Darwin's Illusion

[gnostic]

Darwin's theory of natural selection and evolution, indirectly came from observing human selection and the evolution of domesticated species. This had been in practice since before the dawn of civilization.

Instead of natural selection, human selection for breeding plants and animals was based on humans using various selection criteria, important to humans, such as plant and animal health and vigor, and best food production. The modern farmer, for example, uses the same biological sciences as the evolutionist to create rapid tailored changes in plant and animal breeds; divine approach.

Darwin's theory came about by traveling to the Galápagos Islands, which was a place humans had not done much in the way of human selection. This was unlike England, where the entire island hand been deforested by man at one time or another, and thereby its steady state was not fully natural. Many natural species were made extinct and with England a world empire, plants and animals had been brought there from all over the world. It was not an original natural environment to use as a control.

In the raw and natural Galapagos Islands, species lasted longer and the varieties seemed to reach a type of slow natural steady state, due to no human intervention. This unique type of environment was deemed the product of natural selection, instead of manmade selection, although the basic mechanics were the same.

Manmade selection, which was very common all over the world, did not contradict the Bible, even though it was based on and used science of the day, to make it better and more efficient. The Bible said that man was put in charge of the plants and animals of the world. So even if we assume Noah's Ark was where all the root animals appear, manmade selection, from just those animals was not a contraction, since manmade selection resulted in very rapid changes. For example, nearly all dogs come from wolves, with now 450 recognized dogs breed worldwide, most in the last 100 years. We do not see this speed in nature.

Darwin's theory of natural selection, in the light of Galapagos, showed that natural selection was much slower and far more conservative, since it did not make use of manmade subjective criteria, like fur color, as the main selection choice; black cat. Natural selection had the impact of expanding the time scale, for life, which did contradict the Bible dating.

Natural selection is why science uses the slow boat approach to evolution. But manmade came first, in terms of using applied science, with human will and choice able to meet the biblical time table by its own actions. Manmade selection can improve nature in both quality and speed. But it also had a pitfall since humans do not select nature based on thinking that can integrate nature in 3-D. This is why we can go faster but create other problems. Nature has more variables to include for each integrated selection, so it is slower.

One of the ironies is natural selection and Mother Nature is sort of a mythological addendum added to science, since it appeals to a Pagan spirits of nature. Manmade selection was more about human will and choice which, which was less mythological than Mother Nature and natural selection. Mother Nature still makes use of the whims of the gods; casino math. But this could be due to choices not always fully integrated with the bigger picture that is not easy to see in 2-D.

Well, that a whole boatload of misinformation.

How about actually reading up what Evolution say about Natural Selection, instead of making up BS about “pagan spirits of nature”.

And if you really wanted talk about myths, then look at Genesis 2 different versions of creation, which also included dust-magically-turning-into-man, or the fable of “talking” snake, or how god created day and night before there the sun was created.

And I have already told you, it is called “Selective Breeding” or “Artificial Selection”, not “Human Selection”.

Get it right, next time.

 

[cladking]

And second, science concern with evidence, not about what people “believe” or “don’t believe” about Evolution.

Why don't you show me a single case in which "evidence" created theory? In the real world only experiment, however loosely defined, creates theory. Evidence leads to hypothesis.

This is simple metaphysics but Darwin put the cart before the horse.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This thread is about the criticism against Evolution, the “Darwin’s illusion”, not your obsession with pyramid building in Egypt. I don’t care if they used funiculars or ramps to move heavy blocks of stones.

Nothing about Natural Selection or other evolutionary mechanisms have anything to do with pyramid-building. This isn’t an engineering thread, but about natural processes of changes in biology, so I don’t give a bloody crap about this “ramp” vs “funicular” crap.

And second, science concern with evidence, not about what people “believe” or “don’t believe” about Evolution.

Natural Sciences (including physics, chemistry, Earth science, astronomy, not just biology) don’t run on belief or your “like” or “dislike” about Evolution.

These dislikes of yours and your (incorrect) belief about Evolution, don’t matter at all, because they are merely your personal opinionated biases, nothing more, nothing less.

You have shown no evidence whatsoever about your beliefs/claims. And you have cited no peer-reviewed sources.

Besides we showed his funicular story was wrong. Everyone knows that they used turbo encabulators.

Spoiler

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why don't you show me a single case in which "evidence" created theory? In the real world only experiment, however loosely defined, creates theory. Evidence leads to hypothesis.

This is simple metaphysics but Darwin put the cart before the horse.

Experiments produce evidence. It is the evidence that the theory is based upon.

We could go over the scientific method again if you like.

