Darwin's Illusion

[YoursTrue]

Mutations are interesting phenomena in themselves. Two different mutations can evolve the same trait driven by the same selection in an example of convergent evolution. It's like that for lactose persistence in humans. There are two different populations of people that can effectively digest lactose into adulthood. While those populations share the trait, the genetic basis is different for each.

That does not explain how fish evolved to mammals and then apes, etc. Oh yes -- a primary tenet is that those with lactose tolerance and those without lactose tolerance are still humans.

 

[YoursTrue]

When I use a ? I'm asking a question. I believe that is the standard use.

lol, ok. I will try to rephrase in the future. Now if you had put a question mark after your last sentence there I would think you're asking me what I think about that. or your opinion, or verification of your opinion or thought. But ok, I'll try to not use that form of asking in the future.

 

[shunyadragon]

Again, there are various takes of "creationism," and as we see here few churchgoers will delineate their ideas as to why they belong to a church that claims basis in the Bible and also promote the ToE. When asked to explain themselves they get upset and defensive as well as accusatory. Oh well is my reaction now about this. Sometimes they say, "Well, I like my church and it's not against my church to believe in evolution even though it is inconsistent with Bible teaching, and besides, they may say, the Bible is filled with myths and very bad things. That explains why.."

It may be the fact it is ancient tribal scripture that the 'Bible is filled with myths and very bad things.'

Actually, I agree it is problematic to justify one's belief on a selective interpretation of scripture contrary to those who wrote it believing it was a literal document from Genesis to the Book of Revelation. It is best to honestly understand the Bible in the ancient tribal cultural context at the time it was written.

 

[gnostic]

It may be the fact it is ancient tribal scripture that the 'Bible is filled with myths and very bad things.'

Actually, I agree it is problematic to justify one's belief on a selective interpretation of scripture contrary to those who wrote it believing it was a literal document from Genesis to the Book of Revelation. It is best to honestly understand the Bible in the ancient tribal cultural context at the time it was written.

In the last 15 to 17 years, I had come to realisation, that from Genesis to 1 Kings, particularly about King Solomon, none of these books were contemporary (or even near-contemporary) to any of the events that these books “narrated” about, eg the lives from Adam to Solomon.

Though it would seem like “historical accounts”, they are not historical accounts since there are no literary evidence that such texts exist between about 4000 BCE where Adam was supposedly created, to the end of Solomon’s reign.

According to the Jewish traditions and Christian traditions, Moses was attributed or credited to be the author of the first 5 books (including Genesis) of the canonical Jewish scriptures or the Old Testament.

Based on 1 Kings 6:1, when Solomon ordered the construction of the Temple, during his 4th on the throne, this verse stated that Moses leading his people of Egypt, 480 years ago:

1 Kings 6:1
6 In the four hundred eightieth year after the Israelites came out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over Israel, in the month of Ziv, which is the second month, he began to build the house of the Lord.

Although, I don’t put much credence to anything written about Solomon (as I think he and his empire are myths), if the 4th of his reign were in 967 BCE, that would have meant the Israelites left Rameses (Pi-Ramesses in Egyptian, which means the “House of Ramesses”; read Exodus 12:37), that would date the departure to around 1447 BCE.

1447 BCE, would have put this date, during Thutmose III (1479 - 1425 BCE), and it would have meant Moses died in 1407 BCE (and Joshua leading invasion of Canaan, shortly afterwards) during the reign of Thutmose’s son and successor, Amenhotep II (1427 - 1401 BCE).

Thutmose and Amenhotep were respectively the 6th & 7th kings of the famous 18th dynasty (c 1550 - 1295 BCE) in New Kingdom period. The lives of both kings were contemporarily well-documented, and there were no mentions of Moses, Joshua or about the freed Israelite slaves and Joshua’s invasion of Canaan. In fact, Syria and Canaan were part of Egypt’s empire during the 15th century BCE.

