Darwin's Illusion

[It Aint Necessarily So]

This is simply not true.

You know that I think it is or I wouldn't have posted it, and you have given me no reason to think otherwise.

You've never see the first year physics experiment rolling objects down inclined planes??!! Even when performed by a six year old this experiment applies. THEY ALL APPLY.

What I haven't seen are the experiments you say underlie even the observational sciences.

You believe reality exists as you see it

Actually, I've explicitly denied that. In response to, "my belief in a world external to myself requires of me an act of faith," I wrote,

Not mine. I can only doubt in existence of a world outside of consciousness philosophically, not psychologically, as I am hardwired to live as if I were looking through and hearing through a window.

But it really doesn't matter what is actually out there, only what's in here. If I could somehow discover that reality outside of consciousness was radically different than the model I've constructed for navigating experience to effect desired outcomes - say a brain-in-a-vat scenario, and that I had no hands or fingers, for example - just the illusion of them - and I put that imaginary finger into an imaginary flame and feel the same pain I always have when burned - nothing changes. The rules of reality don't change at all.

We make decisions (deductions) using inductions accumulated from prior experience, and we experience sensory perceptions of the outcomes of those decisions. What else matters even to the brain in a vat? When playing an arcade racecar video game, he suspends disbelief that he's not actually moving or driving a car, a useful fiction compared to the reality of a computer chip with no moving parts, because a perfect knowledge of the reality in the game's chips is no more helpful at crossing the finish line.​

I'd wager nearly half the posters here don't even know what the referent is to "parse".

Yet you keep using it.

He seems to be rather pleased with his appearance but not in an abstract sort of way. Perhaps he's trying to learn about his eyes.

But is he - the monkey with a mirror - thinking? I say he is.

No magic. There may be no magic except in a young girl's eyes.

Love the pop culture reference. I don't know if I've mentioned my background in bands to you. We (my wife and I and a friend) covered that song and another from The Loving Spoonful, but I only have a link to the other to share. This is Rickie (rhythm guitar, first vocalist and whistler), my wife (bass), and me (on lead, second-half vocalist). It was a spontaneous decision to play it. Rickie and I couldn't agree on the lyrics ("A pie in the face for being asleep before dawn" vs "a sleepy mojo" - Internet says, "A pie in the face for being a sleepy bull toad"), but that didn't matter. Also, we went through the song twice, with me repeating everything he had done, which was unplanned. I hope you like it:

 

[cladking]

You know that I think it is or I wouldn't have posted it, and you have given me no reason to think otherwise.

all I can do is speak as a metaphysician. My understanding of science precludes any theory from arising from nothing but belief, observation, or deduction. I daresay you can not identify an exception. Of course you'll point to Evolution, Egyptology, global warming, and other Peer reviewed ideas that are not founded in experiment nor have predictive capabilities. You see the logic in statistics even though it is quite obvious that it is merely mathematics with no tie to reality. This isn't obvious to you because statistics can be useful at times. You won't see where they fail utterly.

What I haven't seen are the experiments you say underlie even the observational sciences.

All science is founded on experiment.

You may be aware that back in the '80's someone got it in his head that severely autistic people were merely trapped inside their heads and began communicating with them using various means. One researcher even used a oujia board!!! This swept the planet and autistic individual everywhere were writing books and screenplays. OF COURSE it turned out to be nonsense!!! We are not capable of observation or reason so must rely on experiment to keep us tied to reality. Ouija boards everywhere now tell s about global warming, building pyramids with infinite number of ramps, and how species change gradually because some are fitter than others.

There is no science outside metaphysics and modern science is a two step process; Observation > Experiment. There are no exceptions and EVERY experiment applies simultaneously.

Yet you keep using it.

There is no other word!!!!!!!!

 

[cladking]

So I say language acquisition is really learning to parse sentences and nobody knows what I mean or can be bothered to ask! But they'll sill disagree with me and still disagree when how I point out that babies are born with a different language!!!

How can you blame me for any communication failure?

I say something.
No one understands.
Everyone tells me I'm wrong and what Darwin believed.

Where can this cycle be broken?

 

[gnostic]

No!!!

