Darwin's Illusion

[Dan From Smithville]

Why shouldn't people see evolution in the fossil record? That's what it represents, unless you believe somebody planted them such that the forms most resembling contemporary forms appear in the more superficial strata and with younger ages radiometrically. You accuse others of tendentious interpretation of the data to support a preconceived notion, but that's what you're doing. Like the creationists, you have decided that you don't like the scientific interpretation of the fossil record, and so reject the only reasonable understanding of the evidence.

I just explained to you in the last post that you have defined metaphysics with a vague phrase. I don't know what you consider the basis of science to be.

We have a rule in contract bridge, where opponents are entitled to ask you what your partner's bids mean ("What did his three club bid mean there?"), that you answer specifically, not with the name of a convention, such as, "That was an Reverse Bergen raise," since the opponents might not know what that means. A proper answer is, "It shows 10-12 points and four-card spade support." Every bridge player understands that second description, but some would not understand the first.

Can you do something similar and choose words that have more specific meanings than "the basis of science"? Give me a sentence or two I can agree or disagree with. Did you see my definition of metaphysical. Did you understand it? I don't ask if you agree - but did you understand it well enough to agree or disagree?

That's why I reject theology and all scripture associated with an alleged deity. It's basic premise, that a god exists, is insufficiently evidenced and thus unshared (not mine or any atheists' belief), and thus no conclusion, however valid the reasoning, can be sound.

I would make the same comment about your posting as I did to cladking. Your words, like his, are what it looks like when somebody has decided that they don't like where the evidence leads others. You've described the world one might expect to find in which human beings had piscine ancestors, where human embryos develop through a stage with primordial gill slits and branchial pouches, and where transitional forms between finned, obligate marine vertebrates and tetrapodal, amphibious vertebrates are found. Yet you will not be persuaded. Your answer: "Not proof," as if that were a rebuttal or even relevant.

That's a choice. You choose not to be among the critically thinking, scientifically literate. But you shouldn't expect others to have much interest in what you believe instead if they have to ignore evidence to believe it.

They don't explain it to you. Nor to anybody else who either [1] has never learned the fundamentals of the science or [2] has a stake in not understanding (or both).

I recall an early criticism of the intelligent design movement using metaphor to describe the origins of the movement. It was said that those lawyers and scientists behind the movement had a gut feeling, but they kept it in their guts and didn't bring it up to their heads to properly examine and scrutinize. They kept it visceral and added what they knew to it without scrutinizing those results either. In the end, they were so far off science and fact that when others actually tested those ideas they fell apart easily into so obviously failed reasoning and self-deception. Yet, some of them, to this day, cannot dissuade themselves entirely of the conviction to those mad ideas and desires.

I think we are seeing the same thing on a smaller scale, but with much deeper conviction of visceral nonsense and for more convoluted and confined effort to maintain it.

Everything I have seen seems forced to fit a fabricated path where criticism and questions are ignored so that the path always leads to the desired answers.

 

[John53]

I recall an early criticism of the intelligent design movement using metaphor to describe the origins of the movement. It was said that those lawyers and scientists behind the movement had a gut feeling, but they kept it in their guts and didn't bring it up to their heads to properly examine and scrutinize. They kept it visceral and added what they knew to it without scrutinizing those results either. In the end, they were so far off science and fact that when others actually tested those ideas they fell apart easily into so obviously failed reasoning and self-deception. Yet, some of them, to this day, cannot dissuade themselves entirely of the conviction to those mad ideas and desires.

I think we are seeing the same thing on a smaller scale, but with much deeper conviction of visceral nonsense and for more convoluted and confined effort to maintain it.

Everything I have seen seems forced to fit a fabricated path where criticism and questions are ignored so that the path always leads to the desired answers.

I've given up trying to work it out. The claims get greater and some even contradict previous claims.

 

[gnostic]

So why do you believe ancient people said ""If Thot comes in this his evil coming; do not open to him thine arms; that which is said to him is his name of "thou hast no mother."? There must be some reason they used these words to express something. They could have used an infinite number of other words to express this concept but they chose these. Why? What did they mean?

Thoth’s Egyptian name - ḏḥwty - comprised of the following hieroglyphs:
Etymology

• ibis
• semi-circle
• 2 slanted parallel lines
• seated bearded man

None of which means “you have no mother”, cladking.

Have you even bother to read the other passages on the other gods, eg Horus, Osiris, Isis, etc?

