Darwin's Illusion

[Dan From Smithville]

Plus I'm not sure of what you're talking about. However, when a person gets offended if they're called out for their beliefs, why would they be offended? Not referring to particular ones of course. Oh well I won't go any further. Have a good day.

Then you will have no trouble discontinuing the effort and perhaps find so wisdom in John 8:7.

I have doubts that you won't go any further though. Perhaps reflecting on your own words regarding Adam and Eve will give you further wisdom there too. Blaming the victim is insulting as well as wrong according to Christian faith.

Have a good day.

 

[cladking]

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

Our very existence proves my point. Superstition is destructive and fatal. If one group was superstitious and another not the superstitious wouldn't even have lunch.

Agriculture and cities were not a product of belief. Just as termites didn't invent them through superstition and belief either.

A claim without basis.

How long does 1925 play Groundhog's Day before you agree we are stuck? Where is the Unified Field Theory?

 

[cladking]

Can those who believe that evolution is true briefly explain what evolution is? Also what they mean by "creationism". Thanks. That might help a discussion. But I doubt various enthusiasts of the concept of evolution and those who use the terms creationism or "creationists" will do so. Probably telling me I need to learn basics. Why is that? I'm guessing their answers. Based on experience. So possible answers: I'm too ignorant which has been said in various ways, I'm not willing to learn, which has also been said, or...the best one is they cannot. Hope y'all have a good day!!

Bingo!!!

They can't tell you the basics.

The basics are you have to accept their assumptions that exist with no evidence. You have to ignore consciousness and believe change in species can be reduced to experiment without ever performing a single basic experiment. And you have to believe that every observation of speciation seen by humans is irrelevant to how species evolve.

If I could do all this I would still believe in Evolution too.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Our very existence proves my point.

No it doesn't.

Superstition is destructive and fatal.

So what. Car crashes are destructive and fatal. That fact says nothing in this context.

If one group was superstitious and another not the superstitious wouldn't even have lunch.

Nonsensical non-responsive.

Agriculture and cities were not a product of belief.

They were the product of need, circumstance and observation as near as anyone can know. You don't have evidence of anything different from that.

Just as termites didn't invent them through superstition and belief either.

They evolved in termites according to the evidence, but you neither want to see that or accept it, since it is against your belief system.

How long does 1925 play Groundhog's Day before you agree we are stuck?

More silliness that says nothing and answers nothing.

Where is the Unified Field Theory?

A question irrelevant to your claims and irrelevant as any sort of answer.

Seems you are still running.

 

[cladking]

Plus I'm not sure of what you're talking about. However, when a person gets offended if they're called out for their beliefs, why would they be offended? Not referring to particular ones of course. Oh well I won't go any further. Have a good day.

Disagreeing with believers in science is sufficient insult to expect the same in kind!

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Bingo!!!

They can't tell you the basics.

It has been done numerous times. The asking of it has become a sort of joke, since it has been answered so often and the questions keep coming back up.

For one who refuses to tell us the basics of their belief system, your statement is ironic. The best you have come up with is that your answers are invisible.

The basics are you have to accept their assumptions that exist with no evidence.

No. There is lots of evidence. Denying it does not make it disappear no matter how much you wish it would.

You have to ignore consciousness

I think it is clear that you are just going to repeat this without explanation as a mantra all the way to the end.

and believe change in species can be reduced to experiment without ever performing a single basic experiment.

Except that experiments have been conducted and will continue to be. I've posted some of those experiment numerous times and you have ignored them for obvious reasons I would say.

And you have to believe that every observation of speciation seen by humans is irrelevant to how species evolve.

Killing a handful of flies is not an observation of speciation and declaring humans are another species isn't an observation of speciation. However, the literature does include the known observations of speciation that you are claiming are ignored.

If I could do all this I would still believe in Evolution too.

You have shown us what you can do. It hasn't been very impressive from my end.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Disagreeing with believers in science is sufficient insult to expect the same in kind!

But you disagree with anyone that knows science and accepts evidence too. And there are no believers in science here in the sense that you believe the tenets of your faith that I know of or have been made aware of.

You insult others by ignoring their questions, points, and anything that you are obviously incapable of addressing.

I find that insulting.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Disagreeing with believers in science is sufficient insult to expect the same in kind!

How do you reconcile your contradictory statement that words have infinite meaning and that words have a single fixed meaning without the vigorous application of word games that you have set as a conventional response to previous inquiries of a similar nature.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Disagreeing with believers in science is sufficient insult to expect the same in kind!

