Darwin's Illusion

[LIIA]

Projection. You have been the one that refuses to learn from your mistakes.

And you are the one who have been searching for the vaccine but cannot find it.

 

[LIIA]

Rudeness is a method of defending self imposed ignorance. Try again.

That really defines you but It’s merely a pathetic attempt to escape the question, leave the nonsense aside and answer the question “what is the contemporary sense”?

 

[LIIA]

You should have read your whole.Wiki article.. One of the leading factors.in the end of the Islamic Golden Age was the rise of fundamentalism under Al Ghzali.

Al-Ghazali was not a fundamentalist, he was an Islamic philosopher/polymath, the same article said, “the golden age did not slow down after al-Ghazali, who lived in the 11th century, while others extend the golden age to around the 16th to 17th centuries.”

Islamic Golden Age - Wikipedia

al-Ghazali - Wikipedia

It ended far before then, or are you now talking about just the recent surge in fundamentalism?

Did I ever claim that the golden age continued to the 20th century? Don’t be pathetic, yes, it ended much earlier than that, but it was not due to fundamentalism. Simply the true spirit of Islam is what gave rise to the golden age. After many centuries of the Islamic revelation, Muslims gradually stopped embracing the true spirit of Islam and the religious obligation to learn, read, write and disseminate knowledge and instead got corrupted through a materialistic endeavor to pursue wealth and power. The declination of the Islamic golden age was due to the declination of Islam itself. Do you understand?

Desperately siting people that accept the fact of evolution does not help you. He accepts the fact that people are apes. He is only arguing about the mechanisms.

Except that the context here is “open communication”. Don’t you get it? Go back and read #7742
Does “dogmatic hostility” imply “open communication” to you? Don’t be pathetic.

 

[LIIA]

You can believe whatever floats your rubber ducky, I guess. Evolution simply is common sense and energy is involved-- period.

An apparent escape tactic after you realized that your logic is faulty, forget about my beliefs and address the argument if you will.

Evolution is neither common sense nor “energy is involved" explains anything.

 

[LIIA]

Or dont

I don’t like to be harsh with anyone, but sometimes it may be a fair reaction to inappropriate or irrelevant approach of argument.

I understand you may be feeling lonely with some time to kill and need to get some attention or entertain yourself, but this is not the way, try to control the urge to attack the person instead of addressing the argument. Such approach only exposes your vulnerable feelings of insecurity and inadequacy for others to see. Respect the fact that there will always be your view and the other view. Its neither a fight nor it’s about winning. Share info that supports your view instead of attacking a person. Be truthful to yourself and others. We all win when we share thoughts and widen our perspectives. I may see what you don’t and vice versa.

I know the first thing that would jump to your mind now is “HOW TO ATTACK!” Right? Try to control that urge. It’s merely an advice, take it or leave it. You’re free.

Peace

 

[blü 2]

Muslims gradually stopped embracing the true spirit of Islam and the religious obligation to learn, read, write and disseminate knowledge and instead got corrupted through a materialistic endeavor to pursue wealth and power.

So all the Islamic states we see around the world at the moment have abandoned "the true spirit of Islam" and instead their citizens live lives in an economic rather than a religious reality, you're saying?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I’m saying that the survival of any organism whether an intermediate, transitional form, single-celled, multicellular, or any living system of any kind depends on complex interdependent constituents. The functionality of every single constituent is dependent on the other constituents and vice versa. You can neither exclude a constituent nor a constituent can be functional or evolve in isolation of the other interdependent constituents. It’s a fact that we witness in every single living system as previously explained in # 7495 & # 7403. You do understand my point? Don’t you?

I agree, but am not sure why you cared to make that point. Is this part of an irreducible complexity argument?

Do really believe that single-celled organisms living today such as bacteria will ever transform into elephants at some point in the future?

No, but I believe that it likely occurred in the past.

The language of the article was very clear that all central assumptions of the MS were disproved.