 

[cladking]

Natural Sciences (including physics, chemistry, Earth science, astronomy, not just biology) don’t run on belief or your “like” or “dislike” about Evolution.

I hate to be the one to break this to you but for most practical purposes "science" is a metaphysic AND a perspective on all of reality with paradigms that intertwine. It's like a fabric that fails as soon as threads begin to unravel.

It can be repaired but until it is the king is effectively naked and should really quit taking bows.

 

[gnostic]

If you actually tried thinking about it the nature of modern science and why it works is pretty easily understood. Metaphysics isn't hard.

No, Metaphysics is antiquated philosophy, not science.

It have their uses in science, prior to the scientific method, but it is outdated and often misused and wrong.

Second, evidence, experiments and tests are essential requirements for Metaphysics, again, make Metaphysics not “science”.

And there were no Metaphysics, 40,000 years ago, as there were no written languages to postulate anything remotely “metaphysics”.

You continue to make up claims about nonexistent and nonsensical beliefs, which is more akin to alien abductions, telepathy, faith-healing, fairytale, etc.

 

[gnostic]

I hate to be the one to break this to you but for most practical purposes "science" is a metaphysic AND a perspective on all of reality with paradigms that intertwine. It's like a fabric that fails as soon as threads begin to unravel.

It can be repaired but until it is the king is effectively naked and should really quit taking bows.

By all means, cladking, quit if you want to...or put on so clothes.

How is that you are the only one who believe in this crazy 40,000 years old metaphysics?

 

[cladking]

No, Metaphysics is antiquated philosophy, not science.

I've typed out long essays for you numerous times defining in fine detail what I mean by metaphysics (basis of science).

You simply refuse to even talk about the same subject (basis of science) and instead claim only your definitions have any meaning!!! And you can't even understand why that last sentence got three exclamation marks. You simply deny that science has any basis at all and it works because Peers say it works and so long as we all believe in Peers and their omniscience that the internet will work and the supply lines will fill and overflow. It would never occur to you that science is all interconnected as is reality and that while reality needs no scorecard science uses paradigms to interpret it all because life is consciousness and all understanding must occur to individuals.

You believe in magical things like the certainty of science and the constancy, immutability, and knowledge of the "Laws of Nature".

You don't understand the simplest highly observable truths that all men are a product of their time and place. and those separated by long epochs or distance can't communicate even if they shared a language while also ignoring the fact that there are already seven billion different languages and you can't use a word or parse any sentence containing the word meaning "the basis of science"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You still believe I'm religious and my faith is clouding my judgement even though I've said repeatedly that I have no beliefs. You refuse to discuss Darwin's illusions or anything any benighted Christian says. You gainsay, lecture, and play word games instead. It would never occur to you that these benighted people are making much better arguments than most, if not all, of the believers in science.

Believe it or not science is merely a tool. It is not Truth, Justice, and the American Way. It is a tool that is sometimes used improperly and it is a tool every individual understands differently because every individual is conscious and every individual must build models to function at all.

 

[cladking]

How is that you are the only one who believe in this crazy 40,000 years old metaphysics?

You probably got a good question by mere chance.

Ancient science is solely dependent on logic and Ancient Language was completely logical. Homo omnisciencis must parse sentences to extract meaning but there is no meaning in AL if it is parsed. AL was logical and it was metaphysical so served as the means by which science worked. Everyone else is parsing the ancient writing so they can't see the meaning.

Our languages are confusions and abstractions which all have no meaning at all until they are parsed. We see what we believe so modern science is dependent solely on experiment to work.

ancient science metaphysics was Observation > Logic.
our metaphysics is Observation > Experiment.

Look and See Science is Observation > Confusion.

 

[gnostic]

I've typed out long essays for you numerous times defining in fine detail what I mean by metaphysics (basis of science).

And I have told you numerous times that “basis of science” isn’t science.

The Natural Philosophy that was started by the ancient Greeks of the late Archaic period, predated the Metaphysics of Aristotle by several hundred years.

There were no “metaphysics” 40,000 years ago, as there were no writings 5500 years ago.

The earliest primitive forms of Sumerian cuneiform and Egyptian hieroglyphs started after 5500 years ago or after 3500 BCE; “primitive” as in crude, that were called “proto-Egyptian” hieroglyphs and “proto-Sumerian” cuneiform.

But more recognisable “Egyptian” hieroglyphs and “Sumerian” cuneiform didn’t appear until around 3100 BCE, getting more refined as time passed. Around this time (3100 BCE), Egyptian hieratic was developed.

So, there were already more than 2 written languages being used by 2 separate nations throughout the 3rd millennium BCE, as well as multiple spoken languages in the ancient Near East.