I do not regard it as insulting to have grown tired of the insulting games and to confront the game players so that the games can be ended.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Bingo!!!

They can't tell you the basics.

The basics are you have to accept their assumptions that exist with no evidence. You have to ignore consciousness and believe change in species can be reduced to experiment without ever performing a single basic experiment. And you have to believe that every observation of speciation seen by humans is irrelevant to how species evolve.

If I could do all this I would still believe in Evolution too.

I have asked you to list the assumptions and then explain how those assumptions are wrong. I have done this several times to no response from you.

Why is that?

If you know they are wrong, you should easily be able to list them and point out the flaws.

So far, you have only claimed that Darwin assumed that populations were stable. This of course has been corrected numerous times, since it is incorrect. It is not an assumption he used in formulating the theory.

That you run from this basic necessity for your own argument destroys your credibility and not that of those asking you.

 

[cladking]

Fossils show that the anatomy of life has changed over time. Fossils of extinct forms alone don't confirm the theory, but their absence in a world where only modern forms were found in the ground would jeopardize it. Thus, fossils are necessary but not sufficient to confirm the theory.

I fully agree that fossils prove species change. ancient scientists understood this as well.

I disagree they show change is gradual or results from survival of the fittest.

Of course, your definitions of gradual and sudden are a bit different than mine. You once described the collision of galaxies as a sudden event by comparing it to the life of the galaxies.

All words are relative. "Gradual" means something very different for the movement of a tectonic plate and a plate full of turkey on Thanksgiving.

The most direct evidence for that doesn't come from fossils directly, but through extrapolation of collected fossil data consistent with gradual evolution.

I understand all about extrapolation and interpolation but am aware of no evidence to support Darwin's claims. My understanding is most new fossils lie at the bottoms of layers. This implies a sudden event not a gradual one.

That's true, but I think you mean that it is all evaluated personally. Yes, each of us is a subject experiencing an object (objective reality) and modifying it as we generate the conscious content, but we can make that evaluation more objective using interobserver opinion when there is a high degree of agreement (consensus), and that's all we really need to know about objective reality - the predictable ways it manifests in conscious content.

Of course I agree. I'm the one who believes all people make sense all the time in terms of their premises. THIS is EXACTLY how I got into this unenviable position.

It's the PREMISES that are the problem. Scientists and believers in science share some false premises.

So what should I do with this sentence of yours I just read? Disregard it?

I would like people to try to parse them as I intend them to be parsed but instead I have to define "metaphysics" (the basis of science) over and over again. Then I would like them to consider what I'm saying to see what effect it has on theory and their models of theory. I believe that far more of reality is explicable (remember consciousness is largely pattern recognition) in terms of my theory than in terms of current paradigms.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I fully agree that fossils prove species change. ancient scientists understood this as well.

Who are these ancient scientists and where is the evidence of what they have said?

I disagree they show change is gradual or results from survival of the fittest.

Of course not. They show gradual change over time and the evidence indicates this change is due to natural selection of the environment.

All words are relative. "Gradual" means something very different for the movement of a tectonic plate and a plate full of turkey on Thanksgiving.

But we are in a particular context and gradual is used relative to that context. Are you claiming to be unaware of the context? How do you think that would effect the credibility of your responses then?

I understand all about extrapolation and interpolation but am aware of no evidence to support Darwin's claims.

Your ignorance, willful or otherwise is not evidence against a scientific theory. It is only a statement regarding your personal condition.

My understanding is most new fossils lie at the bottoms of layers. This implies a sudden event not a gradual one.

Then you have to provide evidence that your understanding is correct and that it implies what you claim it does. You have never done this despite the many requests that you do so. Your gut is not evidence of anything except your own personal condition.

Of course I agree. I'm the one who believes all people make sense all the time in terms of their premises. THIS is EXACTLY how I got into this unenviable position.

You got into this position, because you make claims that you cannot back up. You make statements that, upon examination, make no sense in many contexts and certainly not this context.

It's the PREMISES that are the problem. Scientists and believers in science share some false premises.

And yet, you refuse to list those premises or show how they are wrong and how these so called believers are adhering to them.

I would like people to try to parse them as I intend them to be parsed but instead I have to define "metaphysics" (the basis of science) over and over again. Then I would like them to consider what I'm saying to see what effect it has on theory and their models of theory. I believe that far more of reality is explicable (remember consciousness is largely pattern recognition) in terms of my theory than in terms of current paradigms.

