Darwin's Illusion

[YoursTrue]

f

Really? When I used the word “illusions”, I used the exact word from the scientific articles. But when you used it, it’s nothing but another one of your meaningless empty claims. See below and my post #4087

Darwin's Illusion | Page 205 | Religious Forums

View attachment 74401

Further illusions: On key evolutionary mechanisms that could never fit with Modern Synthesis - ScienceDirect

View attachment 74402

The Illusions of the Modern Synthesis | SpringerLink


Yes, it’s a problem for you; my core argument here is about the ToE not my beliefs. These evolutionists support my specific argument concerning the ToE. This is the strength of my argument and your problem not me. Do you understand?


This thread is about the ToE. “My beliefs” is not a component of my argument against the ToE. I never said I’m a Muslim then the ToE is false, did I?

Your pathetic trial to move the goalposts along with your ignorant denial clearly shows the weakness of your stance.

Although I am a Christian I do agree with your concept above. Because I have come to realize and I am thankful for that, that the theory of evolution has NOT been proven, even if the many claim the evidence proves it. It does not. The reason I say the evidence does not prove it is at least two-fold. One is that the time dating of bones is unreliable. I have come to realize that from my discussions on these boards as I kept investigating it. Others will argue either that I'm uneducated or wrong, but from my examination of fossil dating, it seems I am not wrong. The dating can be very unreliable.
Another is that while some scientists may claim the fossils prove the theory, they do not. There is nothing to show as in video x-rays that dinosaurs, for instance, became birds. Or that fish evolved to be land dwellers. I consistently say that fish remain fish, gorillas remain gorillas, and am continually insulted in various ways by those who are anti-Bible for my viewpoints, telling me how uneducated I am. Instead of giving me cohesive, meaningful explanations in their OWN WORDS (not a link to someone else's thoughts which they cannot explain anyway).

 

[LIIA]

I will be true to my conscience even if nobody shares my values and even if the world goes to hell in a basket.

That says it all. You see yourself as the defining reference and see everything in the world in relationship to what you feel, and your personal views or standards. Nothing matters to you but what you feel/desire. It’s a self-centered/ egocentrism view.

Can you understand that other person's view or opinion will be different than your own? Even if your relative moral code allowed you to do what is right, can you guarantee the same to be true for every individual? A relative moral code is no code at all. It’s nothing but chaos.

A “definition” or standard should be the same for all, if the definition varies from one individual to another, then there is no definition. A relative definition is no definition.

You consider morality to be the result of material mechanisms but again, how would the interaction of matter be moral or immoral? The outcome is more like 1+1=2, meaning, it’s not a matter of choice, its neither moral nor immoral from that perspective.

If we merely respond to a naturalistic need, 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 that is dictated by naturalistic mechanisms. Yes, you may have an inclination towards morality but in absence of a defining reference for all, what is morality? How can it be defined beyond relative opinions? Again, a relative definition is no definition.

the experts in evolutionary biology don't really care what any of the rest of think including people like me who agree with them. Why should they be interested in lay opinions?

You contradict yourself. On one hand you say experts don’t care about lay opinions, yet you ignore the expert's opinion that the theoretical framework of the contemporary ToE contradicts latest finds of the 21st century. You simply follow your wishful thinking and deny latest scientific finds concerning the Modern Synthesis/Neo-Darwinism. We discussed that many times. See #4899 above and #4087

Darwin's Illusion | Page 205 | Religious Forums

 

[LIIA]

My moral intuition is irresistible to me. I must conform to it or suffer its condemnation (guilt).

That should be the norm but what is “guilt”? Why would you suffer?

It’s like your “body and its desires” is an entity and your inner being is another entity that may agree, disagree and judge the desires of the materialistic body. Can you see this duality within you? Why/how it exists.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

f

Although I am a Christian I do agree with your concept above. Because I have come to realize and I am thankful for that, that the theory of evolution has NOT been proven, even if the many claim the evidence proves it. It does not. The reason I say the evidence does not prove it is at least two-fold. One is that the time dating of bones is unreliable. I have come to realize that from my discussions on these boards as I kept investigating it. Others will argue either that I'm uneducated or wrong, but from my examination of fossil dating, it seems I am not wrong. The dating can be very unreliable.
Another is that while some scientists may claim the fossils prove the theory, they do not. There is nothing to show as in video x-rays that dinosaurs, for instance, became birds. Or that fish evolved to be land dwellers. I consistently say that fish remain fish, gorillas remain gorillas, and am continually insulted in various ways by those who are anti-Bible for my viewpoints, telling me how uneducated I am. Instead of giving me cohesive, meaningful explanations in their OWN WORDS (not a link to someone else's thoughts which they cannot explain anyway).