Plus Rameses or Pi-Ramesses weren’t built until the next dynasty (hence 19th dynasty) in 13th century BCE, during the reigns of Seti I (1294 - 1279 BCE) and Ramesses II (1279 - 1203 BCE). Seti had named the city after his father, who was Ramesses I, the founder of this dynasty. This real city would put it at odds with Exodus 1, which narrated Rameses and Pithom were being built when Moses was born, supposedly in 1527 BCE. The real city - Pi-Ramesses have never existed in the reign of Ahmose I, as he had never built any new city.

Plus there are no scrolls, clay or stone tablets, no inscriptions of any kind, existing in the Bronze Age that would verify any of the books relating to Genesis to Joshua. None of these books are considered “history”.

Clearly, the books of Exodus to Joshua were not written contemporary to any events that supposedly happened. More likely, these books were composed during 6th century BCE, during and after the Exile. That would explain how neither the Genesis, nor the Exodus, could name a single king of Egypt. According to these 2 books, Abraham, Joseph and Moses should know the names of pharaohs, especially Moses, who was adopted by the king’s unnamed daughter (Exodus 2). So, whoever wrote Genesis and Exodus really didn’t know much about the history of Egypt.

History is something that you can verify with either contemporary accounts or something more physical, like archaeological evidence. For instances, Ahmose I, Thutmose III and Amenhotep II, each have some steles that were written contemporary to them, commemorating their reigns. Ahmose even have the names of his 2 daughters, Sitamun & Meritamun (around that time it was traditional for a reigning king to marry and have children with his sisters, both women married their brother), and neither women have adopted any Hebrew baby. That Exodus 2 couldn’t name the princess who found and adopted Moses, showed how little the author of Exodus knew about Egypt royals of that time.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That does not explain how fish evolved to mammals and then apes, etc. Oh yes -- a primary tenet is that those with lactose tolerance and those without lactose tolerance are still humans.

It doesn't? What do you not understand?

 

[shunyadragon]

In the last 15 to 17 years, I had come to realisation, that from Genesis to 1 Kings, particularly about King Solomon, none of these books were contemporary (or even near-contemporary) to any of the events that these books “narrated” about, eg the lives from Adam to Solomon.

Though it would seem like “historical accounts”, they are not historical accounts since there are no literary evidence that such texts exist between about 4000 BCE where Adam was supposedly created, to the end of Solomon’s reign.

According to the Jewish traditions and Christian traditions, Moses was attributed or credited to be the author of the first 5 books (including Genesis) of the canonical Jewish scriptures or the Old Testament.

Based on 1 Kings 6:1, when Solomon ordered the construction of the Temple, during his 4th on the throne, this verse stated that Moses leading his people of Egypt, 480 years ago:



Although, I don’t put much credence to anything written about Solomon (as I think he and his empire are myths), if the 4th of his reign were in 967 BCE, that would have meant the Israelites left Rameses (Pi-Ramesses in Egyptian, which means the “House of Ramesses”; read Exodus 12:37), that would date the departure to around 1447 BCE.

1447 BCE, would have put this date, during Thutmose III (1479 - 1425 BCE), and it would have meant Moses died in 1407 BCE (and Joshua leading invasion of Canaan, shortly afterwards) during the reign of Thutmose’s son and successor, Amenhotep II (1427 - 1401 BCE).

Thutmose and Amenhotep were respectively the 6th & 7th kings of the famous 18th dynasty (c 1550 - 1295 BCE) in New Kingdom period. The lives of both kings were contemporarily well-documented, and there were no mentions of Moses, Joshua or about the freed Israelite slaves and Joshua’s invasion of Canaan. In fact, Syria and Canaan were part of Egypt’s empire during the 15th century BCE.

