Irony of the evolutionary belief

[John53]

Is personal incredulity a valid argument to reject a scientific theory?

Is doing that placing oneself as the criteria for the falsification of theory?

That seems like a rather arrogant position to elevate oneself to.

By that standard, anyone could reject pretty much anything.

Can you even have science with that standard?

It seems odd once you realise they usually have no knowledge of what they are rejecting.

But what I find stranger is someone rejecting the big bang because nobody saw it happen.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

And the greatest irony, one of Biblical proportions, is that the Bible and ancient writing was more accurate about the nature of change in species than 500 (700) @LIIA years of science.

A claim without evidence following your usual paradigm.

Ancient farmers invented agriculture through application of their Theory of Change in Species which was developed through 40,000 years of natural science based on the same logic that a rabbit uses to survive the tender mercies of every fox.

This to me is just fan fiction run amok. You renamed the theory of evolution much as Kent Hovind has tried by calling it adaptation. Congratulations! You have a peer.

We sit at the crown of creation as nature's only intelligent and conscious species

Of course, you have many times said that intelligence doesn't exist or you don't believe it does. In adherence to your paradigm, you sew contradictions often, while never admitting it. There is a great deal of evidence that we are not the only intelligent species. We have a great intelligence to be sure and it sets us apart from other intelligences, but we not alone.

but we can't even see our own consciousness nor understand the formatting of reality itself because we have nothing but reductionistic science and paradigms of claptrap to understand it.

This is just one of your core beliefs that you preach, but never sustain with any evidence or experiment. Most of it is irrelevant to the discussion or anything you claim in relation to science.

We have no means to understand consciousness but thought which is never logical,

That is not true. You are here claiming to be logical. How ironic. We have the means to search for answers. We do know if we will find all of them or not, but it won't be by inventing pseudoscience, declaring it is reality and then preaching that pseudoscience against reason and evidence.

always parseable, and necessarily dependent on what we already believe.

We are sleep walkers in the land of the living. And it has been exactly thus since the tower of babel.

You may be. I don't know that everyone is. You wouldn't convince me or others with your words. Of course, your get out of reasoning free card is to go on and on about parsing things to no useful end, but it isn't evidence to support you any more than the made up species names you use or the erroneous claims you make.

I know you love the tower of Babel, but your continual reference to it as some sort of evidence for some change in people is without merit lacking evidence for your claims as it does.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It seems odd once you realise they usually have no knowledge of what they are rejecting.

But what I find stranger is someone rejecting the big bang because nobody saw it happen.

I didn't see my parents birth, so I must have sprung from the sea like Botticelli's Venus.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

People can believe anything at all. One monster led an entire country to hold millions of its citizens as mere savages who needed to be gassed and baked. Darwin has led people to believe every individual of every species can be ranked from most to least fit and only the most fit breed new species as the weak and lesser individuals fall by the wayside. And how did he know which of these individuals were fit? Simple, he just looked to see which ones survived. Of course he never really got even this close at the reality of nature so sat in his study or on the Beagle and assumed the most fit mustta survived because species change as shown in the fossil record. It's ironic that it was never necessary to predict which would survive before the fact because after the fact it's logical to suppose those naturally selected were therefore most fit. It was all tied up in a neat little package to which objection was unscientific heresy or religious claptrap. There was no means to gauge, measure, or understand consciousness and the means by which every individual survives and this could be factored out anyway with the simple assumption some individuals were more fit to survive, more fit to be naturally selected.

A giant circular argument was begun that continues to this day.

Nature does not create unfit individuals. All individuals are equally fit and equally important to the survival of life. The lame, sick, and defective are accidents. They were not intended by nature. It is only natural that some events and processes would befall individuals which are not fatal. Most of these individuals could procreate and have perfectly normal offspring as fit as any other.

Life is cooperation. Life is maintained through consciousness which is the only thing bestowed by nature to assure survival. The body is the tool which consciousness uses and in species other than homo omnisciencis the "brain" uses natural logic to gain experience and with which compare its senses as it acts solely on knowledge and logic. We are different. Other species each know this. We think therefore we are. We act on what we believe and we can believe anything at all and justify it as we choose. We see what we believe and experience everything in terms of those beliefs.

