• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Darwin's Illusion

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Evolution is centered on DNA, with genes passed forward by reproduction. This blending of genes and mutations lead to changes on the DNA, that become subject to natural selection. Neither of these; trans and homosexual, can reproduce and therefore are not exactly a part of natural selection and evolution. This is not a religious claim, but simple logical inference used by any rational scientist. How can you break the logic chain of the theory and say the chain is still whole? Therefore, these choices happen apart from natural selection and evolution. I am not against such behavior, but against the erroneous claim this is natural selection.

I added will and choice and artificial/man made selection to the model of evolution. This connects to human consciousness and the secondary center of the human brain; ego. It implies a secondary path for change that branched from natural selection. Both appear to occur today on earth. Under these extra constraints of the second branch, trans and homosexual is still connected, even if not a part of natural selection. It is part of the other branch.

Trans and Homosexual would not have been selected naturally, since it would be self defeating in terms of genetic transfer. Do the math, this would lead to extinction after a few generations. The blind bias of the current empirical theory does not allow it to see simple but basic paradoxes. It shushes these away with the religion card.

Water interfaces the brain and consciousness better and easier, that an organic centric approach. Water is another update that is needed in all the life sciences, if real science is important to evolution.

Casino math is another problem. It was developed for applied science and a willful and synthetic approach to extending the natural laws; man made selection. Pure science should not be using contrived math tools, unless the goal is a bureaucratic factory that makes man made political goods.

Pure science should be subject to reducible math like E=MC2. Manmade things like dice and cards can use different math, since one is not trying to claim natural. This is not about religion but a fundamental understanding of the difference between pure and applied science. Evolution is not yet pure science, but has has some casino contrived, like an offering on the free market. This is because you guys do not branch natural selection, at the right point in history, and form a new branch connected to will and choice; consciousness leading the DNA.
Sorry, more trans and homophobia. Individuals do not evolve. Populations do. An individual that does not reproduce, but yet still supports the population as a whole does aid in the survival of the population. Homosexuality may be the result.of positive traits that help the population as a whole. That may be why the behavior is widespread across so many different species.

TLDR: Your concept of DNA centered evolution is oversimplified and therefore wrong.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
Sorry, more trans and homophobia. Individuals do not evolve. Populations do. An individual that does not reproduce, but yet still supports the population as a whole does aid in the survival of the population. Homosexuality may be the result.of positive traits that help the population as a whole. That may be why the behavior is widespread across so many different species.

TLDR: Your concept of DNA centered evolution is oversimplified and therefore wrong.
Only thing your friend gets right is spelling
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
Sorry, more trans and homophobia.

Nothing "Evolves". Well, the planet evolves through Techtonics but species change and do not evolve.

During my lifetime We went from fewer than 2% of the population being openly and overtly gay and with encouragement, propaganda, and mutilating children we have achieved nearly 20% gay. This is change of species brought on by beliefs rather than the bottleneck most individuals have yet to enjoy.

Orbits "evolve", nature "evolves", species do not. They have never been seen to evolve merely to change.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Nothing "Evolves". Well, the planet evolves through Techtonics but species change and do not evolve.

During my lifetime We went from fewer than 2% of the population being openly and overtly gay and with encouragement, propaganda, and mutilating children we have achieved nearly 20% gay. This is change of species brought on by beliefs rather than the bottleneck most individuals have yet to enjoy.

Orbits "evolve", nature "evolves", species do not. They have never been seen to evolve merely to change.
And by contradicting yourself you show that you still do not even understand what the word "evolve" means. Nor did your post have anything to do with my correction. Oh my on my. I see that you are still a master of being fractally wrong.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I do not remotely consider Genesis useful for any purpose, It is an ancient tribal myth that plagues humanity with false notions of the Fall and Original Sin. Humans have always been human for more than a million years.
Agreed that Genesis and the invention of the Abrahamic god have done mankind net harm, but I find value in the myths of Genesis. They're a study in psychology. Why does this creation account have a calendar in it? Why did this god need six days to create, and why did it need to rest thereafter? These seem to be qualities beneath a tri-omni god. And why a commandment to obey the Sabbath? Who benefits?

