So no "cold fish" in the creationist version of science.
-
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
- Thread starter Neuropteron
- Start date
Since fish giving birth to humans is part of the creationist ideology, seeing it written even in jest seems to elicit the need to correct it.
I don't understand the need to keep getting up on stage when a person has declared that they reject the science. I don't understand the need to continue repeating the same thing over and over. Its as if the creationist not only wants to publicize their rejection, but they have to badger everyone else that doesn't reject it until they have stomped us all back into ancient times.
This thread started as an attempt to bash Darwin. As if finding fault with a fallacious version of Darwin and quote mining would undermine the theory and lead to it being replaced by the ideology of the author of the thread. It has since evolved into a showcase of what amounts to something akin to fan fiction and fish still being fish. But also the beaming parents of a lovely little human.
I think you were correct about the stand up comedy. I just wish it was funny. Maybe it is too early for me.
I keep reading that words mean different things to different people and we can't understand each other or something like that. But we can try where there is confusion.
We can ask questions.
Except here, when you ask questions, you get no answers except a response like this "I've answered that (pinky to chin)...100 million times". Of course, no where around. No where to be found.
It almost seems that answering questions in some serious way is avoided at all costs. Could it be--I know, a question--that answering the questions would bring a person's personal belief system based on some religious ideology into doubt? Or is one cobbled together out of bits and pieces of everything and imagination even more vulnerable?
Avoiding questions has always seemed the avenue of a closed mind that feels it has all the answers. Yet, still cannot answer questions. It seems that taking such a position is with the intention that claims not be questioned, but accepted without question.
Fish fathering people and claims of ancients without evidence are easy things to assert.
Maybe the idea is that addressing something serious with something ridiculous will cause the serious to fall into the ridiculous?
Maybe it is about keeping failed dissent alive as long as others will engage the ridiculous?
We can ask questions.
Except here, when you ask questions, you get no answers except a response like this "I've answered that (pinky to chin)...100 million times". Of course, no where around. No where to be found.
It almost seems that answering questions in some serious way is avoided at all costs. Could it be--I know, a question--that answering the questions would bring a person's personal belief system based on some religious ideology into doubt? Or is one cobbled together out of bits and pieces of everything and imagination even more vulnerable?
Avoiding questions has always seemed the avenue of a closed mind that feels it has all the answers. Yet, still cannot answer questions. It seems that taking such a position is with the intention that claims not be questioned, but accepted without question.
Fish fathering people and claims of ancients without evidence are easy things to assert.
Maybe the idea is that addressing something serious with something ridiculous will cause the serious to fall into the ridiculous?
Maybe it is about keeping failed dissent alive as long as others will engage the ridiculous?
Last edited:
I wrote, "The sine qua non of a correct idea or system of idea is [1] it cannot be successfully rebutted and [2] it can be used successfully to predict outcomes not predicted as well without it. The stunning success of science is smoking gun validation of its methods" to which you responded, "A FAR better method of judging whether an understanding is accurate and complete is that it agrees with all known science and creates no anomalies." I answered, "I'm content with science accurately anticipating outcomes as my standard for its correctness" and your comment above was your response.
My comments are based on what science has accomplished, not what it has yet to explain. That there remain unanswered questions is not an indictment of science or its methods and does not diminish its accomplishments to date.
This is a favorite of the creationists, with whom you have a lot in common - a grievance with science. I mentioned a few pages back to LIIA that, "We get this with the creationism apologists arguing that if we can't identify the last common man-chimp ancestor and identify all of man's ancestral forms connecting it to him that there is a flaw in the theory," another argument condemning science for being a work in progress rather than a fait accompli.
You'll need to talk to government and industry about how they use the science.
We know that man had ancestors that you and I would recognize as fish - obligate marine vertebrates (animals with bony spines confined to the oceans) with bilateral symmetry, a head and a tail, eyes, a mouth, gills, and fins. Reptiles, birds, and mammals including man develop gill slits like fish, but they do not become gills. Also, man has lost his tail save for a vestigial coccyx:
Not yet. Given enough time, that well may happen. Some fish evolved into amphibians, some of which evolved into reptiles, which generated the birds, but that is as far as evolution has come to date along that branch. Reptiles also evolved into mammals including insectivores, which evolved into tailed, vegetarian, quadrupedal, arboreal primates, which evolved into man, but that's how far that branch has evolved.
