Darwin's Illusion

[gnostic]

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.

Making vague mentions and allusions are not explanations of observations of natural phenomena or of natural processes.

Science are explanations of WHAT a natural phenomena is and HOW the natural phenomena work (eg processes).

Science are not vague descriptions and not analogies or metaphors (which are more often used in verse-type texts, like poems and scriptures.

 

[cladking]

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?

I seriously doubt it!!!!!

Speaking only for myself the problem is not evil people. Almost all people try to do what they think is right almost all the time. Almost all people make perfect sense almost all the time in terms of their premises.

The problem is we are stinky footed bumpkins. We are blind men walking around in elephant crap trying to figure out what stinks at one end and sucks at the other.

We have been confused since the tower of babel.



Don't tell me none of this sounds familiar since I've said it hundreds of times and you continue to ignore every single argument!!! You don't debate, you play semantics, gainsay, create strawmen, and lecture about your beliefs which are unshakeable because you know all the answers. And then you are very very rude!

 

[gnostic]

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.

And there you go again.

Have you ever read recent biology textbooks that speak of racism or define he differences between savage races and civilized races?

The difference between savage and civilized are social and technological concepts, it isn’t biological. It still have nothing to do with the modern theory of Evolution.

 

[LIIA]

it was an experiment in abiogenesis it did confirm abiogenesis. It is evidence for abiogenesis. You are conflating evidence with proof. There is no proof in science there is only evidence.

Any successful theory of abiogenesis must explain the prebiotic synthesis of organic molecules (lipids, carbohydrates, amino acids, nucleic acids), and the emergence of molecular self-replication, self-assembly, cell membranes through the interactions of these classes of molecules.

merely showing that some simple amino acids might emerge from non-living inorganic matter is by no means a confirmation of abiogenesis. Stop the ridicules nonsense.

Sorry, I meant amino acids. There have been other experiments that showed that nucleic acids form naturally as well. I made one small error, you have made countless gross errors. Has anyone called you a liar?

I don’t like to call anyone a liar but seriously how can it be an honest error if you justify the error by making another dishonest claim? No, nucleic acids do not form in nature from non-living inorganic matter. There is no evidence for such claim.

Go ahead, enlighten us all and demonstrate that nucleic acids form on its own from non-living inorganic matter.

When you use the wrong terminology you will be automatically wrong. There is no helping you until you admit your own incredible ignorance of all of the sciences. By the way, Tiktaalik was an early vertebrate transitional species. Guess what, you are still a vertebrate. I am assuming that you do have a backbone. There was no "transformation".

Really amazing, you see no transformation from tiktaalik to human!! You would like to call it gradual accumulation of change but It’s not a game of semantics,

Yet alleged gradualism entails numerous transitional forms that are neither logical nor supported by real world data in the fossil record. See the link below and #1525

Punctuated equilibrium - Wikipedia

Of course the do not "transform". No one claimed that. There is a slow gradual change of species. We know that. We can demonstrate that. You need to try to use proper language.

In essence, the ToE is about drastic transformation of one organism to another. How it allegedly happens or how long the process takes is a detail.

Organisms don’t transform, organisms adapt. Adaptation as seen in the real world CANNOT cause transformation of one species into totally different species. Gradualism is a myth. It’s neither logical nor supported by evidence of the fossil record. See above.

 

[LIIA]

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.

Yes, the point is, a cause is logically necessary, and the cause is necessarily supernatural.

The understanding of the supernatural cannot be dealt with through the typical methods of experimental/observational science.

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.

Atheists can neither disprove God nor their disbelief is justifiable. The nature of God is beyond the domain of the experimental/observational science.

The point is that the system that collectively exhibits/produces order, purpose, design as the end result cannot be unintentional simply because you think the processes at play just exist on its own, unintentional and uncaused. There is no logical or scientific basis to drive such conclusion.

 

[LIIA]

Making vague mentions and allusions are not explanations of observations of natural phenomena or of natural processes.

They’re no explanations involved. Not at all, only documentation of facts that we can observe/verify and were not known 1400 years ago. Here is an example:

“And the universe—We constructed it with might, and We are surely expanding it.” [Adh-Dhariyat: 47]
Surah Adh-Dhariyat - 47 - Quran.com

It was only vague for those who worked on early tafseer/interpretation of Quran and didn’t have access to our knowledge today. They tried to explain according to their understanding, but the facts are straightforward and clear for those who know the Arabic language and aware of the latest scientific finds. There are many similar examples.