This is a myth and like all myths it sprang from a misinterpretation of ancient history.

That’s funny coming from you, when you talk of Genesis Nephilim and Tower of Babel as if these were history.

Everything in Genesis Creation to King Solomon’s empire are myths.

And yet elements of Genesis are included in your own fan-fiction of the ancient science and ancient language that go back to 40,000 years ago.

The only misinterpretations are coming from you.

Why would I believe in your 40,000-year-old ancient language & ancient science when I know them to be pure fiction mixed with elements of Genesis myths?

 

[YoursTrue]

No, they do not. Most fossils are deposited at the same time as the sedimentary rocks (not soils) that contain them, and the ages of these sedimentary rocks are determined by interpolation between the radiometric ages of volcanic rocks (including ash beds) above and below them.

Sedimentary rocks have been there longer than the bones left on them. If you think otherwise please explain.

 

[YoursTrue]

Well, you believe in Genesis 2, where man was created directly and INSTANTLY from LIFELESS dust or soil.

So, Adam, biologically wasn’t born through reproduction of father and mother. Not only that...Adam was created as a fully-grown adult, with no infancy, no childhood, no need to grow to maturity, and be able to speak and understand language without learning.

That’s even more impossible.

1. You don't believe in God. If you did, you would realize He is capable of miraculous things.
2. Why are you saying that I believe Genesis 2 says man was created instantly? I don't know the process other than what is written.
3. That is correct. Adam had neither father nor mother in the biological sense as reproduction goes. Neither did Eve.
4. It is not impossible.
5. Yes, Adam was created as fully grown, so was Eve. The ability to talk, or communicate, was given to them by God.

 

[cladking]

Love the pop culture reference. I don't know if I've mentioned my background in bands to you. We (my wife and I and a friend) covered that song and another from The Loving Spoonful, but I only have a link to the other to share. This is Rickie (rhythm guitar, first vocalist and whistler), my wife (bass), and me (on lead, second-half vocalist). It was a spontaneous decision to play it. Rickie and I couldn't agree on the lyrics ("A pie in the face for being asleep before dawn" vs "a sleepy mojo" - Internet says, "A pie in the face for being a sleepy bull toad"), but that didn't matter. Also, we went through the song twice, with me repeating everything he had done, which was unplanned. I hope you like it:

You're actually quite good. I was never a Lovin' Spoonful fan but they did have talent and some good songs. I liked John Sebastian back in the day but never forgave him for Welcome Back Kotter.

 

[cladking]

That’s funny coming from you, when you talk of Genesis Nephilim and Tower of Babel as if these were history.

I'm the guy who doesn't know anything, remember? I believe the story of babel has a real event, a speciation event, as its referent. I believe that when language changed many thousands of AL speakers went off on their own and in small groups to continue science and attempt to preserve ancient knowledge. I believe many or most stories in the Bible come from Ancient Language and its interpretation. While it's not literally true in any sense you understand the fact is it appears to be interpreted from AL which is literally true and true literally. Some of this "literalness" survives translation and interpretation.

It's really rather ironic that some of the holiest of thous may have to give up their crown of righteousness to those they've denigrated for years.

And yet elements of Genesis are included in your own fan-fiction of the ancient science and ancient language that go back to 40,000 years ago.

The first thing written down when writing was invented to relay messages to the dolts would have been history. Everyone knew the important stuff and much of it appears in Genesis but it's everywhere in ancient writing from holy books to the hermetic texts. Our history can still be put together because it still exists. It's not history of generals and ruthless leaders. It's not about carnage and war. It's about who discovered what and when and how they did it. It's about great feats, great teachers, and inspired leadership. It's about their greatest scientists and metaphysicians. It's how humans created a golden age and why it had to fail.

Why would I believe in your 40,000-year-old ancient language & ancient science when I know them to be pure fiction mixed with elements of Genesis myths?

Because ancient man could not have created anything with nothing but ignorance and superstition. They could not have even survived far less left the evidence they actually left of high culture, power, and wisdom. They were truly homo sapien. They were a force of nature and never wasted a good man. They structured their society so everyone could excel. This is how they survived their ignorance. We survive it through science and ancient technology called "agriculture".

