Darwin's Illusion

[cladking]

To be specific, it’s beyond experimental/observational science. But if you mean science in the broader term as the logical interpretation/drawing conclusions from the collective human knowledge of all sources, then yes, we indeed can.

I only mean someday it might not be outside science's domain. I agree it is now.

 

[cladking]

With the same human genome, we find at least 200 different types of cells in the human body that perform very specific vital functions. Genes are nothing more than a storage of coded info at the disposal of the living system which interprets them in a myriad of different purposeful ways to produce thousands of different types of proteins and trillions of cells of various types that work all in harmony to create our body plan with its unique set of morphological features.

Yes!

But these genes also lay out how the brain forms and the organism functions. As such they play a key role not only in consciousness but differences in individuals across the spectrum we call "species". It is this that I believe forms and causes specific changes in species/ individuals. This is a very important concept if speciation is as sudden as I propose.

 

[LIIA]

His views on race were basically rubbish and self-serving. But then again, so were his views on gender.

Yes, Darwin’s views on race and gender were rubbish. Thank you for your honest acknowledgment of it. It’s a fact, yet many insist dishonestly to deny it for one reason or another.

But his views were not merely personal views but rather evidently related to his evolutionary ideas as it applies on humans as clearly shown in his book “The Descent of Man”.

Of course. That is pretty much the very definition of 'fitness'. It is entirely contextual on the environment. In an environment where black people are regularly murdered, for example, the 'fittest' people will not be black. That isn't a judgement on what is better. It is an objective measure of what survives (at least, what survives long enough to pass their genes on).

Absolutely, and this is specifically why this view is very dangerous and damaging to humanity. Whoever has the power gets to decide the selection criteria and the justification is science.

The Nazis were not the only regime to adapt such ideology, but they may be the most obvious example of a political power justifying their atrocious actions on scientific basis.

The Nazis similarly interpreted religion in self-serving ways to advance their agendas. They bastardised philosophy. They circumvented political process and protections. Are all these, too, unethical? No, not in and of themselves. It is the way in which they were applied that was unethical.

You cannot generalize. If the Nazis misinterpreted religion and philosophy, it doesn’t necessarily mean that they misinterpreted the evolutionary concepts as well. After all, Darwin’s rubbish ideas with respect to race and gender were all documented in his scientific book that attempts to specifically apply the evolutionary concepts on humans which is “The Descent of Man”.

 

[cladking]

The genes may change in conjunction with the living system but neither the changes nor the entire genome itself create us, our bodies and minds. The DNA is merely the database from which the organism gets the necessary information. THE CELL MACHINERY DOES NOT JUST READ THE GENOME. It imposes extensive purposeful patterns of marking and expression on the genome. Without such purposeful interpretation of DNA towards meaningful functions, the DNA is nothing more than storage of coded info like music notes written on the music page, a totally dead code waiting for the performers to play it to bring it to life. Once played, only then, the dead notes become alive. It becomes music, the music of life.

I hardly disagree and have read some research on this subject. None of it is surprising to me and seems to fit my theory.

While consciousness is formed by the genome it very much is a product of experience, knowledge, and its own self. Individuals create themselves. Most are schooled by parents or siblings. Almost all must pass the gauntlet imposed by mother nature/ God.

It even appears that genes/ consciousness is a two way street with mutations (in offspring) sometimes caused by consciousness.

Human intention is likely different than in other species caused by the disconnect between the wiring of the bran and language. It appears that muscle movement occurs shortly before the intent!!! Another related factor is that there's a high probability that our ganglions have some consciousness and this consciousness is fully aware of our every thought that affects it. We don't sense this because survival depends on response not communication so these signals are eliminated in the medullaoblongata. Our hand knows to perform an action right before we tell it to. The hand does this from "memory" rather than intent. Ancient people cataloged hundreds of things they called "senses" beyond our five. Our science is extremely weak for seeing some things and this goes many times over for understanding consciousness itself.

 

[LIIA]

The comparison is exactly relevant. People have abused religions and religious ideas to fulfill some personal agenda and commit acts of evil of their own.

How is it relevant? Yes, people abused religions, but the racist ideology of the Nazis and many others was a direct implementation of the evolutionary ideas of Darwin himself as it applies on humans in his book “The Descent of Man”.

You may say that Darwin’s racist views on race and gender in the “The Descent of Man” were wrong but you cannot claim it was misinterpreted. It was not.

