Darwin's Illusion

[YoursTrue]

And there you go with your foolish "you don't believe in God" argument. Believing in God is not necessary to understand the Bible. But in this case that understanding came from when I was still a Christian.

If you understood that the damned, doomed, and "unsaved" were burning in hell then you did not understand the Bible.

 

[YoursTrue]

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.



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.

Of course, people can become freaks.

 

[YoursTrue]

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

Oh no as Franz Kafka wrote, what did he become? Ok I couldn't resist, sorry.

 

[cladking]

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.

Yes. My beliefs are just as irrelevant as that of Peers. Maybe even moreso. But my arguments stand until they are contraindicated. Contradiction is insufficient to counter a theory.

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

Actually I can make a pretty good case for it and predict i will before so very long. Things will start falling into place when linguists admit Ancient Language breaks Zipf's Law and contained too few words to communicate even simple ideas using our formatting.

Right now linguists are blinded by their beliefs and et als. They can't even count words.

Show us these peers and the work they do.

You'll forget before you get to the end of the next sentence! All surgeons once thought washing their hands before an operation was a waste of precious time.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No! It says everything.

Nothin you appear to be able to explain or even care to explain. So, it functionally says nothing.

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 are your words, but I agree. Hogwash!

They had no knowledge of MODERN science and modern metaphysics but they were still as smart as any termite or any beaver.

Based on your accumulated evidence and intelligence tests of all three?

Maybe even smarter!

OK. You think ancient people were smarter than termites and beavers. What does that mean?

They had a brain that formed logically and mathematically and apparently a language that matched it.

Apparently based on what evidence, observation or experiment. You've been remiss in providing the basis for this belief you have.

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.

It is a belief I have no reason to accept. Certainly there is no supporting evidence to conclude the origin of human agriculture and the symbiotic relationship of termites and fungi are derived through the same process. It seems insulting to our ancestors as well to compare them to termites and dismiss their intellectual capabilities. Fortunately, for you, they are not here to defend themselves. Unfortunately for you there are knowledgeable people with evidence that are.

They weren't stupid.

No one has claimed that ancient people were considered stupid. You are the only person I know that makes the claim that it is a claim.

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

You will have to provide evidence of what they believed and that what you claim they believe is what they believed. So far predictions that you won't have held up. I think the odds of this changing are rapidly approaching zero.

Like ants they marched forth and gathered what they needed.

Now our ancestors are ants. Well, they are more evolutionarily advanced than termites. Again, evidence that our ancestors left caves is in some way the same as ants that still live in caves in a sense.

Your claims are extraordinary, yet lack even the most banal of evidence for support. Feed these hungry claims with something substantial so that they may thrive or put them down and out of their misery as simply something you believe on faith and cannot support with any evidence or experiment. That all evidence and experiment support you is a claim and not evidence of the claim. Claiming that your circular thinking is supported by the unestablished claim that all human thinking is circular will not relieve us of the fact that your circular claims remain unsubstantiated.

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.

Now, in my opinion, your responses have degraded down into nebulous, meandering claims that have long since strayed off point and are telling me nothing.

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

You have turned this pithy saying into a mantra to use when you have run out of even the pretense of a sound explanation. If you are going to make such extraordinary claims you are going to have to come up with better mantras and some evidence others can use for evaluation.

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

More nebulous claims about some mysterious trouble. Nothing specific or useful and well off point. This seems to be another convention you follow in these threads when the risk of the request for support of your claims becomes greater.

 

[cladking]

For one who refuses to tell us the basics of their belief system, your statement is ironic.

I believe two things and have said so many times. All people make sense and cause precedes effect.

I try very hard not to believe anything else whatsoever.

 

[cladking]

No one has claimed that ancient people were considered stupid. You are the only person I know that makes the claim that it is a claim.

READ IT AGAIN! I did not say anyone said they were.

 

[cladking]

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

It is a characteristic of consciousness. NOT homo omnisciencis.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes. My beliefs are just as irrelevant as that of Peers.

Since Peers with a capital P have yet to be substantiated as something other than a claim, I would agree.

Maybe even moreso. But my arguments stand until they are contraindicated.

Your arguments have never been substantiated, since they largely consist of a string of claims that are repeated. That these claims have been readily and frequently destroyed hasn't stopped you so far.

Contradiction is insufficient to counter a theory.

But your internal contradictions are enough to refute your own claims.

Actually I can make a pretty good case for it and predict i will before so very long. Things will start falling into place when linguists admit Ancient Language breaks Zipf's Law and contained too few words to communicate even simple ideas using our formatting.

No. This fails too. You haven't established anything about this so called "Ancient Language" Your case is not good. Your mantra about Zipf's Law is just that. A mantra repeated like an incantation spell from the context of its use. I parse these things real good.

Right now linguists are blinded by their beliefs and et als. They can't even count words.

There is nothing here to consider. Just more claims that are meaningless in the context and tell us nothing.

You'll forget before you get to the end of the next sentence! All surgeons once thought washing their hands before an operation was a waste of precious time.

