Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[cladking]

There are 600,000 words in the English language and growing. Surely, some of those would be sufficient in this context.

...And every one of them can be parsed incorrectly. The reason for every communication failure since the "tower of babel" has been too many words, not too few. Abstractions and taxonomies have no referents in reality but we toss them around like they are gospel.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

...And every one of them can be parsed incorrectly. The reason for every communication failure since the "tower of babel" has been too many words, not too few. Abstractions and taxonomies have no referents in reality but we toss them around like they are gospel.

The reasons for your communications failures are you own. You can blame everyone else, but those faults are all yours. Secret definitions, off topic rambling, empty claims, evasion, incessant contradictions, logical fallacies. That is all on YOU.

 

[Dimi95]

...And every one of them can be parsed incorrectly.

To infinite regress - sure.
The question is do you belive that there is a way for them to be parsed correctly?

Just answer it , at least just give some kind of answer when you have your own statement and we can go from there.
I am getting to think that what you do is just swipe left , left , left and you dismiss everything just like that,with no reason.

The reason for every communication failure since the "tower of babel" has been too many words, not too few.

If they are too many to you , just quit.

Abstractions and taxonomies have no referents in reality but we toss them around like they are gospel.

Why do you say that?
What is human language to you?

 

[Dimi95]

It does to me. Seeking comfort drives behavior. We run from the rain and bask in the sun. When thirsty, we drink. When bored, we seek stimulation.

Answered a little bit later , but i hope you don't mind.

I think otherwise.
I think in the way:
How is that usefull?
And what does usefull mean itself..?
Do i need it or not?
And i think like 'if it is not usefull , then to whom would this thing be of use and why would he belive it?

In the past , people used to say to me without any justifiable reason for example 'what you need to do is...' and i used to cut them and say 'I need only water , air and freedom , nothing more'.
I realized that i needed a lot more to have a decent life.
Like for example , letting the person on the other side to finish.
You find things to be usefull and that is why you belive in them.
Don't you find what you know to be usefull?

Also I don't find exactly my comfort in it when i look at my life.
It could have been much easier , but it was not.
And i don't blame myself anymore,it is the road to ruin.
The road to succes is to learn and win.
If we learn , me must win - by definition.
I think that winning comes with learning together.

An atheist is somebody comfortable living without a god belief or a religion.

This does not say anything.
Many Christians worldwide are also comfortable living without a god belief or a religion.
I know a lot of them,they are just illiterate and nothing more.
What is strange to me is when i look at the two examples and try to procces if my answer applies to the first example that you gave.I often ask myself that question and try to understand why would that be so.

This what i write is not an insult however , you should not understand it as such.

My critic on this forum was and will be the same as always,
"Not many here know about the study of the entire New Testament and yet have the courage to talk about it."

I speak as someone who understands how a Historian mind works.

When you look up to Historians and all the people that studied and talked about it , about everything concerning these events you will end up with a large number of people.I challange you to go backwards in time and see if that is true.

I am going straight to the point since i think that your answer will be based on consensus , so let's just get to the point and see how many of them are there and what do they all say.

I can provide the neccessary information , but do you have the time for it?
It will take me some time but i think i can menage it in 20 long posts.
And that is just basics.

I mean i say to you as to one who i think can think critically,not as one who should/should not belive/disbelief in God.

It is so frustrating to me to see you(3rd person) do these oftenly unjustified definitions that you demonstrate to be false by just misinterpretating our position as you do it here:

A theist is somebody who has some need met by those, and who would feel a void without it, which is a kind of discomfort.