From the evidence it seems you would like people to agree with you without looking at what you are saying or applying any scholarship or scrutiny.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I fully agree that fossils prove species change. ancient scientists understood this as well.

I disagree they show change is gradual or results from survival of the fittest.



All words are relative. "Gradual" means something very different for the movement of a tectonic plate and a plate full of turkey on Thanksgiving.



I understand all about extrapolation and interpolation but am aware of no evidence to support Darwin's claims. My understanding is most new fossils lie at the bottoms of layers. This implies a sudden event not a gradual one.



Of course I agree. I'm the one who believes all people make sense all the time in terms of their premises. THIS is EXACTLY how I got into this unenviable position.

It's the PREMISES that are the problem. Scientists and believers in science share some false premises.



I would like people to try to parse them as I intend them to be parsed but instead I have to define "metaphysics" (the basis of science) over and over again. Then I would like them to consider what I'm saying to see what effect it has on theory and their models of theory. I believe that far more of reality is explicable (remember consciousness is largely pattern recognition) in terms of my theory than in terms of current paradigms.

Being conscious, I have noticed a pattern emerge in communications with you. When evidence, scholarship and scrutiny are applied to your claims, you suddenly have to run.

 

[cladking]

This is an example of you trying to level the playing field by invalidating the authority of others who actually do know quite a bit more than most.

No. It really isn't.

It is merely another way of saying that I believe all the assumptions are wrong. religion holds sway over many people because it is the results of ancient science and seductive as such just as believing in science is seductive because it provides facile answers that feed our omniscience.

We all by definition must perceive reality in terms of our beliefs. My primary belief remains that all people make sense because it is a characteristic of consciousness. A few people engage in doublethink but this is more characteristic of insanity and being less fit.

Somebody would make a correct scientific statement about the relative risk of vaccination to acquiring Covid unvaccinated, and somebody would say, "That's just your opinion" in an effort to level the playing field and undermine the possibility of expert opinion.

But the risk of covid is unique to each individual. Some individuals had virtually no risk at all.

They think all opinions are equal, because they're all arrived at the only way they ever arrived at any belief - choosing to believe it without justification.

And, again, every single person can't be wrong about anything but every single peer can be wrong about everything. This is the nature of things.
No, I don't mean the vaccine was bad. That's a different subject altogether.

 

[cladking]

Oh jeez... It's such a complex topic that asking for a basic answer is asking a lot, imo, and I'm nowhere near educated on the topic enough myself to give a very good answer. I was raised with creation science in a religious school setting, so I'd probably know more about that than evolution. Given all that, I'll try and give as basic an answer as I can muster

The science behind evolution is similar to forensic science, and just like forensic science, is bolstered by many other fields of science that work in tandem to help paint a clearer picture of past life and it's history. Those other fielda of science include ones such as geology, astronomy, paleoclimateology, paleontology, etc etc. The evidence gathered by all of these different schools of science seem to show that, over a nearly unfathomable period of time, life seems to have slowly mutated over that time given the fossil record so consistently and predictably occurs in tandem with other events and occurances uncovered in these various other fields of science - especially paleontology and geology

Just like all other theories, evolution has to stand up to the scrutiny of the scientific community as a whole. There's a lot of incentive for those in the scientific community to bring down a theory as sound and established as evolution is, but none have been able to do so yet - it is the very best theory we have that shows what the history of life on earth looked like, and all the evidence found and continue to find only serves to strengthen it. There's really nothing to suggest that will change any time soon, either

If anyone would like to correct me or add anything else, please do!

I was raised in a biology setting and I know the basics but always disagreed. There is simply no evidence beyond interpretation within the setting of numerous assumptions that I doubted then and have come to believe are false. Some of my old teachers might not be impressed but they would support my thinking for myself.

 

[cladking]

So what. Car crashes are destructive and fatal. That fact says nothing in this context.

No! It says everything.

Everyone doesn't get in a car crash but modern belief is everyone once acted on belief and had no science and no knowledge of any scientific principles. Hogwash! They had no knowledge of MODERN science and modern metaphysics but they were still as smart as any termite or any beaver. Maybe even smarter! They had a brain that formed logically and mathematically and apparently a language that matched it. Just like termites they could apply their knowledge of change in species to creating agriculture and their knowledge of assembling things and maintaining order to build cities.