No. Surgeons didn't know the benefit of washing their hands. Science revealed that it was a good thing to do. Eventually, through science, we learned why and that it is good not just for surgeons.

Your claim here was already refuted. Apparently, you forgot before you got to this next post of yours.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

READ IT AGAIN! I did not say anyone said they were.

All caps. Ooooh! I see this in believers more frequently than those that accept science it seems.

If I don't read it now, I'll catch it when you repeat it the next many times.

You make that claim all the time. Remember "stinky-footed bumpkins" and other color expression you use frequently.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It is a characteristic of consciousness. NOT homo omnisciencis.

More claims and reference to a species not demonstrated to exist.

You have to establish both of these.

















And you never have.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It is a characteristic of consciousness. NOT homo omnisciencis.

Have you given any thought to that list of the assumptions Darwin used to formulate the theory of evolution? Or showing how they are wrong and how the modern theory continues to cling to them?

Perhaps something a little more substantial than claiming your dissent fits into several of a list of categories without saying what that dissent is or what the categories are.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes. My beliefs are just as irrelevant as that of Peers. Maybe even moreso. But my arguments stand until they are contraindicated. Contradiction is insufficient to counter a theory.



Actually I can make a pretty good case for it and predict i will before so very long. Things will start falling into place when linguists admit Ancient Language breaks Zipf's Law and contained too few words to communicate even simple ideas using our formatting.

Right now linguists are blinded by their beliefs and et als. They can't even count words.



You'll forget before you get to the end of the next sentence! All surgeons once thought washing their hands before an operation was a waste of precious time.

Very good!! Until the doctor who realized he must wash his hands and continued preaching it to his "peers" who continued making fun of him. The Bible itself warns not to get close to a dead body or else the person who does must stay away from others for a while. Dr. Semmelweis. The sad part of it is that he was excoriated by his "peers,' even after his death. I look forward to meeting him in the resurrection.

 

[cladking]

OK. You think ancient people were smarter than termites and beavers. What does that mean?

I said, maybe even smarter. I'm certain they were "smarter" than us.

Apparently based on what evidence, observation or experiment. You've been remiss in providing the basis for this belief you have.

I didn't think it would be necessary among "scientists". Brains don't form magically in utero. Evidence and logic suggest fractal and mathematical processes.

It's not a "belief", it's a deduction.

It seems insulting to our ancestors as well to compare them to termites and dismiss their intellectual capabilities.

I don't believe in "intelligence".

Feed these hungry claims with something substantial so that they may thrive or put them down and out of their misery as simply something you believe on faith and cannot support with any evidence or experiment.

I believe all observation and experiment support a different way of interpreting the evidence. Science is already evolving in this direction.

If you are going to make such extraordinary claims you are going to have to come up with better mantras and some evidence others can use for evaluation.

Are you not aware of how research is funded now days?

More nebulous claims about some mysterious trouble.

Do you watch the news? Look at the last run of presidents and candidates. Do you see what's running DC?

This really isn't about the collapse of civilizations but all institutions are in turmoil. Cultures have niches too and ours isn't adapting to conditions.

 

[YoursTrue]

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.

Otherwise, trouble. A couple of experiments that prove nothing and defense or attack from the strategists. Yes, the tragic but wonderful story of Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis is worth a look.

 

[cladking]

I look forward to meeting him in the resurrection.

There are a lot of people I'd like to talk to (many again). I hope there's a resurrection. Some ancient literature suggests the Rapture will take place on the Giza Plateau.

Just in case I'm gonna try to keep on keeping on.

 

[YoursTrue]

I said, maybe even smarter. I'm certain they were "smarter" than us.



I didn't think it would be necessary among "scientists". Brains don't form magically in utero. Evidence and logic suggest fractal and mathematical processes.

It's not a "belief", it's a deduction.



I don't believe in "intelligence".



I believe all observation and experiment support a different way of interpreting the evidence. Science is already evolving in this direction.



Are you not aware of how research is funded now days?



Do you watch the news? Look at the last run of presidents and candidates. Do you see what's running DC?

This really isn't about the collapse of civilizations but all institutions are in turmoil. Cultures have niches too and ours isn't adapting to conditions.

Speaking of funding I told my doctor that a popular medication was banned in Europe. He dismissed it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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

Forget about car crashes. What about bananas (please don't accuse me of whataboutism).

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you understood that the damned, doomed, and "unsaved" were burning in hell then you did not understand the Bible.

One can argue that claim either way depending upon the verses that one chooses. If you did not know that you did not understand the Bible.

 

[YoursTrue]

There are a lot of people I'd like to talk to (many again). I hope there's a resurrection. Some ancient literature suggests the Rapture will take place on the Giza Plateau.

Just in case I'm gonna try to keep on keeping on.

Jesus spoke obviously in an illustrative way when he spoke of the graves opening. Some drowned, were burned up, weren't buried etc. So it was illustrative of those who died and are remembered by God. Nice going, cladking.