YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
whatever. Scientists change their viewpoints from time to time. Bye for now.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Darwin's Illusion
- Thread starter Neuropteron
- Start date
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
You think you can explain it "scientifically" as if it's correct. Naturally you have no proof and even if there is no proof, there still is no proof. See? I know you may object to that. There isn't even what you call evidence of fish eventually somehow becoming (I mean evolving) to become humans. Or chimps. or gorillas.
I don't know how you understood the post to be able to respond. I read it 5 times and still can't work out what she means.
It remains you do not make any sense at all. Again . . . The closest thing to this conundrum is an extreme philosophical Nihilist view of our existence.So what day do you believe midnight falls on?
What I said was logical, apt, and relevant and you call it "incoherent" proving my point. I even predicted it, remember? "Modern language is confused and nobody will parse any of these words as they are intended. Most will see no meaning and few who reply would play word games without addressing the meaning.".
This is the nature of the language of homo omnisciencis and the reason chinese telephone works. It's also the reason science changes one funeral at a time. We perceive we are relaying truth and reality just as we heard them but in fact we each have different beliefs and models. We each perceive our own reality where the earth orbits the sun (it does not) and it is round (it is not) or that it's spherical (it is not unless terms are defined as we perceive our reality). We think we can step into any river but the reality is we and every "river" is continually changing. And then we change the names of rivers to further complicate things.
You can't see this because you'd rather pronounce what someone else says as "incoherent" rather than parse it so it makes sense.
Many people now days believe in science and people who share beliefs and premises have a far easier time of actually communicating. It's still chinese telephone but the message evolves more slowly. Just as a group of rabbis can achieve good communication so too can scientists or believers in science.
I believe you can still understand where Darwin wrong without understanding that language was much of the cause. Your post a few back looked pretty good and contained quite a bit on which we agree. So why do you believe in gradual change that isn't seen and not supported by experiment? I didn't mention it but the concept that there is nothing random is rather extreme and probably unprovable. I'm beginning to suspect it's true but there's only a 50: 50 chance I'm right.
Darwin persay was not right or wrong. He proposed a theory based on limited knowledge that has been overwhelmingly confirmed by science. Gradual change is seen, confirmed repeated observations and supported by many discoveries and an enormous amount of research and many experiments over the past 170 years..
Last edited:
Another of an infinite number of 'Bye for now.' You never been able to respond to the science combined with a lack of knowledge of science, and stonewalling with an extreme religious agenda.
My own best guess about "the beginning of everything" is that all real things exist because what I'll call mass-energy exists ─ though the exact definition of the essential part may need refining ─ and that time, like space, is a property or effect of mass-energy. Thus time exists because mass-energy exists, as opposed to the idea that mass-energy exists within time ─ and thus there is no question of beginnings or endings. Time may be reversible, entail more than one dimension, just as space does, perhaps can pause / stop (relative to other parts of itself).
But as guesses go, this one is remarkable for its purity in that respect.
cladking
Well-Known Member
Perhaps you are unaware that midnight nor noon are AM or PM and that midnight falls between two days.
It's difficult to tell what you know when you refuse to communicate or parse my words as intended.
cladking
Well-Known Member
I guess I understand why believers in science believe as they do but it's less apparent why they act as they do.
Why are they so threatened by creationists and everyone who doesn't believe what they believe as they believe it? I rarely see creationists, scientists, or any others than believers in science become so hostile so often.
gnostic
The Lost One
It seems to me that survival of the fittest refers to those who adapt to their environment and keep living while other species similar to them do not adapt, therefore the species does not survive.
No.
FIRST off, the mechanism that Darwin proposed, about adapting to the environment, is called “Natural Selection”, not “survival of the fittest”.
The “survival of the fittest” isn’t an evolutionary mechanism; it is merely description of what occur with Natural Selection, as Natural Selection explain how the ”changed“ environment can assert selective pressures to populations of species, that reproduce where they would have offspring/descendants with change/beneficial heritable traits.
Which would lead me to the 2nd point…
…SECOND.
What in the hell, do you mean by “keep living”?