An example of a prediction and not an application. And a prediction that is from the man steeped in the culture of his times and not a claim of the theory. Also an example of a person doing something and not an example of some intrinsic quality of the the theory of evolution.

It's a prediction in a specific scientific book concerning evolution as is it applies on humans!! Again, you can say Darwin, his ideas and the culture of his times were wrong, but you cannot claim his racist ideas were misinterpreted.

You should understand that we are not debating generally about the ToE but rather very specifically about its application on humans. Nothing clearly shows the intrinsic quality of the theory of evolution as it applies on humans as Darwin’s book “The Descent of Man”.

That quote is a fact and equally irrelevant to supporting your claim about the theory of evolution being the basis of evil as your quote of Darwin is.

Yes, that quote is a fact. Your claim that the quote was misinterpreted is false. absolutely not.

I can say it because it is true. You give me evidence about Darwin and not about the theory. You say it yourself. "Darwin's own view".

It was Darwin's own view in his scientific book as he attempts to apply his own evolutionary theory on humans not in a personal discussion with a friend!!

Evil existed long before Darwin, his formulation of the theory and subsequent formulations of the theory. Claiming it is the basis of evil is ridiculous.

Evil existed long before Darwin but for the first time in history, evil became justifiable on scientific basis thanks to Darwin. It became no longer considered as evil.

No one seems to be able to find any sense in claims that scientific theories dehumanize, foment evil acts or exist as the source of evil.

Are you serious? The theory that makes man no longer human but merely a son of animal and gives the right to the so-called civilized to exterminate the savage didn’t dehumanize man. How can man get dehumanized more than that? It’s ridiculous.

I try to keep it concise. It doesn't prevent people with agendas from twisting those words to imply I am saying what I am not. There is no evidence that identifies any property of any scientific theory as intrinsically evil.

No, you didn’t claim it, but I like your words. I merely claimed a damaging influence of the ToE but your words about the ToE as the basis of intrinsic evil are much more powerful yet true. Thanks for it.

You can respond if you want, but I think I am pretty much done talking with you. I have seen everything I need to know.

You don’t have to. Don’t worry though, other proponents of the fairytale, I’m sorry I mean the “historical narrative” will not get tired defending it.

 

[LIIA]

Do you want me to use the same twisted logic as you have been using on Darwin?

Ok.

We have Muslim from the Al-Qaeda and ISIS terrorist groups, beheading people in the name of Islam and Allah. Does that mean Allah, the Quran and Islam are “evil”?

That’s exactly the same logic you are using with regarding to you blaming Darwin as being evil. I could use this same logic you are using, and blame every atrocities committed by bad Muslims upon your god and your religion.

Muslims sold slaves. Blame it on Islam and Allah.

The Islamic laws have unjustly punished women - victims of rapes - so blame Allah for unjust legal systems and unjust verdicts.

I am just using same arguments you have been using, where you have blamed Darwin for Nazi Holocaust, which Darwin had nothing to do with.

Darwin didn’t even invent Social Darwinism, Herbert Spencer did...but hey, if you want to place blames, then everyone is free to blame Islam for the world’s woes.

Basically, you have opened a can of worms that you can’t put back in.

First of all, you do think Islam is evil. It’s obvious in your post. Isn’t it? Why the hypocrisy?

Your argument or logic to defend the ToE is the claim that neither Islam nor the ToE are evil but rather misinterpreted, then you refute yourself in the same post by showing your actual understanding of Islam as evil (not misinterpreted). What a confused illogical argument? You always refute yourself in your own posts.

You don’t know Islam and I don’t think you want to know. Just for record, your understanding is totally wrong. If I know/see such deficiency in the Islamic view as you claim, I wouldn’t fool myself to pretend that I don’t, yet there is no point in engaging in a discussion with those who are neither interested nor have the slightest understanding of Islam. It’s enough to say that Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world for a reason.

Don’t worry about the can of worms. The proponents of “Islamophobia” opened it a long time ago. It’s not hurting Islam. It’s misleading those who don’t know Islam

That said, Islam has nothing to do with your false attempt to deny the damaging influence of the ToE.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Seriously? Do you consider that a response? Go back to #1520. Read it again, respond to the specific points of my argument or just stop your nonsense.

Anyone with some knowledge about the subject knows that your claim about the confirmation of abiogenesis is nonsense. You’re deceiving no one but yourself.

Again, there absolutely no evidence that nucleic acids may form on its own from non-living inorganic matter. You don’t see nucleic acids freely floating around in nature. It’s nonsense.