With Horus, it’s just a hieroglyph of a falcon - ḥr.w or ḥr - usually translated into English as hor, har or heru

None of it means: “Fated Blind” in utterance 534:

Let Horus not come in that bad coming of his. Don’t open your arms to him, but let there be said to him his identity of Fated Blind, (and say): “Go to Anpet! Enough! Go to Iseum!”

With Seth, it’s either swtẖ or stẖ, with the hieroglyphs:

or

None of that referred “cut off one” (utterance 534):

Let Seth not come in that bad coming of his. Don’t open your arms to him, but let there be said to him his identity of cut off one, (and say): “Go to the mountains of blackness! Enough! Go to Takhbit!”

I have quoted these two passages, not because that’s what their names mean, but it referred to the fight between Horus and Seth, where Seth had blinded Horus’ left eye, and Horus had cut off one of Seth’s testicles (utterance 261).

Horus has fallen because of his eye, Seth has felt pain because of his testicles.

The fight and injuries they caused each other, were also alluded to in the Coffin Texts and the Book Of The Dead.

They were both healed (utterance 148):

May you spit on Horus’s face for him and remove the injury against him; may you catch Seth’s testicles for him and remove his hurt.

The stories (myths) of their injuries, and how they were restored, differed in details, depending on the various different sources. I heard in one myth that Khonso created a new eye for Horus, however I have not being able to find the source of this version of the myths.

As to, Thoth, I heard that he was the son of Ra, born from Ra’s lips. A number of goddesses were said to be born from Ra’s eye, eg Tefnut (in one version, but in most other versions, she came from Ra’s spit), Hathor, Sekhmet, Bastet, Wadjet, Nekhbet, etc.

The later two (Wadjet & Nekhbet), they were twins, one from each of Ra’s eyes, as were Shu & Tefnut in another myth. In each of these cases, they were all children of Ra, with “no mother”.

So what you say about Thoth having no mother, is not really unique to Thoth, cladking.

 

[gnostic]

I've given up trying to work it out. The claims get greater and some even contradict previous claims.

What I find contradictory, is cladking claiming some symbols drawn in some caves, were this metaphysical language, but they untranslatable, and yet he claimed to know not only what these symbols mean, but that they were some sorts of science treatises.

He also believe that these people would think digitally (eg binary), as opposed to in analog.

He believed in the weird narratives he fabricated for himself, and no one can correct him, hence he believe that “holiest” than everybody else.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

No. I am saying it is not scientific because no experiment underlies the interpretation.

I wrote, "Like the creationists, you have decided that you don't like the scientific interpretation of the fossil record, and so reject the only reasonable understanding of the evidence."

You use the word "no," but then not only don't disagree with me, you explain why you reject the science.

Modern science does not exist outside metaphysics.

I don't know what that means besides modern science does not exist outside of the basis of science, and you still haven't explained what that phrase means to you (your words below don't help), so add, "whatever that means to you" to "the basis of science"

You can use any definition you choose and when you use the word i will parse your sentence accordingly. Unless obviously intended otherwise when I use the word [metaphysics] I always mean "basis of science" which is "Observation > Experiment" for homo omnisciencis and Observation > Logic" for all other species.

And I don't know what any of that means, either. I can't even read it. I don't know what to say for the greater than signs. I assume that you don't mean greater than there, but what you do mean is unknown. If you meant that to read "leads to," you need to use a symbol like "->" or →.

It's remarkable how difficult this is for you to express yourself in a way that you can be understood. How do you order a pizza? Presumably, they know what size pizza and what toppings you want, and you can tell them where to bring it and they get there with your pizza. Then I imagine you sitting down to your computer enjoying a slice writing things that nobody understands. What changes between placing the order and posting on RF?

Most people who are religious accept this as a premise. I seriously doubt that accepting this premise is necessarily harmful to any individual and is apparently beneficial to at least some.

I presume "this" refers to "the existence of God." No, that belief isn't necessarily harmful, but I believe it is more often than not.

A god belief can cost thousands of hours (Bible reading, praying, in church) and tens or thousands of dollars in tithes. We were able to retire in our mid-50's in part by not giving our earnings to churches, and in part by having no children (see below).

Many are kept in a juvenile state (magical thinking) and ignorant in service of faith (anti-science, anti-university, anti-critical thinking).

Some will marry the opposite sex because they think their god wants that and then ruin somebody's life when they come out gay, and some will become estranged from their LGBTQ or atheist sons and daughters because of belief in a homophobic and atheophobic god.

And some will die because of a god belief, as they did at Jonestown and Waco.