Every organisms died...there are no exceptions. Were that simply poor choice of words?
…and, this following isn’t necessarily true, in all conditions…
No, it doesn’t mean species necessarily mean the species that don’t adapt, don’t survive. Those that don’t always mean that species will go extinct.
More often than not, it just mean that species diverged at certain points, with both species thriving in their given environments.
To give 2 examples.
Example 1;
Example 2:
The divergence of different species, don’t always lead to extinct of the parent species, so two or more species can co-exist at the same time in their respective environmental regions. So while your last sentence is only partially correct, “extinction” of species DO NOT ALWAYS occur for every cases and for every conditions, so you are also partially incorrect.
which lead me back to your “keep living”. Every individual organisms for some time, will die. Evolution isn about organisms dying, but about them REPRODUCING in changed environments with physical traits for survival for future generations of changed species.
stop thinking that “survival“ about “death”, but about the abilities to “REPRODUCE”.
No.
FIRST off, the mechanism that Darwin proposed, about adapting to the environment, is called “Natural Selection”, not “survival of the fittest”.
The “survival of the fittest” isn’t an evolutionary mechanism; it is merely description of what occur with Natural Selection, as Natural Selection explain how the ”changed“ environment can assert selective pressures to populations of species, that reproduce where they would have offspring/descendants with change/beneficial heritable traits.
Which would lead me to the 2nd point…
…SECOND.
What in the hell, do you mean by “keep living”?
Every organisms died...there are no exceptions. Were that simply poor choice of words?
…and, this following isn’t necessarily true, in all conditions…
No, it doesn’t mean species necessarily mean the species that don’t adapt, don’t survive. Those that don’t always mean that species will go extinct.
More often than not, it just mean that species diverged at certain points, with both species thriving in their given environments.
To give 2 examples.
Example 1;
During the warmer Pliocene epoch, parts of North America, Europe and Asia continents that were south of the Arctic Circle weren’t covered in ice sheets, so populations of brown bears lived much further north during the Pliocene, with no evidence of polar bears.
Then Pleistocene epoch came where these large regions of the continents periods that lasted tens to hundreds of thousands of years, that alternate through cycles of warm interglacial periods and colder glacial periods where regions were covered in ice sheets.
Some populations of brown bears continued to live in temperate regions, unaffected by ice sheets, so their physical traits have remained unchanged to this day These brown bears continued to hibernate during the cold winter seasons.
But those of populations of brown bears living in regions that now covered in deep ice sheets for ten or hundreds of thousands of years, would experience no spring to autumn seasons during their lifetime and lifetimes of their hundreds or even thousands of generations of descendants, can no longer hibernate as they usually do. Gradually, these brown bears evolved, eventually have distinctive physical traits that of today’s polar bears. These brown bears that adapted to the glacial regions evolved into polar bears.
The brown bears and their sister species, the polar bears, diverged at certain point during the Pleistocene, and continued to live in their respective environments during the Holocene epoch, with polar bears living in polar region, particularly at the Arctic Ocean.
Example 2:
Population of one tortoise species arrived in Galapagos from South America continent at some points in times and inhabited 19 islands. In most of these islands, they adapted to the islands with only minor changes, both large and small tortoises with dome-shaped shells. And in these islands, the highland, were humid, with vegetation low enough for them to reach and to feed upon.
but in couple of islands, the lowland islands were dryer and the more sparse vegetation were higher off the ground, so harder to reach. The selective pressures forced generations of tortoises to find mates with longer necks and longer legs, as well as growing shells that were saddle-shaped that allowed their legs to stretch to full height, and to let their necks crane upright.
The saddle-shelled tortoises are new sister species, living only in the fewer lowland islands.
The divergence of different species, don’t always lead to extinct of the parent species, so two or more species can co-exist at the same time in their respective environmental regions. So while your last sentence is only partially correct, “extinction” of species DO NOT ALWAYS occur for every cases and for every conditions, so you are also partially incorrect.
which lead me back to your “keep living”. Every individual organisms for some time, will die. Evolution isn about organisms dying, but about them REPRODUCING in changed environments with physical traits for survival for future generations of changed species.
stop thinking that “survival“ about “death”, but about the abilities to “REPRODUCE”.
