Darwin's Illusion

[Dan From Smithville]

And metaphysics is the only thing he redefine to his warped reality.

examples: evidence, experiment, observation, consciousness, etc.

Sudden. Don't forget sudden. It covers any duration of time from nanoseconds to billions of years.

The problem with someone redefining terms is multiplied when they do not bother to offer the new definition and then keep changing it to suit their claims.

The double secret semantic circle.

 

[gnostic]

Sudden. Don't forget sudden. It covers any duration of time from nanoseconds to billions of years.

The problem with someone redefining terms is multiplied when they do not bother to offer the new definition and then keep changing it to suit their claims.

The double secret semantic circle.

Yeah, "sudden", too.

Sudden is too vague, to be of any use.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yeah, "sudden", too.

Sudden is too vague, to be of any use.

I wonder if you came to that conclusion suddenly or suddenly, depending on which definition I am using and not telling you I am using.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Why the dishonest denial? The Nazis racist ideology was scientifically driven.

The Nazi designated specific people with no right to live to be targeted for murder by the state, including people with serious medical problems, and people with cognitive and physical disabilities, deaf, blind, etc. such label as diagnosed by a doctor was the basis for forced sterilization or murder. The Nazi designated these people as "life unworthy of life". They tried to accelerate the cleansing process of natural selection by faster elimination of the unfit.

Life unworthy of life - Wikipedia

Nazi eugenics - Wikipedia

This represents a strange distortion of what 'fitness' relates as it pertains to the ToE. It does NOT mean 'intrinsically better'. It is ALWAYS contextual.

So, in a Nazi-run society Jews, atheists, disabled people and many other groups were indeed 'less fit' to survive in the prevailing environment. That isn't exactly news, given that they were being actively persecuted by Nazis, but it has nothing to do with the inherent value those groups hold.

Nazis, of course, believed that it did. Nazis were, imho, a parasitical group of brutal, cultish humans (because it's important we don't dehumanize them, honestly) who I have exactly no interest in defending. How they can be used to decry science is quite strange. Better we use them as an example of what happens when good men stand idle, or how we should respect those different to ourselves, lest their fate become ours.

Science is just science. What humans use it for, where it is controlled or unfettered, and how we change our environments/society because of it is ENTIRELY ON US. Science doesn't care. It can't.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I’m not saying abiogenesis cannot be tested? I’m saying abiogenesis was not tested/falsified.

If you don’t agree, demonstrate how is the hypothesis that life arose on its own from non-living matter was falsified.

Sorry, but you do not get to set the goals. The very first experiment in abiogenesis was confirmed the hypothesis of abiogenesis. You appear to be conflating confirmation with "proof". There is no "proof" in the sciences. One tests either theories or hypotheses to see if they are correct so far or wrong. The Miller Urey experiment confirmed the hypothesis of abiogenesis since of its claims was that for abiogenesis to occur nucleic acids have to be able to form on their own. At that time it was thought that only life could make nucleic acids. So those positing abiogenesis devised an experiment that mimicked early Earth conditions and saw if amino acids were formed. Guess what? They did. That removed that one argument against abiogenesis.

Did it "prove" abiogenesis? No. Not even close. But it showed that one "impossible" claim of deniers of science was wrong. Quite a few of the other problems of abiogenesis have been solved, but not all of them. That is why abiogenesis is still in the hypothetical stage. But due to all of those solved problems there is now far far more scientific evidence for abiogenesis than there is for creation. In fact the first experiment in abiogenesis provided more evidence than there is for creation by a god. Have they "proved" it yet? Perhaps if one goes by the legal standard of "Proof beyond a reasonable doubt" but scientists are a bit pickier than that. There is still some work to be done. If and when they do it then abiogenesis may become a scientific fact, but it is not that far along yet.

Meanwhile creationism looks more and more like just a myth every new day.

 

[cladking]

OK, you guys have convinced me. Science has no basis but Darwin; Praise Be to Darwin!

Why should experiment even be performed if Peers can just Look and See the Evidence?

No amount of fossils and no amount of Looking and Seeing can ever change Science; Praise Be to Science!


Praise Be to Homo Omnisciencis, Whom can make His own reality! And can't imagine a rock so large He Himself can't move it.

We will achieve Our perfection when We burn Heretics at the stake and eliminate these Unfit.

It's all clear now; every word means what you want it to and Science has no basis which can be put into words because Its basis is Evidence, reality Itself. And reality Itself can be found only in the Holy Scripture which is Peer reviewed.