Unless you want to talk about the example of viruses? It is the closest example of nonliving genetic material in nature but yet it’s totally different, with a very complex structure and absolutely has no way to replicate without a living cell. See last item of #1364 & 1446

The ToE shifts the problem to an origin (first living organism) and stops there. abiogenesis comes as a desperate trial to complete what the ToE started to eliminate the need for creation. Evolutionists hold to abiogenesis desperately because if abiogenesis is false, then they are back to square one and the ToE doesn’t refute creation and indeed it doesn’t.

Without an organism that is alive, can grow, reproduce and pass the alleged gradual changes to offspring, no evolutionary process is possible. LIFE CREATE EVOLUTION NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND, which doesn’t eliminate creation as many would think but merely shifts the problem to the first living organism. Here comes the role of the alleged abiogenesis to claim that an evolutionary process created the first organism. In other words, an evolutionary process created life and life created the evolutionary process, a fallacious circular reasoning to eliminate the need for an external cause to the process.

It’s a wishful thinking to attribute life in its entirety to some evolutionary process in one way or another. Both the idea of evolution and its reversed idea of abiogenesis are false. Non-living Organic compounds cannot stay intact for millions of years to gradually get more complex. Such organic compounds will most certainly disintegrate/decompose in no time. TIME DOESN’T HELP THE PROCESS. TIME IS THE ENEMY OF THE PROCESS.

The fact as we see it is that organisms do adapt as a result of directed mutation (not random mutation). Other than that, the claim that organisms transform into totally different organisms is a fairytale. Evolutionists don’t call it a “fairytale”, they call it
“historical narrative” (see #331) which is very much the same. It’s only semantics.

Sorry, but you have just demonstrated that you do not even understand the concept of evidence since I told you what the scientific evidence was that nucleic acids form on their own.

Do you want to learn what scientific evidence is? It is an easy concept to understand. I have to warn you, creationists cannot afford to let themselves understand this simple concept. This is one of the reasons that there is no such thing as a well informed and honest creationist. One can be well informed and be a creationist, if one is dishonest. One can be honest, but the consequences of that is cannot be informed, as you have continuously shown to be the case for you. You do not even understand high school concepts in the sciences.

Here is the definition of scientific evidence, scientists came up with this since it not only works, it also forces them to be honest:

Scientific evidence is evidence that serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis,

That comes from Wikipedia, but I can find many other sources that say the same thing.

And another thing. Evolution does not say that "organisms transform into totally different organisms". You are engaged in a strawman argument when you say that . You for example as an ape. You are also a monkey. And a primate. And a mammal, And a tetrappo" etc. and so on. At no point was there a change from one kind of organism to a totally different organism.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Once again, even dubious sources agree that it is people and groups of people that twist science to their own agendas and not some property of scientific theories that demonstrate they are inherently evil or the source of evil.

 

[LIIA]

But this violates the essence of science. Almost everything we now know to exist was once unknown and unevidenced. Very few modern scientists would hold the view that what's currently unknown, unseen or unevidenced can not exist.

If this is true, then you have acknowledged that there is no scientific basis to deny the existence of God. the evidence of the non-physical nature of God, it’s not attainable through observation/experimentation. Yet we can know his attributes.

Consider the example of a physical force such as the dark energy, we can absolutely neither see it nor can get the slightest idea about its intrinsic nature, it's totally mysterious to us yet we can observe its manifestations in the observable realm. knowing it exists based on its observed influence has nothing to do with a claim of magic.

The dark energy itself is a manifestation of a higher causal influence; the cause/effect chain cannot stop till you reach an absolute brute fact, the absolute root for everything in existence.

I don't see a need for an "entity" at all.

Do you believe in infinite regression?

As stated previously: this is not a viewpoint compatible with science.

If you don’t see, can’t see it, can’t experiment on it, can you believe it exists beyond the domain of your awareness?

Alas, imagined realities and entities have no concrete evidence of existence for science to work with. They're open only to imagination.

Not imagined, necessitated by logic as understood through the collective human knowledge. The type of concrete evidence that you are looking for are physical and necessarily not applicable to the nature of God.

We don’t only observe physical/natural entities but also observe info, thoughts, understandings, philosophy, religions as recorded and conveyed to us through the collective human consciousness. Only a small fraction of your own understanding of reality is based on your personal observation/experience of natural entities. The rest is knowledge conveyed to you. In all cases, you assess this knowledge and draw your conclusions on logical basis.

