Darwin's Illusion

[cladking]

I agree, other that some empty claims, they don’t have a clue what life really is.

The video below discusses the origins/diversity of life, the ToE, Abiogenists, fine tuning of the universe, the multiverse theory, etc. it’s a long but interesting video that sheds light on the subject and tries to connect the dots.

Is There Scientific Evidence That God Exists? | The Case For A Creator | Parable - YouTube

ROFL.

I just started watching this video and it starts out 'from the knowledge of God's work we shall know him"!!!

Check out the Ancient Reality thread. Ancient Reality Post #818 (last post now)

I've been battling the nonsensical beliefs of Egyptologist for many tears now but now there is proof they are wrong. Specifically there is work from ancient Egypt that could not possibly have been done by egyptians or anyone who came before. From the knowledge of ancient work we will learn about ourselves and perhaps God at the same time.

Of course the irony is lost on believers.

 

[cladking]

Is There Scientific Evidence That God Exists? | The Case For A Creator | Parable - YouTube

I've watched most of this now and while it is quite interesting and makes many valid points it's ground I traveled extensively in my younger days.

Of course all of this is way over my pay grade.

In more recent times though I have a little different perspective. While I see the validity of 'intelligent" design still, I no longer really believe in "intelligent". I believe in logic; that reality and math are logic, that science incorporates logic by means of experiment. I can't know whether God exists or not and I'm sure no one ever will but if there is a Creator then It is a manifestation of the same logic or we are a manifestation of It.

It is painfully obvious that reductionistic science has gotten far too big for is britches. More accurately few people understand science and more and more scientists don't understand science either. They draw conclusions and use them to extrapolate all of reality and this is visible in the blind adherence to Peers and Et Als. The only components of science are Observation > Experiment and neither of these are group projects. All ideas are and always have been individual as are the observations and interpretations of them and evidence. Thought is individual. Consciousness is individual. That an individual would have the hubris to exclude the possibility of a creator simply shows they do not understand science or what science studies. It's one thing to say that in your considered opinion there is a low probability God exists but it's much different to say there isn't, can't be, or that science says there is no God. If you estimate the odds of something at 0% or 100% you are engaging in a circular argument or superstition.

I believe we will find a natural explanation for everything though some questions can never be answered. I further believe some of the answers would look like the supernatural to people today. Each time we learn a new natural explanation the atheists will believe God is finally utterly disproven and now we know everything.

Science has barely begun to scratch the surface of understanding life or what it means to be an observer or make an observation. Like Darwin they are arguing from ignorance. They are saying what the world could look like if seen through definitions that exclude all living things (consciousness) and only of fossils that were never even alive. And then they have to ignore much of the fossil evidence to arrive at their conclusions.

Reality is very much structured so we can understand it but then this is probably because ultimately we are a part of reality. Any understanding of anything is transferrable to everything. We will learn much more about reality over the coming centuries if we fail at killing ourselves through hedonism and hubris but at this time we are like babes compared to where we'll be in a thousand years or ten thousand.

We have many challenges ahead and Tower of Babel 2.0 is at hand.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Is There Scientific Evidence That God Exists? | The Case For A Creator | Parable - YouTube

I've watched most of this now and while it is quite interesting and makes many valid points it's ground I traveled extensively in my younger days.

Of course all of this is way over my pay grade.

In more recent times though I have a little different perspective. While I see the validity of 'intelligent" design still, I no longer really believe in "intelligent". I believe in logic; that reality and math are logic, that science incorporates logic by means of experiment. I can't know whether God exists or not and I'm sure no one ever will but if there is a Creator then It is a manifestation of the same logic or we are a manifestation of It.

It is painfully obvious that reductionistic science has gotten far too big for is britches. More accurately few people understand science and more and more scientists don't understand science either. They draw conclusions and use them to extrapolate all of reality and this is visible in the blind adherence to Peers and Et Als. The only components of science are Observation > Experiment and neither of these are group projects. All ideas are and always have been individual as are the observations and interpretations of them and evidence. Thought is individual. Consciousness is individual. That an individual would have the hubris to exclude the possibility of a creator simply shows they do not understand science or what science studies. It's one thing to say that in your considered opinion there is a low probability God exists but it's much different to say there isn't, can't be, or that science says there is no God. If you estimate the odds of something at 0% or 100% you are engaging in a circular argument or superstition.