Science are explanations of WHAT a natural phenomena is and HOW the natural phenomena work (eg processes).

Science are not vague descriptions and not analogies or metaphors (which are more often used in verse-type texts, like poems and scriptures.

Religions are neither scientific disciplines nor intended to be. The scientific insights in Quran are only intended as proof of authenticity especially for our time today. Earlier generations were neither aware of its meaning nor there was any tension between science vs. religion.

Quran/Islamic view encouraged contemplation, exploration and gaining knowledge of the natural world and was the driving force/motivation that led to the Islamic scientific achievement of the “Islamic Golden Age” that established the basis of the modern scientific method. See # 1452

 

[LIIA]

And there you go again.

Have you ever read recent biology textbooks that speak of racism or define he differences between savage races and civilized races?

Didn’t I already make it clear in # 1618? No, recent biology textbooks don’t address racism but how is that relevant to the influence of the theory on the ideology adapted by the Nazis as well as other regimes around the world?

Do you deny that the concepts of eugenics and “Life unworthy of life” were rooted in evolutionary biology? Do you deny Darwin’s rubbish ideas of race and gender as explicitly stated in his book “The Descent of Man"

Imagine a regime adapting the ideology that the ill, weak and disabled are burden on humanity, not fit or worthy of life and it’s for the greater good to exterminate those unfit as an embracement of the natural course towards prosperity? How dangerous would this ideology be? Such ideology exists. It didn’t disappear from the world.

Yes, Scientific/biological racism is now considered as pseudoscience but that doesn’t change the fact that biological racism is rooted in evolutionary biology and that it did and continues to have a damaging influence on humanity by those who choose to adapt it.

Nazi eugenics - Wikipedia

Life unworthy of life - Wikipedia

The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex (darwin-online.org.uk)

Scientific racism - Wikipedia

The difference between savage and civilized are social and technological concepts, it isn’t biological. It still have nothing to do with the modern theory of Evolution.

Not true scientific racism is an application of evolutionary biology. Yes, it’s considered now as pseudoscience and misapplication of evolutionary biology but regardless, scientific racism, biological racism, eugenics, social Darwinism, etc. are all rooted/influenced by evolutionary biology. It already did and continues to do its damage.

Scientific racism - Wikipedia

 

[Subduction Zone]

Any successful theory of abiogenesis must explain the prebiotic synthesis of organic molecules (lipids, carbohydrates, amino acids, nucleic acids), and the emergence of molecular self-replication, self-assembly, cell membranes through the interactions of these classes of molecules.

merely showing that some simple amino acids might emerge from non-living inorganic matter is by no means a confirmation of abiogenesis. Stop the ridicules nonsense.



I don’t like to call anyone a liar but seriously how can it be an honest error if you justify the error by making another dishonest claim? No, nucleic acids do not form in nature from non-living inorganic matter. There is no evidence for such claim.

Go ahead, enlighten us all and demonstrate that nucleic acids form on its own from non-living inorganic matter.



Really amazing, you see no transformation from tiktaalik to human!! You would like to call it gradual accumulation of change but It’s not a game of semantics,

Yet alleged gradualism entails numerous transitional forms that are neither logical nor supported by real world data in the fossil record. See the link below and #1525

Punctuated equilibrium - Wikipedia

View attachment 65049

View attachment 65050



In essence, the ToE is about drastic transformation of one organism to another. How it allegedly happens or how long the process takes is a detail.

Organisms don’t transform, organisms adapt. Adaptation as seen in the real world CANNOT cause transformation of one species into totally different species. Gradualism is a myth. It’s neither logical nor supported by evidence of the fossil record. See above.

Is English your first language? Science is almost a second language. You do not seem to understand what it mans when a hypothesis is confirmed. Or that a complex problem can be split into many hypotheses. Confirming any one hypothesis is confirming the overarching hypothesis, it is evidence for it. But it is not absolute proof.

Once again, there is no absolute proof in the sciences, but there is evidence. You really should try to learn what is and what is not evidence.

And adaption is evolution. You do not even know what evolution is. How are you ever going to refute it. All you have is ignorant nay saying. And name calling.