 

[cladking]

Metaphysics; the basis of science.

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The word "metaphysics" is not the basis of science. The word "metaphysics" is the definitions, axioms, and scientific method that make science work. It is every experiment ever performed. This is the definition of "metaphysics" and when you parse it to mean something else it is you butchering the language and playing word games. It is you building strawmen.

We can use any damn word you want to mean this. What do you word game players want to call it? All I have to choose words from is the unabridged dictionary which says "metaphysics" is the basis of science.

https://www.hrstud.unizg.hr/_downlo...etaphysical_Foundations_of_Modern_Science.pdf

Unlike you I am flexible. You pick the word or just admit you believe Peers are the basis of science and intelligence and Looking and Seeing are the basis of Peers.

Darwin was wrong and no matter how much you twist science and the English language he was still wrong.

 

[gnostic]

OK, you guys have convinced me. Science has no basis but Darwin; Praise Be to Darwin!

Now you are being condescending and patronizing.

Charles Darwin is only one of the pioneers in a specific field in biology.

Do you under that being pioneer, IS JUST THE START of the theory of Evolution, more specifically the Natural Selection mechanism?

Being at the beginning of this theory, there was many things he didn’t in biology, and because he was limited by the technology of time, he could only hypothesize as much as he did, which is impressive in the 19th century.

Other biologists over the decades and century would learn more, correcting whatever errors he may have made, and expanding the theory with new knowledge

No one in biology are treating him as a god, prophet, apostle or saint. No biologists are worshipping him.

All you are doing is using the same blatant tactics as YEC creationists and ID creationists, trying to conflate him what he didn’t do. It is a dishonest tactic, and based on your incompetency in science in general (not just talking about biology, in physics, Earth science and astronomy), you don’t know what you are talking about.

Darwin certainly didn’t think he was a god or prophet, didn’t think himself as holy.

He was well aware that he didn’t know everything.

If you bother to learn his background before had published his first book on Natural Selection (1859), he had friends and colleagues who advised him, corrected him when he made mistakes, then you would know that he wasn’t too prideful or arrogant to seek help.

I know you don’t like Darwin, but being patronizing with us, only show your desperation and insecurity.

You had admitted somewhere (I don’t remember in which thread it was) that you have no qualifications in biology and no experiences in any biology-related fields, so why would anyone would accept your words on any biology subject?

And clearly you don’t like science, because you rejected all evidence & data, and you don’t have any peer-reviewed sources. You have this conspiracy theory about Peer Review, making false and unsubstantiated claims as to what they do.

What you do have is a bunch of outlandish ideas about natural reality, that only you accept as being true.

 

[cladking]

I know you don’t like Darwin, but being patronizing with us, only show your desperation and insecurity.

I love Darwin as much as any Egyptologist. He was a little ahead of his time and helped remove a little "magic" from the thinking of the age at least for the common man. He was a (little) giant upon whose shoulders anyone could be proud to stand.

But he was wrong. He was wrong about everything and your adoration nor mine can change this.

You had admitted somewhere (I don’t remember in which thread it was) that you have no qualifications in biology and no experiences in any biology-related fields, so why would anyone would accept your words on any biology subject?

No. I have no expertise in any relevant subject. I am one of a mere handful of "nexialists" in the world and I have no expertise here either because of the way I do it.

And clearly you don’t like science,

I believe you're the one who doesn't like science. Real scientists don't worship Peers from the 19th century or the 21st. Real scientists are aware that science has a basis and this basis can only be expressed in words and experienced as models. Real scientists know that knowledge and thought are individual and not collective.


(Most) real scientists know that paradigms change.

 

[gnostic]

I believe you're the one who doesn't like science. Real scientists don't worship Peers from the 19th century or the 21st. Real scientists are aware that science has a basis and this basis can only be expressed in words and experienced as models. Real scientists know that knowledge and thought are individual and not collective.

And there you go again with the conspiracy theory.

You really don't know what Peer Review do, you make up some fake & crazy narratives which peer review really don't do.

For the same reasons that scientists formulating new and proposed hypotheses, they must follow Scientific Method, requirements that must be adhere to:

1. To formulate hypothesis that would include explanatory models and predictive models, which set limits or scopes as to what to expect to find when testing the hypothesis.
2. To test the hypothesis, through observations. These observations are evidence that can be either be discovered in the fields or performing experiments with controlled variables and in controlled environments. The tests results from such observations would include data, so the evidence & data are d

The Peer Review are only there independent scientists in the same or related fields, who would review the hypothesis, would ensure that the scientists (the ones who submitted the hypothesis) have followed the Scientific Method requirements. So the submitted hypothesis MUST INCLUDE BOTH TEST RESULTS (eg evidence, experiments) & DATA.