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You know that I think it is or I wouldn't have posted it, and you have given me no reason to think otherwise.

What I haven't seen are the experiments you say underlie even the observational sciences.

Actually, I've explicitly denied that. In response to, "my belief in a world external to myself requires of me an act of faith," I wrote,

Not mine. I can only doubt in existence of a world outside of consciousness philosophically, not psychologically, as I am hardwired to live as if I were looking through and hearing through a window.​

​

But it really doesn't matter what is actually out there, only what's in here. If I could somehow discover that reality outside of consciousness was radically different than the model I've constructed for navigating experience to effect desired outcomes - say a brain-in-a-vat scenario, and that I had no hands or fingers, for example - just the illusion of them - and I put that imaginary finger into an imaginary flame and feel the same pain I always have when burned - nothing changes. The rules of reality don't change at all.​

​

We make decisions (deductions) using inductions accumulated from prior experience, and we experience sensory perceptions of the outcomes of those decisions. What else matters even to the brain in a vat? When playing an arcade racecar video game, he suspends disbelief that he's not actually moving or driving a car, a useful fiction compared to the reality of a computer chip with no moving parts, because a perfect knowledge of the reality in the game's chips is no more helpful at crossing the finish line.​

Yet you keep using it.

But is he - the monkey with a mirror - thinking? I say he is.

Love the pop culture reference. I don't know if I've mentioned my background in bands to you. We (my wife and I and a friend) covered that song and another from The Loving Spoonful, but I only have a link to the other to share. This is Rickie (rhythm guitar, first vocalist and whistler), my wife (bass), and me (on lead, second-half vocalist). It was a spontaneous decision to play it. Rickie and I couldn't agree on the lyrics ("A pie in the face for being asleep before dawn" vs "a sleepy mojo" - Internet says, "A pie in the face for being a sleepy bull toad"), but that didn't matter. Also, we went through the song twice, with me repeating everything he had done, which was unplanned. I hope you like it:

When I was younger, I worked a short while at a local nursing care facility in housekeeping and maintenance. It was a good experience and I enjoyed working in a house full of the grandparents I never knew growing up. I rather enjoyed listening to the stories those folks had to tell and remember some of them to this day.

Among the residents was a very dignified woman who suffered from mild aphasia following a stroke. She would become rather frustrated trying to communicate with others and I made it a point to learn how to communicate with her. I apparently had patience then that I don't have so much today. But basically I learned to speak her language and it made her very happy to be able to communicate with me. She would often substitute the incorrect words for whatever it was she was asking about or talking about. I just learned how to quickly examine the context of the conversations and reach fairly accurate responses based on my observations.

But for the life of me, what is being discussed on these pages might as well be from someone speaking German or Chinese and talking about dinner recipes in a discussion about evolution. The observed contradiction, vagueness of the responses and seemingly private definitions of terms offers little context to ferret out any hidden meaning. For instance, the use of sudden to describe all change in living things has little meaning considering that known change in living things spans time periods of variable duration depending on the change being discussed. It is not a premise that makes much sense and to me and defies known information and experimental results. Stating it is sudden compared to star formation adds nothing to understanding what seems a meaningless claim. It is a claim lost on me.

Another point of confusion is the dismissal of observation as a means to gather data for scientific evaluation. That both observation and experiment produce data and it is the data that is central to science seems to be completely missed and misunderstood. When experiment is mentioned, I get a sense it is with an almost mystical, magical sense that serves no purpose in science I'm aware of and isn't an accurate representation of science in any context. If that is not what is meant, then there is an apparent failure to convey that or correct it so that others understand what is meant. But there is no reason given for dismissing observation other than it appears to be viewed with disdain and a belief it has no place in science. Darwin may not have conducted formal, controlled experiments in gathering his data, but gather it he did and his conclusions about that data resulted in the first useful theory of evolution. And to date, I have seen nothing falsifying the assumptions he worked with. I haven't even seen anyone but myself list those assumptions, let alone point out how they are wrong. In fact, the only minor attempt to do so by others were to state incorrect assumptions for Darwin. He did not assume that populations were stable even though this has been erroneously claimed for him.