My answer: this represents the creation of the work week and weekend necessary once the Hebrews converted from nomadic tribes to large settlements with central synagogues and the need for people to gather there regularly for instruction and to bring money for the priesthood and to support the synagogue.

What motivates the demeaning description of this deity in the flood story, who is depicted as cruel, unjust, and not too smart for drowning the world for the sins of one species for which sin nature the deity was responsible and them tried to correct the problem using the same breeding stock. What motivated that story?

My answer: Finding seashells and marine fossils on mountaintops implied their submergence once and needs explaining. God obviously flooded the earth, and being a good god, man must have deserved to be nearly extinguished as such a flood would surely caused.

The myths taken collectively reveal a pattern: Bad things happen in a world ruled by a tri-omni god, so they must be punishments, and that means human sin and wickedness was the reason. Man lives a life of toil, suffering, and death instead of a paradisiac life, so sin is the reason. Man speaks multiple languages, most unintelligible to most people, so once again, those must be a punishment and man must have sinned to deserve it. Some astronomical impact apparently demolished the ancient cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, so once again, this could only happen if God caused this, God is good so the punishment must have been deserved, and it's man's fault again.

Those were valuable insights for me.
The lack of communication is willful. Every single point I make is ignored or intentionally misinterpreted. They are handwaved and used to create straw armies. They are not addressed and when they are it's an exercise in word games and twisting of definitions. I no longer expect much else.
You're correct to expect nothing to change, because you don't change, and you don't believe what you are told. You've been told repeatedly that your science is wrong and your use of language vague, but it is you ignoring "every single point" like that made to you. I don't think that will ever change since none of the words spoken to you on that matter to date have had any discernible impact on your posting.
When religion steals a concept like "sin" it doesn't magically cease to have a referent.
Religion invented the concept of sin, which is defined as a violation of God's law, which defines it as immoral and worthy of punishment.
"Sin" is merely another abstraction that has been appropriated by religion that means "behavior detrimental to the commonweal"
Secular society uses different language. Human beings decide what is immoral for themselves, and human laws also define what behavior is acceptable and what will punished, but there is no supernaturalism or deity there, and the word sin doesn't apply.
Murder is sin whether you worship Peers or Priests. Destroying property, lives, and misappropriating wealth or labor are sins.
Not in my moral code, and not in secular law. Acts can be immoral and/or illegal, but to use the word sin here is to use it metaphorically, not literally, and is this a different definition.
I've never heard the argument that ancient herders just went out and gathered up goats, pigs, and cattle. I'm surprised such unfit and timid creatures could exist in nature.
That's what Darwin found - animals unafraid of him.
Science has a metaphysics but Evolution does not.
There's an example of a vague and unintelligible claim. I don't know what you mean by science (you say it's dependent on experiment, so it can't what the scientific community means by the term), nor what you mean by metaphysics, so there's no reply possible to that comment except that I don't know what you mean.
"Evil" is the intentional propagation and support of things that are harmful to the commonweal for any reason at all.
Another term from Abrahamic religion (and maybe other traditions) like sin describing a universal principle in conflict with another called good, represented by God and Satan. I don't use that word for that reason. Malice will suffice and implies nothing more than ill will arising from a human mind.
All life is individual and conscious.
Another unanswerable comment. I still don't know what you are calling consciousness, but it can't be what the majority mean by the word, because most life lacks consciousness. How would consciousness be selected for in a tree? What competitive advantage does that tree have over an unconscious one?