Let me explain something very simple.
X is not Y. It means that X is not Y and nothing in else.
That the ToE is not proven, only means that and nothing else.

I have no problem with that. But what comes next? The problem is that nothing follows from that the ToE is not proven.

 

[LIIA]

That is philosophy and depends on whether you can defeat Agrippa's Trilemma.
Or in other words if logic is a limited process in time, space and senses, that can only be shown to be functioning for how we make sense of the world. In effect you assume that logic is ontological for being a part of fundamental existence.

But if I can do an illogical act and further act on that, which I am doing now according to you, then am I, the illogical act and my further acting, which you are observing now a part of the world?

I’m not doing any philosophy, at least not in the sense that you imply, in that sense; you are the one who is doing philosophy.

Are there any alternatives to understand reality other than observing the world and extracting conclusions through rational reasoning? Philosophy is concerned with applying rational means to understand the world. Philosophy defines the means of rationalism and the logic of inference for the scientific method itself. What is your concern about/against philosophy? Do you think philosophy is merely some useless rhetoric?

Agrippa's Trilemma is no dilemma. In fact, it confirms my view. As I said in #4896, you cannot adapt a fallacious circular reasoning or infinite regression. If you agree so far, then we are left with only the third mode of the Trilemma, i.e., the “Ad Hoc Assumption” but did I ever claim to stop at an arbitrary entity along the chain and accept it without justification?

Again, here is the only logical way to stop; you can never stop at an arbitrary contingent entity. You can only stop at a non-contingent/absolute entity.

Since all items in the entire chain of causally dependent entities of known existence (within our realm) are contingent beings (i.e., “things which do not exist necessarily by their own nature”), then the chain itself remains a contingent being, and there must be a reason that explains its instantiation in reality. The ultimate reason for the instantiation of such a chain of contingent beings must be a being whose existence is not contingent (for otherwise, the chain will remain contingent and its instantiation in reality would not be explained). The existence of the chain of causes and effects is only possible as long as the entire chain is grounded in a being, which exists by virtue of its mere essence.

 

[LIIA]

Let me explain something very simple.
X is not Y. It means that X is not Y and nothing in else.
That the ToE is not proven, only means that and nothing else.

I have no problem with that. But what comes next? The problem is that nothing follows from that the ToE is not proven.

Here are your options:

a) A is dependent on A1, A1 is dependent on A2 ….(continues in an infinite regression)

b) A is dependent on A1, A1 is dependent on A2 …, Ax is dependent on A (circular reasoning)

c) A is dependent on A1, A1 is dependent on A2 …, Ax is dependent on "the Absolute". "The Absolute" is non-contingent/first cause.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I’m not doing any philosophy, at least not in the sense that you imply, in that sense; you are the one who is doing philosophy.

Are there any alternatives to understand reality other than observing the world and extracting conclusions through rational reasoning? Philosophy is concerned with applying rational means to understand the world. Philosophy defines the means of rationalism and the logic of inference for the scientific method itself. What is your concern about/against philosophy? Do you think philosophy is merely some useless rhetoric?

Agrippa's Trilemma is no dilemma. In fact, it confirms my view. As I said in #4896, you cannot adapt a fallacious circular reasoning or infinite regression. If you agree so far, then we are left with only the third mode of the Trilemma, i.e., the “Ad Hoc Assumption” but did I ever claim to stop at an arbitrary entity along the chain and accept it without justification?

Again, here is the only logical way to stop; you can never stop at an arbitrary contingent entity. You can only stop at a non-contingent/absolute entity.

Since all items in the entire chain of causally dependent entities of known existence (within our realm) are contingent beings (i.e., “things which do not exist necessarily by their own nature”), then the chain itself remains a contingent being, and there must be a reason that explains its instantiation in reality. The ultimate reason for the instantiation of such a chain of contingent beings must be a being whose existence is not contingent (for otherwise, the chain will remain contingent and its instantiation in reality would not be explained). The existence of the chain of causes and effects is only possible as long as the entire chain is grounded in a being, which exists by virtue of its mere essence.

No, you are doing philosophy, because you reference one school of philosophy.