Ultimately, I don't see any way to communicate when attempts to facilitate communication are almost entirely one-sided.

 

[exchemist]

When I was younger, I worked a short while at a local nursing care facility in housekeeping and maintenance. It was a good experience and I enjoyed working in a house full of the grandparents I never knew growing up. I rather enjoyed listening to the stories those folks had to tell and remember some of them to this day.

Among the residents was a very dignified woman who suffered from mild aphasia following a stroke. She would become rather frustrated trying to communicate with others and I made it a point to learn how to communicate with her. I apparently had patience then that I don't have so much today. But basically I learned to speak her language and it made her very happy to be able to communicate with me. She would often substitute the incorrect words for whatever it was she was asking about or talking about. I just learned how to quickly examine the context of the conversations and reach fairly accurate responses based on my observations.

But for the life of me, what is being discussed on these pages might as well be from someone speaking German or Chinese and talking about dinner recipes in a discussion about evolution. The observed contradiction, vagueness of the responses and seemingly private definitions of terms offers little context to ferret out any hidden meaning. For instance, the use of sudden to describe all change in living things has little meaning considering that known change in living things spans time periods of variable duration depending on the change being discussed. It is not a premise that makes much sense and to me and defies known information and experimental results. Stating it is sudden compared to star formation adds nothing to understanding what seems a meaningless claim. It is a claim lost on me.

Another point of confusion is the dismissal of observation as a means to gather data for scientific evaluation. That both observation and experiment produce data and it is the data that is central to science seems to be completely missed and misunderstood. When experiment is mentioned, I get a sense it is with an almost mystical, magical sense that serves no purpose in science I'm aware of and isn't an accurate representation of science in any context. If that is not what is meant, then there is an apparent failure to convey that or correct it so that others understand what is meant. But there is no reason given for dismissing observation other than it appears to be viewed with disdain and a belief it has no place in science. Darwin may not have conducted formal, controlled experiments in gathering his data, but gather it he did and his conclusions about that data resulted in the first useful theory of evolution. And to date, I have seen nothing falsifying the assumptions he worked with. I haven't even seen anyone but myself list those assumptions, let alone point out how they are wrong. In fact, the only minor attempt to do so by others were to state incorrect assumptions for Darwin. He did not assume that populations were stable even though this has been erroneously claimed for him.

Ultimately, I don't see any way to communicate when attempts to facilitate communication are almost entirely one-sided.

But you are writing this as if the posts in question are made in good faith. Once you admit the possibility of bad faith, it makes it easier to understand what may have been going on in the head of the writer.

 

[exchemist]

Sedimentary rocks have been there longer than the bones left on them. If you think otherwise please explain.

They are laid down at the same time. A dinosaur dies in a swamp. Over thousands of years the mud and sand from the nearby river cover it to a considerable depth. Eventually, after millions of years, these sediments become compressed and bound together by soluble minerals, into rock: what is called sedimentary rock.

So, if you can determine the age of the rock, you also have the age of the fossil.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

But you are writing this as if the posts in question are made in good faith. Once you admit the possibility of bad faith, it makes it easier to understand what may have been going on in the head of the writer.

I've wondered on more than one occasion if what I'm reading is a parody without the wink and a nod to give it away.

 

[John53]

I stumbled on an example of Darwin getting it wrong while watching a Sir David Attenborough documentary. Darwin said when writing about sexual selection that only male songbirds sing but it turns out that in the majority of songbird species (64%) the female does sing. To be fair to Darwin his statement was correct for the birds of the northern hemisphere, there had been no studies of southern hemisphere songbirds in his time.

I wonder if he had known if it would have changed his thoughts on sexual selection?

 

[Astrophile]

Sedimentary rocks have been there longer than the bones left on them. If you think otherwise please explain.

Fossils are found in sedimentary rocks, not lying on top of them. The animals and plants that are found as fossils were buried by unconsolidated sediments (e.g. sand or mud), which preserved the hard parts of the organism as it (the sediment) hardened into rock. If you think otherwise, please explain in more detail.