Last edited:
No, wrong wording. The correct wording is that humans and fish have an ancestor in common.I'm not suggesting that scientists say that fish gave birth to a human. Far from it! Either fish, scientifically speaking of course, are the forebearers of humans down the evolution road, or they are not. You can make fun of my comments, but that is what scientists claim.
Anatomical clues to human evolution from fish
Anatomical clues to human evolution from fish
It may seem strange that humans have evolved from fish but the evidence can be found not just in fossils, but also within our own bodies.www.bbc.com
I set out an outline of the details >here<. Enjoy!
cladking
Well-Known Member
It is derived solely from experiment.
Computers, statisti9cs, and Peers are incapable of making real science. Only individuals (peers et al) are capable of having ideas which can create experiment and thereby creating real science.
Humans spoke a natural metaphysical language but it became too complex and the official language was changed to the many symbolic pidgin languages which most people by this time already spoke.
This was a speciation event and we are now homo omnisciencis (hear us brag).
cladking
Well-Known Member
My point is that you grossly overestimate what science has accomplished.
I am not indicting science. I am indicting people who believe that since we have all the answers that they must be correct. Everybody has always believed he has all the answers for 4000 years and those who believe in science are holiest of all thou's.
Government and industry are operated for the sole benefit of government and industry and don't need any input from the masses.
gnostic
The Lost One
cladking
Well-Known Member
Imaging how silly the last nomad wouldda felt if he inadvertently put a goat's nose for a cow's tail or a silk purse for a sow's ear.
It's lucky cities ended up suitable to people instead of like bees nests or beaver dens.
Here's what I posted: "Skepticism converted alchemy into chemistry, astrology into astronomy, and creationism into Big bang cosmology and the theory of biological evolution - three sterile, faith-based systems of thought into modern science, which has made life longer, more functional (eyeglasses), safer (vaccines), easier (machines), more comfortable (air conditioning), and more interesting (travel, communication)."
Feel free to rebut any of those claims you deem a gross overestimate on my part.
Then you're talking to nobody on this thread. Most of us here understand the present limits of knowledge.
Why did you want to post that? You were blaming Darwin and his theory for providing a justification for genocide, and I pointed out to you that such things were not the purview or the work of science. Now you want to tell me about government and industry.
God and religion provide the justification for war, exploitation, racism, genocide, inequality, sexism, prejudice and all sorts of injustice. God does not make us good.
KKK members and the Lord's Resistance Army are good Christians. The Taliban and ISIS are good Muslims. The BJP are good Hindus. The DKBA are good Buddhists. Each justifies its actions with God or religion.
How many militant or extremist scientific organizations are there in the world?
KKK members and the Lord's Resistance Army are good Christians. The Taliban and ISIS are good Muslims. The BJP are good Hindus. The DKBA are good Buddhists. Each justifies its actions with God or religion.
How many militant or extremist scientific organizations are there in the world?
cladking
Well-Known Member
This may be the most ironic statement ever made but I don't want to explain why. Suffice to say "alchemy" was a confusion of "ancient chemistry" which had far less faith at its heart than modern chemistry. By the same token "astrology" is a confusion of ancient astronomy. "The big bang" is probably a confusion of modern math caused by behavior of anything divided by zero and or premises that regard the point as not being a dimension. If the big bang does exist there is probably a far better perspective from which to view it than modern science.
You are again confusing science and technology. They are not at all the same thing. With our science technology is more easily extracted from experiment and understanding than other science but they are still distinct.
A few do.
I think you forgot where this conversation started;
You said; "Who did Darwin or his beliefs kill since his death, and in what manner?". Every genocide and millions of other murders since people came to believe in "survival of the fittest" can be laid on him at least indirectly. Now days the fittest run government and industry and buy whatever science is needed to justify their actions. Now our leaders believe there are too many people and I can assure you they are referring to ,us and not themselves. Of course they are more fit. They even own science.
Odd, then, that you never point to experimental evidence of your claims. Or any evidence, really.
So what? Computers can provide answers to human questions, do the homework in eg mapping the sky on the basis of deep space images from our satellite telescopes, and so on. And of course they calculate the weather forecast from the data input. That's technicians' work rather than pure science, of course, but it's very useful in applying the science.
What test will tell me whether a language is "metaphysical" or not?
And anyway, you have not a shred of evidence that any such thing happened, right? If you disagree, set out the evidence clearly ─ something your record here shows you're extremely bad at, but get it right just this once.