But it didn't adequately support that position. The central tenet - that genetic variation occurs across generations and that environments decide which variants will dominate a populations gene pool - is still intact.

There are no ring species – Why Evolution Is True

I told you that I'm not interested in discussing this topic unless you let me know why you think it's relevant, and you chose not to.

you don't have a mechanism for macroevolution to proceed.

But we do, just as we have a mechanism for macro-orbiting to proceed. What's needed to say that it won't or can't proceed is a mechanism to stop it. You see an icicle growing from your eave. Will it grow forever? No. Mechanisms exist to prevent that. It will eventually hit the ground if it doesn't fall from its own weight, and spring will come to thaw it. But you don't have that with evolution or Pluto orbiting until you get to the end of Pluto or of life. Nothing less will prevent either from going on and on and on and on indefinitely.

the point is that there are no means through which a new taxonomic family may emerge. Neither natural nor artificial.

But you haven't made the case - just the claim.

I gave you a reference article published by The New York Academy of Sciences, and you gave me your subjective opinion. The fact that “you have no reason to believe” is merely your subjective opinion.

I don't look at orphan links. You'd need to summarize its salient points in a sentence or two for me to decide if it's worth reading. What is your best reason for one to change his mind about consciousness being compatible with naturalism?

You contradict yourself; you acknowledge that physical processes don't Imply consciousness yet insist that consciousness itself is a physical process!!

I don't see a contradiction there even if you change it to what I actually did say - that I have no reason to believe that consciousness isn't an epiphenomenon of physical reality (physicalism - roughly the same as naturalism and materialsm)

physical processes/interactions of matter don’t give rise to consciousness, self-awareness, thoughts, feelings and qualia, all are non-physical and can’t be produced through interactions of matter.

That's an unsupported claim.

If all life is made of the same stuff in the same way, then why you interpret observed behavior of input processing/decision making differently in different organisms? Do you judge by size? Is this why an ant is a harder call to you?

I judge by behavior.

Again, scientific research showed that even the smallest forms of live has the ability of input processing/decision making, i.e., cognition.

I've said that you must be redefining cognition, which in its first definition implies consciousness. "Decisions" in an unconscious entity are like the "decisions" of a toe to grow nails.

If you understand that consciousness is physical, then why can’t a robot equipped with artificial intelligence technology, power source and has the ability of input processing/decision making be conscious?

It might be. The problem is that it appears that we can never know - the other minds problem.

 

[metis]

An apparent escape tactic after you realized that your logic is faulty, forget about my beliefs and address the argument if you will.

Evolution is neither common sense nor “energy is involved" explains anything.

It seems that your persistent m.o. is to attack anyone whom you disagree with and accuse them of ignorance. Maybe if you actually studied you would understand that you're all too often not right, and this is a place you can start even though it's not a scientific source per se: Evolution - Wikipedia

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Is it Denis Noble says time again already?!

The intellectual pinnacle of creationist folly and fallacies. Controversy in science means that there is no science, no theory. The tactic that repetition constantly repeated redacts reality. That it is not good logic or reasoning never stops the gish that gushes by the gallons.

Denis Noble says is not an argument against a scientific theory.

 

[Audie]

Is it Denis Noble says time again already?!

The intellectual pinnacle of creationist folly and fallacies. Controversy in science means that there is no science, no theory. The tactic that repetition constantly repeated redacts reality. That it is not good logic or reasoning never stops the gish that gushes by the gallons.

Denis Noble says is not an argument against a scientific theory.

It's dishonest and / or brainless.

Which says what it says of the religion and
it's sponsors.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It seems that your persistent m.o. is to attack anyone whom you disagree with and accuse them of ignorance. Maybe if you actually studied you would understand that you're all too often not right, and this is a place you can start even though it's not a scientific source per se: Evolution - Wikipedia

That is a common trend in these discussions and debates. Attack the science. Attack people. Rinse and repeat. From the evidence, discussion, exchange, learning, valid arguments well-supported and logic are of no apparent interest to the campaign. There is no valid scientific alternative promoted. To date, no such position has been revealed to exist to promote.

