I didn't bother reading beyond midway through the 2nd paragraph. I don't have time for this nonsense. No one can read that fantasy language. It doesn't exist.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Darwin's Illusion
- Thread starter Neuropteron
- Start date
cladking
Well-Known Member
I blame Darwin for nothing at all except propagating a belief system that has led to disaster, in large part because it's wrong.
Even this isn't really Darwin's fault. He merely reported what he saw from the shoulders of giants and others ran with it.
How many times have I said every man is a product of his time and place. Darwin was wrong, not evil. His beliefs have led to great evil through little or no fault of his own.
You mean like believing that science is 40,000 years old with no evidence or reason? That there is a secret language that no one reads, speaks or has seen any evidence for, but someone believes it exists? That beavers farm and eat fish? That sort of belief?
Darwin formulated and published a scientific theory and not a belief system. It has not lead to any disaster I am aware of unless you mean forming the basis for wild flights of fantasy, and conspiracy theories by those not grounding their beliefs in reality. Tragic as those are, they are not the fault of Darwin or the theory of evolution.
Darwin got an amazing amount of things right.
gnostic
The Lost One
Except that YOU CONTINUE IGNORE STEALING AND MURDERS HAVE BEEN GOING ON FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS!!!
As I have demonstrated in my last posts, wars and genocides have also been occurring for as long as written history have been recording wars.
And wars are political policies and military operations, not a biological process.
Geology and biology were the main focuses of Darwin, not wars, politics or genocide.
You are being terribly dishonest, when you continue to bring up these false claims.
Why are you blaming Frederick the Great or Napoleon Bonaparte, as it is their policies and strategies that influenced strategies and wars in the 20th century?
This is bloody more false equivalence and confirmation bias, with this ignorant and dishonest conspiracy theory.
You not only don't understand much of sciences, you are complete incompetence with history too.
cladking
Well-Known Member
I do not recall your citing any examples of genocide. I do remember searching one of your Bible citations and finding nothing.
By "genocide" I am referring to the extermination of entire peoples based on ethnicity rather than nationality, place, or religion. I believe in most cases these have only occurred since Darwin. And there have been many.
People are a product of their beliefs and ONLY their beliefs.
If it is believed the human race will improve if all "X" are dead then "X" are in grave danger.
Generals are a product of their time and place like everyone else. They operate on their beliefs like everyone else. They jump in front of the masses and yell "follow me" and like sheep the people always have and they continue to follow all the way to Waterloo.
Reality isn't shaped by thugs but by sheep which is why one day the meek will inherit the earth. Politics and governments are shaped by thugs, miscreants, and statesmen. History has too many of the former and far too few of the latter.
Oh! Which conspiracy theory is that?
gnostic
The Lost One
Conspiracy theories against Peer Review, against biologists (in regards to Evolution), against Egyptologists (in regards to pyramids and their language), against archaeologists in general.
Oh. Against observations of evidence, scientific method and modern Natural Sciences.
Oh. Yes, another “oh”. Against all those who disagree with you, you labelled them as “believers”, whether they are in this forum or other forums elsewhere.
You have not presented a single evidence. You seemed to ignore and evade everyone who ask for you to present your evidence or sources. You just make up more ridiculously illogical claims as if your claims are facts.
I have come across you from other forums, and you have received the same skepticism from other people.
Do you really think you are not a believer of your claims of your own deluded fantasies?
Genocide is genocide, cladking.
Now you are playing word game, twisting terms to suit your own belief, using twisted semantics and moving goalposts.
The endless word games you have played.
Why do you think I (and other members) must accept your perverted definitions of the terms?
It is as if you have invented your own dictionary that only you follow.
Doesn’t that make you a Homo omnisciencis?
And that a term that don’t exist outside of your twisted reality.
cladking
Well-Known Member
One doesn't need to engage in a conspiracy to be wrong. Biologists are wrong because their assumptions are wrong just like Egyptologists. They didn't sit around agreeing on silly assumptions they just deduced them from the knowledge that ancient people were primitive and ignorant. Once you accept these assumptions it soon follows that they mustta used primitive and ignorant means to accomplish primitive and ignorant tasks. People seemed primitive and ignorant so it was believed to be as safe an assumption as that one can understand life without understanding consciousness. It seemed ancient people mustta been just like homo omnisciencis and if you study the origin of species then consciousness factors out.
It's all wrong but there was no conspiracy. If people needed to agree to be wrong then everyone would be right.