If the submitted hypothesis have no evidence and no data, then the peers can and should rejected unfalsifiable hypothesis. In fact, unfalsifiable models cannot even be considered to be "hypothesis".

If there are evidence and data, but the evidence & data don't support the hypothesis, then the hypothesis should be classified as refuted falsifiable hypothesis, meaning the hypothesis is "improbable".

There are other reasons for peers to reject submitted hypothesis, if either the hypothesis or tests for any of the following reasons:

1. have errors in the hypothesis or in the tests;
   
2. the data were tampered, doctored or rigged, in favor of the hypothesis (cheating, the scientists being biased);
3. there are no original tests (evidence, experiments), no original data from this hypothesis;

So the Peer Review are mainly used to ensure there are scientists are following Scientific Method with their submitted hypotheses, and that there are no errors, no cheating, no biases in the conclusion.

Other than that, Peer Review don't have the powers that you have claimed they have. Your claims are nothing more than conspiracy theory of being worshipped or insidious organisations, they are nothing more than wishful fantasies (delusions) that you have cooked up.

I am tired of your unsubstantiated claims and your absurd narratives. And I am tired of chasing you down the number of rabbit holes that you have digged for yourself.

And btw...

I love Darwin as much as any Egyptologist.

What do Egyptologists have to do with Charles Darwin?

Darwin isn't archaeologist (or Egyptologist or Assyriologist or Classicist). Darwin real qualifications and expertise were in geology and botany, and general knowledge of other biology known in his time (eg animals and humans).

Egyptologists are only interested in cultures (eg social customs, form of government, laws, religions, etc) and all man-made physical constructs of ancient Egyptian society (eg literature (both secular and religious writings), artwork, pottery, tools, weapon, building and large structures, etc).

But Evolution are not just about changes in human biology, but also biology of other organisms.

Archaeology have very little to do with much of understanding biology of other life forms.

This is exactly what I mean by your incompetency in sciences, you confuse study of biology with archaeology, a totally different science. It is ridiculous that you would continue to bring up Egyptology, when you talking about Darwin's Natural Selection.

To me, this is a desperate attempt to distract us. By bringing up, you are hoping to change the subject. And you do that often. Whenever, we argue about things you would bring up something related to Egypt, even when we are talking about something not about Egypt.

If you want to talk about Egyptology then start a new thread, and not sidetrack this thread with your anti-Egyptology view.

 

[cladking]

And there you go again with the conspiracy theory.

I say real scientists are individuals and think for themselves.

You say science is beholden to Peers who look over their shoulders.

Then you say I believe in conspiracies.


Between the strawmen and semantics you play and your refusal to actually address what anyone but yourself believes arguing with you is like arguing with writing on a wall. Nothing can affect your thinking, words, or tactics.

I should have my head examined for asking since it isn't in the script but what do do believe "conspiracy theory" means and what conspiracy theory am I promulgating by my comments?

I am still looking for any experiment that shows a gradual change in species caused by "fitness". This is the Thrust of Darwin's work and it has not been supported but rather than address this you ignore it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

And there you go again with the conspiracy theory.

You really don't know what Peer Review do, you make up some fake & crazy narratives which peer review really don't do.

For the same reasons that scientists formulating new and proposed hypotheses, they must follow Scientific Method, requirements that must be adhere to:

1. To formulate hypothesis that would include explanatory models and predictive models, which set limits or scopes as to what to expect to find when testing the hypothesis.
2. To test the hypothesis, through observations. These observations are evidence that can be either be discovered in the fields or performing experiments with controlled variables and in controlled environments. The tests results from such observations would include data, so the evidence & data are d

The Peer Review are only there independent scientists in the same or related fields, who would review the hypothesis, would ensure that the scientists (the ones who submitted the hypothesis) have followed the Scientific Method requirements. So the submitted hypothesis MUST INCLUDE BOTH TEST RESULTS (eg evidence, experiments) & DATA.

If the submitted hypothesis have no evidence and no data, then the peers can and should rejected unfalsifiable hypothesis. In fact, unfalsifiable models cannot even be considered to be "hypothesis".

If there are evidence and data, but the evidence & data don't support the hypothesis, then the hypothesis should be classified as refuted falsifiable hypothesis, meaning the hypothesis is "improbable".

