Darwin's Illusion

[Dan From Smithville]

So you think fish were the start?

Fish. Then mermaids. Then humans. Wait.

No. No. Where did the people come from to produce mermaids.

Asteroids. No. Meteors.

So, it is fish, meteors, people, mermaids, people.

No. I think we better go with the theory.

 

[cladking]

Ancient people danced to nature and heard her music. Once in a while I can almost hear a stray note wafting in the breeze of a warm summer evening.

Since change in species derives from behavior which in turn derives from consciousness everything ancient people did led inexorably to homo omnisciencis.

 

[Valjean]

Arguments and testing are not science. What is "reasonable" to one individual is not reasonable to another. Remember I keep saying everyone makes sense in terms of his premises? We each have different premises except for peers who by definition have the same premises. I keep telling you why these premises are wrong but they are hand waved, gainsaid, ignored and used for word games.

Reasonable = correct maths. An error in reason is an error in maths. Mathematics is not subjective or a matter of opinion. It follows universal rules.
A premise may be correct or incorrect. It's not personal or a matter of opinion.
And what the heck is a "peer?"

Reality is highly complex and we can use experiment to catch little tiny peeks at bits of it. Ancient people understood this. The called "reality" "the hidden" and named it "amen". Now millions use this name after every prayer.

Just because experiment has given us many thousands of little peeks at reality doesn't mean we can extrapolate and interpolate the entire picture. We still need experiment to see in between and outside of existing experiment or we run the risk of misinterpretation. There is simply no evidence to show a gradual change in the fossil record. It doesn't matter how "reasonable" you think it is.

Experiment is useless when you ignore the results. You choose to ignore clear evidence of gradualism.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I can no more create a species out of thin air nor destroy them.

You attempt it all the time and for no reason than that you see what you believe and want others to believe it too.

Reality does not conform to what people believe.

And yet that is your entire sales pitch.

Just because the tower of babel can be thought of or defined as a speciation event hardly means it must.

No one but you does that and you don't even do it. You just claim it.

Language is highly flexible, reality is not.

I don't know everything like you believe you do.

So far as I know every homo omnisciencis has a brocas area. It varies a little in location but web each have one.

There is no reason to consider what you believe to be something that can be known. You claim something based on a claim of something based on a claim of something based on a claim of something. None of any of it ever demonstrated.

All the evidence is misinterpreted as "incantation".

Another empty claim with the typical hyperbole. I understand that you believe a lot of things. You offer nothing for anyone to consider it more than your imaginative speculation. Your main premise seems to be "I think it, therefore it is".

I point to them many times. People don't see them because we see what we believe.

Of course. Everyone sees your clothes. We are all part of a conspiracy to deny you are wearing them.

I seriously doubt the tower of babel occurred in the way or for the reasons that most people will parse the story in the Bible. While I believe it is probably true the author of the story didn't understand the original source and interpreted it the best he could. Subsequently each translator since has done the best he could.

You can believe whatever you want. You certainly have indicated so post after post.

The point is that you based claims on claims and not on evidence or reason surrounding evidence and logic.

You're looking for literalism in a symbolic language that must be parsed to have any meaning at all even after it has been translated between several confused languages! And worse you begin with the assumption that there is no basis in reality despite the fact it occurs in other versions in other language dating back to 1800 BC and is contained in countless myths. I never wanted to believe it either until I found so much evidence for it and it became the simplest explanation to tie together disparate other evidence.

No. I'm looking for anything substantial to support your claims and pointing out that you don't do that. Your evidence is a claim of evidence that people cannot see or don't want to. That is all very convenient isn't it.

I've explained this in great detail but not in this thread and not much on this site.

Of course. Your explanations are far and wide, but never here.

People don't like the explanation so I tend to avoid it.

Absolutely! That is a sound policy. Always stir up dissent against your empty assertions and blame the flaws in that policy on others.

Perhaps I can start a new thread but I'm not sure it's wholly relevant to this forum despite the fact the language is highly scientific and became the basis of "all" modern religions.

I'm not sure that another thread of empty claims, invisible evidence and the absence of reasonable explanation will add anything of value for you.

No. If you look for a metaphysical language you can solve its meaning in context.

Then you will have no trouble presenting an example, establishing its provenance as a metaphysical language and showing us.

Of course, there is that pesky fact that you have never even tried this approach.