There's absolutely no evidence that there was a 'speciation event' in 2000 BCE that did or could affect language worldwide. The very notion is silly.
And of course we don't know everything, and no informed person makes any such claim ─ but quite a few of us believe knowing as much as possible about the real world as clearly as possible is a most desirable thing.
cladking
Well-Known Member
The conversation started even earlier when no one wanted to respond directly to my statement;
Rather than actually discuss the nature of reality and Darwin's beliefs we ended up on a tangent. Most of the argument for Evolution is semantics and tactics. Ra6ther than even admit Darwin had assumptions we get hand waving and deflection.
cladking
Well-Known Member
No such test is possible. Certainly machine intelligence someday will be able to spot it but in the meantime it will simply have to be interpreted.
I've done so many times and IMS even did so once in this thread. I think Gnostic brought it up and made it relevant.
The amount of actual evidence depends on many definitions. Suffice to say that this theory as it applies to the nature of the "speciation event" depends largely on logic and speculation. That there was such an event is far better supported.
I hate to break this to you but essentially every human for 4000 years has believed this. Indeed even humans before the tower of babel knew it. It is probably a defining characteristic of consciousness so even an acorn knows it.
gnostic
The Lost One
Actually, the thread itself, the thread subject & the opening post, began the tangent with regards Natural Selection being called “Darwin’s Illusion”, where people with little to no education in biology, especially among creationists, and including yourself, make claims that had nothing with Natural Selection.
It people, like you for example, express opinions, make up some BS claims, as if they are facts. This only revealed your lack of education on the subject of Evolution, as relying on fallacious arguments and creationist-type tactics of propagating misinformation, eg you equating Natural Selection as a religion or “Darwin’s belief” (as you did in the above quote); see also below:
Oh, btw. What you said, where I highlighted in bold, you are projecting yourself.
You think you have all the answers, yourself, where you believe that you believe you have more knowledge in biology than biologists and you believe you have more knowledge in paleontology than paleontologists, but the reality is, you are just another conspiracy theorist, who believe your own fantasies and opinion are “holiest of all thou”.
And you make claims, that you have all the evidence to support your conspiracy theory, and yet, but you cannot back your fictitious claims, you would add more claims on top of that.
Making up “claims” are not “evidence”, cladking. No, your claims are just your personal beliefs.
All your claims just that, your personal beliefs.
You know all that garbage you have been throwing around, such as the 40,000 years old science, language, the Nephilim (or Homo sapiens) before Tower of Babel and Homo Omniscienesis, all that, is your religion, a fiction that you have made up for yourself. So, the only ones thinking themselves “holiest”, is the reflection of yourself.
So not only you are a biology-illiterate, you are also intellectually dishonest.
Last edited:
OK. You should know by now that evasion and deflection are understood as you being unable to rebut the statement.
Do you think that rebuts my comment? Why are your answers not of the form, "I agree" or "The reason you are wrong is because ..."? I write about how skepticism and empiricism converted alchemy and astrology into chemistry and astronomy, and you talk about the two befores as if you admire them despite the two older paradigms being sterile and useless to predict or explain anything.
I disagree that Darwin or his beliefs killed anybody or could be held responsible for the genocides others perpetrated, even if they thought that Darwin meant that if nature selected against the less fecund that that meant that they could kill those weaker than they are. That's on them, and a little on anybody who accepts that reasoning from them, which is what you are doing when you don't denounce it r blame them for it themselves.
Darwin was correct. The theory is correct. It has been confirmed beyond reasonable doubt.
gnostic
The Lost One
Your definition are nothing more than fictions and word games.
I am not the only one, who think you have twisted terms to create your “ancient reality”.
There are no such thing as species called Homo omniscienesis, post-Tower of Babel (2000 BCE). And there are no Nephilim, too, whom you supposedly to exist as far back as 40,000 years ago, and whom you believe were all true scientists and metaphysicians.
You want to know what ironic with your fictitious reality. You claim, that there are no such word as “BELIEF”, before the Tower of Babel (hence, prior to 2000 BCE), therefore no religions, no religious beliefs, and no superstition. But 40,000 years ago, you believe that “metaphysics”, “science” and “language” have existed all back then, and yet you cannot show these words exist in any written language.
Where are the 40,000 years old word or symbol for “metaphysics”?
Isn’t that double standard?