And imagine the horror of being a conscious tree. It sounds like a punishment from mythology. A man was turned into a tree and remained awake, but locked in, unable to act. There's a medical condition like that. It also described incompletely anesthetized general surgery patients - conscious and able to experience terror and physical pain, but unable to act.
But through experiment we have come to learn a great deal about reality in a way that is reproducible.
Through reason applied to evidence. Experiment isn't always possible when observation is. Moon science began when man first began observing the moon, but the experimental part had to wait for man to develop the technology to get experiments to the moon such as the laser reflector and to return moon rocks to earth for analysis.
Life resides in the premise that everything is trying to live and this "trying" manifests through consciousness.
This is teleology. Nothing in nature is known to try to do anything until consciousness and volition arise.
I am observing that all life seeks to survive and prosper.
That's the theory of evolution with the teleologic element added. Remove that and you have the science, which is supported by the same evidence you claim supports your claim.
Are people reading these posts?
You should know the answer to that. They're reading AND reviewing them, and the reviews all look alike. The consensus is that your knowledge of science is lacking and your use of language vague
modern humans are not exactly under the natural selection spoken of by Darwin. Humans are more under manmade or artificial selection due to will and choice.
No. Humans are still subjected to Darwinian natural selection even if he can select artificially, as with developing biological or nuclear weapons. Man is demonstrating his increasing biological unfitness in his present condition as he marches toward imminent destruction of the biosphere through artifice (developing weapons, cooking the planet) and his choices (artificial selection), and if they continue, nature will select against them in Darwinian fashion soon enough.
A science theory needs proof.
That's wrong and undermines your credibility when discussing science. What a scientific theory needs is to be falsifiable and to have sufficient supporting evidence to be considered correct beyond reasonable doubt, which ideally includes confirmed, otherwise unlikely predictions. Evolutionary theory is supported by many such predictions being demonstrated correct as well as the absence of falsifying finds after over a century-and-a-half.

You might want to lose that word proof. "Proof" is a shibboleth* that identifies the scientifically illiterate as surely as saying, "It's only a theory" or "That's just your opinion." Why don't you know that proof isn't part of science? Whatever the answer, I must assume that your science education doesn't include an understanding the philosophy of science.

*Did you see Inglourious Basterds (sic)? This man is an allied soldier trying to pass for German in Germany during WWII: Then he orders three beers like this. Apparently, Germans would put up the thumb and the two nearest fingers to indicate three, not the middle three like this. THAT'S a shibboleth, an unwitting self-identification:

1695235142992.png


When I was a boy, I was told that people crossing the Canadian-American border were instructed to recite the alphabet. Americans ended with zee, and Canadians with zed - another shibboleth.
 
Last edited:

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Seeing as how there's no such thing as "Evolve" I guess I don't need to understand the meaning.

Do you ever actually address a point.
But there is. And I did address the point. You won't let yourself understand buy your refuted your own post.

When you are ready to learn the basics of science then we can go into more detail.
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
Not in my moral code, and not in secular law. Acts can be immoral and/or illegal, but to use the word sin here is to use it metaphorically, not literally, and is this a different definition.

This is exactly what I mean!!!!! I defined "sin" as the "the intentional damage or destruction of the commonweal" and this is BY DEFINITION exactly what it means when I use the term. YOU don't get to change the meaning of my words and then argue YOUR OWN changed meanings. Believers are making semantical arguments and playing word games. When I say the belief in survival of the fittest has killed a hundred times more good people than all the belief in religions throughout time I mean THAT. You can't change MY definitions.

And when I say all observed change in all species, all life, and every individual is sudden then this is what I mean. If you don't agree you should show at least one exception and not change my definitions and not lecture about your beliefs. I know what your beliefs are. I am showing ample evidence and logic you are wrong.
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
When I say the belief in survival of the fittest has killed a hundred times more good people than all the belief in religions throughout time I mean...

Of course nobody will address this and will instead make some semantical argument but for others I am defining "good people" as those who never or rarely intentionally damage the commonweal for profit or pleasure". Of course religions have killed good people and especially those like me who thumb their noses at the status quo, sacred beliefs in the status quo, and those who don't fit in.

The belief in the status quo kill those deemed less fit regardless of how much good they do. Religion has mostly killed people who are bad people.

I do not condone murder except society has a duty to protect itself from the worst among us.
 

John53

I go leaps and bounds
Premium Member
During my lifetime We went from fewer than 2% of the population being openly and overtly gay and with encouragement, propaganda, and mutilating children we have achieved nearly 20% gay. This is change of species brought on by beliefs rather than the bottleneck most individuals have yet to enjoy.

Do you have evidence for your statistics. You saying it without evidence to back it up is meaningless.