This is how I learned. When I started I didn't even understand the concept of "metaphysical language". It's easy enough though; just imagine a bee's waggle dance sufficiently complex to talk about anything at all except abstractions. This is the nature of homo sapien and all other species languages before homo omnisciencis.

Empty assertions built on a tower of empty assertions. Maybe Babel is just a metaphor for what you attempt.

I speak in tautologies and prefer to use as few quotation marks as possible. Frankly when I say "all" I prefer the reader adjusts his definitions to make the statement true. Of course few do.

I agree. You believe what you see and see what you believe, but cannot offer anything so that others might see it too. That others cannot is not your fault. They are believers that just can't see what you believe. It is a really lovely self-fulfilling prophecy that you believe.

Ancient people danced to nature and heard her music. Once in a while I can almost hear a stray note wafting in the breeze of a warm summer evening.

That's probably just gas.

 

[YoursTrue]

The situation is such that fish remain fish at present. Maybe they're satisfied? Ok a little levity there, truthful nonetheless.

How would you know?

You don't know anything about paleontology, and you are certainly no biologist, so how would you know what is guesswork?

Whatever biology you might have learned in high school, you are in no position to judge what is or isn’t guesswork. You have no qualifications in any scientific field, let alone in paleontology, so what you have to say about fossils, are meaningless, baseless. In fact, whatever you say only counts as personal opinion, which means nothing to anyone except to yourself.

You don't even understand what constitute as “scientific evidence”.

Scientific evidence are observations of the physical phenomena or the natural phenomena, and their properties.

Observation is not just seeing with eyes or hearing with ears; observations are what can be also detect by any device, equipment or instrument, as well as to quantify its quantities, measure the values (in specific units), examining the properties of the evidence, and to compare one evidence against the others. Whatever information scientists gain from the observations, are data.

Data are also counts as observations, as well as evidence.

The observations (evidence plus data) would either support or verify the model (eg hypothesis or theory) or the observations will refute the model.

That’s how you would test any new hypothesis or existing scientific theory. If you were scientist, YoursTrue, which you are not, but if you were, you would allow the evidence to determine if a model succeed or fail, and not by your personal and obvious very biased opinions.

But here is the punchline, YoursTrue.

If you have physical evidence, then the theory isn’t just a set of guesswork.

Guesswork would be something you would do. Guesswork is all you have even doing since you joined this thread.

Please tell me how the scientists would know the millions, if not billions of years they say it took to accomplish whatever they talk about.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Since change in species derives from behavior

There is no evidence that behavior is a mechanism for speciation. Just another basal, empty claim on which you have built your just so story.

which in turn derives from consciousness everything ancient people did led inexorably to homo omnisciencis.

Of course, the pyramid of empty claims has to have a base, a middle and a peak.

 

[YoursTrue]

I can no more create a species out of thin air nor destroy them. Reality does not conform to what people believe. Just because the tower of babel can be thought of or defined as a speciation event hardly means it must. Language is highly flexible, reality is not.



So far as I know every homo omnisciencis has a brocas area. It varies a little in location but web each have one.



All the evidence is misinterpreted as "incantation".


I point to them many times. People don't see them because we see what we believe.



I seriously doubt the tower of babel occurred in the way or for the reasons that most people will parse the story in the Bible. While I believe it is probably true the author of the story didn't understand the original source and interpreted it the best he could. Subsequently each translator since has done the best he could.

You're looking for literalism in a symbolic language that must be parsed to have any meaning at all even after it has been translated between several confused languages! And worse you begin with the assumption that there is no basis in reality despite the fact it occurs in other versions in other language dating back to 1800 BC and is contained in countless myths. I never wanted to believe it either until I found so much evidence for it and it became the simplest explanation to tie together disparate other evidence.



I've explained this in great detail but not in this thread and not much on this site. People don't like the explanation so I tend to avoid it. Perhaps I can start a new thread but I'm not sure it's wholly relevant to this forum despite the fact the language is highly scientific and became the basis of "all" modern religions.



No. If you look for a metaphysical language you can solve its meaning in context. This is how I learned. When I started I didn't even understand the concept of "metaphysical language". It's easy enough though; just imagine a bee's waggle dance sufficiently complex to talk about anything at all except abstractions. This is the nature of homo sapien and all other species languages before homo omnisciencis.


I speak in tautologies and prefer to use as few quotation marks as possible. Frankly when I say "all" I prefer the reader adjusts his definitions to make the statement true. Of course few do.