Again, while a supernatural reality might exist, until it produces observable, measurable, testable evidence of itself, it is outside the realm of science.

The supernatural reality does exist. Nothing beyond the beginning of the universe is natural; the beginning of the universe is dependent on a supernatural influence. The observable manifestation of the supernatural is the physical realm in its entirety.

Didn't this last sentence contradict itself?
If there were a reliable way to access metaphysical knowledge, wouldn't we have a consistent, universally agreed-upon picture of this unevidenced domain?

We can doesn’t mean we do. Attainable doesn’t mean we attain it. Reliability is a relative perception. Universally agreed-upon picture is a dream. Un-evidenced domain is a claim.

Has he provided any evidence that a metaphysical domain exists?

The metaphysical domain exists logically. He only acknowledged it as he is gaining more knowledge pointing to it. Such as the mathematical impossibility of random interactions (see # 1517) and the fact that the genes are no more than a storage of data at the disposal of the living system. See last item of #1600

So he admits he has no answers, and no idea "who we are?"

Yes, absolutely, the more you know, the more you realize that you don’t know and the more you understand that our picture of reality is false.

Unless observable, concrete, testable evidence exists, it's outside the purview of science. A psychicly perceptible reality may exist, but it's perceptible only to the experiencer.

See the last item of #490 about the hierarchy of causal levels of reality.
Darwin's Illusion | Page 25 | Religious Forums

Concrete evidence of the type you have in mind is attainable only at the first level (level C). Beyond that, you are trying to apply the wrong means in the wrong domain.

You can have concrete evidence of the existence of dark energy, but you can neither have any concrete testable evidence of its intrinsic nature nor the nature of the higher causal influence that forced it into existence. The types of evidence that you’re seeking are not attainable/applicable within these levels of reality.

I don't understand that God is, at all.

Sure you don’t and can’t understand God’s nature, but you can understand the need for his existence. everything we know is relative and all relatives must be grounded in an absolute unless you want to believe in infinite regression.

If empirical evidence for the non-physical does not exist, the logical conclusion is not to conclude that God exists,

How is that logical “can’t see it, it doesn’t exist”. Empirical is necessarily physical, how can you ask for physical evidence for the non-physical? Its only possible if you look for the physical observable manifestations of the entity not the entity itself.

but is mysterious, but to dismiss belief in God, pending evidence.

Evidence exists but it’s not the inapplicable type that you insist to apply.

Therefore, logically,God's existence must be dismissed, pending actual evidence.

the notion “it’s beyond my domain of physical awareness, hence it cannot exist/must be dismissed” is not logical. This would be the perception of the deep-see fish of the sun. humans can do better.

Actual evidence exists for the attributes/manifestation not the nature. What is your actual evidence that the dark energy exists beyond its observable manifestations? What is your understanding about its intrinsic nature? None. If this is the case with merely a physical force, what is the level/extent of your grasp of its causal influence/absolute reality?

Therefore, belief in Him must be withheld, till actual, tangible evidence appears.
I don't believe in unicorns or leprechauns, because there is no tangible evidence they exist. This is reasonable.
How is this any different from belief in God?

How is the absolute root cause of existence being relevant to leprechauns? Do you believe in infinite regression?

God is not another caused entity in an infinitely regressed chain of caused entities; God is the necessary first absolute cause. Without the first cause, the entire cause/effect chain cannot exist. Every relative has to be grounded in the absolute.

You're still presupposing God. You're using him as a major premise, but not providing any evidence for this premise.

I’m using God as a premise for many reasons.

What are the reasons for your premise that life emerged from non-living matter or that the universe emerged on its own from nothing or that life and the universe in its entirety are not caused? Do you deny that causation is the most fundamental logical principle that we all have to depend on as a major premise? If not causality, what other premise we may depend on to draw conclusions?

"Authentic historical, religious records?" How is this authenticity determined? These records are mere folklore.

This is the role of historiography to determine authenticity. How do you know that Napoleon Bonaparte existed? Is that folklore or an authentic fact as determined by historiography? Can you simply pick and choose which part of history you believe and which part you ignore, or this is the role of historiography?

"Observational science?" There is no observational science supporting a god. If there were, God would be a scientific fact. You say yourself that "God cannot be observed."

Observational science is the interpretations/conclusions drawn from observations. The interpretations are not absolute. It’s a relative product of mind dependent on the relative perception of the observer. Your relative interpretation that observations don’t support God is not more than a relative perception not a fact. Your confidence of it doesn’t make it a fact.

