Darwin's Illusion

[rational experiences]

If you ask inventors don't you pretend you created everything by your human thesis. Then you argue to assert your god status? Man's authority over men?

The base answer is yes. It's human ego behaviour.

So the church on medical science status made a claim by healer. Just humans. Said the centre of life in the cosmos is earth. For humans.

And it owned it's own alight atmosphere that wandering sun stars passing only now fuelled. As light fuelled supported living. Giving it a saviour status.

And no sun was involved anymore with our earth as past thesis.

They also had to relate a human is innate aware conscious as proven by healers. Human to human exact natural position first. Acutely aware without machine use.

Versus men no longer owning true human consciousness from humans brain burn.

Star fall. Satan.

Is exact your a human and I'm a human. Number one position equal no status thesis allowed. And God was the unknoweable.

As based on the eternal teaching. To trust you were spiritual and it really happened. Direct from spirit. Reasoned also the fact supernatural came out of rocks stone hell. Suns stone hell.

So they said the supernatural was seen coming straight out of burning causes by biological living life. Hence hell had come from changed eternal too. Exact reason why.

Basic teaching we live breathe by tree and gardens living position and in natures position. That is wood. It's grounded in dirt mass and is as a form nothing like us.

Pretty basic science for arrogant humans.

Now if you build and use a status yourself as I think I'm pretty intelligent as a man. Like a creator I can cause change to body mass.

Then you did.

It's term is machine and artificial. In science it owns the purpose artificial causes. Not is it ever natural causes.

Natural is the human position.

You termed it by super powers of earth and also changed status as natural.

Now if you try to quantify that altering natural is natural you lie. As natural in reaction was asserting an energy release.

Such as raised as volcanoes asserted energy release or through slits cracks. Earthquake carpenter. Matter remained as the past status.

It didn't hold it. It only released it. Energy asserted.

You however held it. So other humans taught you that you changed natural laws.

Making your written term our destroyer.

So from our human position. You must ask man the scientist. Did you de evolve mutate human and animal nature's life on earth......
And...
Know you did and it eventually healed back?

All said by just a healthy humans conscious assertions thought chosen studies subject topics...human?

I think you find theist you are self possessed. You keep asserting you are the God status by humans thoughts.

 

[Valjean]

LIIA said: ↑
If the authenticity of historical religious records can be verified and the drawn data from these records are consistent with both logic and observational science (without any contradiction), then there is neither logical basis nor scientific basis to deny it.

No such authentification exists. There are hundreds of historical, religious records. They are not consistent. They disagree with each other.
Most religious scripture contains no empirical evidence, just claims, assertions and hearsay. Many are empirically false and self-contradictory. They are not reliable. They are folklore.

Because you’re looking for the wrong kind of evidence that doesn’t apply to the Nature of God. If you know that the missing item is within a dark house (domain of search), you may get a flashlight (appropriate means) and search within that house. You don’t go search outside (wrong domain) and expect to find it there merely because “outside” is where you can see.

You're presupposing this missing item. There is no reason to believe any item exists.
What kind of "evidence" does apply to the "nature of God" -- or to His existence, for that matter. Such evidence must needs be entirely personal and subjective, therefore, not evidence for anyone but the believer.

Reality is not limited to entities that can be observed or experimented with. We cannot observe everything at all times, Inductivism is deficient in the sense that inductive evidence are always limited, that’s why we use deductive reasoning to verify the validity of an initial premise.

Unobservable entities may, indeed, exist, but until actual, tangible evidence for them comes to light, we must, reasonably, assume they do not exist.

Logic can provide initial predictions/premise independent from observations. Such as the mathematical physics of the general theory of relativity, that successfully provided proven predictions consistent with experimental data. Einstein didn’t rely on a sophisticated space telescope to spot some extraordinary observation but rather his tools were pen, paper and the power of the human mind.

The theories of relativity are entirely based on observations plus testable conclusions and predictions. There are no such observations or testable evidence for God.

Logic and the intellectual power of the human mind can go further beyond physical observations. Yet, consistent observations support the validity of the premise.

What observations would these be?