Ancient people danced to nature and heard her music. Once in a while I can almost hear a stray note wafting in the breeze of a warm summer evening.

While I do not agree with everything you say, some of your statements make sense. Aside from that, I'll probably stop using quotation marks for emphasis.

 

[YoursTrue]

There is no evidence that behavior is a mechanism for speciation. Just another basal, empty claim on which you have built your just so story.

Of course, the pyramid of empty claims has to have a base, a middle and a peak.

But of course, the billions of years or millions of years you assert for evolution etc. to occur has evidence, is that right? Remember -- billions or millions.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Arguments and testing are not science.

Yes they are. It is yours that are not. You don't really do arguments. Just claims. And there is nothing to test, since you claim the evidence for your claims is invisible.

What is "reasonable" to one individual is not reasonable to another.

Like claims of invisible evidence. That seems unreasonable to a lot of people.

Remember I keep saying everyone makes sense in terms of his premises?

No. I don't think anyone has forgotten your love of repeating mantras.

We each have different premises except for peers who by definition have the same premises.

Of course. The Peers conspiracy that drives all of human activity and leaves no evidence that it even exists. Yet, you know of it and preach endlessly on it. How do we reconcile this paradox? Oh my.

I keep telling you why these premises are wrong but they are hand waved, gainsaid, ignored and used for word games.

You claim that some premises are wrong, but you don't tell anybody what they are or tell us why you think they are wrong. Bulk agar from China isn't really telling.

Reality is highly complex and we can use experiment to catch little tiny peeks at bits of it.

I think we can all stipulate that reality is complex and that we don't know everything about it. At least, some of us recognize that we don't and seek means to learn what we can without adopting baseless, just so stories in place of sound explanations and evidence.

Ancient people understood this. The called "reality" "the hidden" and named it "amen". Now millions use this name after every prayer.

So you often repeat.

Just because experiment has given us many thousands of little peeks at reality doesn't mean we can extrapolate and interpolate the entire picture.

Of course. But just so stories are an even less-established foundation for doing that.

We still need experiment to see in between and outside of existing experiment or we run the risk of misinterpretation. There is simply no evidence to show a gradual change in the fossil record. It doesn't matter how "reasonable" you think it is.

But you have no experiments. You only have a claim that "all experiments" support what you claim. Here you are saying that you cannot do what is the basis of what you have been doing.

 

[YoursTrue]

@Dan From Smithville and several others -- what I have noticed is that when a pro-evolution poster says something, even if not clear or understandable, many of the supporters pro-evolution theory of Darwin and those surrounding him say nothing. Very interesting to note.

 

[Valjean]

It's off topic and because it gets into support for some of the oddest parts of the Bible which people will not believe. You simply can't appreciate the gravity of the fact that everybody always makes sense because you choose to dismiss everything you deem to not be supported by Peers or science. It would never occur to most people that while science is right within its definitions and experiment everything else is based in reality as well. Have you read the book of Enoch recently? Don't bother because it will be invisible to you. We all see what we believe and I believe everyone makes sense in terms of his premises. You look for truth, I look for premises.

See, this the difference. Science tests its premises, and follows the evidence even when it shatters premises. Believers try to shoehorn reality into preconceived patterns, and dismiss any evidence that contradicts them.

The world is infinitely more complex than we imagine it. There are meta-patterns which I call the formatting of life and reality.

No Darwin is not responsible but millions have been killed who wouldn't have been otherwise. People should be more careful what beliefs they adopt.

If evolution weren't available, some other excuse would have been found. People have never had a problem justifying their exploitation of others.

.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Ancient words (what you call "symbols") were representations. Whether they were spoken or drawn on the walls of a cave they represented real things. There were no symbols.

As usual, this doesn't answer the question. It is just more empty claims to form the basis of previous empty claims as you build your tower higher.

So, you asset that this "ancient language" was made of words that were symbolic, but not symbolic. Can you be any less clear?

Your tower is getting so tall.

I can read it and make accurate predictions based on author intent where scientists can not and not make predictions or even explain how my prediction manifests.

In my review of evidence from various other platforms on the internet, there doesn't seem to be any basis to this claim that you can read any form of Egyptian writing. Ancient, old or new. If fact, I know where this has been repeatedly pointed out.

How you can conceive to know what an author in the context of his culture and life of thousands of years ago intended seems to be more a claim of conceit about your own perceived skills and knowledge than the assertion of an actual ability.