I believe we will find a natural explanation for everything though some questions can never be answered. I further believe some of the answers would look like the supernatural to people today. Each time we learn a new natural explanation the atheists will believe God is finally utterly disproven and now we know everything.

Science has barely begun to scratch the surface of understanding life or what it means to be an observer or make an observation. Like Darwin they are arguing from ignorance. They are saying what the world could look like if seen through definitions that exclude all living things (consciousness) and only of fossils that were never even alive. And then they have to ignore much of the fossil evidence to arrive at their conclusions.

Reality is very much structured so we can understand it but then this is probably because ultimately we are a part of reality. Any understanding of anything is transferrable to everything. We will learn much more about reality over the coming centuries if we fail at killing ourselves through hedonism and hubris but at this time we are like babes compared to where we'll be in a thousand years or ten thousand.

We have many challenges ahead and Tower of Babel 2.0 is at hand.

LOL , Lee Strobel

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Did you guys know there was this incredible list of scientists that are skeptical of biological evolution? There's like 1,200 of them on this list. That's incredible. That's huge. It has to be something like, I don't know, maybe .014% of all scientists. And they don't even claim that it is wrong or refuted. They just claim to be skeptical. Here's what they signed off on from whatever institute of not science that created it. What these scientists may or may not have understood they were agreeing to is this.

“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”
https://www.discovery.org/m/securepdfs/2021/07/Scientific-Dissent-from-Darwinism-List-07152021.pdf

That just sounds like a bunch of architects, engineers, physicists, psychologists, geologists, chemists, computer scientists, mathematicians, philosophers and, oh yeah...yeah, yeah, yeah, there were a few biologists on there too, agree that we don't know everything and should keep researching. Or maybe they just don't understand and need to take a course to help them. It could be. Bottom line, it doesn't say the theory of evolution is wrong, refuted, in trouble, etc. It just says what scientists are supposed to do. Be skeptical.

Huge numbers folks. Huge! Incredible! Staggering! I'm so startled.

I was going to print a list of the other 99.986% of scientists that didn't sign, but at 45 names per page, that is 196,000 pages and I didn't have the paper.

Instead, I thought I would share with you the Project Steve details.

Project Steve comes from the National Center for Science Education. It is a list of just scientists named Steve that accept the theory of evolution as our best explanation of the evidence.

They signed off on this statement.

"Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools."

So far, there are 1457 Steves on the list. That's more than the other list. Here's a link.
Project Steve | National Center for Science Education

And as any creationist will tell you, the more numbers of people that believe in, accept or support something, the more right it is. Or maybe that is just a logical fallacy, but it's all good and fun.

And if this doesn't do it for you, just repeat what Denis Noble says.

 

[cladking]

So far, there are 1457 Steves on the list. That's more than the other list. Here's a link.
Project Steve | National Center for Science Education

How appropriate they found no Steves and there's a link at the bottom for those who wish to "support climate change"!!!

Reality is not now and never has been up to a vote by steves or anyone else. ONLY experiment can underlie real science and there is no experiment showing "species" change due to "survival of the fittest" over long periods of time. There is no scientific basis for Darwin's beliefs even after a century and a half. All observed change is sudden.

If 100% support belief in climate change then why is support for Darwin a meager 99%? Does this suggest that there's 100% chance of climate change and a 99% chance that we will evolve?

According to aviation engineers there's only a 50: 50 chance a plane can take off from a conveyor belt.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

How appropriate they found no Steves and there's a link at the bottom for those who wish to "support climate change"!!!

Reality is not now and never has been up to a vote by steves or anyone else. ONLY experiment can underlie real science and there is no experiment showing "species" change due to "survival of the fittest" over long periods of time. There is no scientific basis for Darwin's beliefs even after a century and a half. All observed change is sudden.

If 100% support belief in climate change then why is support for Darwin a meager 99%? Does this suggest that there's 100% chance of climate change and a 99% chance that we will evolve?

According to aviation engineers there's only a 50: 50 chance a plane can take off from a conveyor belt.

This is the reason I have you on ignore. It was my fault for being curious and selecting "see ignored content". Not only do some of your comments not make any sense, but you regularly contradict yourself. For instance, the example of what I see as fawning over the same sort of list posted elsewhere as meaningful then, but the same thing now is attacked. You want things both ways and don't understand either way.