In my country homosexuality wasn't decriminalised in all states until 1997. It's kind of obvious that people would hide their sexuality to avoid gaol or discrimination.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I defined "sin" as the "the intentional damage or destruction of the commonweal" and this is BY DEFINITION exactly what it means when I use the term.
OK. And I told you how I use the word.
YOU don't get to change the meaning of my words and then argue YOUR OWN changed meanings.
Is that what you think happened? I don't. I didn't argue that your definition was wrong or mine right, nor did I try to change the meaning of your words.
When I say the belief in survival of the fittest has killed a hundred times more good people than all the belief in religions throughout time I mean THAT.
OK again. What's your point? Do you think somebody thinks you don't believe that?
when I say all observed change in all species, all life, and every individual is sudden then this is what I mean. If you don't agree you should show at least one exception and not change my definitions
You once used the word to describe the collision of galaxies.

"Nothing is static and nothing is gradual. Things that happen on long time lines still happen suddenly as seen from a longer timeline. The collision of galaxies is very brief from the perspective of the age of galaxies."

If that's sudden, then yes, all of earth's history is sudden. All of evolution is sudden. From the first life to today was sudden. By your definition, I have no argument with you, but I also find the claim meaningless, since everything is sudden if galaxies collide suddenly.
I am showing ample evidence and logic you are wrong.
I disagree. I've only gotten unsubstantiated claims from you, often in ambiguous language meaning that I don't know what's being claimed much less demonstrated to be correct. Your "logic," which I haven't seen written out explicitly, cannot be standard logic if you think it justifies your beliefs.
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
OK again. What's your point? Do you think somebody thinks you don't believe that?

In order to respond to my argument it is necessary that every definition, fact, and experiment cited is considered. The "Theory of Evolution" has meaning only in its entirety and my theory of change in species has meaning only in its entirety. If I say I believe Egyptological assumptions that ancient people were changeless, superstitious, ignorant and dragged tombs up ramps are all wrong then every single argument that depends on any of these assumptions is irrelevant. By the exact same token when I say Darwin's assumptions were wrong then every single argument that depends on these assumptions is irrelevant. When I make points to substantiate my contention that the assumptions were wrong it is ignored and I get more lectures about current beliefs and more verbiage about my ignorance of science.

Nobody ever challenges me on things like we each see only what we believe and then they tell me about what they see. Across the board everyone who doesn't believe in science or accept current models for Evolution is just being marginalized. It doesn't matter how much logic or evidence we cite because it is not being addressed. Obviously we each can interpret evidence individually but this is very much my point. Why is most of science stuck in the 19th century and cosmology in the 1920's? Why do so many people believe today that there is only one possible interpretation of everything and Peers are paramount in this understanding? No matter how much evidence is cited mostly the response is a knee jerk reaction to protect a status quo based on assumptions that have largely already been proven to be incorrect and definitions that are often at odds to models and observation.
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
You once used the word to describe the collision of galaxies.

"Nothing is static and nothing is gradual. Things that happen on long time lines still happen suddenly as seen from a longer timeline. The collision of galaxies is very brief from the perspective of the age of galaxies."

If that's sudden, then yes, all of earth's history is sudden. All of evolution is sudden. From the first life to today was sudden. By your definition, I have no argument with you, but I also find the claim meaningless, since everything is sudden if galaxies collide suddenly.

Collision of galaxies is "sudden" only from a perspective of the lifetime of galaxies. If you lived ten billion years if you looked away from a galaxy as it was colliding with another you might say "well, that was quick".

But from the lifetime of every individual change in species is sudden. Sure a fruit fly would see a change in elephants as taking a very long time but an elephant would not. Each elephant could see massive change within his own lifetime. Fruit flies as well would see such changes in its own species.

Every single word in modern languages has many meanings and connotations. If you don't like one someone else uses then use your own but you still have to use his definition or its word games. All change in life is sudden and this applies to everything from conception to death. Some take moments and some a few generations but nothing evolves and nothing proceeds at a geological pace. This is just in Darwin's mind.

Science can examine nothing that can't be reduced to experiment. Statistics and appearances to the contrary. No experiment shows gradual change in species caused by fitness.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
when I say Darwin's assumptions were wrong then every single argument that depends on these assumptions is irrelevant.
OK. That's the way I feel about theology, which assumes the existence of gods. I just don't agree with you concerning Darwin and his theory. The theory is correct beyond reasonable doubt and is still standing unchallenged except by creationists, who have no standing in a scientific discussion about evolution unless they're also scientists like the now professionally disgraced Behe, where they are an irrelevant minority.
When I make points to substantiate my contention that the assumptions were wrong it is ignored and I get more lectures about current beliefs and more verbiage about my ignorance of science.
I've already given you my response to that, and it had no impact. The problem is on your end. You only think you substantiate your arguments. Others disagree. You only think you are being disregarded. You are being disagreed with, not disregarded.