No!! The language was universal and had numerous mutually intelligible dialects.

So not Egyptian then.

You are the sole existing expert in a language that doesn't exist for which there is no evidence it ever existed.

That is a pretty impressive claim to fame.

Even Klingon has a dictionary now.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes they are. It is yours that are not. You don't really do arguments. Just claims. And there is nothing to test, since you claim the evidence for your claims is invisible.

Like claims of invisible evidence. That seems unreasonable to a lot of people.

No. I don't think anyone has forgotten your love of repeating mantras.

Of course. The Peers conspiracy that drives all of human activity and leaves no evidence that it even exists. Yet, you know of it and preach endlessly on it. How do we reconcile this paradox? Oh my.

You claim that some premises are wrong, but you don't tell anybody what they are or tell us why you think they are wrong. Bulk agar from China isn't really telling.

I think we can all stipulate that reality is complex and that we don't know everything about it. At least, some of us recognize that we don't and seek means to learn what we can without adopting baseless, just so stories in place of sound explanations and evidence.

So you often repeat.

Of course. But just so stories are an even less-established foundation for doing that.

But you have no experiments. You only have a claim that "all experiments" support what you claim. Here you are saying that you cannot do what is the basis of what you have been doing.

Whether or not someone reads my posts or answers directly is immaterial. Because from the looks of it, some do. Where is the evidence for billions and/or millions of years in evolutionary theory?

 

[YoursTrue]

As usual, this doesn't answer the question. It is just more empty claims to form the basis of previous empty claims as you build your tower higher.

In my review of evidence from various other platforms on the internet, there doesn't seem to be any basis to this claim that you can read any form of Egyptian writing. Ancient, old or new. If fact, I know where this has been repeatedly pointed out.

How you can conceive to know what an author in the context of his culture and life of thousands of years ago intended seems to be more a claim of conceit about your own perceived skills and knowledge than the assertion of an actual ability.

So not Egyptian then.

You are the sole existing expert in a language that doesn't exist for which there is no evidence it ever existed.

That is a pretty impressive claim to fame.

Even Klingon has a dictionary now.

That seems to be the level of some here -- argue about use of language. , rather than provide evidence (oh, not proof, of course) for billions and millions of years some surmise it took to evolve. Keep arguing about language, that supports certain theses, no telling why because some need to figure it out.

 

[YoursTrue]

As usual, this doesn't answer the question. It is just more empty claims to form the basis of previous empty claims as you build your tower higher.

So, you asset that this "ancient language" was made of words that were symbolic, but not symbolic. Can you be any less clear?

Your tower is getting so tall.

In my review of evidence from various other platforms on the internet, there doesn't seem to be any basis to this claim that you can read any form of Egyptian writing. Ancient, old or new. If fact, I know where this has been repeatedly pointed out.

How you can conceive to know what an author in the context of his culture and life of thousands of years ago intended seems to be more a claim of conceit about your own perceived skills and knowledge than the assertion of an actual ability.

So not Egyptian then.

You are the sole existing expert in a language that doesn't exist for which there is no evidence it ever existed.

That is a pretty impressive claim to fame.

Even Klingon has a dictionary now.

So what? arguing about language and klingon will keep some busy.

 

[Valjean]

Please tell me how the scientists would know the millions, if not billions of years they say it took to accomplish whatever they talk about.

When we explain to you or link to the sources, research methods and reasons science knows what it does, you ignore us.

 

[Valjean]

@Dan From Smithville and several others -- what I have noticed is that when a pro-evolution poster says something, even if not clear or understandable, many of the supporters pro-evolution theory of Darwin and those surrounding him say nothing. Very interesting to note.

Huh?

 

[Valjean]

Whether or not someone reads my posts or answers directly is immaterial. Because from the looks of it, some do. Where is the evidence for billions and/or millions of years in evolutionary theory?

It's been pointed out to you a hundred times. You ignore it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

When we explain to you or link to the sources, research methods and reasons science knows what it does, you ignore us.

You've nailed this.

Personally, I don't see any reason to perpetuate something like that.

For someone to keep coming back and demanding what they have already received in plenty seems like a deceit to me.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Huh?

I think that the claim is that if that person doesn't understand something, then no one must understand it. Therefore, why isn't what they do not understand universally challenged.

I say it may just be that they don't understand and can't bear to admit that.