You(3rd person) say it like it's some bad thing or something like that.You(3rd person) make it sound like that.
and reject everything just by simply not wanting to even start to look up and see what we are telling you , not just to argue about positions and definitions on both sides.
It is strange how for example we might find ourselfs in these positions.I for example don't have anything to argue with you in the world of science , maybe i could learn a thing or two more , just as i have learned from some other here that have also different views.I was illiterate in many things and learned from that by accepting that i was wrong.
But one thing that made me realize that is Evolution.It opened the doors to me to grasp science even better.
Why do you think that you can reject the facts surrounding the New Testaments?
These events are considered History, didn't you know that?
I told you , 2000 years of History , not just some consensus among some people in the last 50 years and we can talk - Tell me if it is unfair.
Finding truth in history is about understanding that this truth may or may not be absolute.
The perspective of the person who captured it and the person interpreting it. And the perspective of the translators and editors and primary sources.
And no matter how many times it was shown to known Atheist debators world wide , most of them did not understand it.

Hitchens is someone that i have a huge rspect for.He asked things like no other Atheists.He gave us ways to think differently.
But he did not know enough to be considered as a reliable source when speaking about the existence of God.
We still study these things about the NT , you know..
What is the latest discovery , do you know?

This is what we notice in these forums , how many times truth is being demonstrated and you refuse it in your world of definitions.
But nobody has the "b***s" to say it.

If you really want to just to know and listen to me, Theist is someone who has need of grace , and has known its power.At least the Christian one.
He does not support silly ID theories and he does not support stupid Flat Earth theories where we magically apeared around 10 000 years or 6000 i don't know which one they agree on right now but ok, i mean you understand the point , right?
They are saying that we live in a stimulation by which they think that numbers are the only way to defend their faulty design theories.
I don't support terms like design.
These are heretical terms.
In Orthodox theology design is ascociated as something that someone has and it is oposite of what God is ascociated with.
But there are not many among them to tell you what is the difference and where to look in Christianity.
I respect every brother and sister in faith , but when we speak about tradition and history amd we look that backwards , we see first Protestantism which is what came out centuries as a result of the Great Schism.I just think that 5 centuries is too much to notice some things that were wrong in the Roman Catholic Church.
I don't agree with neither of their doctrine and my world view is different because of that.
But if it matters , the one Church that never changed is the Orthodox and many find that line of tradition to be trustworthy.

We are not Theists at first , We are Christians and it doesn't matter what does that mean to others , it matters what does that mean to us.
Please do not think that this is of personal nature.I am just adressing certain world - view.

The purpose of all this that i wrote is that "You are being unfair to the given evidence".
You is Atheists ofc , not you personally.

I hope that you understand that you can't just throw away something that you don't know in the first place.

At the end of it is all about those who can read the original writings and tell you what they are.

Even when most of western scholars say synoptic Gospels they do not understand that means 'Good news that look the same' or 'with the same eye'

That's what the root of the original word is telling.

And that is why they are given this name , but they will try to prove that they don't look like the same and that they are not good at all.
They were not invented , they were discovered that they are synoptic.

That was asked following, "Even when you don't have all the answers, there is no value in invoking unseen agents before they are needed to account for some observation."

Please , just be a guest and try and do some observations and you will end up doing what we all trying to dyciphere , but we can't and we can't reject it because of facts that we discovered when we did some observations.
Historians do also observations , didn't you know that?

You're asking me what observation would cause us to believe that an unseen agent was behind it.

No , i am not interested in what you think of ID since i don't agree with that concept also.

I am interested to know why did you said this:
"What's a lazier answer than "God did it"?

 

[cladking]

Here we are again. Is there any real basis for concluding that you are onto something here by noting a minor similarity between a population bottleneck and artificial selection to the point we can ignore all the differences that are significant?

The best evidence is in the big picture and the big picture says the people had to have some theory to create agriculture just as bees have to have some theory to do the waggle dance and invent hives. Perhaps this big picture is what is seen by other species rather than seeing only what they believe and can be used to form the basis of experiment. Our reductionistic science always demands an experiment to underlie theory but the big picture science only requires the ability to make out the picture from the information known, how else can a male cardinal know to stabilize a stalk on which it's mate is feeding? By the same means termites created cities and humans created agriculture.

 

[cladking]

If they are too many to you , just quit.

We have only one language and one vocabulary and this vocabulary is massive with each word having multiple definitions. There is no choice but to use the one language we have.