The Sumerians wrote of people speaking different languages to their, like the Semitic people from Syria, the Amorites and the Akkadians who migrated to central Sumer who founded the city Akkad or Agade around 2400 BCE, before Sargon the Great (c 2334 - 2279 BCE) brought forth the Akkadian dynasty and empire, as well as adopting Sumerian cuneiform for their Semitic Akkadian language. In the east, were the Elamites in the Iranian

The Akkadian language would later be the root language of Old Babylonian and Old Assyrian (both spoken & written) languages that flourished in the next 1.5 thousand years (2nd & 1st millennia BCE).

The points being that there were no metaphysical or scientific treatises before the 2nd millennium BCE, and certainly nothing before the any written languages.

The other points there were multiple languages spoken prior to 2000 BCE of your nonexistent Tower of Babel. Babel is pure myth, written in the 6th century BCE, not 2000 BCE.

You are still making up bs claims about “single” spoken/written language prior to Tower of Babel, and about metaphysics existing as early as 40,000 languages. You need evidence to support your claims, not confirmation bias and your circular reasoning to support your deluded fantasies of Nephilim.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I hate to be the one to break this to you but for most practical purposes "science" is a metaphysic AND a perspective on all of reality with paradigms that intertwine. It's like a fabric that fails as soon as threads begin to unravel.

It can be repaired but until it is the king is effectively naked and should really quit taking bows.

Sorry, but one does not get to make one's own private definitions of words. That is one of the main reasons that your arguments fail.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I hate to be the one to break this to you but for most practical purposes "science" is a metaphysic AND a perspective on all of reality with paradigms that intertwine. It's like a fabric that fails as soon as threads begin to unravel.

It can be repaired but until it is the king is effectively naked and should really quit taking bows.

Really? I have not seen any demonstration of such unraveling. All I have seen have been refuted arguments repeated ad nauseum and no supporting evidence from you.

 

[cladking]

The Natural Philosophy that was started by the ancient Greeks of the late Archaic period, predated the Metaphysics of Aristotle by several hundred years.

OMG!!! We've been through this before. Aristotle had no science and no metaphysics. If the word means "basis of science" then with no science there is no metaphysics.

Why do you refuse to parse the word as intended?

There were no “metaphysics” 40,000 years ago, as there were no writings 5500 years ago.

Again you are wrong and again you will not address your wrongness or acknowledge evidence.

The points being that there were no metaphysical or scientific treatises before the 2nd millennium BCE, and certainly nothing before the any written languages.

As I've said numerous times ancient people didn't think or communicate like us. It is exactly this difference that caused speciation giving rise to homo omnisciencis. They didn't write any scientific papers, they communicated in a metaphysical language.

Babel is pure myth, written in the 6th century BCE, not 2000 BCE.

As I've shown before the story of babel dates far back into the Sumerian language. It's at least ~1800 BC. But of course in our hubris we never believe words chiseled into stone or etched into clay!!!



Metaphysics includes all experiment as I've told you many times before. Therefore it is more "science" than even science.

You believe in Look and See Science and its red headed step child; soup of the day science. If you could understand that metaphysics has a definition then you probably would not.

I wager you still don't understand the meaning of the word "paradigm" either. It would probably never occur to you that experiment typically can be interpreted in numerous ways because you believe there is no reality other than the one modeled by Peers that you believe you understand. Suffice to say you can't understand models without understanding experiment.

 

[cladking]

Sorry, but one does not get to make one's own private definitions of words. That is one of the main reasons that your arguments fail.

As said by the same guy who claims scientific words have only one meaning and thinks theory is based on evidence as determined by Peers.

The same guy who won't address any argument but gainsays whatever he disagrees with and then plays word games.

You give up word games and I'll find a less precise word for "metaphysics" such as "epistemology".

 

[Subduction Zone]

As said by the same guy who claims scientific words have only one meaning and thinks theory is based on evidence as determined by Peers.

The same guy who won't address any argument but gainsays whatever he disagrees with and then plays word games.

You give up word games and I'll find a less precise word for "metaphysics" such as "epistemology".

That is inaccurate. Some scientific terms have one meaning. That does not necessarily mean all of them do. In the sciences evidence is very well defined. And theories are based upon evidence. but where do you get the idea that they are "determined by Peers". Sorry but there is no board that sits and decides what is and what is not a theory. After a while one can state that something is a well accepted theory based upon thee percentage that accept the idea. And I would say that a theory that is accepted by over 99% of the scientists in that field as extraordinarily well accepted.

It would make the debate a bit more interesting if you could get just one basic fact straight.

 

[cladking]

Some scientific terms have one meaning.

You can't cite one though.