The evidence supports speciation through natural selection. I've posted the evidence. Others have posted evidence. You have posted nothing in support of your very confused claims and reimagined terminology. Repeating all of that nonsense like all change is sudden doesn't make it magically turn into the truth. For instance, I have observed change that isn't sudden. I know of further change that isn't sudden. Claiming things like that and not backing up is typical, but useless. Like a meaningless mantra to chase away things that make you uncomfortable. Like science seems to.

What Darwin observed and concluded is scientifically meaningful and valid. That is obvious even to someone claiming for no good reason to be a look and see (observational) scientist. Denial of reality doesn't change reality to the liking of the person in denial.

The rest of your post is indecipherable and meaningless to me.

I'm going to go back to ignoring you.

 

[cladking]

I've posted the evidence.

"Evidence" is meaningless. Experiment drives all science. Reading the fossil record is akin to reading tea leaves.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"Evidence" is meaningless. Experiment drives all science. Reading the fossil record is akin to reading tea leaves.

Nope. Science is driven by evidence. Experimentation is only one way of obtaining evidence.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Nope. Science is driven by evidence. Experimentation is only one way of obtaining evidence.

How is that not understood? Experiments show us something. That something is evidence.

Looks like my satirical humor about ad populum arguments wasn't recognized and understood by some.

 

[cladking]

Experiments show us something. That something is evidence.

This is semantics.

When experiment shows what is expected it shows our interpretation of evidence is correct. When experiment shows what isn't expected it shows our interpretation of evidence is incorrect.

Without experiment we may as well be reading tea leaves or consulting priests.

No experiment supports Darwin.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is semantics.

When experiment shows what is expected it shows our interpretation of evidence is correct. When experiment shows what isn't expected it shows our interpretation of evidence is incorrect.

Without experiment we may as well be reading tea leaves or consulting priests.

No experiment supports Darwin.

No, you may as well be reading tea leaves. Don't assume that others lack the ability to think rationally.

As to your last claim:

E. coli long-term evolution experiment - Wikipedia

 

[LIIA]

I am probably going to have to repeat this endlessly.

Repeating a false claim doesn’t make it any less false.

The lack of gradualism for terrestrial fossils is expected.

First, you already acknowledged the fact about “lack of gradualism for terrestrial fossils” just stick to it if you can.

Second, your argument about terrestrial fossils is irrelevant. In my post #3244, I was taking about the Cambrian explosion (the Biological Big Bang). The numerous preserved fossils revealed were mainly for aquatic life not terrestrial fossils, yet the fossils appeared suddenly in a geological instant without any transitional fossils or any evidence for the speculated slowly branching tree of life. The alleged tree does not exist in the fossil record, neither before nor after the Cambrian explosion. As it turned out the “lack of gradualism” that you already acknowledged is not limited to terrestrial fossils but rather absent in the entire geological history.

Why do you think that it should exist?

I don’t. Darwin did.

 

[LIIA]

Vestigial does not mean functionless.

If you do understand that it has a function, then what are you fussing about?

Does the tail bone still move your tail?

Didn’t you see the article stating that the coccyx has several important functions? And no, it has nothing to do with moving your tail. here is the link again.

Coccydynia: An Overview of the Anatomy, Etiology, and Treatment of Coccyx Pain - PMC (nih.gov)

Does extremely limited movement of your ears do anything at all.

Again, vast majority of people cannot move it. Meaning, vast majority don’t have what you claim to be functionless ability. What are you fussing about? And again, learning to move the ears is possible with practice and training, which may help focusing on sound.

Can you learn to wiggle your ears? | Live Science

Regardless, it’s totally illogical to ignore a dominant rule, which is the amazingly complex functionality of the human ears and focus on a meaningless alleged exception? It’s not only the functionality but also the quality of the acoustic perception through both ears while maintaining the external aesthetics of the body plan as seen in the balanced proportions and reflectional symmetry of both ears along the axis/plane of symmetry.

Do you understand what does it mean to hear? Do you understand what does it mean to have “qualia” of any kind? The world around us doesn’t have sounds. It’s merely back and forth movement of particles within a medium. The fact that this movement of particles can be converted into this amazing experience we call sound and the acoustic perception of the world around us is truly unfathomable and beyond words. As stated in the video below.