You are just assuming the Agrippa's Trilemma doesn't apply to you, but only everybody else.
That has nothing to do with you being religious. Some non-religious humans do it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Here are your options:

a) A is dependent on A1, A1 is dependent on A2 ….(continues in an infinite regression)

b) A is dependent on A1, A1 is dependent on A2 …, Ax is dependent on A (circular reasoning)

c) A is dependent on A1, A1 is dependent on A2 …, Ax is dependent on "the Absolute". "The Absolute" is non-contingent/first cause.

Yeah, that is a nice text and references back to how you think. Now show that as independent of your thinking.

 

[LIIA]

Yeah, that is a nice text and references back to how you think. Now show that as independent of your thinking.

Is that how I think (#4906) or the only possible logical options? Is there any other option? Let me know how you think.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Is that how I think (#4906) or the only possible logical options? Is there any other option? Let me know how you think.

Have you ever consider that your understanding of logic is in your brain. So in effect you are causing God into existence, because your proof/logic causes God to exist.

 

[LIIA]

Have you ever consider that your understanding of logic is in your brain. So in effect you are causing God into existence, because your proof/logic causes God to exist.

We have to use logic but its neither a relative logic nor a personal interpretation, again is there any other option other than a, b & c. let me know.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

We have to use logic but its neither a relative logic nor a personal interpretation, again is there any other option other than a, b & c. let me know.

"c) A is dependent on A1, A1 is dependent on A2 …, Ax is dependent on "the Absolute". "The Absolute" is non-contingent/first cause."

Is that a fact independent of your thinking or are you treating it, the bold, as a cognitive dogmatic absolute (Agrippa) in your thinking and doing the following: I can think it, thus it becomes a fact independent of my thinking.

 

[LIIA]

"c) A is dependent on A1, A1 is dependent on A2 …, Ax is dependent on "the Absolute". "The Absolute" is non-contingent/first cause."

Is that a fact independent of your thinking or are you treating it, the bold, as a cognitive dogmatic absolute (Agrippa) in your thinking and doing the following: I can think it, thus it becomes a fact independent of my thinking.

I didn’t pose “c” as a fact, did I? It was only an option.

Again, is there any other logical option other than a, b & c? Go ahead and propose more logical options and let me know from your perspective which of the options is logical to you and why.

I’m not doing philosophy, you are.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I didn’t pose “c” as a fact, did I? It was only an option.

Again, is there any other logical option other than a, b & c? Go ahead and propose more logical options and let me know from your perspective which of the options is logical to you and why.

I’m not doing philosophy, you are.

Well, what if it is unknown? How is that for an option?
Does it logically follow that all questions must have a positive correct answer?

 

[Audie]

f

Although I am a Christian I do agree with your concept above. Because I have come to realize and I am thankful for that, that the theory of evolution has NOT been proven, even if the many claim the evidence proves it. It does not. The reason I say the evidence does not prove it is at least two-fold. One is that the time dating of bones is unreliable. I have come to realize that from my discussions on these boards as I kept investigating it. Others will argue either that I'm uneducated or wrong, but from my examination of fossil dating, it seems I am not wrong. The dating can be very unreliable.
Another is that while some scientists may claim the fossils prove the theory, they do not. There is nothing to show as in video x-rays that dinosaurs, for instance, became birds. Or that fish evolved to be land dwellers. I consistently say that fish remain fish, gorillas remain gorillas, and am continually insulted in various ways by those who are anti-Bible for my viewpoints, telling me how uneducated I am. Instead of giving me cohesive, meaningful explanations in their OWN WORDS (not a link to someone else's thoughts which they cannot explain anyway).

The two reasons are:
Religious confusion

Inability to learn anything about it-

As illustrated by continuing to jabber about " proof ". Then
talk of "x ray video" having to do with " birds turning into
dinosaurs" etc.

Its quite true that you are grossly uneducated,
anyone past intro to remedial level science
knows theres no proof of any theory ever possible.

But instead of trying to improve yourself you complain
that nobody does all the work for you.
Some may not even want to try very hard as it seems
to be impossible to teach you anything -as in that you STILL
talk about proof in science!



( we are amused by the assumption that with no education to
apply youd believe your judgdment is better than that of any
scientist on earth, its like the janitor who thinks he knows
rmo than the surgeons)

There's a saying, " to yourself be true".

It would be a good start.