What is so weird to your mind that everyone can be wrong. Everyone has always been wrong before so why not now?
Everyone is a believer but we believe in different things. I believe that everyone always makes sense in terms of their premises (their beliefs) and that people used to be different before they evolved into homo omnisciencis. But unlike most people I know my beliefs could be wrong. Perhaps you don't make sense, pyramids were built with ramps, and Evolution is caused by "natural selection". Ya' see, I don't know. But this is the only thing that separates me from the rest of the human race; they each know and if necessary they can eMail a Peer to find out for certain. But I still preferentially see my beliefs and models. I interpret reality in terms of what I believe just like everyone else has since the tower of babel.
"Genocide" by definition means the extermination of types of humans deemed to be lesser or less fit. There have always been mass murders and wars including the annihilation of local people. but they weren't killed to improve the race but to remove a threat.
Some times it's like we speak different languages.
Are you even aware that language is principally for the purpose of communication? All terms must be defined. You selecting your own definition for words is the word game. If I say when I used the word "select" it means to pick and you respond with "No, select is the better choice" then YOU are playing games. If I say "playing games" is a refusal to communicate and twisting meanings then when you respond "no, only chess and backgammon are proper games" then that's another word game. This is what I get; people ignoring the argument and playing games. Address the point, not the words.
There are NO proper definitions in modern languages. Both chess and twisting words are games. Address the point.
You don't get to pick what words I use nor the definitions I mean.
Your entire post pretty much is a word game. I believe you know what I mean but refuse to discuss it. Why answer at all?
gnostic
The Lost One
You are talking about WW2, Hitler, Nazi & the Holocaust.
There have been racism against Jews, on the basis of religions and on the basis of ethnicity, long before Darwin, and long before the WW2’s Holocaust.
Do you really think that anti-Semitic in Europe started only from Darwin’s time and later, eg Nazi Germany?
Persecution, losses of properties, banishments, tortures and massacre occurred throughout Europe, as far back as the Early Middle Age (500 - 1000), and the 7th century in Toledo (Spain), these occurred, off and on.
They found safety and security, and were able to flourish culturally, when the Islamic empire spread to Spain, the Moorish kingdom, from the 9th to 11th centuries, only to have suffer again, at the hands of Christians when they took over.
Then in the High Middle Ages. Sometimes they found safe havens among Christians in the towns and cities they were living for generations, only to have new leaders taking it all away, and the persecutions, expulsions and massacre would begin again, spreading outside of Spain, into France, Germany and Austria, in the following centuries.
And by the 14th century, Jews were forced to wear clothes to identify themselves by the clothes and were confined to live in restricted areas of cities. How is that any different from what the Nazi did to them with the branding?
Worse still was the Black Death, where they were made scapegoats for the plagues that swept throughout Europe. More massacre and expulsions, even though Jews suffered too from the plagues. And centuries later, Jews were always blamed for any pestilence.
Then more persecution and massacre occurred in the next century (15th), with the start of the Spanish Inquisition. Jews were targeted just as often alleged witches and heretics.
You would some popes in the Middle Ages protecting Jews, then other pope’s elected sanctioning persecution, expulsion and murders.
In other kingdoms, they were often out of towns and cities, or treated as non-citizens despite they have been living there for generations.
The reasons why you find higher population of Jews living in Poland and eastern Russia in the 20th century, is because in 15th and 16th centuries they were driven out of France, and from the Holy Roman Empire (Germany and Austria).
Sorry, cladking. You really don’t know history of the Jews and their persecutors as well as you think you do, as anti-Semitic resentment and hatred, predated Darwin and Nazi Germany.
Don’t bother trying to evade, you are as incompetent with history as you do in sciences.
gnostic
The Lost One
Again with the excuses, moving the goalposts.
And more excuses, moving the goalposts and word games.
You are forgetting what started this.
It wasn’t just genocide and wars which you were blaming Darwin for. You said murders and stealing, you were blaming Darwin for these too.
Murder, massacre or genocide. It doesn’t matter which kind of killing, because you were blaming them all on Darwin...even the stealing.
Nowhere in books or correspondence he had written, say that he advocated for killing (of any kind) or stealing, and nowhere did his writing dictate government policies or direct military strategies.
It’s all generalizations and you playing the blame game on single person who was never in government or leading army, or committed any illegal activities, such as stealing and murder.
This is intellectually dishonest, where you continue to use conspiracy theory.