Human ear - structure & working | Sound | Physics | Khan Academy - YouTube

Let alone the rule of the inner ear to allow for our sense of balance with three semicircular canals with different orientation in 3D space, one responds to tilting upwards or downwards, the second responds to tilting to the right or to the left and the third responds to turning sideways. These canals utilize, gravity, inner fluid and sensory hair cells to sense our orientation in 3D space and inform the brain.

How does our sense of balance work? - InformedHealth.org - NCBI Bookshelf (nih.gov)

Before you fuss about a rare, alleged exception, (which is the ability of some people to move their ears), first explain the dominant rule, which is the miraculous functionality of the ears. Inference depends on the statistical significance of evidence; the overwhelming rule governs our inference, never the exception. The evidence clearly and simply points to purposeful design. I know you may not understand what I’m talking about, simply because you don’t want to, but others will. It’s not for you.

Like it or not they are vestigial structures.

If you do understand the functionality of these organs, then what is the point? If any! What are you guys whining about?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Repeating a false claim doesn’t make it any less false.

Then why do you keep doing that?

First, you already acknowledged the fact about “lack of gradualism for terrestrial fossils” just stick to it if you can.

[/quote]

Dude, you keep forgetting that you keep repeating the false claim that there are no smooth transitions. Yes, on land smooth transitions are all but nonexistent. That does not mean that we do not have enough transitional fossils of just land animals to confirm the theory. There is no need for us to demonstrate smooth transitions. The idea that there should be is a strawman argument.

Second, your argument about terrestrial fossils is irrelevant. In my post #3244, I was taking about the Cambrian explosion (the Biological Big Bang). The numerous preserved fossils revealed were mainly for aquatic life not terrestrial fossils, yet the fossils appeared suddenly in a geological instant without any transitional fossils or any evidence for the speculated slowly branching tree of life. The alleged tree does not exist in the fossil record, neither before nor after the Cambrian explosion. As it turned out the “lack of gradualism” that you already acknowledged is not limited to terrestrial fossils but rather absent in the entire geological history.

And the term "Cambrian explosion" has been shown to be incredibly misleading. It was not all at once. The "explosion" was at least 20 million years long. I cannot help it if you do not understand this.

And yes, the tree clearly exists in the fossil record. We do not need every single branch or bud to now that. Why make such foolish arguments? Why do you think that the phylogenetic tree does not exist?

I don’t. Darwin did.

Nope. Darwin never predicted that we would find endless fossils. He predicted that we would find transitional fossils, and we did.

 

[LIIA]

You are about 50 years out of date.

Really? Is that because you said so? Try to support your nonsense with evidence, if you can.

In fact, you are about 80 years out of date “the outdated/disproved modern synthesis”. See # 753 & 781.

Darwin's Illusion | Page 40 | Religious Forums

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you do understand that it has a function, then what are you fussing about?

Oh my. You don't understand the terms that you are using and you wonder why you have lost the arguemtn.

Didn’t you see the article stating that the coccyx has several important functions? And no, it has nothing to do with moving your tail. here is the link again.

Coccydynia: An Overview of the Anatomy, Etiology, and Treatment of Coccyx Pain - PMC (nih.gov)

And you just admitted that it was vestigial. We know what it did. If it no longer does all of those jobs it is by definition vestigial. Just like the muscles that move our ears.

Again, vast majority of people cannot move it. Meaning, vast majority don’t have what you claim to be functionless ability. What are you fussing about? And again, learning to move the ears is possible with practice and training, which may help focusing on sound.

Can you learn to wiggle your ears? | Live Science

Regardless, it’s totally illogical to ignore a dominant rule, which is the amazingly complex functionality of the human ears and focus on a meaningless alleged exception? It’s not only the functionality but also the quality of the acoustic perception through both ears while maintaining the external aesthetics of the body plan as seen in the balanced proportions and reflectional symmetry of both ears along the axis/plane of symmetry.

Do you understand what does it mean to hear? Do you understand what does it mean to have “qualia” of any kind? The world around us doesn’t have sounds. It’s merely back and forth movement of particles within a medium. The fact that this movement of particles can be converted into this amazing experience we call sound and the acoustic perception of the world around us is truly unfathomable and beyond words. As stated in the video below.

Human ear - structure & working | Sound | Physics | Khan Academy - YouTube

Let alone the rule of the inner ear to allow for our sense of balance with three semicircular canals with different orientation in 3D space, one responds to tilting upwards or downwards, the second responds to tilting to the right or to the left and the third responds to turning sideways. These canals utilize, gravity, inner fluid and sensory hair cells to sense our orientation in 3D space and inform the brain.