They weren't stupid. And they didn't believe that lying in the cave worshipping the supernatural would fill their bellies with the fat of the land.

Like ants they marched forth and gathered what they needed.

All belief serves chiefly to maintain the status quo and the status quo is deadly because everything changes. Niches change. What worked to make the Weather Underground rich and powerful in the '60's is killing us today. Beliefs kill. Minds on beliefs stagnate and die.

Science used to change one funeral at a time but that was back when experiment drove science and now money does.

We are in serious trouble whether I'm right or wrong because we can't change as we spiral the the tubes.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No. It really isn't.

I agree with @It Aint Necessarily So. It is evidence of your attempts to make what you believe equal to what can be demonstrated.

It is merely another way of saying that I believe all the assumptions are wrong.

What you believe is irrelevant. You have repeated that it is irrelevant. You make fun of others as "believers" indicating how little regard you hold for them for this, even if the label doesn't apply.

religion holds sway over many people because it is the results of ancient science

A claim longing to be supported. I predict it never will be.

and seductive as such just as believing in science is seductive because it provides facile answers that feed our omniscience.

A nebulous claim that hungers for the comfort of your support. I predict it will starve to death.

We all by definition must perceive reality in terms of our beliefs.

We perceive reality through our beliefs, knowledge, biases and experiences and this is supported with evidence.

My primary belief remains that all people make sense because it is a characteristic of consciousness.

I feel pretty strongly, that I make sense. I know of others on here that make sense. But there are others that make claims I have trouble being so generous with.

Please demonstrate that making sense is a characteristic of consciousness. I predict that you will not.

A few people engage in doublethink but this is more characteristic of insanity and being less fit.

I agree in part to a limited degree, but I do not see it as a characteristic of insanity. Is this a veiled insult to those requesting you support your claims? That would not seem fitting to such a reasonable request. I think that word games and what you call doublethink are a defense mechanism applied by those whose premises are flawed and ideas are faulty. Claiming words can exist both with infinite meaning and a single fixed meaning is such faulting thinking.

But the risk of covid is unique to each individual. Some individuals had virtually no risk at all.

The risk of anything can be unique to a group or individual, however, the evidence supports efficacy of vaccination, unless you have real evidence to the contrary. Stating that is an informed opinion and is not put on an equal footing with uninformed opinion by calling it opinion.

And, again, every single person can't be wrong about anything but every single peer can be wrong about everything.

Again with the mythical peers and with a sort of nonsensical statement that doesn't tell us anything or offer any explanation for your claims. Show us these peers and the work they do.

This is the nature of things.
No, I don't mean the vaccine was bad. That's a different subject altogether.

Given what you have demonstrated so far, I can't imagine anything you claim regarding this would be very well supported to give me reason to agree or consider I learned something.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I was raised in a biology setting and I know the basics but always disagreed.

Can you explain what that means. I was raised by biological organisms and to the best of my knowledge developed under biological processes. Is that what you mean?

There is simply no evidence beyond interpretation within the setting of numerous assumptions that I doubted then and have come to believe are false.

I will remind you that you have not shown anyone these assumptions, that they are wrong and that others are wrong for accepting them.

Some of my old teachers might not be impressed but they would support my thinking for myself.

Thinking for oneself does not mean coming up with baseless claims and then conjuring them into reality in our minds.

 

[cladking]

They were the product of need, circumstance and observation as near as anyone can know. You don't have evidence of anything different from that.

All experiment and all observation support a new paradigm. Consciousness is life!!! It's just this simple! Everything falls into place and this especially applies to change in species that you call "Evolution".

Science is Observation > Experiment for homo omnisciencis because we see only what we expect and only experiment can keep us anchored to reality instead of our beliefs. But consciousness in all other life is Observation > Logic. All other life forms are logical because they are wired this way. Humans have been fundamentally different than all other life since the tower of babel.

They evolved in termites according to the evidence, but you neither want to see that or accept it, since it is against your belief system.

There is no evidence to support the evolution of of agriculture in termites or dams in beaver et al. I've been watching my entire life and have yet to see a shred of evidence for such things. The fact is such things are assumed just like the existence of "instinct" is assumed. Certainly beavers build dams but this hardly means they don't think about it and the first beaver dam had to be invented.

 

[cladking]

Then you have to provide evidence that your understanding is correct and that it implies what you claim it does.

As soon as you show evidence you understand my point...