a hurricane. When a forecaster predicts hot weather it creates a blizzard of air conditioner sales at Menards.

When a pundit predicts a century of rising temperatures it creates fields of windmills and billions of dollars worth of generating stations plowed into the earth.

This is the way reality works. It's real complicated but believers and modern science know everything.

Ummmm, ok. Excuse me while I back nervously out of the thread.

 

[exchemist]

Ummmm, ok. Excuse me while I back nervously out of the thread.

I see the penny has dropped with you, as it also has with me.