We are different except in one single thing; we are each equally fit.

Your beliefs are utopian dreams for society, not the study of the natural world using our senses and science.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The ability of believers to distort reality and perception to fit their preconceptions is absolute when those beliefs are "science".

Distort? I quoted you word for word...

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I've gone over the basics with others and to an extent in school.

And yet, after all this time, you STILL make that mega-rookie-strawman mistake of "...but they are still bears"

So I can only conclude that even if you DID go over the basics, clearly you didn't understand or you weren't paying attention.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It's ok. It no longer makes sense to me in any form. As I said, I used to think (believe) that scientists knew the truth about what they were talking (proposing). I no longer go along with the theory as proposed and taught by scientists.

You wouldn't even be able to summarize what the theory is as understood by science if your life dependend on it.

Gimme a break.

 

[John53]

The ability of believers to distort reality and perception to fit their preconceptions is absolute when those beliefs are "science".

Says someone using a computer that is powered by electricity over the internet to instantly communicate with someone on the other side of the world with the help of satellites and phone cables. All created by science.

 

[Valjean]

yes, they are found in nature, but transgender isn’t natural occurrence, but a personal choice of each individual.

intersex is natural, as there are no choice when it does happens, as it is part of biology.

transgender is people being with sexual gender they were born with, but chooses to become the opposite sex for whatever motivate them. It is not really biological if you choose to surgically change his or her sex.

Yet the transgender "choice" often begins in toddlers, long before they're even aware that there's an orientation choice to be made.

 

[Valjean]

Didn't they still stay moths?

Evolution is usually a series of small steps. Perceptible change takes time, usually hundreds of generations or more.
There are plenty of examples of more obvious change being observed.

If you acknowledge that offspring aren't identical to their parents or siblings, then you acknowledge variation. What stops variation from continuing, generation after generation, until the accumulated small changes eventually produce a visibly different organism?

 

[Dimi95]

There are diseases that are passed to the offspring. How do you explain those. Give me your best circular, emotional rationalization free of facts and experimental evidence as is your usual means.

Genetic inheritance

INHERITANCE PATTERNS - Understanding Genetics - NCBI Bookshelf

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[metis]

Let's say that's true (the antithesis of the Gospel). I won't conclude in terms of what is said to happen, yet I was thinking recently of tribal warfare even today. And they were supposed to follow his commandments as a nation or group. People are taught, children are taught. And it was taught for the Jews to teach their children about God. Going further, there are genetic qualities that distinguish groups, and some are said to originate in Africa while others staked out genetic claims in places like the middle east and thinking of Genghis Khan, etc. That's where I shall leave that thought for the moment.

As you know, I am not a scriptural literalist or believe it's inerrant, thus what I read along those lines probably just reflects the traditions and values of the culture during that time.

 

[cladking]

Your argument is circular.

How many times have I said this? I believe "homo omnisciencis" is the most accurate term for our species that arose at the tower of babel. We each believe we know everything. But "all knowing" is not the only way our species can be named. There is also "homo circularis rationatio" which means "circularly reasoning man" and is how every single one of us became "all knowing". We each have distinct beliefs and use them to think.

"All knowing" and "circularly reasoning" are both defining characteristics of our species and every single individual within our species. I am a member of our species and I reason in circles. I also believe I am the first "human" to know the formatting of reality and consciousness in 4000 years. Homo omnisciencis! I am a member of a species that knows everything when it acquires the language which drives it in circles.

Every argument is circular and its conclusions are visible in its assumptions. The only thing that can derail a circular argument is experiment which is foundational to modern science.

I reasoned around to different beliefs than you have. I used science and empirical evidence to reason back to wholly different premises than anything you have. My fundamental beliefs are different than your fundamental beliefs. I believe I found truth not because of "intelligence" that doesn't exist but because I began with true premises. I never set out to study "natural law", "species", or "science" because these are abstractions. I set out to study what was tangible; reality, thought, and life itself.