In the sciences evidence is very well defined.

"Evidence" is dependent on the paradigm. Any scientist looking at a bunch of whale fossils will see it as evidence that the whale is slowly evolving into a fully aquatic species. But this is caused by the fact they all share assumptions. There is a 100,000 ton water tight structure surrounding the Great Pyramid but every Egyptologist will tell you that it is evidence of a "holy precinct" around the king's grave. That it could have held hundreds of acre feet of water is not evidence despite the fact that there is water erosion leading away from it. This just goes on and on. People see what we expect. We don't see what's in front of us and this is why Look and See science is a confusion of reality. We pick and choose what we see and then we pick and choose what is relevant and what can be dismissed. Missing links are dismissed. The lack of experimental evidence for gradual change in species is dismissed. What dismiss what we see despite our beliefs.

but where do you get the idea that they are "determined by Peers".

You yourself have said several times that Peer review is part of the scientific method. I'm not the one who believes the opinion of Peers matter to science.

After a while one can state that something is a well accepted theory based upon thee percentage that accept the idea.

And here you say it again. Despite the fact that history has shown many times that every single peer is wrong. But now day Peers are the High Priests of Science who define reality itself. Education has failed.

"Accepted theory" is fine but opinions and state of the art are never the final word. The final word will always be made by experiment and "prophesy".

And I would say that a theory that is accepted by over 99% of the scientists in that field as extraordinarily well accepted.

Historically the higher the agreement the more likely they are to all be wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You can't cite one though.

You know that you can edit your post for a while and on one will even know that you made the gross error of ignoring the example given in the very next paragraph. Too late now.

"Evidence" is dependent on the paradigm. Any scientist looking at a bunch of whale fossils will see it as evidence that the whale is slowly evolving into a fully aquatic species. But this is caused by the fact they all share assumptions. There is a 100,000 ton water tight structure surrounding the Great Pyramid but every Egyptologist will tell you that it is evidence of a "holy precinct" around the king's grave. That it could have held hundreds of acre feet of water is not evidence despite the fact that there is water erosion leading away from it. This just goes on and on. People see what we expect. We don't see what's in front of us and this is why Look and See science is a confusion of reality. We pick and choose what we see and then we pick and choose what is relevant and what can be dismissed. Missing links are dismissed. The lack of experimental evidence for gradual change in species is dismissed. What dismiss what we see despite our beliefs.

Not true. Evidence is dependent upon the propose hypothesis. But then since you are unwilling to discuss the nature of evidence it is no wonder that you got that wrong.

You yourself have said several times that Peer review is part of the scientific method. I'm not the one who believes the opinion of Peers matter to science.

Not "Peer review" "peer review". No need for the upper case letter. And yes it is. So what? That does not support your claim. In a peer reviewed article all that is verified are gross errors and making sure that one properly detailed one's observations and methodology. It is not refuted at that time. What then happens is that others try to reproduce the results or check the work supplied for errors. Science works as a problem solving method because there are always quite a few people willing to try to demonstrate that someone else is wrong. Over time ideas are either affirmed by others or refuted. No panel sits and decides who is right and who is wrong. Everyone has to show all of their work and it has to hold up when others check it.

And here you say it again. Despite the fact that history has shown many times that every single peer is wrong. But now day Peers are the High Priests of Science who define reality itself. Education has failed.

This is simply false. Now at times you might be able to say at time A this scientist was wrong. You are making the error or assuming that because no one is always right that they are never right. The computer that you are using refutes that false belief.

"Accepted theory" is fine but opinions and state of the art are never the final word. The final word will always be made by experiment and "prophesy".

Yes, theories are always being fine tuned. So what? That does not mean that next Tuesday round rocks will fall while square ones will float.

Historically the higher the agreement the more likely they are to all be wrong.

Citation needed. To me it appears to be the exact opposite. But go ahead. Find a reliable source that says that about scientific discoveries.

 

[gnostic]

As I've shown before the story of babel dates far back into the Sumerian language. It's at least ~1800 BC. But of course in our hubris we never believe words chiseled into stone or etched into clay!!!

Old Babylonian spoken and written language may date back to 1800 BCE, but you are completely ignoring that the earliest Sumerian cuneiform go back as far as 3300 BCE, at some of the oldest temples in the Eanna district at Uruk.

A couple of centuries later, a mud bricks building was discovered in a small town near the important Sumerian city Kish, called Jemdet Nasr. This building contained room full of clay tablets written in proto-cuneiform.

So for you to say, that Sumerian language started in 1800 BCE, just showed how out of touch you are, outdated in your knowledge about Sumerian history.