Plus Rameses or Pi-Ramesses weren’t built until the next dynasty (hence 19th dynasty) in 13th century BCE, during the reigns of Seti I (1294 - 1279 BCE) and Ramesses II (1279 - 1203 BCE). Seti had named the city after his father, who was Ramesses I, the founder of this dynasty. This real city would put it at odds with Exodus 1, which narrated Rameses and Pithom were being built when Moses was born, supposedly in 1527 BCE. The real city - Pi-Ramesses have never existed in the reign of Ahmose I, as he had never built any new city.

Plus there are no scrolls, clay or stone tablets, no inscriptions of any kind, existing in the Bronze Age that would verify any of the books relating to Genesis to Joshua. None of these books are considered “history”.

Clearly, the books of Exodus to Joshua were not written contemporary to any events that supposedly happened. More likely, these books were composed during 6th century BCE, during and after the Exile. That would explain how neither the Genesis, nor the Exodus, could name a single king of Egypt. According to these 2 books, Abraham, Joseph and Moses should know the names of pharaohs, especially Moses, who was adopted by the king’s unnamed daughter (Exodus 2). So, whoever wrote Genesis and Exodus really didn’t know much about the history of Egypt.

History is something that you can verify with either contemporary accounts or something more physical, like archaeological evidence. For instances, Ahmose I, Thutmose III and Amenhotep II, each have some steles that were written contemporary to them, commemorating their reigns. Ahmose even have the names of his 2 daughters, Sitamun & Meritamun (around that time it was traditional for a reigning king to marry and have children with his sisters, both women married their brother), and neither women have adopted any Hebrew baby. That Exodus 2 couldn’t name the princess who found and adopted Moses, showed how little the author of Exodus knew about Egypt royals of that time.

Excellent summary of the relationship of Genesis to Kings' text in relation to history. That is why, actually the whole Bible is considered a narrative compiled and edited by various authors mostly unknown set in history and not a historical record.

 

[shunyadragon]

That does not explain how fish evolved to mammals and then apes, etc. Oh yes -- a primary tenet is that those with lactose tolerance and those without lactose tolerance are still humans.

The evolution of ALL life is fully explained by the research and discoveries over 200 years of science. You have rejected the references here and refused to do any sincere investigation of the facts of evolution yourself. Your intentional ignorance and lack of knowledge of science are compounded by your stoic ancient mythological religious agenda.

You need to respond to post #7.464. It is a good foundation for beginning to understand the true context in history of the literature from Genesis to 1 Kings.

 

[YoursTrue]

The evolution of ALL life is fully explained by the research and discoveries over 200 years of science. You have rejected the references here and refused to do any sincere investigation of the facts of evolution yourself. Your intentional ignorance and lack of knowledge of science are compounded by your stoic ancient mythological religious agenda.

You need to respond to post #7.464. It is a good foundation for beginning to understand the true context in history of the literature from Genesis to 1 Kings.

Nonsense. It's not "fully explained". that's ridiculous to say it is.
The books or scrolls have been transmitted for centuries including before the printing press. You're not going to convince me based on supposition that what you say is true. Yes, it's supposition. Including your denial of authorship of the scrolls. You can suppose but you really do not know.

 

[shunyadragon]

Nonsense. It's not "fully explained". that's ridiculous to say it is.
The books or scrolls have been transmitted for centuries including before the printing press. You're not going to convince me based on supposition that what you say is true. Yes, it's supposition. Including your denial of authorship of the scrolls. You can suppose but you really do not know.

You have no knowledge of science to make such a claim. What references support your claims?

You need to respond to post #7.464. It is a good foundation for beginning to understand the true context in the history of the literature from Genesis to 1 Kings.

The only extant scrolls we have are the Dead Sea scrolls. and they are about 100 BCE. Beyond that, we only have scraps nothing dated much earlier.

What vast scrolls are you talking about?

 

[YoursTrue]

You have no knowledge of science to make such a claim. What references support your claims?

You need to respond to post #7.464. It is a good foundation for beginning to understand the true context in the history of the literature from Genesis to 1 Kings.

The only extant scrolls we have are the Dead Sea scrolls. and they are about 100 BCE. Beyond that, we only have scraps nothing dated much earlier.

