Darwin's Illusion

[YoursTrue]

It's not creationism when everything springs magically from a point and life evolves with no consciousness.

That's what I think, too. Although getting a definition from whatever is going to be a little hard.

 

[YoursTrue]

meantime some people say they have died or doctors (scientists?) say the patient or person has died and these ones claim to have seen things like Jesus, etc. maybe they were conscious although dead? You think?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That is not what I said at all. You should know better.

I don't think it is rude to ask those making such robust claims to provide evidence to support those claims and offer explanations based on known information and existing evidence.

That request seems rather reasonable to me.

 

[cladking]

Don't be so quick to dismiss these empty claims. Perhaps we can expect to see a sound definition and description of consciousness and how it is required for life. I can't wait to see the experiments that show this. Of course, it will be claimed that "all experiments" show this, but I would appreciate a focus on the experiments that deal directly in defining consciousness, showing that it is present in all living things, is required for evolution to take place, etc.

I'm sure it will be fascinating and enlightening.

This isn't how science or language works. You can't even study something until you define it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

meantime some people say they have died or doctors (scientists?) say the patient or person has died and these ones claim to have seen things like Jesus, etc. maybe they were conscious although dead? You think?

Medical doctors are rarely scientists. And in that matter they are well outside of their area of expertise. They may have a better science education that the average person, but I have seen some amazingly bad "science" come from doctors.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't think it is rude to ask those making such robust claims to provide evidence to support those claims and offer explanations based on known information and existing evidence.

That request seems rather reasonable to me.

It was the wording of "survival of the fittest that I objected to. I asked for just a minimal amount of honesty and that could not be provided.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

This isn't how science or language works. You can't even study something until you define it.

You can't define it according to you. Words have infinite meaning, so nothing can be defined and according to you that means nothing can be studied. How convenient.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It was the wording of "survival of the fittest that I objected to. I asked for just a minimal amount of honesty and that could not be provided.

I don't think it is dishonesty so much as ignorance and a belief in pseudoscience that drives the rejection of reality and what a Christian should consider to be God's work.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't think it is dishonesty so much as ignorance and a belief in pseudoscience that drives the rejection of reality and God's creation.

The problem is when using the improper terminology of another that opens them up to the possibility of playing silly word games.

 

[YoursTrue]

That is not what I said at all. You should know better.

Maybe I misunderstood your post above. When you said, "You and @YoursTrue appear to be the only "believers" here right now. You were rude, you demanded an answer. That does not work."

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The problem is when using the improper terminology of another that opens them up to the possibility of playing silly word games.

I agree, but I am pretty sure that possibility has long since materialized into a reality.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Maybe I misunderstood your post above. When you said, "You and @YoursTrue appear to be the only "believers" here right now. You were rude, you demanded an answer. That does not work."

Yes, you misunderstood again. That would be your problem. You were not even following the conversation. @cladking falsely accused those of following the scientific method of being "believers". A false accusation is always rude. I pointed out that the two believers are you and him. He then could not ask a question properly and then made false claims about me not being able to answer the question. That was rude.

 

[YoursTrue]

Medical doctors are rarely scientists. And in that matter they are well outside of their area of expertise. They may have a better science education that the average person, but I have seen some amazingly bad "science" come from doctors.

That's what I was wondering about. re medical doctors and scientists. I SUPPOSE they, the medical doctors, study science, do you think? I have to ask because I am less than a neophyte and want to make sure with you fellows and/or gals that my status is such. I do agree, however, from a less than neophyte position, that the medical profession is a bit way off. In many ways. On the other hand, if I'm sick I will go to a doctor and hope he has the right analysis and remedy for me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's what I was wondering about. re medical doctors and scientists. I SUPPOSE they, the medical doctors, study science, do you think? I have to ask because I am less than a neophyte and want to make sure with you fellows and/or gals that my status is such. I do agree, however, from a less than neophyte position, that the medical profession is a bit way off. In many ways. On the other hand, if I'm sick I will go to a doctor and hope he has the right analysis and remedy for me.