We don’t get to build reality; we perceive what we can relatively. Yet, we shouldn’t adapt the perception of the deep-sea fish of the sun. It’s illogical. We can definitely do better.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If this is true, then you have acknowledged that there is no scientific basis to deny the existence of God. the evidence of the non-physical nature of God, it’s not attainable through observation/experimentation. Yet we can know his attributes.

Science does not say anything about the existence of a god. At least not of a god in general. You personal version of God 's existence may be denied because reality tells us that it is wrong. But here is something that you do not seem to understand: Most Christians accept the fact of evolution.

Consider the example of a physical force such as the dark energy, we can absolutely neither see it nor can get the slightest idea about its intrinsic nature, it's totally mysterious to us yet we can observe its manifestations in the observable realm. knowing it exists based on its observed influence has nothing to do with a claim of magic.

The dark energy itself is a manifestation of a higher causal influence; the cause/effect chain cannot stop till you reach an absolute brute fact, the absolute root for everything in existence.

There you go using a strawman again. You did not properly describe dark energy probably because you have no understanding of the concept at all. There is scientific evidence for it. We are far from fully understanding it which is why the term "dark" is used. It simply means "unknown" in this case. But we have both scientific evidence and mathematical evidence of its existence. We do not have those when it comes to a God.

If you don’t see, can’t see it, can’t experiment on it, can you believe it exists beyond the domain of your awareness?

You have a misunderstanding of experiment. But then you have a misunderstanding of scientific evidence as well. You won't be able to understand the basics of science until you understand those.

The supernatural reality does exist. Nothing beyond the beginning of the universe is natural; the beginning of the universe is dependent on a supernatural influence. The observable manifestation of the supernatural is the physical realm in its entirety.

How can you support the claim of the existence of the supernatural? Any natural explanation to an observed phenomena trumps that of the supernatural. I do not know of any reliable observations that are evidence for the supernatural.

 

[gnostic]

First of all, you do think Islam is evil. It’s obvious in your post. Isn’t it? Why the hypocrisy?

Not the hypocrisy.

I was trying to illustrate your faulty logic and faulty reasoning that you believe Darwin was responsible for the Nazi Holocaust, and by using this same logic with example of Islam, Muhammad and Allah being responsible for the recent atrocities of Al-Qaeda and ISIS, because these terrorists believe that they have been killing in the name of Islam and in the name of Islam.

It is your reasoning that I find questionable and illogical.

My use of terrorists and Islam as an example was to illustrate how wrong your argument is, where you having been pinning the actions of the Nazi on Darwin.

Natural Selection was never about waging wars and murdering people, and yet you arguing and conflating Natural Selection out of proportion.

Beside that, why are you focusing on Darwin and Nazi?

Have you ever study biology?

No where in any of the recent publications (eg last 30 years) of biology textbooks do they mention Herbert Spencer’s Social Darwinism or Francis Galton’s Eugenics, because neither works have to do with the current theory of Evolution. No biology lectures teach either of them because they are both outside of the scopes of biology, particularly evolutionary biology, and both subjects (referring to Social Darwinism & Eugenics) are out of date.

Do you know of any university that teach Social Darwinism as a subject or a course in today’s biology?

Social Darwinism isn’t even biology. It is philosophy and ideology in social, political and legal implications, not a biological one. Racism (eg judging people by race, cultures or color of their skins) is social situation, not biological situation, and it isn’t speciation.

Natural Selection as well as Mutations and Genetic Drift are purely biological processes.

 

[cladking]

No where in any of the recent publications (eg last 30 years) of biology textbooks...

I believe these all tow the company line for the last 50 years now. they're like wiki and only publish Peer review. Even the search engines now only dispense Peer review and ads, lots of ads. And that's if they work at all.

Teachers and Bill Gates don't want to confuse people with things that aren't even accepted "science". Bill Gates hates intuition and punishes computer users who try to use it.

This is what I mean when I keep saying the status quo is becoming inviolable, set in concrete, and fixed. Who wants a populous who can think for themselves when all the answers are in any textbook?

 

[LIIA]

No such authentification exists

It’s within the domain historiography.

There are hundreds of historical, religious records. They are not consistent. They disagree with each other.

Islam is very unique with respect to authentication. Quran 1400 years ago is the same Quran today. Not a single letter or even the pronunciation of a single letter is allowed to change, yet you see Muslims even kids in the Islamic word memorizing the entire book (30 parts, 114 chapters) in its entirety by heart, in exact order and without skipping a single letter of a single word. The ability to do that is absolutely miraculous, it's not possible to do the same with any other book even if it was much smaller.

