Darwin's Illusion

[blü 2]

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

You really really really don't want to read up on what the modern theory of evolution actually says, do you.

Still, to be fair to your point of view, it is much easier to make stuff up than to be forced to think.

 

[shunyadragon]

That's what I just said!

No it is not! You said; Every word has an infinite number of meanings and connotations,' which is illogical and not rational.

That was all they had, language evolved to explain more information like science.

Then how do you explain a coherent logical meaning in some ancient writing?

Yes, some in all wirittings, but ancient writings contain too much supernatural superstitions which are not logical. Ancient writing is most definitely not always have coherent logical reasoning. That is why there are so many divisions and conflicts over religion in history.

Math is logic and logic never evolves. Our understanding of it evolves. Modern languages evolve but Ancient Language did not. It was intentionally changed as new science was learned.

Do you believe Bees have always ha
'Every word has an infinite number of meanings and connotations.'

d the same step? Do you think Bees are born dancing?

Bees are not the subject here, but yes bees did and do evolve. Simplistic example of Bee dancing is not relevant. Of course you do not believe in science.

Ancient languages did evolve over time.

 

[shunyadragon]

So I understand what you're saying as much as possible here, are you saying that brains evolved enabling humans to make advanced tools, invent computers and the like?

Yes, it is documented by objective verifiable facts of science.

 

[cladking]

You are basically saying what they read is not knowledge.

No.

I am saying that what you don't understand and don't experience may not be knowledge at all. "Learning" something does not make it true. Its appearance in a book does not make it true.

 

[cladking]

You are basically saying what they read is not knowledge.

All true knowledge is experiential knowledge. You can go to the young new doctor who is up on all the latest or and old sawbones who's seen it all before.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No.

Yes, you did.

Now you are just moving the goal posts.

I am saying that what you don't understand and don't experience may not be knowledge at all.

It is knowledge. You didn't make claims about the quality of it. Just that it wasn't knowledge. You were wrong. Not an unusual state for you, so perhaps, like water you seek a level and one that is familiar.

"Learning" something does not make it true.

No one said that it did. But, that is in fact, the basis for this thread. People learn things that they cannot demonstrate, but apply against things that can be demonstrated.

You cannot demonstrate the claims you make, although, they are not from a book, but spring from your imagination by all accounts. Of course, you have written them here.

Its appearance in a book does not make it true.

That isn't a question under contention. You said "You might think you can read something in a book and it becomes knowledge but you are mistaken" You didn't say anything about it being true or not. You were sweeping in condemning what is written as not being knowledge regardless of truth or validity.

You like to constantly contradict yourself. I wonder why that is? Could it be that you really just don't understand and don't see that you are one of the superusers of the flaws you heap on others? Word games, etc.

Things are also written on this forum. You write some of it. Writing doesn't need to be just in books.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

All true knowledge is experiential knowledge. You can go to the young new doctor who is up on all the latest or and old sawbones who's seen it all before.

Define what you mean by true knowledge and show how YOU tell it from "not true" knowledge.

Show us how you cannot gain knowledge from a book. Reading is an experience.

Go on. You stepped in it. You deal with it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

All true knowledge is experiential knowledge. You can go to the young new doctor who is up on all the latest or and old sawbones who's seen it all before.

If you stick to this line of "reasoning", then my conclusion is correct and you are telling biblical literalists that what they read is not knowledge of something.

You've pretty much sprung your own trap and going to have to gnaw off a limb to get away.

You may want to consider an old sawbones after this.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Define what you mean by true knowledge and show how YOU tell it from "not true" knowledge.

Show us how you cannot gain knowledge from a book. Reading is an experience.

Go on. You stepped in it. You deal with it.

The joke is that: All true knowledge is experiential knowledge, is not experiental knowledge, but reflectivie abstract knowledge and thus is a case of self-refutation.

 

[cladking]

No it is not! You said; Every word has an infinite number of meanings and connotations,' which is illogical and not rational.

There are an infinite number of contexts hence an infinite number of meanings.

I just saw Noam Chomsky say there are an infinite number of sentences.

Indeed, there are an infinite number of sentences to describe each thing or event and an infinite number of things and events. That leaves each word a whole lot of meanings. It leaves so many that each word has no meaning.

That is why there are so many divisions and conflicts over religion in history.

How do you know how many conflicts there were if history didn't start until long after writing?