What vast scrolls are you talking about?

lol, I don't need to know knowledge of science as you call it in the last 200 years to realize that the theory of evolution is a farce and travesty at this point knowing your attitude also. What you are saying is not reasonable, it defies analysis and the evidence. But I realize you're going to keep saying it. You just keep talking about science yet again -- the holes are there -- you say I'm ignorant you offer no scientific proof because there is none. It's all conjecture based on lookalikes and imagination, as if there is/could be no superior intelligence in any of this. The more you and a few others keep upholding the theory of evolution as if it's true true true, the more I see the sad superciliousness of your inflected ideas.

 

[YoursTrue]

You have no knowledge of science to make such a claim. What references support your claims?

You need to respond to post #7.464. It is a good foundation for beginning to understand the true context in the history of the literature from Genesis to 1 Kings.

The only extant scrolls we have are the Dead Sea scrolls. and they are about 100 BCE. Beyond that, we only have scraps nothing dated much earlier.

What vast scrolls are you talking about?

You are the one making a travesty out of reason. Bye for now. Because you don't see it, and don't want to see it. Because you are not understanding history and reason, I'm saying have a good one to you for now.

 

[John53]

lol, I don't need to know knowledge of science as you call it in the last 200 years to realize that the theory of evolution is a farce and travesty at this point knowing your attitude also. What you are saying is not reasonable, it defies analysis and the evidence. But I realize you're going to keep saying it. You just keep talking about science yet again -- the holes are there -- you say I'm ignorant you offer no scientific proof because there is none. It's all conjecture based on lookalikes and imagination, as if there is/could be no superior intelligence in any of this. The more you and a few others keep upholding the theory of evolution as if it's true true true, the more I see the sad superciliousness of your inflected ideas.

All you need to do is show evidence for this superior intelligence. Should be easy. I eagerly await a chance to examine your evidence.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

All you need to do is show evidence for this superior intelligence. Should be easy. I eagerly await a chance to examine your evidence.

Best of luck mate.

 

[Subduction Zone]

lol, I don't need to know knowledge of science as you call it in the last 200 years to realize that the theory of evolution is a farce and travesty at this point knowing your attitude also. What you are saying is not reasonable, it defies analysis and the evidence. But I realize you're going to keep saying it. You just keep talking about science yet again -- the holes are there -- you say I'm ignorant you offer no scientific proof because there is none. It's all conjecture based on lookalikes and imagination, as if there is/could be no superior intelligence in any of this. The more you and a few others keep upholding the theory of evolution as if it's true true true, the more I see the sad superciliousness of your inflected ideas.

So you are then claiming that God is definitely a liar.

One question:

Why?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are the one making a travesty out of reason. Bye for now. Because you don't see it, and don't want to see it. Because you are not understanding history and reason, I'm saying have a good one to you for now.

Do not get offended simply because you are wrong. If what you claimed is correct then why can't you support it properly?

 

[John53]

Best of luck mate.

I'm internetless and without power so stuck on the stupid phone. I have plenty of time to kill.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'm internetless and without power so stuck on the stupid phone. I have plenty of time to kill.

I've lost my taste for goose.

 

[LIIA]

have you bothered to inform yourself about the state of research into abiogenesis? Doesn't sound like it, but correct me if that's wrong.

I did. Again the article below by ACS Publications dated January 9, 2020 provided a background and up-to-date progress that allows the reader to judge where the field stands currently with respect to the “Chemistry of Abiotic Nucleotide Synthesis”. Did you bother to read at least the conclusion? See # 1850

Chemistry of Abiotic Nucleotide Synthesis | Chemical Reviews (acs.org)

Chemistry of Abiotic Nucleotide Synthesis (acs.org)

The problem with gods is that they're only known to exist as concepts and things imagined in individual brains, which is why there are no videos of them

All fundamental forces of reality are concepts in individual brains; we can only observe the effects, never the causes. Did you ever see a video of dark energy, strong nuclear force, gravity, etc.? You can only observe the effects, make a video if you wish but you can never see the causes or know its fundamental nature, how it controls entities, how/why it came into being. You can only hypothesize about its existence and build a mental construct/a concept of it in your brain.