You don't even try to meet your critics part way. Your posting is indistinguishable from before you heard those criticisms and read advice on what to do about it. You shouldn't expect anything to change before you do.
Why is most of science stuck in the 19th century and cosmology in the 1920's?
It's not.
Collision of galaxies is "sudden" only from a perspective of the lifetime of galaxies.
Maybe you shouldn't use language so casually. I still don't have a definition of sudden from you, just an example of suddenness - colliding galaxies, and of course whatever you mean about speciation being sudden. Is that also from the perspective of the evolution of galaxies? If that's what sudden means to you, then OK.
Science can examine nothing that can't be reduced to experiment.
Disagree, but we've been through this, and it also had no impact on your subsequent posting. Galileo examined the heavens and noted it's contradictions with Christian cosmology, including craters on the moon and moons orbiting Jupiter. That was science that changed the world, and nary an experiment involved. Sorry, amigo, but I just falsified your claim again.

But you don't engage at that level. You won't try to falsify my argument or even address it. If you're true to your posting history, you'll either write nothing or write something that doesn't contradict my argument, then make the same already rebutted statement again down the road, and then complain that nobody reads your arguments but instead quibble over semantics. It's a non-starter. It guarantees that you will nothing will ever change for you here unless YOU do first. You know the old chestnut about insanity being expecting different results from identical behavior.

Can you break out of that? All you need to do is test new approaches and adapt according to your experiences. Now THAT'S experimental science (trial-and-error, empiricism). I recommend it for you as a friend and hopeful benefactor to you. Imagine how thrilled I'd be to see you breakout of that cocoon.

This is from an earlier thread written to somebody else who I simply could never get through to:
Did you ever see the movie The Miracle Worker about a woman trying to teach a deaf and blind girl about words? The girl didn't know about them. I vaguely remember the teacher signing water over and over as she poured water on the girls hands, and then the epiphany as the little girl finally catches on, smiles in wonder, and in her deaf speech, says "Watah?" "Yes, Helen, yes!" Here are the frustration, the lesson, and the epiphany. Annie got through! :
1691594192238.png
This is how I feel on these threads at times. How do I get through? What words can I write that will lead to the equivalent of "Watah?" coming from you? What if anything would get you to do that search and produce that hypothesis you insist doesn't exist so I can say, "Yes, *****, yes!" Maybe nothing can do that, but I simply can't believe that - not yet.

Imagine how thrilled her teacher was. My motive is exactly the same - constructive and beneficent. But you have to participate actively to break analogous ground, meaning engage the arguments and other comments made to you as if they might have some merit.
 
Last edited:

cladking

Well-Known Member
OK. That's the way I feel about theology, which assumes the existence of gods. I just don't agree with you concerning Darwin and his theory. The theory is correct beyond reasonable doubt and is still standing unchallenged except by creationists, who have no standing in a scientific discussion about evolution unless they're also scientists like the now professionally disgraced Behe, where they are an irrelevant minority.

As usual we are mostly in agreement.

I agree that religious arguments have no bearing in a scientific discussion where they are based on assumptions with which you disagree. Frankly I don't think religious arguments are even relevant in a religious discussion if you don't accept the premises. I do not support assumptions and beliefs. Like everyone I have my own but I am willing to delineate mine such as "reality exists". It is beliefs that define our species (homo omnisciencis).

But I have made no religious arguments. I haven't really made any "scientific" arguments because I disagree with Darwin. All I have done is cite logic, facts, and experiment that I believe support a different interpretation of experiment in biology and interpretation of the fossil record. I have also observed that I don't believe the correspondences between my theory and religion are coincidental. I believe they exist because ancient man (homo sapiens) used a natural science that saw everything in terms of the "big picture" and then this science became confused and morphed into religions when their language failed. There's far more evidence for this than modern beliefs about the power of superstition or gradual change in species caused by fitness. How else would the Pyramid Texts and Bible contain more facts about change in species than a tenth grade biology text?