What is even more miraculous is the ability of non- Arabic speaking Muslim kids to similarly memorize Quran in its entirety. Imagine if you ask someone to memorize a comparable size Chinese or Russian book if he doesn’t speak the language? Would that be possible? It’s not. It’s only possible with Quran and as confirmed by Quran itself.

And We have certainly made the Quran easy for memorization, so is there any who will memorize? Al-Qamar 40.

It is certainly We Who have revealed the Reminder (Quran), and it is certainly We Who will preserve it. Al-Hijr 9.

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.

Scientific facts are mentioned in Quran and none of it is empirically false or contradictory, in fact, many of it was never understood by the translators of Quran and can only be understood by someone how knows the Arabic language and aware of latest scientific finds today. Yet religious are not scientific disciplines and should not be expected to be. The authenticity of the Islamic scripture is attainable through historiography.

The authenticity of Islam is easily verifiable. In addition, studies/analysis was made with respect to the life and personality of prophet Mohammed “PBUH” to assess the possibility of him being liar or crazy. It was established that he was neither liar nor crazy. In fact, it was established that he was the most influential man ever lived, who changed the course of history per Michael Hart book “The 100: A Ranking Of The Most Influential Persons In History”

The theories of relativity are entirely based on observations plus testable conclusions and predictions.

Albert Einstein and his wife once visited the enormous Mount Wilson Observatory with astronomer Edwin Hubble. When told that Hubble's telescopes were revealing the ultimate shape of the universe, Einstein's wife nonchalantly responded, "Well, my husband does that on the back of an old envelope."

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

He was not a pantheist, he said “I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist.”.

Sure, one man's opinion is of no matter but opinions of scientists of the caliber of Einstein, Maxwell and Newton proves the specific point that such view is not driven by illogical thinking/lack of mental power. These are some of the most logical minds ever lived. Their mental ability/power was much higher than most average humans.

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.

The mechanism that you’re talking about is only a component in a causal chain, it’s not a root cause. You cannot conclude “unintentional” with any level of certainty without any knowledge of the root cause.

A fully automated factory manufactures some products. You see that the products exhibit order/design and must be caused. You conduct some search/experimentation and successfully conclude that the fully automated factory is the direct cause of the products. You neither see anyone involved in the manufacturing process nor have the slightest idea how the factory itself was built. It’s beyond your knowledge. Then you assume that the factory is a brute fact, which just exists on its own; hence all products produced by that factory are products of an unintentional mechanism. Even so you see evidence of order/design in the end products, but you dismiss it all based on the assumption that the factory itself is unintentional. But what are your reasons to come up with such assumption?

The fully automated factory per that analogy above encompasses all natural forces in action that controls all physical matter in existence. Every force plays a specific role and exerts a specific function/influence; every force has a precise value in relation to the other forces and cannot be higher or lower. The collective action of these forces produces every observable physical product. Every product exhibit causality, order, purpose, and design, then you conclude that all products are unintentional simply because you think the factory itself just exists on its own/uncaused and unintentional. What is your evidence that the factory is unintentional/uncaused?

What is the logical or scientific basis to claim these observed forces (automated factory) to be unintentional/uncaused? What do you know about it that makes you end up with such conclusion? Is that merely because you can’t see or understand its causal influence? Is that logical?

Can you logically understand that a cause is necessary? Can you see evidence that absolutely nothing about the process or the end products is random? You and others of the same mindset can’t and it’s mainly because everything you see, have already settled in your subconscious as the norm. As such, you adopted a mindset that it just happens/exists independent of any causal influence. It's an illogical/unjustifiable perception.

It’s like the example of an apple falling off a tree; must people see it as the norm, what is the big deal? It just happens every day. It’s absolutely a big deal but we cannot see it unless we can get rid of the false mindset imposed on us by our familiarity with what we consider to be the norm.

I believe you’re an ethical debater, unlike many others and I appreciate that, but a false mindset is like a tinted glasses, unless you can replace it with clear glasses, you will never see the true colors. I can’t do that for you. We would be just running in circles. Your own will shapes your perception, your perception shapes your reality. It’s up to you.

 

[LIIA]

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

Your denial of other alternatives doesn’t make abiogenesis a fact. Your fallacious understanding of abiogenesis as the only possible option makes is effectively as fact even without any evidence, hence practically cannot be even falsified under such mindset.

