Darwin's Illusion

[Audie]

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

Yes, Ive heard soil shifts.
Whh, the mere mention of it throws
not just genetics but deep time geology and the
Theory of Evolution into chaos!

 

[Audie]

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.

Did you notice he falsified his results?

 

[YoursTrue]

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

Sad. That's why there really is no discussion with some...dust to dust...

 

[gnostic]

Soil moves.

Can you be more specific in what way(s) soil move?

Or give an example as to what you meant by this.

 

[Astrophile]

Soil moves.

Soil may move, but that doesn't change the fact that fossils found in sedimentary rocks that rest on one layer of volcanic rock and are overlain by another layer of volcanic rock must be younger than the underlying volcanic rock and older than the overlying volcanic rock. If the volcanic rocks can be dated radiometrically, geologists have an age range for the intervening sedimentary rocks and their fossils.

 

[cladking]

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.

The difference here is that I'm trying to explain what's real, what actually exists, in terms that include all evidence and all human knowledge while you're fixated on words like "Nephilim", "metaphysics", and "empirical evidence". You're trying to explain what's known in terms of what the giants of the past have laid down and my only touchstone in coherency. You don't believe in Nephilim or the tower of babel so you simply dismiss them as mere words but in reality everything that exists is evidence. You don't believe species change at bottlenecks even though selective breeding is for every intent and purpose exactly that. You don't believe homo sapiens are extinct so you ignore the widespread evidence that they are.

You simply dismiss the fact that ancient people believed in Nephilim and the tower of babel as the musings of the sun addled. You dismiss everything in the Bible and in ancient writing not as though it never existed but as though even the story doesn't exist so needs no explanation. You dismiss every fact I cite and will not respond to anything in this post except to gainsay it or handwave it.

If as Darwin avers speciation is gradual and results from survival of the fittest then how do you explain the existence of dogs? If it were true that ancient people were ignorant and superstitious then how do you explain the fact they invented agriculture? If it were true that there was no speciation event at the tower of babel then why is everything that preceded this forgotten and why did history begin at this time?

If science is always right then why does it change one funeral at a time?


The story of babel is real and has known roots as far back as 1800 BC shortly after our species emerged. Why do you think they invented this story instead of another? Why should I or anyone believe your gainsaying rather than another explanation?

It is just most telling that the most learned men and scholars right up through and including Sir Isaac Newton believed the ancients were powerful and wise but since the 19th century they have been ignorant and superstitious bumpkins. They could not have been both.

 

[cladking]

Fossils can form in a virtually infinite number of ways. In most cases there is virtually none of the original individual existing in it. The living thing and its constituent parts are replaced by chemicals.

"Fossil" has a very wide definition now days.

 

[cladking]

virtually infinite

I've been accused of having my own language so I'll define this.

There's no such thing as "infinity" in reality. This is an abstraction created by trying to divide by zero. This problem is rampant in cosmology and has given rise to the believe that there are an infinite number of pyramids made with an infinite number of ramps whose constituent parts all arose from nothing. This nothing is actually a point that is defined as having no space. It has no dimension in our metaphysics.

In reality all things affect all other things and is a series of events each dependent on every event that ever occurred since the unknown beginning. The odds against anything at all occurring is a number that is far greater than "infinite". But we use "infinity" as a sort of catchphrase to explain our magical beliefs so people are appalled when I point out things like you'd need 42 x 10 ^ 806,999 monkeys and typewriters to get a readable copy of "War and Peace". Imagine the odds against the existence of Tolstoy.

If you flip a coin a million times having it come up heads each time is just as likely as any other result. Yet every time you do it you get some result.

"Virtually infinite" is a little metaphysical jab at those who believe "math" is some kind of magic that can be used to understand reality. Just think of it as "infinity" if that helps; hence why I call it "virtually infinite". For all practical purposes it is virtually infinite. Inscrutable isn't it? Or should I now define "inscrutable".

I am not using words in ways that can't be parsed. I am making statements, tautologies, and observations that people refuse to believe so they are invisible. We each only see what we believe so my words are being parsed other than I intend. Even what is clearly understood will be gainsaid and ignored. Instead of addressing the point the words will be manipulated.

 

[gnostic]

The difference here is that I'm trying to explain what's real, what actually exists, in terms that include all evidence and all human knowledge while you're fixated on words like "Nephilim", "metaphysics", and "empirical evidence". You're trying to explain what's known in terms of what the giants of the past have laid down and my only touchstone in coherency. You don't believe in Nephilim or the tower of babel so you simply dismiss them as mere words but in reality everything that exists is evidence. You don't believe species change at bottlenecks even though selective breeding is for every intent and purpose exactly that. You don't believe homo sapiens are extinct so you ignore the widespread evidence that they are.

No, the Tower of Babel and the Nephilm simply don't exist, except as myths.

That you would use religious constructs of Genesis to create your fictional 40,000-year-old civilisation, only confirm you have long since jump into the rabbit hole, and you are not going to come out of your deluded fantasy.

Don't tell me what I do or don't understand the Bible. A number of things are certain, the Bible I used to believe, I have come to realize most of them are not history, especially from creation of Adam to King Solomon, and another is that there are no values in Genesis in the science department.

But that's not my problem.

Quite frankly, I am tired of your absurdities and your utter dishonesty.

The dishonesty comes from your use of misinformation. Not only you have misuse and misrepresent science and history, you have also done the same with this nonexistent metaphysical language. Even with religion, you cannot stop deliberately misinterpreting them.