Some will have children they don't really want because it's expected in Christian culture, which comes at a great cost in terms of dollars and lost opportunity. I understand that there are many people who experience great joy and purpose in parenting, and many will have children even if they feel free not to, but my wife and I are examples of people who wanted a different life, one of frequent travelling, of frequent dining out, of frequent concerts, of playing in a band on weekends, and being surrounded by breakable art. If we had gone down the religion road and had children because it was expected, none of that would have happened as frequently. Instead, it's braces, soccer lessons, and continual noise and disarray. I'm good with dogs. They give you no sass, they never steal the car or your liquor, they don't hate you or consider you a moron, they don't ban you from their lives over nothing (this appears to be quite common), and you never get a call from jail about them. And no child support if you can't live with the other parent, and no college funds. Just as religion pressures gay people to marry the opposite sex, it pressures those who don't want children to just go ahead and have a few anyway.

I was just watching a review of the Eighties on CNN. Al Bundy of Married With Children: "I didn't want to get married and now I have a wife, and I didn't want children, but now I have two of them."

Notwithstanding Pascal, there very well may be much lost making that decision.

My point that you are missing is that the original authors of this stuff did not believe in god and understood no abstractions.

The original authors of scripture didn't "believe in god"? Maybe not. Should it matter?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I've given up trying to work it out. The claims get greater and some even contradict previous claims.

I tried, but there really is no point. It isn't a dialogue. It is just someone telling me about the belief system they have concocted out of bits and pieces of everything. They are right and anyone that questions it can't see the evidence and understand. Because we see what we want to believe rather than the revealed truth that is asserted or whatever.

I can tell you it isn't science, logic, any established philosophy that I'm aware of. And there never was any evidence offered. Just assertion.

I don't understand what a person would expect when they take a position of extreme authority and are very closed to any other ideas, questions, comments, thoughts, corrections and so on.

They know everything, so they don't need my input.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What I find contradictory, is cladking claiming some symbols drawn in some caves, were this metaphysical language, but they untranslatable, and yet he claimed to know not only what these symbols mean, but that they were some sorts of science treatises.

He also believe that these people would think digitally (eg binary), as opposed to in analog.

He believed in the weird narratives he fabricated for himself, and no one can correct him, hence he believe that “holiest” than everybody else.

I can get a better story from David Brin.

 

[cladking]

So what you say about Thoth having no mother, is not really unique, cladking.

Utterance 417 lists three mothers for horus. Do you really believe ancient people were so superstitious that their gods had three mothers and they had legs and hands but no feet or arms? ("I have given birth to him for thee; I have deposited him for thee; I have certainly spit him out for thee. He has no feet; he has no arms,") This is the kind of nonsense Egyptologists believe but they can't see the lack of words or that it breaks Zipf's Law.

Thoth’s Egyptian name - ḏḥwty - comprised of the following hieroglyphs:
Etymology

• ibis
• semi-circle
• 2 slanted parallel lines
• seated bearded man

One of the Egyptian ibis' has a rainbow on its wings caused by the interplay of sunlight. Much of the cosmology of ancient science came from studying the moon and its effects on the earth as well as the rainbow. The seated figure merely shows that the word represents theory.

None of it means: “Fated Blind” in utterance 534:

A better translation;

1269a. Let not Set come in this his evil coming;
1269b. do not open to him thine arms; that which is said to him is his name of śš‘.

"Ss" is often translated as" driveller". "Set" was spent water that was used to lift stones. This water could be very dangerous and killed workers in enclosed places because it contained hydrogen sulfide and carbon dioxide (et al). He certainly was "cut off one".

The stories (myths) of their injuries, and how they were restored, differed in details, depending on the various different sources. I heard in one myth that Khonso created a new eye for Horus, however I have not being able to find the source of this version of the myths.

All these myths are based on the exact same thing; the swallowing of the eye of horus (probably on G1). The wells through which the water sprayed had a tendency in some cases to either plug up from deposition of calcium carbonate or to severely erode because of the actions of carbonic acid.

Before they plug up;

1881a. The eye of Horus is offered to thee; it is young with thee; it is large with thee,

When they erode the eye usually made of granite can fall in;

76a. To say: Osiris N., take to thyself the eye of Horus, which he swallowed

These were serious problems that could cause a redesign of any pyramid after it was begun.

The primary determinants were usually pressure differential and the length of the well. This assumes all of the water was saturated in siderite, calcium carbonate, and CO2 early in the season but the siderite concentration plummeted as the season progressed.

The later two (Wadjet & Nekhbet), they were twins, one from each of Ra’s eyes, as were Shu & Tefnut in another myth. In each of these cases, they were all children of Ra, with “no mother”.