As to how nucleic acids could have formed naturally here you go:

https://cen.acs.org/articles/94/i18/first-nucleotides-might-formed-Earth.html

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, the point is, a cause is logically necessary, and the cause is necessarily supernatural.

The understanding of the supernatural cannot be dealt with through the typical methods of experimental/observational science.

Even that claim of yours is not correct. Talk to a physicist. They can give you examples of things occurring without a cause. On the macro scale we see cause and effect. But that is not what is observed on the veery tiniest of scales. On the quantum scale events are a result of probabilities. There is no "cause". And we can sometimes directly observe those events. For example when a radioactive nucleus decays appears to be a probabilistic event. There is no "cause" of the specific time of an individual decay.

Atheists can neither disprove God nor their disbelief is justifiable. The nature of God is beyond the domain of the experimental/observational science.

The point is that the system that collectively exhibits/produces order, purpose, design as the end result cannot be unintentional simply because you think the processes at play just exist on its own, unintentional and uncaused. There is no logical or scientific basis to drive such conclusion.

Wrong. Well we cannot prove that a God does not exist. But it is easy to prove that a lack of belief is justifiable. Do you believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn? How do you justify your lack of belief if you do not believe? By your standards people should believe every ridiculous claim if they cannot personally disprove it.

And no, we do not see any such systematic purpose or design. In fact if you understood the sciences and biology enough you would see that we observe the opposite. Life is the ultimate kludge. Evolution works on "good enough" and that is what we see again and again. We never see "perfect" or even close to it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not true scientific racism is an application of evolutionary biology. Yes, it’s considered now as pseudoscience and misapplication of evolutionary biology but regardless, scientific racism, biological racism, eugenics, social Darwinism, etc. are all rooted/influenced by evolutionary biology. It already did and continues to do its damage.

Scientific racism - Wikipedia

You just contradicted yourself. And you should really read your article. It does not support your claims. If anything "scientific racism" arose before long before Darwin came along and it is more a of a religious belief than a scientific belief. It was always a misapplication of scientific concepts. It was never "scientific".

This is why you should learn the basics of science. And logic. Until you do you will keep making rather ignorant errors where your own sources refute what you believe.

 

[cladking]

They can give you examples of things occurring without a cause. On the macro scale we see cause and effect. But that is not what is observed on the veery tiniest of scales. On the quantum scale events are a result of probabilities. There is no "cause". And we can sometimes directly observe those events. For example when a radioactive nucleus decays appears to be a probabilistic event. There is no "cause" of the specific time of an individual decay.

Just because a cause can have many effects hardly means that effects occur without cause or vice versa. Flip a coin a 100 times and the odds of any specific series of results is 1 : 2 ^ 100 yet some series will always appear. Not knowing what causes one atomic decay or one coin flip is irrelevant.

On very small scales and very long time periods everything becomes difficult to predict. This is an attribute of reality and could even be a characteristic of reductionistic science because we study the macro scale and short time periods. No one has ever seen a whale evolve back into the ocean or performed an experiment that shows it.

 

[Valjean]

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".

Yes, the genes/genetic code is the blueprint for the organism, but what does this have to do with evolution. You say "genesdidit," but what is their "key role?" What sort of mechanism are you proposing?

It is this that I believe forms and causes specific changes in species/ individuals.

What does this mean? You're missing a verb.

This is a very important concept if speciation is as sudden as I propose.

What is a very important concept? I still don't know what mechanism you're proposing.

 

[Valjean]

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.

Darwin's contribution was the discovery of natural selection. The selector is environment.

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.

Politicians are always trying to justify their preëxisting opinions and actions by appealing to religion or science. Often they have little understanding of the science they cite, and misinterpret or misapply it.
Scientific facts are morally neutral. They're just facts. How they're applied or misinterpreted does not involve the original discoverer of the facts.

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”.

Sure, a some of Darwin's speculations were rubbish. Evolution was a brand new field of study, and almost nothing was known of it, but his crowning discovery of the mechanism of natural selection.

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.

The Nazi atrocities were not a result of Darwin.
Do you blame their tanks on Henry Bessemer, their bombers on the Wright brothers, or the bombs on Julius Wilbrand?