 

[cladking]

This is a statistical based theory, which has a watered down standard, compare to a logical theory. If you could come up with one single experiment, to show a flaw in Einstein relativity; GR or SR, Physics would be shaken. Evolution and Statistical theory can fail often, and nothing is required, in terms of change, since it has the dice and cards buffer. The weatherman is not required to get an A, since dice card is happy with C. State of the art is not saying much, for a dice and cards theory. State of the Art should be reserved for rational theory.

A new medicine, approved by dice and cards theory, can be highly acclaimed and accepted in the market place. However, they still need to show all the sides effects on the label; margins of uncertainty. But that does not change its status as the new and improves leg cramp medicine. This is evolution in a nutshell. It is marketable, but with all the side effects, not shown on the label. If you bring them up, you are a Creationists. They theory appear to more of the state of the art of politics, like crying racism to end an argument and avoid truth?

I prefer a higher rational standard, before state of the art with side effects. State of the art should be rational and therefore predictive. Predictive, if rational, can be used to reverse engineer to predict the past, also. Wouldn't that be better? It would be nice to predict a species before the fossils are found. The standard is not even close to that.

When I was young the main science argument for Evolution, that set it apart, as good science, were ancient fossils were much older than the Bible time of Creation. That was the hard proof of Evolution; time scale proof.

But now it is more about trying convince others, to assume this new and improved dice and card theory is the best we can do. If you do not agree with this 's and cards theory, in full, you are a Creationists. Or you are a racist creationist. The entire thing has become too political and is no longer about pure science, which can see its own limitations, and can also admit how dice and card's science, is too lax of a standard, to be called top notch science. That would require scientific objectivity which is the doorway to reason.

It is incredible that in this day and age any theory can exist without experiment to support it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The best evidence is in the big picture and the big picture says the people had to have some theory to create agriculture just as bees have to have some theory to do the waggle dance and invent hives.

This is just what you believe and there is nothing to substantiate either. You have created your own picture and declared it is so for reasons you do not divulge and for none that are known.

Perhaps this big picture is what is seen by other species rather than seeing only what they believe and can be used to form the basis of experiment.

More unfounded speculation.

Our reductionistic science always demands an experiment to underlie theory but the big picture science only requires the ability to make out the picture from the information known, how else can a male cardinal know to stabilize a stalk on which it's mate is feeding?

I have no idea what you are rambling about. Science requires evidence from experiment or simple observation. Observations of the actions of birds, while your reference tells me nothing, would be among those observations. A single observation is not definitive and requires confirmation.

By the same means termites created cities and humans created agriculture.

Again, this is your belief, but I have no reason to join you in it lacking any evidence to support it as is persistently your problem. I do believe or consider you omniscient and bringing us all revealed truths that are facts without effort.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It is incredible that in this day and age any theory can exist without experiment to support it.

It is incredible this day and age that people can claim absolute knowledge of a subject and have no real idea at all about it.

The theory of evolution is based on the the evidence of observation and experimentation. You have been told and shown this over and over and over and over and over and...

 

[Dan From Smithville]

We have only one language and one vocabulary and this vocabulary is massive with each word having multiple definitions. There is no choice but to use the one language we have.

We are using a finite set of words with recognized definitions and usages in the context of these discussions and debates. You seem to be grasping at any lame excuse to justify your own ignorance and use of questionable tactics.

If you don't know what the words mean, then learn the definitions. Stop making them up and considering those made up definitions definitive and secret.

Yet another contradiction where you complain about the volume of words in the language and then turn around and add to that confusion. I think it is purposeful and you see it as a way to stay in a conversation in which you were lost before you joined it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It is incredible that in this day and age any theory can exist without experiment to support it.

Your refusal to see what you don't want to and probably don't understand anyway is a YOU problem. Not a science problem.

 

[cladking]

I have no idea what you are rambling about. Science requires evidence from experiment or simple observation. Observations of the actions of birds, while your reference tells me nothing, would be among those observations. A single observation is not definitive and requires confirmation.