Don’t you think that without concrete, testable evidence, belief in abiogenesis must be withheld?

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

How is that a proof of anything? A strand of RNA can neither exist nor stay intact in nature. If it does somehow, it wouldn’t get any access to required building blocks (nucleotides) for the replication process. Sure, you may provide the nucleotides to molecules in the lab. But in the real world, neither the RNA molecules nor nucleotides can be simply found floating around freely outside a living cell.

True, complex life doesn't suddenly poof into existence fully formed, but components of life: amino acids, membranes, nucleic acids, &c do form spontaneously,

Nucleic acids form spontaneously in nature!! This is a wild claim. Can you demonstrate it?

and can combine into various forms of 'semi-life', some even observed to self replicate.

From non-living matter to semi-life and self-replication? Wow!! Where did you get this? I guess you’re talking about controlled lab conditions where all the components that do not exist in nature are provided.

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'.

Life-components and lifelike structures appear and interact!! From non-living matter? Simply not true.

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

Seriously?

Sure, research and experimentation continued since 1953 Miller-Urey experiment. I’m not talking about research; I’m talking about practical progress.

Other than 1953 Miller-Urey experiment that proved that non-living organic compounds (amino acids) might emerge from non-living inorganic matter, there was never any evidence beyond that.

If you don’t agree, demonstrate that other than simple amino acids, more complex molecules, nucleotides, nucleic acids, self-replication, etc. may emerge from non-living inorganic matter.

 

[gnostic]

I believe these all tow the company line for the last 50 years now. they're like wiki and only publish Peer review. Even the search engines now only dispense Peer review and ads, lots of ads. And that's if they work at all.

Teachers and Bill Gates don't want to confuse people with things that aren't even accepted "science". Bill Gates hates intuition and punishes computer users who try to use it.

This is what I mean when I keep saying the status quo is becoming inviolable, set in concrete, and fixed. Who wants a populous who can think for themselves when all the answers are in any textbook?

And there you go again, with more conspiracies, more narratives with very little basis in reality. You really do like to make up stories and treat them as “fact” - with a lot of BS & misinformation.

Just as Social Darwinism have nothing to do with the theory of Evolution, Nazi (eg WW2 and the Holocaust) have nothing to do with Evolution, computer technology also have nothing to do with Evolution.

The theory of Evolution is biology, not wars, murders, racism or computer technology.

You are being blatantly dishonest and ignorant comparing biology with everything else.

Just like @LIIA, you have fixation with blaming Darwin for every woes in the world. Do you have no honest bone in your body? Must you make up some unrealistic stories that are clearly not true?

 

[LIIA]

There you go using a strawman again. You did not properly describe dark energy probably because you have no understanding of the concept at all. There is scientific evidence for it. We are far from fully understanding it which is why the term "dark" is used. It simply means "unknown" in this case. But we have both scientific evidence and mathematical evidence of its existence. We do not have those when it comes to a God.

You can’t agree with everything I say and pose it as an argument to the contrary? Really, what is wrong with you guys?

Yes, dark energy is unknown, yes, it can’t be seen, yes, its intrinsic nature is totally a mystery, yet we have scientific evidence for its existence and its influence.

dark energy is a component of reality, I’m using it as an analogy for the collective existence of the physical realm itself. The causal influence for the physical realm itself is sure of an unknown nature, can’t be seen and mysterious yet the observed influence, which is the physical realm in its entirety, is evidenced. The logic may apply to a component or to the whole at a different level of reality/causal hierarchy, why is that so difficult to understand?

How can you support the claim of the existence of the supernatural? Any natural explanation to an observed phenomena trumps that of the supernatural. I do not know of any reliable observations that are evidence for the supernatural.

Since nothing beyond the beginning of the universe is physical/natural (everything physical/natural came to existence after the Big Bang) then the causal influence for the instantiation of the universe in realty must be supernatural. Why is that so difficult to understand?

 

[LIIA]

Not the hypocrisy.

I was trying to illustrate your faulty logic and faulty reasoning that you believe Darwin was responsible for the Nazi Holocaust, and by using this same logic with example of Islam, Muhammad and Allah being responsible for the recent atrocities of Al-Qaeda and ISIS, because these terrorists believe that they have been killing in the name of Islam and in the name of Islam.

It is your reasoning that I find questionable and illogical.