 

[cladking]

Yes, the genes/genetic code is the blueprint for the organism, but what does this have to do with evolution. You say "genesdidit," but what is their "key role?" What sort of mechanism are you proposing?

Genes define consciousness. Experience molds consciousness. In human all behavior is defined by beliefs but in all other life forms behavior is the result of knowledge. This allows animals to act "intelligently" with very little knowledge.

It is behavior that leads to speciation. When we select tame wolves to breed this behavior of "tameness" suddenly creates a new species; dogs. This is the exact same way nature creates most new species; it selects for unusual behavior which derives from consciousness. There is no such thing as "survival of the fittest" because every individual (which isn't dinner) is equally fit. When four legged "whales" that love water are the only individuals that survive they breed and create a new species. Species, like EVERYTHING to do with life arise suddenly. Consciousness drives speciation through behavior at bottlenecks.

What does this mean? You're missing a verb.

"It is this that I believe forms and causes specific changes in species/ individuals."

It is this (genes) that I believe forms and causes specific changes in species/ individuals. IE- All life is individual and all life is formed from genes. Life is consciousness so genes are the cause of change in species.

Behavior is an expression of genes just as is consciousness. When unusual genes that caused unusual behavior that allowed some individuals to survive a bottleneck come together after that that bottleneck a new species is created. In a very real way it is consciousness that causes speciation. Life, consciousness, genes, and behavior are all intimately related and individual. So long as niches remain stable there is virtually no change in species. But niches never last long according to the physical evidence. Without a stable niche species don't have time to "evolve". When niches change it is populated by all new species except the few that didn't undergo a significant population bottleneck.

This is what the actual physical evidence and experiment shows. we are are misinterpreting evidence because the paradigm is wrong. Definitions are poor and reductionistic science does an extremely poor job of seeing things that aren't or can't be reduced. We can't reduce consciousness and factor it out when we look at change in species so of course we can't see the true nature of the change.

What is a very important concept? I still don't know what mechanism you're proposing.

That consciousness is life. That every individual has a unique consciousness caused by unique genes and unique experience. Beavers didn't invent dams. A beaver invented dams and others came along with improvements. You can't understand how a species changes if you don't understand the consciousness and uniqueness of its progenitures.

Life is very complicated just like reality on steroids. In some ways it's far simpler since the tides caused by Pluto affect the earth but might not affect any individual life form on earth. At least the effect on life is usually canceled out as noise or the result of will. No doubt some butterfly in China was was a few milliseconds late flapping its wings because Pluto's tide interfered with a signal to the wing.

People want nice simple answers to everything but a good rule of thumb is simple answers are often wrong because reality is exceedingly complex and it can not be reduced by experiment except in the grossest sense and short time periods. If you want to describe things that have long time periods or are small scale then science fails. There is no such thing as Evolution and there are no experiments to support it. All observation and experiment show speciation is sudden and unrelated to survival of the fittest or "natural selection" as we define it. These are all mirages caused by the tools we use to look, and the beliefs of the observers.

 

[Valjean]

If this is true, then you have acknowledged that there is no scientific basis to deny the existence of God.

There is no scientific basis to deny the possibility of God, just as there is no scientific basis to deny the possibility of leprechauns or lizard-men from Mars. God is unevidenced, hence, His existence is logically unsupportable.

logically the evidence of the non-physical nature of God, it’s not attainable through observation/experimentation. Yet we can know his attributes.

Unattainable knowledge is no knowledge. How can we know the attributes of something completely speculative?

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.

Noöne's claiming it's magic. An observed effect is evidence. When no other mechanism of effect is known, this strengthens the evidence. It does not confirm dark matter.

Evolution and abiogenesis have natural mechanisms that account for them, even if the processes are not yet completely understood. "Goddidit" doesn't even claim a mechanism, and there is virtually no evidence of any mechanic, ergo: 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.

Dark energy is no more evidence of a conscious or intentional "higher cause" than matter or gravity are.
Didn't you just claim we knew nothing about its intrinsic nature?

Do you believe in infinite regression?

That presupposes our sensory experience of an "arrow of time" is accurate. It is not. I believe in physics. Cause doesn't always preceed effect. An effect may not need a cause at all.

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?

Its effects are within the domain of my awareness. It's nature and mechanisms remain unknown.

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.

So, in the absence of evidence, why invent an invisible magician at all?