Sumerian cuneiform was popular enough that the Semitic people who migrated into central Sumer, used the same cuneiform for their Akkadian language, from 24th century to 22nd century BCE.

The 1st dynasty of Babylon, were Amorites, also Semitic people, which lasted from 1894 to 1595 BCE, spoke a language that was derived from the earlier Akkadian language and still used Sumerian cuneiform as their writing system.

You seriously need to brush up on history, because you are only seeing and believing what you want to see and believe. You are not objective enough to examine evidence, let alone interpret them.

Again you are wrong and again you will not address your wrongness or acknowledge evidence.

As I've said numerous times ancient people didn't think or communicate like us. It is exactly this difference that caused speciation giving rise to homo omnisciencis. They didn't write any scientific papers, they communicated in a metaphysical language.

As to that stupid doodle you keep posting up, you cannot say it is metaphysics, when you cannot even translate as to what they mean.

You are making up this been a “metaphysical language”, when you have no way to determine what they originally mean.

You are still making claims up, based on your deluded fantasy without supporting evidence.

First, provide translation, then and only then you say what they mean. Otherwise they are just your unsubstantiated deluded theory.

Beside that, I know for fact, that you cannot read any language other than English, so can you possibly know it is a metaphysical language? How do you know it is logical without being able to read these symbols?

Why do you think no one here, can take your so-called theory seriously?

It is not that they don’t understand you, that’s not it. They understand that what you say are just pseudoscience, pseudo-archaeology and pseudo-philology garbage.

You are like Graham Hancock and Immanuel Velikovsky, making up all sorts of garbage just to sell books just for the sake of being “controversial”...except that you are not selling books.

 

[gnostic]

Believe it or not science is merely a tool. It is not Truth, Justice, and the American Way.

Now that absurd things to say, on so many levels.

It is obvious that you are sarcastic.

For one, sciences are not owned by one nation. There are no “American Way”.

For another, sciences are only concerned with models that are “probable”, and the only way for that to happen, if the model is backed by evidence...the more evidence supporting the model, the more probable is the model.

That would mean the model has been verified as being factual. Sciences only accept model that are probable and verified, sciences are not about the “Truth”, but about seeking verified information, hence observable and tested facts.

Justice is related to laws, in either criminal or civil cases. Sciences have nothing to do with legal system and court of law, let alone an American system.

And lastly...what make you think I’m an “American”?

Do you always make up and use a strawman argument so that you can attack it?

 

[Firelight]

In different branches, fields and subfields of works and education/studies, they have they may use the same words, but each word may have different contexts.

Meaning these branches and fields disciplines will have their own terms that mean different things to other disciplines.

While people who work as judges or lawyers will have their own terms and vocabulary that have different meanings than those in natural sciences, computer sciences, engineering, medicine, business.

So if you are going to argue with someone about sciences, for or against, at the very least you can do

While judges, lawyers, politicians and everyone else who may have little to no education in science, they will use evidence and proof as synonymous - meaning they mean the same things.

But this is "Science and Religion" forum with threads/subjects about science and religions, this is not a "Law and Religion" forum with science and religions threads/subjects.

To both scientists and mathematicians, proof and evidence are not synonymous, they have different meanings and they have different purposes. So proof and evidence are not the same in the worlds of science and mathematics.

If you are going to argue for or against physics, chemistry, geology, astronomy or biology - all of which belonged to "Natural Science", then you will have to learn the distinctions

• between proof & evidence,
  
• between hypothesis & theory & theoretical model
• between scientific observation and all other meanings of observations

You would know of these terms as they are used in sciences, if you have studied sciences or worked in the fields relating to sciences.

Have you ever study science or worked in the field?

If you have, you should've known the differences between proof and science, and none of us would be having this discussion with you.

But because you have said "Proof is evidence", I don't think you have study or work in science-related field.

The differences between the two, are the following:

• Proof is abstract logical modeling, and in sciences and maths, most often expressed as mathematical models, like EQUATIONS, with combination of CONSTANTS, VARIABLE & NUMBERS;
• ...while evidence are physical, required observations to get information about the evidence, eg information like quantities, measurements, can be recorded using devices or instruments.

While mathematical equations (proofs) are useful in sciences, they don't determine which hypothesis "is science" or "is not science". What determine science or not, are observable & testable physical evidence.

Observations and testings are important parts to sciences. And observation and testings can only be achieve through evidence - discoveries of evidence - not proof or mathematical equations.

And the droning-on is proven. Instead of droning on with a boring explanation I’m not going to read, why not provide the short definition of proof and evidence as provided in a credible science book?

The definition I provided is a general definition, non-specific to any field of study. It is an understood term and definition in the English language.