When they go to school the study science. And they do try to keep up once they get their degree. But at best most are very well educated technicians. Scientists are people that work in specific sciences and publish their findings. That is why I am not a scientist. I have some fairly good education in the sciences, and I have continued to learn after school, but I am only a student at best. And as I said I have seen doctors makes some very gross errors, sometimes in their own field. I have never seen a doctor correctly test the concept of Near Death Experiences. Luckily they are too busy at the time trying to save the person involved.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, you misunderstood again. That would be your problem. You were not even following the conversation. @cladking falsely accused those of following the scientific method of being "believers". A false accusation is always rude. I pointed out that the two believers are you and him. He then could not ask a question properly and then made false claims about me not being able to answer the question. That was rude.

so you did say someone was being rude because you decide that person made a false accusation. We "believe" differently, but cladking makes some reasonable (to me) statements that I understand. Meanwhile, what is a "creationist"? Another question, since there are those who claim to be aligned with a religion claiming to be basing their beliefs basically on the Bible, it's probably better to ask them these questions about how evolution and their alignment or association with a religion that claims to be using the Bible as a basis for belief fit in with thoughts about Jesus and what evolution or 'science' says about the future. I'm pretty sure (my speculation) that 'they' won't answer because -- because -- it puts them on the spot.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

When they go to school the study science. And they do try to keep up once they get their degree. But at best most are very well educated technicians. Scientists are people that work in specific sciences and publish their findings. That is why I am not a scientist. I have some fairly good education in the sciences, and I have continued to learn after school, but I am only a student at best. And as I said I have seen doctors makes some very gross errors, sometimes in their own field. I have never seen a doctor correctly test the concept of Near Death Experiences. Luckily they are too busy at the time trying to save the person involved.

I'm curious to know what near death experiences have to do with the theory of evolution? Equally, how applied biology in the form of physicians has to do with the theory. Although, I have no expectation to see a reasonable explanation offered.

 

[cladking]

Yes, you misunderstood again. That would be your problem. You were not even following the conversation. @cladking falsely accused those of following the scientific method of being "believers". A false accusation is always rude. I pointed out that the two believers are you and him. He then could not ask a question properly and then made false claims about me not being able to answer the question. That was rude.

There are people who do science and then there are those who believe in science.

 

[YoursTrue]

When they go to school the study science. And they do try to keep up once they get their degree. But at best most are very well educated technicians. Scientists are people that work in specific sciences and publish their findings. That is why I am not a scientist. I have some fairly good education in the sciences, and I have continued to learn after school, but I am only a student at best. And as I said I have seen doctors makes some very gross errors, sometimes in their own field. I have never seen a doctor correctly test the concept of Near Death Experiences. Luckily they are too busy at the time trying to save the person involved.

Well, there are reports by some that they saw the operation from the ceiling. Do I believe it? shaking my head here -- it's hard to believe -- can I explain it? No. Next time I speak to an anesthesiologist maybe I will ask what he thinks about it if he wondered about it and but I certainly hope the doctor and the anesthesiologist are careful. And get enough sleep beforehand. And do not have shaky hands.

 

[Subduction Zone]

so you did say someone was being rude because you decide that person made a false accusation. We "believe" differently, but cladking makes some reasonable (to me) statements that I understand. Meanwhile, what is a "creationist"? Another question, since there are those who claim to be aligned with a religion claiming to be basing their beliefs basically on the Bible, it's probably better to ask them these questions about how evolution and their alignment or association with a religion that claims to be using the Bible as a basis for belief fit in with thoughts about Jesus and what evolution or 'science' says about the future. I'm pretty sure (my speculation) that 'they' won't answer because -- because -- it puts them on the spot.

No, you clearly do not understand. You still do not know the difference between knowledge and belief. Knowledge is demonstrable. Even if you cannot understand it we know, we can support our claims with facts and evidence. You and @cladking only have beliefs. Neither of you will even learn the scientific method which is the tool that one has to use to demonstrate knowledge in the sciences.

So pointing out that you tow are believers is no more insulting than pointing out that it gets dark at night time.

Perhaps you should learn the concept of non-overlapping magisteria. There are areas that are in the realm of the sciences and there are aerasthat are in the area of religions. When it comes to worldly issues that would be in the realm of the sciences. You will notice that I do not say that "Evolution refutes God". That would be false. Science cannot refute God. But when believers get into areas of the sciences it can tell believers that those beliefs are incorrect.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm curious to know what near death experiences have to do with the theory of evolution? Equally, how applied biology in the form of physicians has to do with the theory. Although, I have no expectation to see a reasonable explanation offered.

I think that was another example of grasping at straws. She has been doing that a lot recently.