The logical premise of the necessary (absolute) being “God” is supported by observations of design, purpose, and order that can be witnessed in the fine-tuned universe, every single life form (see #424), even at the atomic and molecular level (see #226).No, it's not. Please support this assertion.
"Design, purpose and order?" Unintentional design, derived from the laws and constants of physics.
"Purpose" Purpose presupposes intentional design. There is no purpose. There is only function.
"Order?" Order is a result of the intentionless unfolding of the laws of physics, not of intentioned design or planning.

Not at all, read it again. Einstein was not an atheist, pantheist or agnostic.

Yet that is the conclusion of most scholars who've read his remarks on the subject.

Third, Agnosticism is the view that the existence of God is unknown or unknowable. That was not his view. he was not agnostic. Einstein said "God is a mystery. But a comprehensible myster y. I have nothing but awe when I observe the laws of nature.There are not laws without a lawgiver”. He acknowledged God’s causal influence as the “lawgiver” but he correctly identified the specific problem as the nature of God. He said “but how does this lawgiver look? Certainly not like a man magnified”.

Casual remarks taken out of context. He was not a theist.
There are not laws without a lawgiver”.

Poppycock. This conclusion doesn't follow. Where is the evidence of a lawgiver?

To summarize, Einstein was not an atheist, He acknowledged God’s causal influence as the “lawgiver”, his view was that the problem is too vast for our limited minds with respect to the nature of God’s being. He said “but how does this lawgiver look?”.

Einstein was most probably a pantheist, but one man's opinion is of no matter. There is no reason to believe in a God

Logically, any witnessed effect is a component of a chain reaction or a domino effect. a witnessed phenomenon at a specific point in time is analogous to the last domino’s fall in a “domino effect” and can be sufficiently explained by the fall of the domino immediately preceding it. But does such explanation provide sufficient disclosure of a root cause or justify a claim for an undirected mechanism? Absolutely not. unless you explain the absolute beginning of the domino effect, you neither have an explanation nor can claim that the mechanism is undirected. All what you did is you moved one step back to find that you are back to square one with the exact same question.

An undirected mechanism is the epistemic default. A conscious, intentional, uncaused cause is an extraordinary claim, and the burden of proof is on this claim.

In all phenomena thus far researched and understood, natural, unintentional, mechanisms have been found responsible. In no case, save human engineering, has conscious, intentional planning been found. In no case has magic, as a 'mechanism' been observed.
There has never been evidence for, or any logical reason to believe in, intentionality or planning, much less magic.

Yes, natural laws explain observable phenomena. natural laws are the “preceding domino” per the analogy above but what explains the natural laws itself? What is the root cause?

Unknown -- and unknown does not equal God. Nor does "Goddidit" explain either natural law or the phenomena derived therefrom. "Goddidit" is an attribution, not an explanation.

We know natural laws exist and act in a specific way. That’s very much it, but why does it exist? Why it acts in such specific manner? We have no idea; we don’t even care for an explanation as if these laws or physical forces are brute facts. It's not. it's all contingent entities that came to existence with the Big Bang. Even the term “physical” doesn't represent true knowledge or understanding of its nature. If we know nothing about the intrinsic nature of these forces, how can we with any level of certainty call it physical or metaphysical? If this is the case with the natural laws, how about the nature of its causal influence? We don’t have a clue, as Einstein said, “There are not laws without a lawgiver …but how does this lawgiver look?”.

And Goddidit answers none of this. It explains nothing. Attributing the unknown to an invisible, magical personage is not reasonable. "No laws without a lawgiver" does not follow.

 

[cladking]

There has never been evidence for, or any logical reason to believe in, intentionality or planning, much less magic.

It seems like most believers in Evolution think science is magical. They think if you are sufficiently intelligent and have education then you can just Look and See what's real and what's not. Once you reach this level you become a Peer and no longer have to deal with evidence, experiment, or logic because you'll be in the tiny group that defines reality. How else do you explain the lack of experiment to support Darwin and the lack of concern that there is no support?

 

[Valjean]

Abiogenesis is a felid of study based on a false assumption without evidence. Abiogenesis holds a false axiom (assumed to be a fact) and uses it as the foundation to build on.

What alternative explanation would you propose, that's not even more unevidenced and fantastical than abiogenesis?

There is no evidence that live of any kind or even a non-living self-replicating genetic material can emerge from non-living matter. None.

But there is. Self-replicating molecules and various components of life are easily created and observed in Bio-labs.