Oh, that another conspiracy theory, I have forgotten to mention: Charles Darwin.
You should add this in the growing list of conspiracy theories you have been using.
IThoughtAboutIt
Member
So you are saying that killing and exterminating every single Christian, Chinese, German, Buddhist, English, Mexican, just wouldn’t rise to the occasion for you? Doesn’t qualify? Is of no concern? Not worth considering in your world view? Do you even know the difference between an ethnicity and a nationality?
And here you are saying “by definition!” Who’s definition? Your own definition meant to somehow make your world seem real? First off you’re contradicting your previous genocide definition. That’s two different definitions you’ve given? Please cite a source for this so-called definition. It is incredibly intellectually dishonest to say “by definition” when you were obviously making up your own definition.
from the international criminal Court;
https://www.icc-cpi.int/about/how-the-court-works#:~:text=First, the crime of genocide,conditions of life calculated to
“the crime of genocide is characterised by the specific intent to destroy in whole or in part a national, ethnic, racial or religious group by killing its members or by other means: causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; or forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”
Please note that there is no distinction between nationality religion or ethnicity. Also know that there is no mention of less fit or any other motivation. (Are you serious? We killed them all for a good reason rather than we kill them all for a bad reason? If we kill them all because we want their resources and that’s not genocide? If we kill them all because they threaten our political power that’s not genocide? But hey if we killed them all because we think they’re evolutionarily unfit then all of a sudden now that’s genocide?)How does one become so twisted as to define every single term in a manner that suits their preconceived notion?
if you disagree with the international criminal courts definition, then please show me where your definition comes from. Unless it just fell out of your …
Last edited:
cladking
Well-Known Member
This is all irrelevant to Darwin's illusion. The point is that he believed species adapt to fit their niches because the less survivable individuals were eradicated. This belief is widespread today and has been since Darwin's time. Enemies have always been killed in wars and this sometimes extended to civilians but it was not done in the name of racial purity or to rid the planet of bad genes. There have even been instances of those with weak eyes (eyeglass wearers) being killed in modern times.
People act only on their beliefs. The belief that some people are less fit to survive is a very very dangerous belief especially to those deemed less fit. People will argue definitions here but I don't see anyone doing a study on popular beliefs about Darwin and how it applies to common beliefs among people and leaders.
gnostic
The Lost One
Actually, no.
You have obviously forgotten that @Neuropteron wrote Darwin’s Illusion thread, where he or she “falsely” claiming that Darwin wrote hypothesis on spontaneous generation, that somehow life would suddenly appeared out of nothing.
Neuropteron‘s claims in the OP were unsourced.
When asked, Neuropteron could never cite where Darwin wrote that he (Darwin) believed in and wrote on spontaneous generation.
Natural Selection had nothing to do with spontaneous generation or any other form of creation or other processes of the “origin of life”, such as Abiogenesis.
Darwin’s works that included the following...
- Journal And Remarks (1839), which was the original title of his book, but was often republished later as The Voyage Of The Beagle. This book included all his notes from his observations in his journey onboard HMS Beagle from 1831 to 1836. This was what started his interests why life changed over time.
- On Origin Of Species, By The Means Of Natural Selection (1859) was his 1st book that explained his hypothesis on biodiversity of life, “evolution” through Natural Selection.
- The Variation Of Animals And Plants Under Domestication (1868)
- The Descent Of Man, And Selection in Relation To Sex (1871).
- The Expression Of The Emotions In Man And Animals (1872)
- The Power Of Movement In Plants (1880)
- The Formation Of Vegetable Mould Through The Action Of Worms (1881)
The points being, in these scientific books Darwin wrote, Darwin have never offer proposed explanations to the origin of life, especially nothing on spontaneous generation.
So like you and @LIIA, where you both misattributed Survival of the fittest and Social Darwinism on Darwin, Neuropteron had misattributed spontaneous generation on Darwin.
Darwin never claimed or proposed spontaneous generation.
Making false assumptions about what he didn’t write, is intellectually dishonest, especially what you wrote in the rest of your reply.
Neuropteron wrote the OP without ever citing where Darwin wrote what Neuropteron have claimed.
gnostic
The Lost One
Oh, I forgot, @cladking.
Darwin did pondered on that life might have began on body of water, like pond, but this was just speculative musings, Darwin gave no detailed explanation about it.
It was a letter in 1871, to his longtime friend, Joseph Hooker.