Bees are not the subject here, but yes bees did and do evolve. Simplistic example of Bee dancing is not relevant.

Of course bees are the subject. We're talking about how and why species change and things like bees and beavers point the way. Dogs and cats were seen to come into existence. You simply want to point at bones of four legged whales and say "voila, there's proof that the species changed gradually because of survival of the fittest". That is magical thinking. Darwin sought simplistic answers and found them.

 

[cladking]

But keep condemning others for their "lack of understanding."

We're all in the same boat. Nobody knows much of anything. We lack the framework for finding out because there are no explanations for ancient science found in the Bible and there is no means for reductionistic science to progress much past 1925. All our assumptions are wrong and Darwin was probably wrong across the board.

Everything is splintering and tower of babel 2.0 looms.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

There are an infinite number of contexts hence an infinite number of meanings.

I'm reading this somewhere, but am I experiencing it? I was told "true knowledge" must be experienced. Wonder what the application of that claim does to the quality of what I'm reading?

Can you demonstrate that there are an infinite number of contexts and meanings? Practically speaking, there cannot be that many, since things can be taken out of context.

It seems to be offered in the context of an answer, but doesn't really give an answer, since it doesn't address the context.

I just saw Noam Chomsky say there are an infinite number of sentences.

Well, you just saw that. In what context? Really an infinite number or just the potential.

Indeed, there are an infinite number of sentences to describe each thing or event and an infinite number of things and events. That leaves each word a whole lot of meanings. It leaves so many that each word has no meaning.

Are you saying that everything you have written here is meaningless?

How do you know how many conflicts there were if history didn't start until long after writing?

History started a long time ago, it was only recorded in written form once writing evolved. That is different from the claim you keep making.

Of course bees are the subject.

Bees, like beavers and consciousness is life are your nebulous escape hatches to cloud the discussion with statements of claims that say nothing.

We're talking about how and why species change and things like bees and beavers point the way.

Then demonstrate that they do. Show us the evidence of experience, experiment and observation. Try it for a change and see if you like how the fit feels.

Dogs and cats were seen to come into existence.

Dogs and cats evolved to their present state due to their association with humans. Go on. What does this mean here? Splain it to us.

You simply want to point at bones of four legged whales and say "voila, there's proof that the species changed gradually because of survival of the fittest".

No!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Not missing that you called this four-legged mammal a whale indicating that you consider it to be a step in the evolution of modern whales, what biologists have observed is that the evidence of the fossils fits and supports the theory of evolution. The four-legged ancestors in the fossil record are evidence of one of the steps in that evolution. Natural selection offers a mechanism for how that change took place leading to each of the steps in the fossil record.

That is magical thinking.

No it is not. That is a natural conclusion of the evidence from observation and experiment. You have many times failed to show that it isn't no matter how much magical thinking you have applied to the problem. It is your white whale and it is ever sinking your ship.

Darwin sought simplistic answers and found them.

Is this supposed to be a condemnation of what Darwin concluded from his observations? How?

It doesn't say anything negative about Darwin and says nothing about the theory of evolution.

Is this the best you can bring to bear in denying science?

 

[cladking]

Define what you mean by true knowledge and show how YOU tell it from "not true" knowledge.

"True knowledge" makes predictions. Like muscle memory it allows you to sink a basket from the free throw line or to know Apollo XI landed on the moon. Some people form very few experiential memories with little knowledge and can succeed in the modern world. But if you don't know something in your guts and bones it can not directly affect your thinking and behavior. Experiential knowledge is all used simultaneously in real time. This is what operates animals which are a product of their own consciousness as expressed through behavior. They think but do not experience thought.

Humans are different and have a very very different consciousness caused by analog abstract and symbolic language.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

We're all in the same boat.

Not in this discussion. You haven't even hit water from all I have read.

Nobody knows much of anything.

Nobody is omniscient. But that doesn't mean that scientists are wrong about what they have concluded from observation and experiment. Yours is just a nebulous, sweeping admonish that says nothing about the validity of evolutionary science.

We lack the framework for finding out because there are no explanations for ancient science found in the Bible

There is no evidence anywhere for what you refer to as ancient science.

and there is no means for reductionistic science to progress much past 1925.

A claim without basis.

All our assumptions are wrong

You have said, but you haven't listed those assumptions and shown them all be wrong.

and Darwin was probably wrong across the board.