Abiogenesis and spontaneous generation share the same roots/history. The understanding of spontaneous generation that some complex life forms may emerge relatively quickly from non-living matter, evolved to be the modern hypothesis of abiogenesis today, which is restricted to the presumption that relatively simpler, earliest forms of life arose gradually from non-living matter.

True, complex life doesn't suddenly poof into existence fully formed, but components of life: amino acids, membranes, nucleic acids, &c do form spontaneously, and can combine into various forms of 'semi-life', some even observed to self replicate.
As such life-components and lifelike structures appear and interact, at some point some achieve sufficient complexity to be considered alive, though there is no clear point where a given organic structure can definitively be called 'alive'.

Abiogenesis today didn’t progress much beyond the 1920 ideas of Oparin-Haldane and 1953 Miller-Urey experiment which showed that some non-living organic compounds may emerge from non-living inorganic matter, other than that, there was never any evidence to support that metabolic functions or the ability of self-replication may emerge on its own from non-living matter.

I think you've missed about 70 years of active research.

 

[gnostic]

Once you reach this level you become a Peer and no longer have to deal with evidence, experiment, or logic because you'll be in the tiny group that defines reality.

This is just more bs, made up conspiracy theory about peer review.

Have you no shame, making up imaginary narratives of peers’ powers?

You continued to fabricate conspiracies when there are none. The claims you have made, are either deliberate dishonesty or paranoid delusions...or both.

 

[Jose Fly]

What I find interesting in some of these posts is a complete lack of understanding of science, theories, the concepts and definitions of terms under discussion. For instance, biological fitness and natural selection clearly seem to baffle some folks.

In my experiences, that's pretty standard from creationists. And it's what one would expect from people who object to something from science, but do so for religious reasons.

 

[Valjean]

Calling it "supernatural" is akin to agreeing that the unseen can't exist is axiomatic.

Everything unseen is hardly "supernatural".

You are engaging in a semantical argument.

Huh? Are you responding to the right post?

 

[Valjean]

Modern science is reductionistic. There are no means of examining overarching metaphysics or concepts. You can't design an experiment to show that experiment is a legitimate means to understand nature. Certainly a science based on experiment has no meaning outside of experiment though. this is just cold hard logic. It is virtually true by definition whether believers in Evolution want to see it or not.

Sorry, not following.

What possible reason is there to believe in unicorns?

When did I imply there was? "What possible reason is there to believe in unicorns?" was exactly the point I was making.

We exist therefore reality began is axiomatic and without any knowledge of how this came to be then an initial cause is certainly possible.

Where did I imply that an initial cause was not possible?
Unknown doesn't mean impossible.

Whatever you call this Initial Cause it certainly mustta happened until such time as we have some evidence to the contrary. I might add since this is Darwin's Illusion here that "consciousness" had an origin as well and not even abiogenesis is well suited to explaining it.

Causes seem ubiquitous and inevitable and obvious in traditional physics, but not so obvious or necessary when we delve deeper into theoretical physics disciplines like quantum mechanics.
Darwin? What does Darwin have to do with any of this?

There is NO SUCH THING as "observational science" now or ever. All observation is dependent on the observer. Our science is Observation > Experiment and we have NO SCIENCE without experiment. I propose that "consciousness" is life and life is another kind of science that operates on Observation > Logic.

Observational science was not my term, I was quoting LIIA.
Science usually begins with observation or imagination. Hypotheses then propose explanations, then testing attempts to disprove the hypotheses. That's a basic outline of science's methods.
"Observation > Logic?" Not following. Explain?

If you want to use terms like this please define them. I could tell what LIIA meant from context but I can't tell what you meant.

Again, not my term.

 

[Valjean]

It seems like most believers in Evolution think science is magical. They think if you are sufficiently intelligent and have education then you can just Look and See what's real and what's not. Once you reach this level you become a Peer and no longer have to deal with evidence, experiment, or logic because you'll be in the tiny group that defines reality. How else do you explain the

No, most believers in evolution, or any science, believe magic is ridiculous. Science hates the concept. Science believes in skepticism, testing, and mechanism, never magic.
Educated people "looked and saw" what was real for hundreds of years -- and got nowhere. It was only after this approach was abandoned and replaced by the scientific method that human technology and understanding of the world took off.