I’m only saying that part of reality must be a brute fact that always exist/uncaused, otherwise no caused entity can be explained.

God is not a physical entity within spacetime that reflects light so you may record it on a video. You can't even have a video of any fundamental force within spacetime for that matter; you can only observe the effects not the causes.

God as the initial cause for everything in existence (including the universe and spactime itself) is not subject to the confinements of spacetime or any physical law of any kind.

And when you've done that, please explain how this real God came into being? Created by an überGod who was brought into existence by an überüberGod who was &c &c?

You’re making a logically fallacious “infinite regress” argument. I’m telling you the beginning must be a brute fact.

The cause/effect chain in its entirety continues to be a contingent being (no matter how long it gets) and must depend on a non-contingent being/ brute fact for its existence. Do you understand?

Homunculus Fallacy (logicallyfallacious.com)

 

[LIIA]

And sincezas3,calmost all of that knowledge was lost we had to start all over. That also means that though the Arabs may have been first in many areas that knowledge was lost and we had to start all over again. That early work was lost. It no longer counted as a step.

Really? The knowledge was lost! According to whom? You?

No, the knowledge of the Islamic golden age was not only preserved but it was also the main source of knowledge to later generations during the Renaissance and the scientific revolution in Europe and with a strong influence that can be still seen clearly in our day-to-day life today. A close example is the Arabic numbers itself as well as many terms with Arabic origin, such as Algebra, Algorithm, Average, Cipher, Alchemy /Chemistry, Alcohol, Elixir, Alkaline, Almanac, Azimuth, Nadir, Zenith, etc.

See the link below for the article titled “Words from Arabic” on Collins Dictionary and the quote below from the article.

“This era of intellectual achievement from the middle of the 8th century to the middle of the 13th has rightly been called the Islamic Golden Age and the texts from it proved a vital source of knowledge to later generations during the Renaissance and the scientific revolution. Although the importance of this period has at times been underplayed in Europe, the influence can clearly be seen in the English language.”

Words from Arabic - Collins Dictionary Language Blog

 

[LIIA]

Take up bird watching and you'll see them all the time, here's an Eastern Rosella I photographed the other day that has way more red than your average Eastern Rosella. Definitely a random colour mutation.

View attachment 79735

And here's a regular coloured Eastern Rosella for comparison.

View attachment 79736

Individuals of the same species normally vary in how they look due to distribution of traits, gene flow, genetic/environmental factors or from chromosomes swapping sections during meiosis, which cause genomic variation among produced offspring of the same species. That is normal but it’s not what I am talking about.

Selection may work only on changes that affect fitness. If the changes are neutral with respect to fitness, selection wouldn’t play any role. Selection supposedly causes random advantageous traits to be more common in the population and eventually eliminate harmful random changes. I’m talking specifically about these kind of changes that affect fitness, per the ToE changes keep emerging all the time in a random fashion then selection plays the filtration role with respect to fitness.

So, lets ignore neutral changes that don’t trigger selection. Now, where are the examples of the random changes that reduce the fitness of the organism and get filtered out by selection? Such as dark color mutations among polar bears or maybe a fifth limb in the wrong location or eye on the leg of the creature (Such deformations/errors can simply be caused by random mutation of homeotic genes).

Homeotic genes are responsible for the orderly organization of body parts ensuring that the correct body parts form in the correct places of the body, Random mutation of homeotic genes would turn on the wrong genetic programs to cause random body segments growing out in the wrong locations of the body. If the hypothesis of randomness were true, then selection would be very busy filtering out all kinds of deformations/random errors that keep emerging randomly. It should be the rule not the exception. We don’t see that in nature.

Homeotic genes (article) | Khan Academy