I am well aware of the poor quality of some of the arguments against Evolution. But then many of them don't depend on the existence of a Creator to be good arguments. The arguments for evolution are usually dependent on Darwinian assumptions shown to be false or not supported by experiment.

I've already given you my response to that, and it had no impact. The problem is on your end. You only think you substantiate your arguments.

No! Darwin said populations are relatively stable. This was 19th century belief. If you go into something determined by population bottlenecks not believing in bottlenecks you will NECESSARILY arrive at the wrong answer. .

He got it dead wrong and THIS is the reason. All his assumptions were wrong so he got everything else wrong as well.

Maybe you shouldn't use language so casually. I still don't have a definition of sudden from you, just an example of suddenness - colliding galaxies, and of course whatever you mean about speciation being sudden. Is that also from the perspective of the evolution of galaxies? If that's what sudden means to you, then OK.

Language is a mess. People rarely understand one another anyway. So long as they can't tell you disagree with them they'll never even notice you aren't communicating. Our language was "confused" at the tower of babel and it is only a little better now than it was when a third of the people committed suicide, a third went on a murdering rampage, and the rest fared no better.

If you can discern and remember author intent you can just use your own words.

Disagree, but we've been through this, and it also had no impact on your subsequent posting.

Indeed. This is because I've spent a lifetime studying and thinking about metaphysics. Every theory is by definition based on experiment. This can be difficult to see some times but remember Kuhn is still real and still relevant. It seems to be untrue because paradigms are not science at all but they are the formatting of our models and understanding. It's paradigms that are wrong and lead one to think theory might be based on abstractions, statistics, or mathematics. Real theory is based in experiment.

We must see all of reality through our beliefs and this is true for theologians and for scientists.

You can contradict me but it changes nothing. If you parse my words as they are intended then they are supported by centuries of science and are almost certainly true. Since they are logical and dependent on logical definitions they are necessarily true from at least some perspectives. They are in effect true by definition. I believe they are universally true just as it is universally true that all things affects all other things on a real time basis and all experiment applies to all things simultaneously. Reductionistic science is poor at seeing big pictures but religion is a snapshot of ancient science that merely requires interpretation.
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
1691594192238.png
This is how I feel on these threads at times. How do I get through? What words can I write that will lead to the equivalent of "Watah?" coming from you? What if anything would get you to do that search and produce that hypothesis you insist doesn't exist so I can say, "Yes, Leroy, yes!" Maybe nothing can do that, but I simply can't believe that - not yet.

Imagine how thrilled her teacher was. My motive is exactly the same - constructive and beneficent. But you have to participate actively to break analogous ground, meaning engage the arguments and other comments made to you as if they might have some merit.
Here's a post I put in on another site attempting the same thing;

This might come as a shock to most people but the Pyramid Texts is about the pyramid. It has nothing whatsoever to do with religion and magic and all you have to do to see it is read it and not assume the writers were highly superstitious. When they used words they meant them. When they said "water" they meant something that felt wet and cold and made things slippery. They meant everything they knew about water. When we use it we mean it symbolically and the meaning changes in every application. "Water", in Ancient Language, isn't what was thrown on Hellen Keller but rather it was what she experienced as she experienced it.

This is just one of several reasons the ancient language can't be parsed without losing its meaning. When we take it apart to study we are throwing out the baby with the bathwater.


The header of the post was "The King as Miracle Worker".

People just keep taking the same meaning no matter how many times I define terms and state the intended meaning. We are trapped into our suffering and we parse words the same way over and over even when told we are doing it wrong as the seal.

We aren't just taking words apart and putting them back together wrong; we are taking reality itself apart through reductionistic science and then extrapolating all of reality from these tiny bits and pieces. People need to get hit in the face by cold wet reality to even have an understanding that our words have nothing to do with reality as in Ancient Language and everything to do with what we believe. And the most common beliefs is that we are all parsing the other guy's words exactly as he intended. It is the belief that science has led us to seeing the big picture and we don't need religion any longer. It is the belief that Peers are right by definition or because experts are usually right so when they agree then they must be right.

It's all wrong. Nothing is as it appears because 19th century scientists were all wrong.