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.[/quote]Unevidenced speculations by prophets, seers and madmen are not evidence, however revered the seer.

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.

I assess the knowledge not by the word of those conveying it, but by the reproducible observations underlying it.

The supernatural reality does exist.

That may be true, but I'll need evidence before I can reasonably accept it.

Nothing beyond the beginning of the universe is natural;

So... nothing is natural. All is magic.

the beginning of the universe is dependent on a supernatural influence. The observable manifestation of the supernatural is the physical realm in its entirety.

So you claim. Back it up with evidence, please.

 

[gnostic]

Didn’t I already make it clear in # 1618? No, recent biology textbooks don’t address racism but how is that relevant to the influence of the theory on the ideology adapted by the Nazis as well as other regimes around the world?

Why do you think I have been asking you about reading modern biology textbooks?

I asked because you are obsessed with past models and with past mistakes, and not focused on the current teachings from universities and from current biology textbooks, now used.

Why the obsession with “Eugenics” and “racism” and “Social Darwinism” and “Nazi Holocaust”, WHEN none of these exist in syllabuses of today biology and biology-related subjects.

(Note that “biology-related” can mean something like surgery techniques and medicine and pathology, etc.)

Have you ever study college biology or university biology before?

If you did, you would know that university entries, annual tuitions, plus books and equipments are all expensive for students (and for students’ parents, if they are for their children).

And you would also know that when you enrolled in these university courses, you would only spend an estimated specific amount times students should spend in completing their courses (eg 3-year course, 4-year, 5-year, etc). So times are short and very hectic for both students and the educators (eg professors, lecturers, teachers, tutors, trainers, etc).

My points about textbooks, and about expense and time spent at universities, there are seriously limitations as to amount of time on each subject...SO THEY ARE ONLY TAUGHT WHAT ARE NEEDED FOR THEIR CAREER PATH. SO THEIR SUBJECTS WON’T INCLUDE ON ANYTHING IRRELEVANT THAT ARE NO OF USE TO THEIR COURSES.

I am emphasizing my points with CAP-ON, because you bloody focused on the past and not what are actually taught in the present.

“Irrelevant” like this stupid Eugenics, Social Darwinism, racism, and Nazi war crimes are not included in biology textbooks and courses.

Today’s biology subjects & courses and today’s textbooks would only focused on useful theories in their path today,

They are biology students, not history students. The courses and textbooks are not there now to teach irrelevant and unrelated subjects, like eugenics, Social Darwinism or about World War 2. Today’s subjects also don’t waste their time and efforts on what Darwin made mistakes in or things that are out of date.

For example, no biology students would spent times learning Darwin’s clumsy genetics. Today’s genetics are more in line with Gregor Mendel’s, not with Darwin’s, but students are more focused on today’s genetics that have ADVANCED beyond the Mendelian Inheritance, because Mendel (and Darwin) knew nothing about nucleic acids that you would know as DNA & RNA, and other molecular biology subjects that didn’t exist in the mid-19th century.

You should be focused on biology taught today, but you have been mindlessly obsessed with 2nd half of the 19th century & 1st half of the 20th century.

Do you really have nothing to add are taught in the last 30 years? Must you stick your head in the sand, and only focused on out of date theories or irrelevant subjects like Social Darwinism and World War 2?

 

[gnostic]

Yes, Scientific/biological racism is now considered as pseudoscience but that doesn’t change the fact that biological racism is rooted in evolutionary biology and that it did and continues to have a damaging influence on humanity by those who choose to adapt it.

Nazi eugenics - Wikipedia

Life unworthy of life - Wikipedia

The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex (darwin-online.org.uk)

Scientific racism - Wikipedia

@LIIA

@Subduction Zone is correct:

You just contradicted yourself. And you should really read your article. It does not support your claims. If anything "scientific racism" arose before long before Darwin came along and it is more a of a religious belief than a scientific belief. It was always a misapplication of scientific concepts. It was never "scientific".

You had not bother to read your own wiki link about Scientific Racism. Once again, you are blaming Darwin for something he never started.

This Scientific Racism occurred over 2 centuries before Darwin’s On Origin publication in 1859.

Scientific Racism started around 1600, in the middle of the Counter-Reformation (1545 -1648) with the Roman Catholic pushed back at the advances of Protestantism (early 16th century Reformation, eg Luther) and the Thirty Years’ War (1618 - 1648).