I don't see the positions represented against science to be anything more than the traditional creationist position. All the old tactics, terms and treatments are there. Just on higher volume and heavier rotation.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It's dishonest and / or brainless.

Which says what it says of the religion and
it's sponsors.

I think it says more about a personality type that takes a personal interpretation of a religion over the top without much real thought into the structure of what is being done to drive the position. Belief-based thinking gone well awry in the face of the facts and valid conclusions about them.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It's dishonest and / or brainless.

Which says what it says of the religion and
it's sponsors.

I think that all religions have a body of individuals that approach their role in the religion in this way. And there are even those that take extremes outside of religion. It says more to me about the basis that some use to come to their conclusions and how the approaches contrast in their outcomes. You can take anything to the extreme.

But here the failure to understand science, whether calculated or out of ignorance, is obvious to those that have a grasp of science, but apparently unknown to those that are trying to use science against itself. That may not be best described as mindless, but it isn't expressing good use of the available material.

 

[Audie]

I think it says more about a personality type that takes a personal interpretation of a religion over the top without much real thought into the structure of what is being done to drive the position. Belief-based thinking gone well awry in the face of the facts and valid conclusions about them.

"The chosen version of what it means to
believe in god".

How about that?

 

[Audie]

I think that all religions have a body of individuals that approach their role in the religion in this way. And there are even those that take extremes outside of religion. It says more to me about the basis that some use to come to their conclusions and how the approaches contrast in their outcomes. You can take anything to the extreme.

But here the failure to understand science, whether calculated or out of ignorance, is obvious to those that have a grasp of science, but apparently unknown to those that are trying to use science against itself. That may not be best described as mindless, but it isn't expressing good use of the available material.

"Mindless " will do for a one - word descriptor

 

[Dan From Smithville]

"The chosen version of what it means to
believe in god".

How about that?

Yeah, I think that creationist arguments are a manifestation of the application of a particular group of related ideologies. Perhaps the overlap is more in the application when it is competing ideologies followed in a similar manner.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

"Mindless " will do for a one - word descriptor

I see it as equivalent to thoughtless or without thinking. Given that claim without thinking appears to be the basal creationist case, I can agree.

 

[Audie]

I see it as equivalent to thoughtless or without thinking. Given that claim without thinking appears to be the basal creationist case, I can agree.

The common opossum has a brain, after all

 

[Subduction Zone]

Al-Ghazali was not a fundamentalist, he was an Islamic philosopher/polymath, the same article said, “the golden age did not slow down after al-Ghazali, who lived in the 11th century, while others extend the golden age to around the 16th to 17th centuries.”

Islamic Golden Age - Wikipedia

al-Ghazali - Wikipedia

If you rea

Did I ever claim that the golden age continued to the 20th century? Don’t be pathetic, yes, it ended much earlier than that, but it was not due to fundamentalism. Simply the true spirit of Islam is what gave rise to the golden age. After many centuries of the Islamic revelation, Muslims gradually stopped embracing the true spirit of Islam and the religious obligation to learn, read, write and disseminate knowledge and instead got corrupted through a materialistic endeavor to pursue wealth and power. The declination of the Islamic golden age was due to the declination of Islam itself. Do you understand?

Except that the context here is “open communication”. Don’t you get it? Go back and read #7742
Does “dogmatic hostility” imply “open communication” to you? Don’t be pathetic.

And you are the one who have been searching for the vaccine but cannot find it.

No, once again you have that backwards. You appear to hate the idea that you are an ape. Your desperate arguments against evolution demonstrate that fact.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That really defines you but It’s merely a pathetic attempt to escape the question, leave the nonsense aside and answer the question “what is the contemporary sense”?

I went over it at least twice. Would you pay attention the third time? You can't try to insult others when you were the one that ignored the explanations given to you.