Darwin wrote that life might have started on some “warm little pond”. But he never did address this speculation he made, so no explanations. That’s the only thing Darwin wrote on the subject, not enough to test his speculation.
It wasn’t anything about spontaneous generation of mice as Neuropteron claimed in the OP.
However, Darwin’s musing may have even be right, as biochemists have proposed Abiogenesis, in which some models included water along with other chemical could have started chemical reactions to form organic matters, such as amino acids, nucleotide base, and other organic matters (eg lipid, carbohydrates, etc) that are necessary before life began.
There are numbers of microfossils of microorganisms, like from primitive bacteria, being the earliest living organisms. So bacteria have more simpler biology than mice.
Another model of Abiogenesis, proposed that life may have begun near the hydrothermal sea vents.
Darwin did pondered on that life might have began on body of water, like pond, but this was just speculative musings, Darwin gave no detailed explanation about it.
It was a letter in 1871, to his longtime friend, Joseph Hooker.
Darwin wrote that life might have started on some “warm little pond”. But he never did address this speculation he made, so no explanations. That’s the only thing Darwin wrote on the subject, not enough to test his speculation.
It wasn’t anything about spontaneous generation of mice as Neuropteron claimed in the OP.
However, Darwin’s musing may have even be right, as biochemists have proposed Abiogenesis, in which some models included water along with other chemical could have started chemical reactions to form organic matters, such as amino acids, nucleotide base, and other organic matters (eg lipid, carbohydrates, etc) that are necessary before life began.
There are numbers of microfossils of microorganisms, like from primitive bacteria, being the earliest living organisms. So bacteria have more simpler biology than mice.
Another model of Abiogenesis, proposed that life may have begun near the hydrothermal sea vents.
gnostic
The Lost One
None of this have anything to do with Darwin or with his Natural Selection.
You are making up false claims.
Nothing in Darwin’s works proposed anything about killing, like murder or massacre or genocide or wars. This is your claim, and you have the tendencies of making up bogus claims that have nothing to do with Evolution.
And you still going on racial purity, which have more to do with 19th century eugenics proposed and developed by Francis Galton.
But Galton didn’t propose mass murder of population who were considered racially inferior. Eugenics have nothing to do with Evolution. All Galton proposal was that not to intermix superior people with inferior.
But that was hijacked the Nazi eugenics program, where Hitler and his subordinates to commit genocide...but again, none of this related to Natural Selection.
You are still blaming people which have nothing to do with Evolution.
Do you drive, cladking?
I don’t know who invented and developed the first motorized road vehicle, the car, but would you blame the inventor or engineer for car crashes that injured or killed people?
Then there are Isaac Newton and Gottfried Leibniz, who invented calculus, which have all sorts of applications in science, engineering & technology, economics. Are you going to blame Newton & Leibniz for economic depression, space shuttle explosion, the invention of the atomic bombs, etc, because calculus were used?
A bunch of computer programmers developed the Internet, and it was originally developed with military and academic purposes and applications, eg linking military bases in network, or universities in one network, where they are distanced apart.
Are you going to blame the inventors for other uses of the internet, both legal (eg advertising, marketing, etc) and illegal (eg black market, child pornography, etc)?
The problem is that you are blaming all the problems on Darwin and on Evolution, but which have nothing to do with either.
You are still playing the blame game.
cladking
Well-Known Member
You almost never address what I say and you aren't here either. I've tried larger font and all capitals but you address what you believe instead.
People act on their beliefs and nothing other than their beliefs. If they believe it's dog eat dog and the fit survive and most also believe that "Evolution" involves getting more fit, smarter, faster and ever closer to utopia then there is no reason to protect or help the weak and the inferior. Why not exterminate "lesser" races or heretics who don't even believe in global warming, Evolution, and the omnipotence of science? Why not stack bodies if it helps the future and is easier for us in the short term?
A great deal of evil is done not because of Darwin but because of his beliefs and the beliefs he inspired.
It's not Darwin's fault. But it is done in his name. It's not Darwin's fault and if he hadn't proposed "survival of the fittest" then someone else would have.
Now resume your word games.
The theory of evolution does not state or imply that individuals with lower fitness are eradicated. Darwin didn't say that. What can be said based on the evidence is that members with greater fitness have a greater reproductive potential on average. Having lower fitness just means that reproductive success is lower and the genes of those individuals have a reduced opportunity to proliferate in the population.
People that have the belief that some groups of humans are inferior and deserving of eradication have had those beliefs without Darwin's help. They might use gravity for their purposes too. Does that make gravity evil now as well?