"...lack of experiment to support Darwin and the lack of concern that there is no support?"
Wha!!??

What planet did you drop in from?
The ToE is probably the most extensively supported theory in human history. There are whole libraries of studies and consilient experiments. There are dozens of scientific journals coming out every month, full of the latest research and experimentation.

 

[cladking]

Huh? Are you responding to the right post?

You're right. I'm sorry. I parsed your sentence wrong.

 

[cladking]

This is just more bs, made up conspiracy theory about peer review.

Have you no shame, making up imaginary narratives of peers’ powers?

You continued to fabricate conspiracies when there are none. The claims you have made, are either deliberate dishonesty or paranoid delusions...or both.

Most believers in science believe Peers define science and science defines reality. This could be seen as the biggest CONSPIRACY ever!!! I can't imagine a world where people believe reality is defined by a few individuals who are severally and jointly responsible for saying what is real and what is not. But then this is your beliefs and not mine. You believe in such a conspiracy whereas I DO NOT. I believe reality is independent of peer opinion and that most good peers know this. It is believers in Science who believe in the conspiracy. It is you who believes Peer opinion is relevant even where it is not.

 

[GardenLady]

"Believers in evolution" implies a faith basis. It would be far more accurate to say "Those who accept the scientific evidence supporting the theory of evolution...."

 

[cladking]

Sorry, not following.

That's OK, it's a very difficult concept and I stated it poorly. We're all blind men trying to describe the elephant in the room. One blind scientist dissects the trunk and opines it appears to be made for moving fluids. Another finds a brush and a foul odor at the other end. We study and poke and prod looking at all the little pieces of reality never realizing there is an overarching reality that might not fit our axioms and definitions; that most of the reality doesn't even fit into our little room or laboratories, all of our extrapolations and interpolations are created by what we know and nothing we don't know.

Science is so reductionistic it has had to split into thousands of specialties. There are those who only study the mites on the left front leg of the elephant without any knowledge of the elephant or even the great depth of knowledge about all of its parts.

Most of us have lost sight of the way, how, science even works. Without understanding how science works there is no true knowledge of either the mites or the part of the elephant on which they are found. We don't understand the nature of our extrapolations or the paradigms in which they are framed. We don't understand even a part of reality. This was Darwin. He did not understand what he was seeing. To him it looked likle a duck, quacked like a duck, and waddled like a duck but it was actually just a single perspective of a far larger picture; the elephant itself.

 

[cladking]

"Believers in evolution" implies a faith basis. It would be far more accurate to say "Those who accept the scientific evidence supporting the theory of evolution...."

And again, this is essentially just averring you are right sans evidence and sans experiment.

Accepting Evolution on faith IS belief.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And again, this is essentially just averring you are right sans evidence and sans experiment.

I guess I need to remind you again that you do not understand the concepts of either experiment or evidence. There is endless evidence for evolution and countless experiments are done in the field.

Accepting Evolution on faith IS belief.

And since you do not understand the scientific method, evidence, or experiment it all looks like faith to you.

Is there any chance that you will ever try to learn?

 

[cladking]

Causes seem ubiquitous and inevitable and obvious in traditional physics, but not so obvious or necessary when we delve deeper into theoretical physics disciplines like quantum mechanics.
Darwin? What does Darwin have to do with any of this?

Cosmological Look and See Science is based largely in mathematics. Math and reality are each founded in logic so of course there are similarities between the two.

Darwin's Look and See Science was simply founded in his prejudices and beliefs. It was founded on his era and place. He Looked and Saw what he expected and because it was based in reason many people believed him even though there is no experimental justification.

There are few connections between Evolution and modern cosmology but I'm sure there would be differences in cosmology today if Evolution had never been invented. Science would have taken a slightly different course.

Observational science was not my term, I was quoting LIIA.

He used the term "observational/ experimental science" which I personally consider a personal elaboration of the word "science". This would be real science though and not climatology, Egyptology, or linguistics. I would guess he was trying to differentiate between real science and statistics or Look and See Science. He used a great German word for fake science earlier which I've yet to commit to memory.

It was only after this approach was abandoned and replaced by the scientific method that human technology and understanding of the world took off.