Now he is just "probably" wrong. You have upgraded him in your claims.

Everything is splintering and tower of babel 2.0 looms.

Now, you said that things written are not knowledge and all we know of the Tower of Babel is from writing. So, it isn't knowledge and there cannot be a "tower of babel" 2.0

But do go on.

 

[cladking]

Can you demonstrate that there are an infinite number of contexts and meanings? Practically speaking, there cannot be that many, since things can be taken out of context.

I gotta run but...

Every word has an average definition of about 50 words in the unabridged dictionary and most sentences are about fifteen words long. Just 15 to the 50th power is a large number but you must do a regress since every word in every definition has another 50 word definition. When you're done trying to put a meaningful number to this you need to remember several other things. Words and phrases have connotations and shades of meaning. Like a variable resistor many of these have a virtually infinite number of possible settings. Throw in the simple fact that there is no standard set of words that apply in ANY situation (Tommy Smothers yelled "Fire" drowning in chocolate), and "infinite" becomes something of an understatement.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

"True knowledge" makes predictions.

So just knowledge than. You can make predictions with knowledge that isn't correct. The predictions just won't be very good.

Like muscle memory it allows you to sink a basket from the free throw line or to know Apollo XI landed on the moon.

According to you, we cannot know these things and thus they are not knowledge, since we only know of them from secondary sources and did not experience them first hand. I didn't make that rule. You did.

Some people form very few experiential memories with little knowledge and can succeed in the modern world.

Not an area of contention, but again, one you claim but do not support. That is a convention for you isn't it?

But if you don't know something in your guts and bones it can not directly affect your thinking and behavior.

Sure it can. Lots of things I don't know about impact me. You keep saying that all things effect everything and ignorance is a thing. Contradicting yourself seems to be another convention of yours that you go to water on all the time.

Experiential knowledge is all used simultaneously in real time.

A nebulous meaningless claim. Another convention of yours.

This is what operates animals which are a product of their own consciousness as expressed through behavior.

A claim without support and a sentence without meaning in the context. Are there to be an infinite number of further examples in this style?

They think but do not experience thought.

That doesn't make sense. Now you are saying that experience doesn't exist.

Humans are different and have a very very different consciousness caused by analog abstract and symbolic language.

Another of your vague, empty claims that longs for you to take it and nurture it and support it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I gotta run but...

Of course you do.

Every word has an average definition of about 50 words in the unabridged dictionary and most sentences are about fifteen words long.

And...?

Just 15 to the 50th power is a large number but you must do a regress since every word in every definition has another 50 word definition.

And this means...?

When you're done trying to put a meaningful number to this you need to remember several other things.

Sure!

Words and phrases have connotations and shades of meaning.

And...?

Like a variable resistor many of these have a virtually infinite number of possible settings.

Which means...?

Throw in the simple fact that there is no standard set of words that apply in ANY situation (Tommy Smothers yelled "Fire" drowning in chocolate), and "infinite" becomes something of an understatement.

Of course, the famous work of the Smothers tells us everything.

TTFN.

Come on back when you think the dust has settled and you can comfortably ignore these posts.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I gotta run but...

Every word has an average definition of about 50 words in the unabridged dictionary and most sentences are about fifteen words long. Just 15 to the 50th power is a large number but you must do a regress since every word in every definition has another 50 word definition. When you're done trying to put a meaningful number to this you need to remember several other things. Words and phrases have connotations and shades of meaning. Like a variable resistor many of these have a virtually infinite number of possible settings. Throw in the simple fact that there is no standard set of words that apply in ANY situation (Tommy Smothers yelled "Fire" drowning in chocolate), and "infinite" becomes something of an understatement.

Are you still running?

 

[YoursTrue]

It seems to me that moderators can insult but that's ok for the most part.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It seems to me that moderators can insult but that's ok for the most part.

I have insulted no one. I have pointed out the flaws in the posts of another. Considering how vigorous they are in their claims, I met them with equal vigor. Rigorous review and rebuttal of what another posts is not insulting. It is paying them a courtesy. Something I often don't receive, even when I request it numerous times.

However, I have been curious about this nameless religious person that you keep referring to in so many posts. It seems very much like you wish to call them out for their beliefs. I hope not and I hope it isn't to attack them for their beliefs.

You have a good day.