Now you're conflating beliefs from much later with the earlier writing which is how Egyptology missed it. They solved Ancient Language in terms of the book of the dead from 1000 years later. They parsed and translated it to agree with later writing when you can't parse AL at all.

 

[cladking]

What I find contradictory, is cladking claiming some symbols drawn in some caves, were this metaphysical language, but they untranslatable, and yet he claimed to know not only what these symbols mean, but that they were some sorts of science treatises.

No word in AL can be translated because our words have definitions and the cave symbols had no definitions. Their meaning was always fixed and they could not be parsed. Our words are defined and parsed but you can't parse the bee's dance or early mans writing in caves. Our words are analog and mean something different every time. Theirs were binary, mathematical, and static. They were representative. They were not symbols at all but lists of theory. I can read some of this through deduction and a child's understanding of ancient science. If you know the theory you just pick out what goes with it.

He also believe that these people would think digitally (eg binary), as opposed to in analog.

This is what made them a separate species.

 

[cladking]

You use the word "no," but then not only don't disagree with me, you explain why you reject the science.

It is not "the only reasonable explanation". There may be a virtually infinite number of reasonable explanations in any number of categories.

I don't know what that means besides modern science does not exist outside of the basis of science, and you still haven't explained what that phrase means to you (your words below don't help), so add, "whatever that means to you" to "the basis of science"

There can be no modern science outside experiment. By definition!

I presume "this" refers to "the existence of God." No, that belief isn't necessarily harmful, but I believe it is more often than not.

A god belief can cost thousands of hours (Bible reading, praying, in church) and tens or thousands of dollars in tithes. We were able to retire in our mid-50's in part by not giving our earnings to churches, and in part by having no children (see below).

Many are kept in a juvenile state (magical thinking) and ignorant in service of faith (anti-science, anti-university, anti-critical thinking).

Some will marry the opposite sex because they think their god wants that and then ruin somebody's life when they come out gay, and some will become estranged from their LGBTQ or atheist because of belief in a homophobic and atheophobic god.

And some will die because of a god belief, as they did at Jonestown and Waco.

Some will have children they don't really want because it's expected in Christian culture, which comes at a great cost in terms of dollars and lost opportunity. I understand that there are many people who experience great joy and purpose in parenting, and many will have children even if they feel free not to, but my wife and I are examples of people who wanted a different life, one of frequent travelling, of frequent dining out, of frequent concerts, of playing in a band on weekends, and being surrounded by breakable art. If we had gone down the religion road and had children because it was expected, none of that would have happened as frequently. Instead, it's braces, soccer lessons, and continual noise and disarray. I'm good with dogs. They give you no sass, they never steal the car or your liquor, they don't hate you or consider you a moron, they don't ban you from their lives over nothing (this appears to be quite common), and you never get a call from jail about them. And no child support if you can't live with the other parent, and no college funds. Just as religion pressures gay people to marry the opposite sex, it pressures those who don't want children to just go ahead and have a few anyway.

I was just watching a review of the Eighties on CNN, Al Bundy of Married With Children, "I didn't want to get married and now I have a wife, and I didn't want children, but now I have two of them."

Notwithstanding Pascal, there very well may be much lost making that decision.

To each his own.

Al Bundy was exceedingly two dimensional but his problem was having a great grandparent cursed by a witch (all male heirs are shoe salesmen) and not caused by religion or belief except in the latest issue of "Bigguns".

The original authors of scripture didn't "believe in god"? Maybe not. Should it matter?

Yes!!! It is critically important to understanding consciousness which is the cause of speciation. It's important for numerous reasons. Didn't "God" put us on earth to learn and seek? Of course ultimately men are just trying to impress women or we'd still be living in caves. It's better to seek truth than end up like Bud Bundy in every episode. Mebbe if he had been doing more praying and less jumping out of airplanes he'd have been a lot happier or at least a lot less injured.

How can you understand any ancient writing if you start with the assumption that it's nonsense written by sun addled bumpkins? We should leave that kind of silliness to archaeology.

 

[YoursTrue]

One type of fish led to tetrapods. Others led to modern fish, which are not the same as ancient fish, but are still fish, yes.

As for me, since I am a tetrapod, my ancient ancestors were fish. Lobe-finned fish. What you asked though is whether I personally had evolved. The answer to that is no. Evolution requires the passage of generations. I’m just one specimen of a single generation. Species evolve. Individuals do not.

You come from a human man and woman. Way, way back, according to the theory, male and female fish evolved going through stages to become humans. Seems hard for some to say.