There are other reasons for peers to reject submitted hypothesis, if either the hypothesis or tests for any of the following reasons:

1. have errors in the hypothesis or in the tests;
   
2. the data were tampered, doctored or rigged, in favor of the hypothesis (cheating, the scientists being biased);
3. there are no original tests (evidence, experiments), no original data from this hypothesis;

So the Peer Review are mainly used to ensure there are scientists are following Scientific Method with their submitted hypotheses, and that there are no errors, no cheating, no biases in the conclusion.

Other than that, Peer Review don't have the powers that you have claimed they have. Your claims are nothing more than conspiracy theory of being worshipped or insidious organisations, they are nothing more than wishful fantasies (delusions) that you have cooked up.

I am tired of your unsubstantiated claims and your absurd narratives. And I am tired of chasing you down the number of rabbit holes that you have digged for yourself.

And btw...



What do Egyptologists have to do with Charles Darwin?

Darwin isn't archaeologist (or Egyptologist or Assyriologist or Classicist). Darwin real qualifications and expertise were in geology and botany, and general knowledge of other biology known in his time (eg animals and humans).

Egyptologists are only interested in cultures (eg social customs, form of government, laws, religions, etc) and all man-made physical constructs of ancient Egyptian society (eg literature (both secular and religious writings), artwork, pottery, tools, weapon, building and large structures, etc).

But Evolution are not just about changes in human biology, but also biology of other organisms.

Archaeology have very little to do with much of understanding biology of other life forms.

This is exactly what I mean by your incompetency in sciences, you confuse study of biology with archaeology, a totally different science. It is ridiculous that you would continue to bring up Egyptology, when you talking about Darwin's Natural Selection.

To me, this is a desperate attempt to distract us. By bringing up, you are hoping to change the subject. And you do that often. Whenever, we argue about things you would bring up something related to Egypt, even when we are talking about something not about Egypt.

If you want to talk about Egyptology then start a new thread, and not sidetrack this thread with your anti-Egyptology view.

It has been my observation that those that most often concoct conspiracy narratives against peer review are those whose ideas are largely an amalgamation of pseudoscience, ideology, fantasy and whimsy with no evidence, testable hypotheses or predictive ability and lacking the merit to pass peer review for those reasons. Rather than recognize the baseless nature of those ideas and the real reasons for rejection in science, a story is fabricated casting those ideas, and themselves also, as the victim of a conspiracy bent on hiding their "truth" from the world.

 

[cladking]

It has been my observation that those that most often concoct conspiracy narratives against peer review...

You guys should get together on your straw army.

I don't think that's even the "conspiracy" he's accusing me of...

 

[gnostic]

It has been my observation that those that most often concoct conspiracy narratives against peer review are those whose ideas are largely an amalgamation of pseudoscience, ideology, fantasy and whimsy with no evidence, testable hypotheses or predictive ability and lacking the merit to pass peer review for those reasons. Rather than recognize the baseless nature of those ideas and the real reasons for rejection in science, a story is fabricated casting those ideas, and themselves also, as the victim of a conspiracy bent on hiding their "truth" from the world.

I get this impression that cladking have tried to either publish his paper about Egypt (about the building of pyramids or their language & texts) or tried to share his ideas with Egyptologists, and they might have shot it down as being pseudo-archaeology or pseudo-philology or unscientific.

Whatever the reasons might have been, he would bring up his anti-Egyptologists sentiments to non-Egyptian topics/threads, and therefore he has this conspiracy theory against Peer Review.

But archaeology and Egyptology aren’t Natural Sciences, which Evolution is (a field in biology).

Evolutionary biology have nothing to do with Egyptology, and Egyptology have nothing to do with Evolutionary biology.

I don’t recall Darwin presenting any concept about how Egyptian pyramids were built, or Darwin translating Egyptian hieroglyphic texts.

So why he plagued non-Egyptology threads with his resentments towards peer review on biology subject?

I just wish he would create Egyptology threads and ***** about it elsewhere without trying to distract us in threads about Evolution vs creationism.

 

[gnostic]

You guys should get together on your straw army.

I don't think that's even the "conspiracy" he's accusing me of...

How about you, creating a new thread on Egyptology or Egyptologists, and stop throwing this thread off tangent?

Darwin have nothing to do with Egyptology and Egyptologists.

 

[cladking]

Evolutionary biology have nothing to do with Egyptology, and Egyptology have nothing to do with Evolutionary biology.

Exactly, but you refuse to discuss any point about Darwin.