 

[exchemist]

Fossils are found in sedimentary rocks, not lying on top of them. The animals and plants that are found as fossils were buried by unconsolidated sediments (e.g. sand or mud), which preserved the hard parts of the organism as it (the sediment) hardened into rock. If you think otherwise, please explain in more detail.

I'm fairly sure that was posted out of simple ignorance. I don't expect a reply to be forthcoming. The poster works hard at remaining ignorant and does a pretty good job of it.

 

[gnostic]

Sedimentary rocks have been there longer than the bones left on them. If you think otherwise please explain.

You don't understand the process of sedimentary rock, you don't understand the process of fossilization and you don't understand the process of dating method of the rocks & fossils.

What exhemist and Astrophile have explained to you, are correct:

They are laid down at the same time. A dinosaur dies in a swamp. Over thousands of years the mud and sand from the nearby river cover it to a considerable depth. Eventually, after millions of years, these sediments become compressed and bound together by soluble minerals, into rock: what is called sedimentary rock.

So, if you can determine the age of the rock, you also have the age of the fossil.

Fossils are found in sedimentary rocks, not lying on top of them. The animals and plants that are found as fossils were buried by unconsolidated sediments (e.g. sand or mud), which preserved the hard parts of the organism as it (the sediment) hardened into rock. If you think otherwise, please explain in more detail.

The sediments that buried plants and animals, are either sand or mud, or both mixture of both sand & mud, but these sediments don’t turn into rocks immediately.

The transformation of sediments into sedimentary rocks will vary how long it will take, depending on the numbers of conditions, eg how many other different layers of sediments burying on top of the layer where the bodies or plants, how much of the original layer of the sediments are compacted, etc.

It is all the silicate minerals in the sediments that cause sediments to crystallize and solidify.

The 3 most silicate minerals are quartz, feldspar and mica.

So if bodies and plants were buried in layer of sand, then quartz would be the primary mineral to cause the sediments of sand to eventually turn into sandstone.

If mud was the sediments, then clay minerals plus quartz, will turn the sediments into mudrocks. There are number of different types of mudrocks, eg claystone, siltstone, slate, shale, etc.

Now most of description referred to how sediments turn into rocks, and less about organisms would turn into fossils. Those minerals I have mentioned play essential roles in fossilization. So if you want to know more about fossilization, then my reply/post would be lot longer.

If you really to know more about sedimentary rocks, then you really should ask qualified geologists, like @shunyadragon, for instance. shunyadragon is really a geologist, so he will be the one who would really know the process of how sediments would or could turn into rocks.

I did learn geology during my civil engineering course, but I am not a qualified geologist.

Ask shunyadragon if you want to understand the process of sedimentary rocks.

 

[gnostic]

The first thing written down when writing was invented to relay messages to the dolts would have been history. Everyone knew the important stuff and much of it appears in Genesis but it's everywhere in ancient writing from holy books to the hermetic texts. Our history can still be put together because it still exists.

Except that who wrote the Genesis, it is not that old, and mostly like written by more than one author during the 6th century BCE.

The creation and flood stories were more than likely inspired by Babylonian creation and flood stories which exist in various versions, as they exist earlier in the Old Babylon period and Middle Babylonian period, and even older in the 3rd millennium BCE, started by the Sumerians, from 2500 to 1900 BCE.

Babylonian literature were popular during the Amorite dynasty (c 1894 - 1597 BCE, which coincided with Old Babylonian) and the Kassite dynasty (c1595 - 1155 BCE) in Babylon. Assyrian literature also flourished as early as the Middle Assyrian period (1392 - 934 BCE). Both Babylonian and Assyrian are dialects derived from the earlier Akkadian language, continuing using Sumerian cuneiform as their writing systems.

During the early Kassite dynasty, in the 15th century BCE, Babylonian texts have spread outside of Babylonia, such as

• east in Elam (western Iran), where the Epic of Gilgamesh were found in its capital Susa,
• in Hattusa the capital of the Hittite empire,
• in Ugarit a city now called Ras Shamra in northwest Syria,
• in Megiddo, Israel,
• and in Amarna, Aktenaten’s capital in Egypt.