The theory of evolution is not an incitement to violence by one group of people against another. That is just in your imagination.
gnostic
The Lost One
In his name?
That’s total bs. You still continue make up fantasies.
I don’t see any evidence that the Nazi worshipped Charles Darwin.
If there were any name that the Nazi followed was Hitler.
You are still being intellectually dishonest with us.
And your hypocrisy are also very apparent to me.
Do you remember you telling us that we shouldn’t trust scientists “interpreting” evidence or experiments, because you believe that they don’t give us the right information about natural phenomena, like Natural Selection, for instance?
But that’s all you have been doing - interpreting everything according to your illogical beliefs, whether it be...
- science (eg evolution),
- philosophy (eg metaphysics),
- or history (eg language)
But not once, have you offer any facts, because facts required “evidence”, which you have been not forthcoming with.
You have claimed, frequently, that all evidence have backed your claims, but whenever anyone ask you to show these evidence, you become very evasive, making up excuses.
No one here believe anything you say, because not once have been honest with us.
Like I said, all you have given us, your interpretations of science or history, but no fact.
I have corrected several of your mistakes, like who coined the “survival of the fittest”, but you continue to associate this with Darwin, not Herbert Spencer, making up excuses.
You thought that Darwin was responsible for Social Darwinism. Nope that was Herbert Spencer. Even when you have been corrected, you are still making up excuses, trying to “reinterpret” and “rewrite” history, by still blaming Darwin for sociological concept that Darwin didn’t write.
Then you thought you can blame Darwin for killing and stealing, including the massacre of Jews by the Nazi, during World War 2 - blaming Darwin, not the Nazi for the eugenics program. Again more reinterpreting and rewriting history. It was Darwin who wrote about eugenics, but again you are wrong; it was Francis Galton, not Darwin. Corrected again, but you still making excuses, still blaming Darwin for something he didn’t write.
What else are you going to reinterpret or rewrite?
And this have been going on for years, when you created the Ancient Reality thread, interpreting symbols that weren’t written language. Saying that there were 40,000 year old science, when there were none.
You are right about one thing, though. Sciences do require communication, so any scientific models would require to be verbally spoken or written down. But since spoken language tends to die out, written languages are required to preserve these knowledge of sciences. You have such evidence that those prehistoric symbols are written languages, because you definitely cannot translate it or read it.
But once again, you try to reinterpret what you see as metaphysical written language that no one can read. This is the same BS claim as you have done with Evolution. Reinterpret what you claimed to see, and making up some fictions that only you believe. That’s circular reasoning, as well as confirmation bias.
You have created these fantasies, thinking you have all these answers...but tell me, cladking, who believe in these fantasies? Just you?
cladking
Well-Known Member
Again you misunderstood, misinterpreted and parsed something wrong.
I have said that every homo omniscience MUST interpret everything they see and hear in terms of their beliefs. We use pattern recognition to do this and these patterns become quite complex and are known as "paradigms". We must interpret our world and we do so only in terms of our beliefs. Consciousness itself is a sort of pattern generator but other life and ancient people saw patterns based on what they already knew, not on what they believed.
People, all people, should think for themselves but this hardly means that one should doubt momentum and stand in front of a bus. Just because all people are wrong and all scientists are people doesn't mean that scientists are wrong about ANY specific thing.
I've stated much of the evidence many times and if anyone ever addressed that evidence THEN I'd be happy to bring up more details. But the evidence and logic are handwaved. Answer a few simple questions like why all observed change in life is sudden and why consciousness can't be involved in change of species and mebbe we could have a good discussion and put Darwin to bed or even show I am wrong. You will not address these questions with anything more than a hand wave and a semantical argument. You will not attempt to show even one experiment that supports a gradual change caused by survival of the fittest because there are none. The Toe is nothing but an interpretation derived from erroneous assumptions.
These interpretations are in accordance with experiment and logic and they make countless mysteries evaporate. Unlike Peers I could be wrong but the simplest explanations are usually the correct ones.
Then why don't you tell us what they are? Of course you don't know so why not say how the same marks are found all over the world?
It is impossible to read Ancient Language because "reading" by definition is parsing and metaphysical language can NOT be parsed. It can NOT be translated into English. The marks in caves aren't even "language" per se but are merely "verb like" words. They are the formatting for the language.
Every word in this post could be parsed correctly and understood. Taking them literally would help.