No, nothing funny here. I keep looking for funny and not finding it.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
OK. That's the way I feel about theology, which assumes the existence of gods. I just don't agree with you concerning Darwin and his theory. The theory is correct beyond reasonable doubt and is still standing unchallenged except by creationists, who have no standing in a scientific discussion about evolution unless they're also scientists like the now professionally disgraced Behe, where they are an irrelevant minority.

I've already given you my response to that, and it had no impact. The problem is on your end. You only think you substantiate your arguments. Others disagree. You only think you are being disregarded. You are being disagreed with, not disregarded.

You don't even try to meet your critics part way. Your posting is indistinguishable from before you heard those criticisms and read advice on what to do about it. You shouldn't expect anything to change before you do.

It's not.

Maybe you shouldn't use language so casually. I still don't have a definition of sudden from you, just an example of suddenness - colliding galaxies, and of course whatever you mean about speciation being sudden. Is that also from the perspective of the evolution of galaxies? If that's what sudden means to you, then OK.

Disagree, but we've been through this, and it also had no impact on your subsequent posting. Galileo examined the heavens and noted it's contradictions with Christian cosmology, including craters on the moon and moons orbiting Jupiter. That was science that changed the world, and nary an experiment involved. Sorry, amigo, but I just falsified your claim again.

But you don't engage at that level. You won't try to falsify my argument or even address it. If you're true to your posting history, you'll either write nothing or write something that doesn't contradict my argument, then make the same already rebutted statement again down the road, and then complain that nobody reads your arguments but instead quibble over semantics. It's a non-starter. It guarantees that you will nothing will ever change for you here unless YOU do first. You know the old chestnut about insanity being expecting different results from identical behavior.

Can you break out of that? All you need to do is test new approaches and adapt according to your experiences. Now THAT'S experimental science (trial-and-error, empiricism). I recommend it for you as a friend and hopeful benefactor to you. Imagine how thrilled I'd be to see you breakout of that cocoon.

This is from an earlier thread written to somebody else who I simply could never get through to:
Did you ever see the movie The Miracle Worker about a woman trying to teach a deaf and blind girl about words? The girl didn't know about them. I vaguely remember the teacher signing water over and over as she poured water on the girls hands, and then the epiphany as the little girl finally catches on, smiles in wonder, and in her deaf speech, says "Watah?" "Yes, Helen, yes!" Here are the frustration, the lesson, and the epiphany. Annie got through! :
1691594192238.png
This is how I feel on these threads at times. How do I get through? What words can I write that will lead to the equivalent of "Watah?" coming from you? What if anything would get you to do that search and produce that hypothesis you insist doesn't exist so I can say, "Yes, Leroy, yes!" Maybe nothing can do that, but I simply can't believe that - not yet.

Imagine how thrilled her teacher was. My motive is exactly the same - constructive and beneficent. But you have to participate actively to break analogous ground, meaning engage the arguments and other comments made to you as if they might have some merit.
The problem is that one cannot forcibly hold the persons hand in the water. Or perhaps more appropriate for some, we cannot hold their heads under water.

 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
No moral baggage???!!

The belief in survival of the fittest is driving the poor poorer and the rich richer to fix the problem the rich created though planned obsolescence and the production of garbage and waste. Inefficiency causes ten times more CO2 than anything else and the "less fit" would profit most from eliminating it so instead we tear down brand new power plants and funnel all the profits to the few.

You might want to learn what "fit" means in evolutionary context.
It would help in preventing you from making ignorant stupid statements like that.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Where do you think punishing the less fit for the continuing sins of the more fit comes from?

All people would be better off if the sins were just stopped.

Instead we punish those who are the continuing victims because they aren't fit anyway. The Ukraine and Ireland exported huge amounts of food as the less fit who produced it starved.
Still operating from a deep ignorant misunderstanding of what "fit" means in evolutionary science, I see.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
I am observing that all life seeks to survive and prosper.

And generally, only those living things that are succesfull in that get to reproduce and spread their mutated genes.
Derp.

"Life" seeks to live; all life tries to succeed.

But not all life does. The point. You keep missing it.
Here's where "fitness" comes in. Fitness as understood in biology off course. Not the weird strawman you double down on.
 
Top