The Epic of Gilgamesh and other Babylonian tales continued to be popular in both the Neo-Assyrian empire (eg clay tablets found in the royal library of Ashurbanipal in Nineveh) and in the Neo-Babylonian empire.

As I have told you previously the Tower of Babel was most likely inspired by the large ziggurat constructed in Babylon, called the Etemenaki, which was started by Esarhaddon (reign 681 - 669 BCE), and completed by Nebuchadnezzar around 575 BCE.

There were no Tower of Babel around 2000 BCE. Around this time, the 3rd dynasty of Ur (2112 - 2004 BCE) was the most prominent and wealthiest city state in Sumer. Ur was followed by the the dynasty in Isin (1953 -1717 BCE). Mesopotamia was overrun by the Amorites, during the 19th century BCE, establishing the 1st dynasty in Babylon around 1894 BCE.

There were no new ziggurat and no tall tower being constructed during the time you claimed (2000 BCE) for the existence of the Tower of Babel. To build any tall monument, would required wealth and human resources, which didn’t exist, since the last few rulers of Ur in the 3rd dynasty were weak, and when the last king died, Sumer was in a vacuum for decades until Isin rose in 1953 BCE.

This is why I think Genesis Tower of Babel and your perverted version of Babel never exist, because there were no kingdom in Sumer to build any large monument.

Your own version of Babel, is nothing more than a fiction.

That you keep bringing up the universal language in the nonexistent Tower of Babel, only demonstrated this is just your obsession of nonexistent race of people, the Nephilim.

The word Nephilim had never existed until the 6th century BCE, in Genesis 6. That you would hijacked Nephilim for race of people from 40,000 years ago, demonstrated you are not above plagiarising ideas from Genesis.

 

[YoursTrue]

You don't understand the process of sedimentary rock, you don't understand the process of fossilization and you don't understand the process of dating method of the rocks & fossils.

What exhemist and Astrophile have explained to you, are correct:





The sediments that buried plants and animals, are either sand or mud, or both mixture of both sand & mud, but these sediments don’t turn into rocks immediately.

The transformation of sediments into sedimentary rocks will vary how long it will take, depending on the numbers of conditions, eg how many other different layers of sediments burying on top of the layer where the bodies or plants, how much of the original layer of the sediments are compacted, etc.

It is all the silicate minerals in the sediments that cause sediments to crystallize and solidify.

The 3 most silicate minerals are quartz, feldspar and mica.

So if bodies and plants were buried in layer of sand, then quartz would be the primary mineral to cause the sediments of sand to eventually turn into sandstone.

If mud was the sediments, then clay minerals plus quartz, will turn the sediments into mudrocks. There are number of different types of mudrocks, eg claystone, siltstone, slate, shale, etc.

Now most of description referred to how sediments turn into rocks, and less about organisms would turn into fossils. Those minerals I have mentioned play essential roles in fossilization. So if you want to know more about fossilization, then my reply/post would be lot longer.

If you really to know more about sedimentary rocks, then you really should ask qualified geologists, like @shunyadragon, for instance. shunyadragon is really a geologist, so he will be the one who would really know the process of how sediments would or could turn into rocks.

I did learn geology during my civil engineering course, but I am not a qualified geologist.

Ask shunyadragon if you want to understand the process of sedimentary rocks.

Soil moves.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I stumbled on an example of Darwin getting it wrong while watching a Sir David Attenborough documentary. Darwin said when writing about sexual selection that only male songbirds sing but it turns out that in the majority of songbird species (64%) the female does sing. To be fair to Darwin his statement was correct for the birds of the northern hemisphere, there had been no studies of southern hemisphere songbirds in his time.

I wonder if he had known if it would have changed his thoughts on sexual selection?

I'm reminded of what a genetics instructor said about how fortunate we are that Mendel chose the garden pea as his subject and not some other plant. They are easy to grow, the traits easy to detect and they aren't linked. Making study of them really easy with nice repeatable results.

 

[John53]

I'm reminded of what a genetics instructor said about how fortunate we are that Mendel chose the garden pea as his subject and not some other plant. They are easy to grow, the traits easy to detect and they aren't linked. Making study of them really easy with nice repeatable results.

But did the soil he planted them in move? That might skew the results.