My use of terrorists and Islam as an example was to illustrate how wrong your argument is, where you having been pinning the actions of the Nazi on Darwin.

Aren’t you under the impression that Islam is Evil? Don’t worry about being nice. just be truthful. I believe you do. If this is the case, you cannot make an argument on the basis that neither Islam nor the ToE is evil but only misinterpreted. It’s indeed a false logic and hypocrisy.

Natural Selection was never about waging wars and murdering people, and yet you arguing and conflating Natural Selection out of proportion.

Beside that, why are you focusing on Darwin and Nazi?

Have you ever study biology?

No where in any of the recent publications (eg last 30 years) of biology textbooks do they mention Herbert Spencer’s Social Darwinism or Francis Galton’s Eugenics, because neither works have to do with the current theory of Evolution. No biology lectures teach either of them because they are both outside of the scopes of biology, particularly evolutionary biology, and both subjects (referring to Social Darwinism & Eugenics) are out of date.

Do you know of any university that teach Social Darwinism as a subject or a course in today’s biology?

Social Darwinism isn’t even biology. It is philosophy and ideology in social, political and legal implications, not a biological one. Racism (eg judging people by race, cultures or color of their skins) is social situation, not biological situation, and it isn’t speciation.

Natural Selection as well as Mutations and Genetic Drift are purely biological processes.

When did I claim that Social Darwinism & Eugenics are in biology textbooks or taught in biology lectures? I didn’t claim that Social Darwinism is biology, but it’s indeed influenced by the Darwin’s evolutionary ideas. The criteria that the racist ideology used to determine “the savage races” not worthy of life was influenced by biological understandings of race superiority or inferiority.

Why do keep thinking that I’m using the damaging influence of the ToE as a scientific refutation of the theory. I’m not. Not at all, the damaging influence has nothing to do with the refutation of the theory from a scientific perspective, it's all based, as I said so many times before on Latest 21st century scientific finds of molecular biology as clarified in #753 & #781.

Why do you so defensively deny it? It’s a fact. lewisnotmiller, even so a proponent of the ToE like yourself but didn’t have a problem in his post #1526 to honestly acknowledge that Darwin’s views on race and gender were rubbish (as evident in “The Descent of Man”). It’s a fact. These rubbish views were presented in a scientific book concerning the evolution of man. Darwin’s views did have a damaging influence whether directly or indirectly. Live with it. It’s a fact.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You can’t agree with everything I say and pose it as an argument to the contrary? Really, what is wrong with you guys?

Yes, dark energy is unknown, yes, it can’t be seen, yes, its intrinsic nature is totally a mystery, yet we have scientific evidence for its existence and its influence.

dark energy is a component of reality, I’m using it as an analogy for the collective existence of the physical realm itself. The causal influence for the physical realm itself is sure of an unknown nature, can’t be seen and mysterious yet the observed influence, which is the physical realm in its entirety, is evidenced. The logic may apply to a component or to the whole at a different level of reality/causal hierarchy, why is that so difficult to understand?



Since nothing beyond the beginning of the universe is physical/natural (everything physical/natural came to existence after the Big Bang) then the causal influence for the instantiation of the universe in realty must be supernatural. Why is that so difficult to understand?

There is nothing wrong with us. The problem is that you are working with a concept foreign to you and think that somehow proves your religious beliefs. And you are right about the Big Bang. In face we do not even know what caused the Big Bang or the conditions a very tiny fraction of a second after it began. Our scientific models only work so far.

But not knowing something is never evidence for a God either. Atheists do not try to disprove God. They do not have to. They are only stating a disbelief in a God. The burden of proof is upon the person that says that a God exists.

 

[cladking]

Just as Social Darwinism have nothing to do with the theory of Evolution, Nazi (eg WW2 and the Holocaust) have nothing to do with Evolution, computer technology also have nothing to do with Evolution.

I could not have solved Ancient Language with today's search engines. It would be impossible because they return ads and dogma. Indeed, there was a very short window between about 1998 and 2008 when this could have been done.

By the same token researching ANYTHING at all is almost impossible today with search engines. Every search returns nothing but dogma and ads, lots and lots of ads. Even dogma has become highly limited because more and more is behind paywalls; often layers and layers of paywalls and I doubt they can even be searched. You can't even find what paywall is hiding some things.

 

[cladking]

And there you go again, with more conspiracies, more narratives with very little basis in reality.

OK I admit it. I believe there is a conspiracy by many people to get as much money as they can by any means possible.

What color is the sky in your world?