Darwin's Illusion

[cladking]

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.

Thank you. I wasn't aware of thois or had forgotten;

"He could offer no theoretical explanation for his findings of reduced mortality due to hand-washing, and some doctors were offended at the suggestion that they should wash their hands and mocked him for it. In 1865, the increasingly outspoken Semmelweis allegedly suffered a nervous breakdown and was committed to an asylum by his colleagues. "

Ignaz Semmelweis - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

He died very young. This is the thanks all reformers get.

Ironically ancient science was well aware of germs and had procedures to stop their spread. This isn't because they were so smart but rather it's because ancient science was a tool better suited to learning it. This formed the basis of a couple books of the Bible and admonitions about cleanliness.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

And Jesus denied that.

 

[YoursTrue]

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.

Lol. Ok. Let me put it to you this way. I always thought hellfire as considered by many was a bunch of junk. That before I studied it. Another reason why I didn't believe in God until things changed.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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

How can you be certain of something you have no evidence for?

I'm ok that you have this belief system. However radical and bizarre that I find it, you can believe as you like. But you keep making claims without the benefit of any substantiation or explanation and expect others to accept them without question.

I see no reason to do that. Certainly, I see no reason to overturn science on the say so of some random individual with gut feelings he doesn't appear to have ever evaluated properly and just turned them into facts without reason.

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.

You sit on what you claim are the greatest discoveries in the history of mankind and this is the weak reason you cannot provide evidence to those requesting it. Really? SMH!

I don't believe in "intelligence".

It doesn't matter to me. Your belief is evidence only of your personal condition and not something that impacts experiment or observation.

I believe all observation and experiment support a different way of interpreting the evidence.

It is your privilege to believe as you choose, but I don't think you will find rational thinkers that put any stock in it. It is not evidence to support your claims.

Science is already evolving in this direction.

You would have to provide evidence for that, but I'm pretty sure where that request will go.

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

Are you? Is it holding you back from providing support for you claims. Does it leave you unable to show evidence or experiments that support your position? This looks to me like more conspiracy thinking as an escape hatch.

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.

I'm not interested in your conspiracy theories or your political beliefs. I just want you to substantiate the claims you have made here. Trying to turn this about me and what I think about the state of the world isn't going to relieve you of your scholarly and logical obligations. Those obligations are the only thing that is important here and I predict you will remain silent on them.

That doesn't seem at all respectful and seems very insulting as I see it.

 

[YoursTrue]

Thank you. I wasn't aware of thois or had forgotten;

"He could offer no theoretical explanation for his findings of reduced mortality due to hand-washing, and some doctors were offended at the suggestion that they should wash their hands and mocked him for it. In 1865, the increasingly outspoken Semmelweis allegedly suffered a nervous breakdown and was committed to an asylum by his colleagues. "

Ignaz Semmelweis - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

He died very young. This is the thanks all reformers get.

Ironically ancient science was well aware of germs and had procedures to stop their spread. This isn't because they were so smart but rather it's because ancient science was a tool better suited to learning it. This formed the basis of a couple books of the Bible and admonitions about cleanliness.

And few, I read, went to his funeral. My eyes are welling up a little now thinking about it. Yet he saved many many lives by his reform.

 

[YoursTrue]

And Jesus denied that.

Lol you're making me laugh now. For several reasons. Won't get into it unless you want to. I repeat, the nonsense about the damned and doomed burning in hellfire is something I never believed. If you do, that's up to you.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You might think you can read something in a book and it becomes knowledge but you are mistaken.

I'm still curious about this statement in relation to what many Christians regard about the Bible.

You are basically telling them that what they consider knowledge is not.

How would you explain that to them?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Lol. Ok. Let me put it to you this way. I always thought hellfire as considered by many was a bunch of junk. That before I studied it. Another reason why I didn't believe in God until things changed.

But that may be only because the idea of endless torture is repugnant to you. It does not refute the parts of the Bible that support it. For example:

And if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than with two hands to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire. And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life lame than with two feet to be thrown into hell. And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into hell, ‘where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.’

Oops, almost forgot that is Mark 9 43-48.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Lol you're making me laugh now. For several reasons. Won't get into it unless you want to. I repeat, the nonsense about the damned and doomed burning in hellfire is something I never believed. If you do, that's up to you.

Are you unaware of that? It is rather clear that you have not studied all of the Bible.

 

[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

I must say though if someone would say that beliefs are irrelevant, that is a sad uncaring statement in context.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Thank you. I wasn't aware of thois or had forgotten;

"He could offer no theoretical explanation for his findings of reduced mortality due to hand-washing, and some doctors were offended at the suggestion that they should wash their hands and mocked him for it. In 1865, the increasingly outspoken Semmelweis allegedly suffered a nervous breakdown and was committed to an asylum by his colleagues. "

Ignaz Semmelweis - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

He died very young. This is the thanks all reformers get.