 

[cladking]

You dismiss every fact I cite and will not respond to anything in this post except to gainsay it or handwave it.

Now you have dismissed, handwaved, and gainsaid almost everything in the post and adding insult. These are mere tactics rather than argument. I said there's some reason they said what they said and you called me a liar. You are essentially calling every ancient person a liar as well by suggesting there was no reason to invent the stories they invented.

How do you know there were no Nephilim. There's no point in using a question mark because no believer will respond to any direct question will they. Question marks take more bandwidth so are a waste of perfectly good electrons, don't you agree. Why go to a lot of trouble asking questions for which you ignore. Do you have some complete history of every individual from 2000 BC to 1200 BC and their occupations and not one was a metaphysician, a scientist, or a Nephilim. How do you think a "Nephilim" was identified on your list or your total knowledge. Homo omnisciencis.

If you continue with your current tactics I'll have to put you back on "ignore".

 

[cladking]

Even with religion, you cannot stop deliberately misinterpreting them.

There is a reason I keep pointing out the premises and assumptions that have been pointed out many times. Our species can only reason in circles. Darwin made many false assumptions and you assume the same things.

Darwin believed that humans have evolved for tens of thousands of years and I believe our species arose at the tower of babel. Darwin took his beliefs as faith whereas I merely started with an assumption that is very very radical in this day and age; I assume everyone has always made sense in terms of his premises. You assume those who disagree with you are deluded or liars.

Religious people aren't confused, ignorant, or stupid. It looks to me as though many of their beliefs are more accurate than yours or Darwin's. You can preach your scientific dogma at me or religious people until cows return to their natural state and you'll still be wrong and you still won't acknowledge your premises or how modern beliefs arose.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Soil moves.

Layered sediments show whether they have moved or not.

Learn the difference.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Now you have dismissed, handwaved, and gainsaid almost everything in the post and adding insult. These are mere tactics rather than argument. I said there's some reason they said what they said and you called me a liar. You are essentially calling every ancient person a liar as well by suggesting there was no reason to invent the stories they invented.

How do you know there were no Nephilim. There's no point in using a question mark because no believer will respond to any direct question will they. Question marks take more bandwidth so are a waste of perfectly good electrons, don't you agree. Why go to a lot of trouble asking questions for which you ignore. Do you have some complete history of every individual from 2000 BC to 1200 BC and their occupations and not one was a metaphysician, a scientist, or a Nephilim. How do you think a "Nephilim" was identified on your list or your total knowledge. Homo omnisciencis.

If you continue with your current tactics I'll have to put you back on "ignore".

Interesting. Since you are responding to yourself again, and putting yourself on ignore is probably your wisest strategy ever I am not sure if you can do it.

 

[cladking]

If you flip a coin a million times having it come up heads each time is just as likely as any other result. Yet every time you do it you get some result.

Every result of a million coin flips is exactly equally improbable. Yet reality is countless septillions of orders of magnitude more improbable and getting virtually infinitely more improbable with every single passing moment. I'd use an exclamation mark but the statement will still be invisible to believers in science and infinity. We are each too busy believing we have not only the formatting of reality clearly understood but even the details. No matter there are no prophets, seers, or prognosticators because we each know what today will bring anyway since we are blessed with omniscience.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Did you notice he falsified his results?

I've heard, but that was Fisher. What's he know? Master statistician and one of the founders of population biology. Or so he says.

I have read works for and against the claim.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Interesting. Since you are responding to yourself again, and putting yourself on ignore is probably your wisest strategy ever I am not sure if you can do it.

Did you know that Darwin's assumptions have held up? That all evidence from observation and experiment show that change in living things isn't sudden and that our species, Homo sapiens, has existed for nearly 300,000 years?

Believers that know everything can't see this apparently. All they can do is post weird fan fiction versions of reality that are not supported by evidence, logic or reason.

 

[Audie]

I've heard, but that was Fisher. What's he know? Master statistician and one of the founders of population biology. Or so he says.

I have read works for and against the claim.

I mostly remember in school the thimking his resuilts
looked too good.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Hypothetically, let us say that the population of standard poodles numbers 5 million in the world. I own 10 of those that I keep for a breeding program. Artificially selecting them for some novel trait I think will be useful or pleasing to other people does not meet the definition of genetic bottleneck and is not a speciation event. The offspring that are derived from my poodle breeding are still poodles, still dogs, even if they have a novel trait. They can still breed with other dogs. The entire population of poodles still exists and has not crashed to my 10 with only their diversity available.

Arbitrarily trying to rebrand defined terms to mean something else isn't sound communication or science. Especially when you redefine them to name conditions that are not known to exist through observation, experiment or any evidence from those activities.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Taxonomy is not the arbitrary naming or renaming of species on a whim. It is a serious science where practitioners labor intensely to examine, compare and define species based on the evidence of morphology, ecology and genetics. It seems rather insulting to see someone pretend that all one has to do is make up a name and speciation has taken place.

 

[YoursTrue]

Soil may move, but that doesn't change the fact that fossils found in sedimentary rocks that rest on one layer of volcanic rock and are overlain by another layer of volcanic rock must be younger than the underlying volcanic rock and older than the overlying volcanic rock. If the volcanic rocks can be dated radiometrically, geologists have an age range for the intervening sedimentary rocks and their fossils.

Again, soil can be tumultuously moved, and layers do not prove the age of a fossil. That does not mean, however, that the fossil is not very old.