How does our sense of balance work? - InformedHealth.org - NCBI Bookshelf (nih.gov)

Before you fuss about a rare, alleged exception, (which is the ability of some people to move their ears), first explain the dominant rule, which is the miraculous functionality of the ears. Inference depends on the statistical significance of evidence; the overwhelming rule governs our inference, never the exception. The evidence clearly and simply points to purposeful design. I know you may not understand what I’m talking about, simply because you don’t want to, but others will. It’s not for you.



If you do understand the functionality of these organs, then what is the point? If any! What are you guys whining about?

LOL! You continue to admit that moving the ears is vestigial. Just moving your ears is not good enough. It has to serve a purpose. That purpose is no longer accomplished by moving your ears. That makes it vestigial. We can see that our close relatives can still use this trait. We can't.

 

[LIIA]

No, it is not. In fact by most standards atheists are more moral than theists. How do you explain that? Far fewer in prison, a lower rate of divorce, low outside of wedlock births, the list goes on. Think about it, you have to have a nonexistent being tell you to be nice. We can figure that out for ourselves.

Empty claims, provide credible statistics if you can.

Regardless, I’m not concerned with this type of fourth grader arguments. The point is what is the reference for morality for those who adapt the evolutionary concept other than a relative preference or need as it fits in the struggle for survival? What would make something moral or immoral to you?

If you are merely animals that are responding to natural instincts/needs, then why incestuous relationship between mother and son or father and daughter would be wrong? Why rape, or sexual abuse of children would be wrong? Why stealing and killing would be wrong? It becomes merely natural fulfillment of needs and natural struggle for survival. The laws of the jungle (the stronger rules) become the only laws of nature that govern, not only for wild animal but also humans who are no longer different than any animal.

Simply If your conduct brings you a benefit or fulfills a need in one-way or another and you can get away with it, why would it be wrong? If the genes and mere interaction of matter dictate your behavior and actions, why would any action be immoral/wrong? Can you call the natural outcome of a chemical reaction to be moral or immoral?

The evolutionary concept eliminates any meaning or reference for Honesty/Morality. You implied that the actions you listed in #3251 are immoral actions; the question is “from your perspective, why would it be?"

 

[LIIA]

Not ignoring certain words that are inconvenient for your case and thereby building a strawman, is not "focussing on semantics".

Instead, it's exposing your intellectual dishonesty.

I would ignore words that imply false meaning that contradicts the facts of the real world. It’s not about fast or slow rate of change; it’s about gradualism/tree of live being nonexistent in the fossil record, neither before nor after periods of stasis. If you focus on semantics/misleading words and ignore the facts, how intellectually honest is that?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Really? Is that because you said so? Try to support your nonsense with evidence, if you can.

In fact, you are about 80 years out of date “the outdated/disproved modern synthesis”. See # 753 & 781.

Darwin's Illusion | Page 40 | Religious Forums

Sorry, but you just admitted that you are wrong.

You know why you lost that argument. Or at the very least you should.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Empty claims, provide credible statistics if you can.

Regardless, I’m not concerned with this type of fourth grader arguments. The point is what is the reference for morality for those who adapt the evolutionary concept other than a relative preference or need as it fits in the struggle for survival? What would make something moral or immoral to you?

If you are merely animals that are responding to natural instincts/needs, then why incestuous relationship between mother and son or father and daughter would be wrong? Why rape, or sexual abuse of children would be wrong? Why stealing and killing would be wrong? It becomes merely natural fulfillment of needs and natural struggle for survival. The laws of the jungle (the stronger rules) become the only laws of nature that govern, not only for wild animal but also humans who are no longer different than any animal.

Simply If your conduct brings you a benefit or fulfills a need in one-way or another and you can get away with it, why would it be wrong? If the genes and mere interaction of matter dictate your behavior and actions, why would any action be immoral/wrong? Can you call the natural outcome of a chemical reaction to be moral or immoral?

The evolutionary concept eliminates any meaning or reference for Honesty/Morality. You implied that the actions you listed in #3251 are immoral actions; the question is “from your perspective, why would it be?"

Quit making me laugh. Your projection is amazing.

You do not know enough about the subject to argue against it. You do not even understand the basics about what we see and what we would expect to see.

Do you want to learn or do you just want to entertain us?