The Thirty Years’ War was the most destructive wars in Western Europe, before World War 1, where a number of nations took part, the Catholic’s Holy Roman Empire (including Germany and Austria), Spain, and the Protestant Germans, and their allies, Sweden, Britain and France.

Most of the battles took place in what is now Germany.

This Scientific Racism took place at the transition between the end of Late Renaissance and Early Baroque.

Plus, Scientific Racism wasn’t “scientific”, like subduction zone said, it was religious concept.

You continue to blame things on Darwin which Darwin didn’t start.

 

[gnostic]

@LIIA

You have also keep bringing up the Nazi Holocaust, but racism against Jews in Western Europe, predated Darwin by over a thousand years.

It started in Spain in the 6th century, when the Visigoths ruled most of the Iberian peninsula (today’s Spain and Portugal), before the arrivals of Moors in the following century. Visigoths were eastern Germanic speaking people that settled in Spain and North Africa as early as the late 4th century CE.

Jews were persecuted started here in the 6th century, before it spread throughout Western Europe during Early Middle Ages (500-1000) to the High Middle Ages (1000- 1300), and continued to persist in the Late Middle Ages (eg the 14th century Black Death, where Jews were blamed for the plagues).

Persecution have always been horrific in these European kingdoms, including in Germany and Austria, then called the Holy Roman Empire.

Why do you think there were so many Jews living in Poland before World War 2? Because past persecutions in Germany drove out most of the Jews in the Late Middle Ages and the Late Renaissance.

Nazi weren’t the only anti-Semitic Germans. Medieval Germans have also treated Jews badly. So there was a long history of death, persecution and expulsion in Germany, long before Darwin, so what happened during WW2, wasn't all that surprising.

So are you also going to blame Darwin for what happened in the Middle Ages?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.



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”.



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



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



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 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.

Is someone attacking the theory of evolution? Where?

 

[Valjean]

LIIA said

The metaphysical domain exists logically.

So support it. Show your work.

... genes are no more than a storage of data at the disposal of the living system. See last item of #1600

OK, so?

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.

So what is the reliable means in other domains? If it's entirely subjective, I wouldn't expect anyone else to believe it, since I can produce no tangible evidence. It would be real only to me.

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.

We don't, currently, have evidence of its nature, but don't doesn't mean can't.
By "higher causal influence," do you mean a conscious, purposive influence, like God? Why would there be any reason to expect this? Wouldn't a natural cause be more ikely?

The types of evidence that you’re seeking are not attainable/applicable within these levels of reality.

So why believe in these levels 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.

No. I don't see any logical need for a god.
Define "an absolute," please.

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.

How do we know these are manifestations of an entity at all? Unknown cause = God?

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

So it's the subjective type apprehended only by a single individual?

the notion “it’s beyond my domain of physical awareness, hence it cannot exist/must be dismissed” is not logical.[/quote

If it's unevidenced it holds the same epistemic status as unicorns and dragons. If we believe in God with no physical evidence, we must needs believe in griffins, trolls and and the ravenous bugblatter beast of Traal. If we disbelieve in these due to no evidence, we must, to be consistent, disbelieve in God, as well.

Actual evidence exists for the attributes/manifestation not the nature. What is your actual evidence that the dark energy exists beyond its observable manifestations?

At present I'm aware of none. So what?

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?

The same as yours --none.

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

Both are equally evidenced.

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.

Are you sure a first cause is necessary? Why would the first cause be a personage?
You make a lot of unsupported claims, here.

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?

Life emerging from non-living matter, through unguided chemistry, is consistent with everything we know about chemistry and biology.
Life emerging magically, by an imperceptible magician, has never been seen. It's an extraordinary, unevedenced, extraneous claim.

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?

Life emerged, either by known, familiar chemistry, or by magic poofing. There is no evidence of conscious intention, and chemistry seems entirely adequate to accomplish the task.

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?

there is abundant, consilient, concrete and first person evidence he existed.

Can you simply pick and choose which part of history you believe and which part you ignore, or this is the role of historiography?

No, you must critically evaluate the evidence. Not all historical evidence is equal.

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.

It's not an interpretation. It's an epistemic, logical fact.