Last edited:
Scientists do not change their viewpoints it remains science.
You unfortunately equate science as a 'belief.' This represents a lack of competance in the English language and an ancient religious agenda without science.
The fundamentalist Creationist beliefs are anti-science, and encourage a negative view of science and history as you do.
Ancient world views concerning scientific knowledge create ignorance, supersticous beliefs and conflict in society from those that reject science.
Last edited:
Very aware of the obvious.
, , , because your efforts at communication is a nonsense word salad in another word gibberish, .
Actually, there are natural events that are unpredictable and unplanned. Random mutations in the sense that they are not predictable and unplanned still exist.
However, I think it was a great post and great article. I have been missing out by not keeping up with your posts. You are bringing your A game to these threads. It is posts like yours that I think the thread needs to establish an invigorated level of discussion with something valuable to discuss.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
The problem is that I used to believe almost everything "science" taught me. By that I mean especially evolution in school. Yes, it was rudimentary but I did well and learned my lessons, never questioning it. But then -- but then -- later I began to delve more into the question of evolution and decided it just wasn't what it claimed to be.
You have no knowledge of science and reject science. You have no basis to understand science as to whether you 'should reject or accept anything about the basic sciences of Biology, Geology, Physics and Chemistry.
By that I mean especially evolution in school. Yes, it was rudimentary but I did well and learned my lessons, never questioning it. But then -- but then -- later I began to delve more into the question of evolution and decided it just wasn't what it claimed to be.
. . .because of your ancient religious agenda aginst evolution. You have demonstrated no knowledge of the basics if any science including the sciences of evolution.
I thought you said 'Bye' for the thousandth time.
cladking
Well-Known Member
I was lucky that I never did believe in science. I was naturally skeptical and my teachers encouraged it further. It might have been a little harder to learn it when I doubted everything but I became quite proficient anyway and have a knack for experiment design and invention. Of course over the years I have forgotten a lot of it. Since I now have different premises and was never extremely strong at theory anyway it's of little consequence. As a metaphysician it's more important to work on how things are known than what is known.The problem is that I used to believe almost everything "science" taught me. By that I mean especially evolution in school. Yes, it was rudimentary but I did well and learned my lessons, never questioning it. But then -- but then -- later I began to delve more into the question of evolution and decided it just wasn't what it claimed to be.
It's not just Evolution that is more words than theory but most of archaeology as well as most of the soft sciences. Indeed, most of what is being taught in colleges today will not be in 100 years. We have easy answers to many things that are more akin to explanation than understanding. Entire fields of science are based on assumptions derived from language and what mustta been real.
Of course there's also a great deal of reality expressed in science because real science derives from real experiment which provide a snapshot of reality. Just because the framework of reductionistic science is wrong hardly means every piece of it is wrong. But, yes, Darwin is completely wrong.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
:
That put a smile on my face. I can't say I never believed in it, I learned my classes and passed well on tests, not questioning evolution because I had no real reason to.I was trained in the arts and so that is where my main scholastic focus was. I have nothing against looking through a telescope, finding amazing sights, working with chemicals. As I continued to learn about the theory of evolution more substantially despite my rudimentary use of descriptive terms, I realize there are missing parts of the theory and I see no link as if the missing parts are subjectively there. The implications are without evidence, and without proof. Glad to see that you see that too.
cladking
Well-Known Member
No. No. & no.
Science is based on experiment which are used (properly) to create models. When you apply such models to your understanding and perception you are doing it right. When you read books and accept what you read as gospel you are a believer in science.
You're going to lecture me about English!
There was no ancient religion. This is a confusion that arose at (and because of) the tower of babel.
Truth is my only agenda. Ironically I might be the only member of our species (homo omnisciencis) that might be wrong.
I do not consider intentional ignorance a tragedy of clinging to an ancient religious agenda without science,
Yes, yes and again yes. There is no legitimate excuse for your intentional ignorance and Nihilist rejection of reality.