I saw a female cardinal at the top of a Hosta stalk trying to get the seeds from it but it was very unstable and it's mate flew down and grasped with his talons that stalk and another next to it to stabilize it. Of course this would be interpreted by most people has a chance occurrence or instinct but more likely the bird was just clever.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I saw a female cardinal at the top of a Hosta stalk trying to get the seeds from it but it was very unstable and it's mate flew down and grasped with his talons that stalk and another next to it to stabilize it. Of course this would be interpreted by most people has a chance occurrence or instinct but more likely the bird was just clever.

It is a single observation made by a person that seems to see only the conclusions they want to and hasn't the background in bird behavior and ornithology and science to provide any context to objectively evaluate the observation.

That is an approach builds mountains out of mole hills, but seems to be your main paradigm.

I have no idea what you saw. Only that you claim to have seen something.

 

[cladking]

We are using a finite set of words with recognized definitions and usages in the context of these discussions and debates.

But you still can't find a single instance where I used a word and definition not found in the dictionary. ...not one single instance. Indeed, I tend to use the first listed definitions of words like "basis of science" for "metaphysics". Sometimes it's the parser not the parsee. Everyone on my lengthy ignore list got there by the refusal to accept ab definition even after i provided it multiple times and given them oppo opportunities to suggest another word.

I believe this is because believers in science don't accept there is such a thing as a basis of science. They think science works through magic, but it most assuredly does not it works through experiment

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I saw a female cardinal at the top of a Hosta stalk trying to get the seeds from it but it was very unstable and it's mate flew down and grasped with his talons that stalk and another next to it to stabilize it. Of course this would be interpreted by most people has a chance occurrence or instinct but more likely the bird was just clever.

With one observation, you can't rule out a chance result. You have apparently taken one event and determined far-reaching conclusions that a single observation wouldn't merit.

It sounds like the event offered some evidence to work with. It is a shame you didn't learn that lesson instead, since you never offer any here.

 

[cladking]

Your refusal to see what you don't want to and probably don't understand anyway is a YOU problem. Not a science problem.

It is an inability to see what I don't want to. We are homo circularis rationatio and we are all so affected. This is what experiment shows: we see what we expect.

 

[cladking]

It is a single observation made by a person that seems to see only the conclusions they want to and hasn't the background in bird behavior and ornithology and science to provide any context to objectively evaluate the observation.

ROFL

Yet science has no definition for consciousness and most scientists don't believe that birds have consciousness.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

But you still can't find a single instance where I used a word and definition not found in the dictionary. ...not one single instance. Indeed, I tend to use the first listed definitions of words like "basis of science" for "metaphysics". Sometimes it's the parser not the parsee. Everyone on my lengthy ignore list got there by the refusal to accept ab definition even after i provided it multiple times and given them oppo opportunities to suggest another word.

I have found many where you have used words with meanings that you seem to have invented for them without explaining. That is the problem that your smoke and mirrors will not hide.

I believe this is because believers in science don't accept there is such a thing as a basis of science.

Back to the believer in science bull****. I find it a useless and self serving opinion that answers nothing and helps with nothing. Crying about some faceless, nameless group of conspirators is as much as yelling at clouds.

They think science works through magic, but it most assuredly does not it works through experiment

I don't know who you are condemning here, but I find that you think it works by the magic of your own thinking without evidence or experiment.

 

[Dimi95]

We have only one language and one vocabulary and this vocabulary is massive with each word having multiple definitions. There is no choice but to use the one language we have.

Yes , we have human language and we use common language to communicate.
We are multilingual and not in every language words have the same meaning.
You should understand every language as you try to understand the common one or try to understand as many as it gets maybe.
I don't know why you say that there is no choice but one.I stopped reading when you wrote : "There is no choice but..."

Define that 'one language' that you are refering to , if you think otherwise.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

ROFL

Laugh all you want, but you haven't refuted me.

Yet science has no definition for consciousness and most scientists don't believe that birds have consciousness.

There are definitions of consciousness in science. You are probably not aware, because you haven't bothered to look once you came up with your own baseless conclusions that you seem to consider definitive in all matters.