 

[YoursTrue]

Have you actually read Dalrymple's books? They explain radiometric dating in detail, including U-Pb, Pb-Pb,, K-Ar and 40Ar-39Ar, Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd, Lu-Hf and Re-Os methods. You could also read The Dating Game by Cherry Lewis (Cambridge University Press, 2000), which gives an interesting history of radiometric dating from the beginning of the 20th century. You can find a geological time scale in any geology book, and most will include some information about dating methods.

Specifically, radiometric measurements of terrestrial igneous rocks have established consistent geological time-scales both for the fossiliferous systems (Cambrian to Recent) and for the Precambrian (Proterozoic and Archaean eras), back to 4000 million years ago. Similar measurements of meteorites and lunar rocks, using Ar-Ar, Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd, Lu-Hf and Re-Os dating, have taken the history of the solar system back to more than 4560 million years. The ages of terrestrial sedimentary rocks and the fossils they contain are obtained by interpolation between the radiometric ages of volcanic rocks (including ash beds) above and below the sedimentary rocks. The geological time scale is by now so well established that the published ages of the geological periods and epochs have changed by only a few percent in the last 40 years, so that it is not necessary to carry out radiometric dating for every rock formation if its stratigraphic position is well known.

If you want to know about the fossil evidence for evolution and its chronology, you will have to read books about palaeontology.

 

[YoursTrue]

I am referring to the fact that fossils absorb soil and dating of artifacts and fossils do not seem to represent the object itself.

 

[gnostic]

One of the Egyptian ibis' has a rainbow on its wings caused by the interplay of sunlight. Much of the cosmology of ancient science came from studying the moon and its effects on the earth as well as the rainbow. The seated figure merely shows that the word represents theory.

But neither of hieroglyphs, yours (with rainbow) or mine, are indicated or translated to having "no mother", cladking.

You keep bringing up Utterance 534, "thou has no mother", except that you are ignoring the hieroglyphs have nothing to do with mother or no mother.

Do you know what the hieroglyphs for mother?

It's mwt, which can be inscribed as:

It is the vulture that is indicative of mother with the seated woman. A double vulture hieroglyph would be grandmother, mwt-mwt.

 

[gnostic]

This is what made them a separate species.

That's a claim, your invented claim, and a claim without evidence.

 

[John53]

You come from a human man and woman. Way, way back, according to the theory, male and female fish evolved going through stages to become humans. Seems hard for some to say.

Did you actually read his post?

 

[exchemist]

You come from a human man and woman. Way, way back, according to the theory, male and female fish evolved going through stages to become humans. Seems hard for some to say.

Not hard at all. The only thing that can be hard is to respond to questions asked in sloppy language.

This is a general issue in science. A certain level of precision in the use of language is needed in science, in order to keep the concepts straight and avoid confusion. When you ask science questions you often find part of the response involves clarifying the question first.

So if you ask me if I, an individual organism, have evolved, the answer is no. If you ask if my ancient ancestors were fish, the answer is yes.

And if you fail to see the distinction, it is you that is a sloppy thinker.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

How can you understand any ancient writing if you start with the assumption that it's nonsense written by sun addled bumpkins?

Why do you think I started with that assumption? My opinion of the ancients is based upon what I know about them from their writings and from archeological excavations.

I think that there is a tendency by many to impute knowledge and abilities to the ancients that they didn't have.

There can be no modern science outside experiment. By definition!

What are the experiments in astronomy? What experiments did Copernicus and Kepler perform? Newton experimented with light, but what experiments led to his laws of celestial mechanics? Galileo experimented with falling and rolling objects, but what experiment was he performing when he discovered the moons of Jupiter? Maybe all of that counts as experimentation to you.

What are the experiments in paleontology? In anatomy?

 

[exchemist]

Why do you think I started with that assumption? My opinion of the ancients is based upon what I know about them from their writings and from archeological excavations.

I think that there is a tendency by many to impute knowledge and abilities to the ancients that they didn't have.

What are the experiments in astronomy? What experiments did Copernicus and Kepler perform? Newton experimented with light, but what experiments led to his laws of celestial mechanics? Galileo experimented with falling and rolling objects, but what experiment was he performing when he discovered the moons of Jupiter? Maybe all of that counts as experimentation to you.

What are the experiments in paleontology? In anatomy?

Not to mention geology and other earth sciences…….,

 

[exchemist]

I am referring to the fact that fossils absorb soil and dating of artifacts and fossils do not seem to represent the object itself.

Fossils are often dated from the dating of the rock strata in which they are found. So if some soil gets into the fossil it makes no difference.

As for artifacts, can you provide an example? We’ve already discussed wooden artifacts which can be dated by carbon, so it’s not an issue for them. What artifacts do you have in mind?