And herein lies the magic. without understanding metaphysics the "scientific method" has no meaning. Most people don't even seem to know that it is the expression of reality in experiment that is the basis of science. Since they don't understand this they don't understand that without experiment there is no science. Some actually believe it's not science until Peers say it's science. Every theory has to be baked by a committee of Peers before it's true or applicable to the real world. They believe only Peers can make new discovery but it has to be voted on before it becomes a natural law.

This is magic. Most believers in science believe in this magic. This doesn't mean the ToE is false, merely the way believers model it.

 

[cladking]

...experiments are done in the field.

And you have never listed a single one!

 

[gnostic]

Most believers in science believe Peers define science and science defines reality.

No, you keep making bogus claims about the peers’ almighty powers.

Their jobs are only to ensure scientist submitting the new hypotheses or changes to existing scientific theories, have all the necessary verifiable TESTS (eg observations, evidence, experiments) and DATA that support the theories and hypotheses.

They are there to ensure that the tests and data are - not fake or not altered/doctored, or do not have errors. In another word, they make sure that their fellow scientists have been objective with their tests and data, following the requirements of SCIENTIFIC METHOD & FALSIFICATION.

The peers have no powers to make changes to any new hypothesis, or any changes to any existing theory.

It also the peers’ job to look out for and reject UNFALSIFIABLE pseudoscience concepts.

“UNFALSIFIABLE” as in no supplied reviewable tests and data.

The only people who really “defined science” are scientists who wrote the scientific theories (including successful and TESTED new hypotheses).

You are still making up fake conspiracy theories about the powers of peer review. This is why no one take your claims seriously.

 

[gnostic]

@cladking

I had written in my last reply that peers cannot make CHANGES to any existing theory or any new hypothesis.

Meaning, they cannot rewrite the theory or hypothesis. Only AUTHORS of the theories or hypotheses can rewrite them.

What peers can do, if the hypothesis or theory have experiments performed to test the hypothesis or theory, THEN such hypothesis or theory should contain clear & detailed INSTRUCTION on how such experiments can be carried out.

Meaning. The peers, themselves, should be able to carry out the same experiments if necessary.

This is a mean of VERIFICATION, where independent scientists RETEST the hypothesis or theory, to see if the experiments DO SUPPORT or DO NOT SUPPORT hypothesis or theory.

Verification is important to experimental science.

 

[cladking]

No, you keep making bogus claims about the peers’ almighty powers.

Their jobs are only to ensure scientist submitting the new hypotheses or changes to existing scientific theories, have all the necessary verifiable TESTS (eg observations, evidence, experiments) and DATA that support the theories and hypotheses.

They are there to ensure that the tests and data are - not fake or not altered/doctored, or do not have errors. In another word, they make sure that their fellow scientists have been objective with their tests and data, following the requirements of SCIENTIFIC METHOD & FALSIFICATION.

The peers have no powers to make changes to any new hypothesis, or any changes to any existing theory.

It also the peers’ job to look out for and reject UNFALSIFIABLE pseudoscience concepts.

“UNFALSIFIABLE” as in no supplied reviewable tests and data.

The only people who really “defined science” are scientists who wrote the scientific theories (including successful and TESTED new hypotheses).

You are still making up fake conspiracy theories about the powers of peer review. This is why no one take your claims seriously.

At least you're finally using most of the right words.

Except you are simply ignoring the fact that they can only examine hypotheses that fall within the existing paradigm. They can see only evidence and interpret experiment in terms of existing theory. This is why science changes one funeral at a time.

Kudos for getting so much right.

The peers have no powers to make changes to any new hypothesis, or any changes to any existing theory.

Here you are apparently confusing reality with theory. "Theory" is an attempt to define reality but theories are ofttimes revised or overthrown. There is simply no reason to suppose any theory is a perfect or good reflection of reality and we judge them on their predictive abilities and the types and degrees of anomalies they generate. But you are essentially correct that you'll never get Peers to agree to change theory. And, again, this is why science changes one funeral at a time. It is hardly unusual that theory has to be jettisoned but it's most unusual anyone is willing to build new models of reality to match new theory or changes in the paradigm.

Darwin failed. In 50 years the ToE will be dead (long live the ToE). It will be replaced by something like "punctuated equilibrium" and, I believe, it will emphasize bottlenecks and behavior which encompasses consciousness. "Survival of the fittest" will be naturally deselected as an explanation for the cause of "change in species".