I get this impression that cladking have tried to either publish his paper about Egypt (about the pyramids or their language & texts) or tried to share his ideas with Egyptologists, and they might have shot it down as being pseudo-archaeology or pseudo-philology or unscientific.

Whatever the reasons might have been, he would bring up his anti-Egyptologists sentiments to non-Egyptian topics/threads, and therefore he has this conspiracy theory against Peer Review.

But archaeology and Egyptology aren’t Natural Sciences, which Evolution is (a field in biology).

Evolutionary biology have nothing to do with Egyptology, and Egyptology have nothing to do with Evolutionary biology.

I don’t recall Darwin presenting any concept about how Egyptian pyramids were built, or Darwin translating Egyptian hieroglyphic texts.

So why he plagued non-Egyptology threads with his resentments towards peer review on biology subject?

I just wish he would create Egyptology threads and ***** about it elsewhere without trying to distract us in threads about Evolution vs creationism.

I REPEAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"I say real scientists are individuals and think for themselves.

You say science is beholden to Peers who look over their shoulders.

Then you say I believe in conspiracies.

Between the strawmen and semantics you play and your refusal to actually address what anyone but yourself believes arguing with you is like arguing with writing on a wall. Nothing can affect your thinking, words, or tactics.

I should have my head examined for asking since it isn't in the script but what do do believe "conspiracy theory" means and what conspiracy theory am I promulgating by my comments?

I am still looking for any experiment that shows a gradual change in species caused by "fitness". This is the Thrust of Darwin's work and it has not been supported but rather than address this you ignore it."

Maybe you guys should get together and agree on the semantical games, evasions, strawmen, twisting of other peoples' definitions you want to do.

Why don't you start by adressing the question of what "conspiracy" means to you and what conspiracy I believe.

All Darwin's believers have is smoke and mirrors and Look and See Fossil Evidence. From this they have induced everything!

 

[cladking]

...distract us in threads about Evolution vs creationism.

To you the subject is Evolution vs God.

The author of this thread seemed to believe the subject was Darwin's illusion or the religion that has formed around it;

"History will ultimately judge neo-Darwinism as a minor twentieth-century religious sect within the sprawling religious persuasion of Anglo-Saxon biology"
She asks any molecular biologists to name a single, unambiguous example of the formation of a new species by the accumulation of mutations. Her challenge to date is still unmet."

The existence or nonexistence of a Creator is simply irrelevant to Darwin's delusions.

You refuse to address the subject and have been doing so this entire thread.

 

[cladking]

To you the subject is Evolution vs God.

You live in a very very simple black and white world where science is the white light and belief in your version of God is the blackness.

That world doesn't exist. Yes, there's good and evil but they aren't always easy to tell apart and even when they are there are still shades and types of good and evil. Everything is infinitely complicated and the only way to the light is reason NOT SCIENCE. Science like math is based in reason and knowledge so always bears some relationship to reality but this hardly precludes religion or other means to reason. It also doesn't mean that science is always right or ever right; it just means science will at least resonate with reality.

ANY belief can lead to evil just as the belief in "survival of the fittest" has been one of the leading causes of death since Darwin came up with it. Ironically countless millions have died for something that doesn't even exist. Despite the sterilization and slaughter of millions the human race is devolving ever faster. It is devolving because of the belief leaders don't need to be responsible and the fit will survive. No matter how many cripples and unfit are murdered these superstitions will lead to ever faster decay and even speciation if unchecked.

 

[cladking]

Everything is infinitely complicated and the only way to the light is reason NOT SCIENCE. Science like math is based in reason and knowledge so always bears some relationship to reality but this hardly precludes religion or other means to reason.

Religion BEGAN as the search for truth and the only real truth it ever discovered is that for humanity life is Knowledge > Understanding > Creation.

We have confused this simple truth for the "Holy Trinity".

Let's talk about EITHER the religion or science of "evolution". Show us an experiment that demonstrates a gradual change in species caused by fitness or answer ANY of my question. Hundreds of questions and you ignore them all.

edited to add; You can virtually define "consciousness" as nature's gift to all life and is the pursuit of Knowledge > Understanding > Creation. It is the lack of understanding this very simple concept that afflicted Darwin and caused "Darwin's illusion". Now you'll fail to address ANY of this either.

 

[gnostic]

@cladking

you are not going to start new threads on Egyptology, are you?

ok, I’ll simplify and start a thread for you

just don’t hijack other threads that have absolutely.nothing to do with ancient Egypt.