Ironically ancient science was well aware of germs and had procedures to stop their spread. This isn't because they were so smart but rather it's because ancient science was a tool better suited to learning it. This formed the basis of a couple books of the Bible and admonitions about cleanliness.

Can you show us where you got the information that validates the existence of this "ancient science" that it was informed about the existence of germs and antiseptic techniques?

You make claims about this "ancient science" often, so you must be getting the information from somewhere. Why sit on it and prevent others from learning this wonderous knowledge too?

Seems easy enough to me.

 

[cladking]

And few, I read, went to his funeral. My eyes are welling up a little now thinking about it. Yet he saved many many lives by his reform.

Science changes one funeral at a time but of course I really should provide evidence for this, right?

Frequently the funeral is for the one who was right rather than the many whom are wrong.

Homo omnisciencis are literally born with all the answers because we acquire them with language. At two years old when our brains are expanding to learn Ancient Language we are instead fed old wives tales and beliefs that lead to every answer.

Instead of celebrating people like Semmelweis we celebrate fools like Champollion. We don't always get it wrong but frequently enough.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Can you show us where you got the information that validates the existence of this "ancient science" that it was informed about the existence of germs and antiseptic techniques?

You make claims about this "ancient science" often, so you must be getting the information from somewhere. Why sit on it and prevent others from learning this wonderous knowledge too?

Seems easy enough to me.

We so much need an "optimistic" frubal.

 

[cladking]

I must say though if someone would say that beliefs are irrelevant, that is a sad uncaring statement in context.

Beliefs are dangerous but most can be controlled when we recognize them as beliefs.

 

[YoursTrue]

Are you unaware of that? It is rather clear that you have not studied all of the Bible.

Again, you cannot say you understand the state of death as explained in the Bible. I'm not going into it now but maybe later. Any idea though what evolution theory says about the state of death? Dust to dust maybe?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Science changes one funeral at a time but of course I really should provide evidence for this, right?

Except that there are more scientists alive today than the total number that has existed in the previous 500 years. So, it seems your mantra is flawed.

Frequently the funeral is for the one who was right rather than the many whom are wrong.

So you say, but offer no evidence to base any agreement.

Homo omnisciencis

An unestablished claim.

are literally born with all the answers because we acquire them with language.

An unestablished claim about an unestablished species.

At two years old when our brains are expanding to learn Ancient Language

There is no evidence of this "Ancient Language" or that Homo sapiens learn it ever, at two years of age or otherwise.

we are instead fed old wives tales and beliefs that lead to every answer.

More empty claims about things that you should be able to substantiate if they are more than a personal belief as you often allege.

Instead of celebrating people like Semmelweis we celebrate fools like Champollion. We don't always get it wrong but frequently enough.

Semmelweis gets celebrated. Did you not see the link from Wikipedia.

Is this an effort to put your belief system of "ancient science and ancient language" and other empty claims on the same level as Semmelweis who had evidence for his claims?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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

No. It doesn't work that way. The onus to provide evidence is yours. It is your obligation. YOU have to establish a basis for your claims.

The sad fact is that I do understand you. That has leant me to a very robust position here. I have not had to resort to such word games or demands that others prove my position.

If that were the case, then you would have to provide evidence for my position and that of others. You don't even provide evidence for your own, so how do you predict a requirement for you to provide evidence for others would play out.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Again, you cannot say you understand the state of death as explained in the Bible. I'm not going into it now but maybe later. Any idea though what evolution theory says about the state of death? Dust to dust maybe?

What makes you think that I cannot understand it? I seem to understand it better than you do because I could support an argument that goes either way. You won't let yourself believe what the Bible clearly says again and again in that matter. Those first verses were from Mark. Let's see what Matthew said:

Matthew 25:46 ESV​

And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Beliefs are dangerous but most can be controlled when we recognize them as beliefs.

But posting beliefs that are irrelevant to the topic in order to avoid directly addressing the questions and requests put to you is a tactic. I was raised that pointing that out is the right thing to do. It is a value I learned to embrace from church too. I would expect that a Christian would support honest debate and eschew reliance on what appears to be deliberate use of deflective tactics, logical fallacies and empty claims.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What makes you think that I cannot understand it? I seem to understand it better than you do because I could support an argument that goes either way. You won't let yourself believe what the Bible clearly says again and again in that matter. Those first verses were from Mark. Let's see what Matthew said:

Matthew 25:46 ESV​

And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

I'm confused, but am I correct that now the claim is that the theory of evolution is a theory about the death of living things?