 

[Audie]

I didn’t pose “c” as a fact, did I? It was only an option.

Again, is there any other logical option other than a, b & c? Go ahead and propose more logical options and let me know from your perspective which of the options is logical to you and why.

I’m not doing philosophy, you are.

Ha. You are not doing logic, either

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Ha. You are not doing logic, either

The problem I have with proof as per reason and logic is some people don't understand the difference between true as valid based on thinking versus observable independent of thinking with empirical means,

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You see yourself as the defining reference

Yes. I am the sole arbiter of what is and what is not moral for me. The alternative would be to defer to somebody else's version in part and whole, and I have no reason to do that. It would be unnatural and cause cognitive dissonance if it contradicted my native moral intuitions.

Nothing matters to you but what you feel/desire. It’s a self-centered/ egocentrism view.

What I desire is not selfish. I'm a humanist. My ethics are utilitarian for society and the Golden Rule for myself. My worldview promotes tolerance and maximal opportunity for all.

A “definition” or standard should be the same for all

I don't agree, but you're welcome to my moral code if you want to conform to it so that we can be the same, although I don't know why you think that's helpful. It's perfectly fine with me if you want to live your life by different standards than I do. Maybe we disagree about abortion or premarital sex. That's not an issue for me.

You consider morality to be the result of material mechanisms but again, how would the interaction of matter be moral or immoral?

Matter is neither moral nor immoral but can generate compelling moral intuitions. Evolution has gifted man with brains with consciences that tell us what feels right and what feels wrong.

Why rape, or sexual abuse of children would be wrong? Why stealing and killing would be wrong?

My conscience directs me away from those activities. That's why. Do you not also have an inner voice that tells you such things? If so, why are you asking? If not, I don't think I can explain.

what is morality? How can it be defined beyond relative opinions?

I define it for myself. I'm not much interested in whether others feel the same or differently, just how they behave.

You contradict yourself. On one hand you say experts don’t care about lay opinions, yet you ignore the expert's opinion that the theoretical framework of the contemporary ToE contradicts latest finds of the 21st century.

Sorry, but I don't see a contradiction or a rebuttal there. Experts don't care what lay people think. Why would they? Maybe you agree with them and I don't. So what, they say. Or maybe it's the other way around, or maybe we both agree or both disagree. Same thing. They're fine with all of it. The creationists like to imagine that they are in debate with the community of experts, but they're not. They are in disagreement, but the only replies they get are from people like me outside of the expert community in venues like this one.

 

[YoursTrue]

The two reasons are:
Religious confusion

Inability to learn anything about it-

As illustrated by continuing to jabber about " proof ". Then
talk of "x ray video" having to do with " birds turning into
dinosaurs" etc.

Its quite true that you are grossly uneducated,
anyone past intro to remedial level science
knows theres no proof of any theory ever possible.

But instead of trying to improve yourself you complain
that nobody does all the work for you.
Some may not even want to try very hard as it seems
to be impossible to teach you anything -as in that you STILL
talk about proof in science!



( we are amused by the assumption that with no education to
apply youd believe your judgdment is better than that of any
scientist on earth, its like the janitor who thinks he knows
rmo than the surgeons)

There's a saying, " to yourself be true".

It would be a good start.

I am not alone in my rejection of the Darwinian theory of evolution. There are scientists, too, who do not accept the traditional model of evolution, and I venture to say you probably think they are not well educated also if they do not accept evolution per the Darwinian model. What do you think?
I don't complain that nobody does the work for me. I'm asking those who post things promoting the theory to explain what they're saying and speak in terms they desire others to understand or accept. OK? If not, so be it. If you want me to get involved in an argument over this I probably will not, but I am saying it's easy enough to understand in the general scope that evolution as those adhering to the Darwinian method is not accepted by every educated scientist. And there's a reason for these scientists not accepting the traditional method of outlining "evolution."

 

[YoursTrue]

Well, what if it is unknown? How is that for an option?
Does it logically follow that all questions must have a positive correct answer?

Scientifically -- if something is taught as true there should have a positively correct answer, if it's taught as truth, yes. There are things taught or believed by esteemed scientists that are questionable. In a big way. Take genetics, for example. While I resisted for a while saying on a questionnaire if I'm Caucasian, black, Indian, or whatever else they have there to check off for 'race,' I will probably not do so any more and check off something "not wishing to answer." Because we humans are humans. We're all of the same type. Meaning human.