And then I reasoned in circles.


Science is reductionistic and has no meaning whatsoever beyond its metaphysical meaning. There is no scientific meaning whatsoever outside of experiment and no experiment shows a gradual change caused by survival of the fittest. It is circular reasoning. Ancient people created the means by which home circularis rationatio could survive after the tower of babel; farming. They invented it using ancient science based not on experiment but had an entirely different metaphysic; logic. It was the exact same logic that is reality itself. Ancient people were NOT our species. We call them homo sapiens, which is a very apt term but it is not how they thought of themselves. They didn't think they knew anything and this is part of wisdom. The irony is so thick that it's one abstraction that might be palpable and cuttable with a knife. They knew far more about themselves and life than we do. They had a proper format to assemble the puzzle pieces where every part of the big picture we reduce to nothing at all.

Now this post will be reduced to nonsense just like the last ones. We want to see the world only in terms of our models where no mystery, no Gods, and no big picture can exist. We must believe we know everything or we can't even see.

 

[wellwisher]

Humans cannot have experimental evidence about anything that exceeds or precedes our spatiotemporal environment. The only thing that can be known about that is what any previous Intelligence reveal about the whole process and so on.

For example: we could never know what exists outside of what came into existence from the BigBang onwards. We cannot know who caused it, where the energy that caused the explosion came from, what kind of infinitesimally small particle exploded, who was manipulating the process to obtain the precise results that emerged later, how many intelligences existed at that moment, what relationship these intelligences may have with what emerged later, how life as we know it in our planet came to be, etc.

The results of the process are evident samples of design, although many cannot distinguish that. Those who do not admit design say that human intelligence (which is sometimes indistinguishable from what the concept of science defines) arose from an unguided, chaotic process, which eventually led to this magnificent result that is the rational thought supported on the modern human's brain.

In this context I repeat the initial question:
if they say that human consciousness eventually appear in an autonomous process without designer ... and considering TIME like the number line, with a past infinity and a posterior infinity with 0 in the middle, as we mentally conceive it:

What blocks the minds of some and makes it seem impossible to them that in THE INFINITE pre-bigbang (whatever it may have been), predecessors intelligences already existed?

PS: I read few interesting answers... most of these known guys I talk about are just spoilling the thread though... normal in them

Before you wrote your response, and posted for all to see, your ideas were developing inside your mind. Your mind at that time of contemplation, was a place where science cannot directly see, since they cannot read your mind. But this inner thought processing had to exist, or else you could not have written this down; mind to matter transition.

There is an inner world, within each person, which is also real, but it exists; is conscious, at the level of thought, feelings, sensations; awareness, etc. The philosophy of Science imposes a limitation on itself, that does not allow it to go there. It is real, but outside their box. They cannot read minds or prove intent so they avoid it.

The idea of coming into existence, in terms of your posted respond, began inside your mind. It emerged into reality through an interface; hand, eye and technology. All science can see and confirm is the hand, eye, technology part, while needing to deny that you first processed this output, internally; as information, since it cannot go there to see and verify what and how you did it.

The classic idea of the universe coming into existence is based on how the reflective human mind does it. We think of something, and at first nobody sees it, but us. It does not exist to anyone but you. Everyone else has to wait until your mind interfaces with reality; talk or write. To the outside world, this material and sensory output point is what they see as t=0. But you see that is t=0+. However, since science cannot prove or verify your claim; inner world, they assume that step was void=0. But since you lived it, you know their sensory t=0 is a collective illusion.

What we call t=0 for the universe is when a material interface appears that give off signals our senses can sense. We call it the Big Bang. This does not include, all the behind the scenes planning that goes into the project, before we break ground. The primordial atom of the singularity could have been there for a long time; brooding, before we can see what we call t=0. We start the clock when we can see it, not when creative consciousness begins to perceive and assemble it for output.

An interesting affect is conversation, where everyone is being spontaneous, such as with humor. There is not a lot of time to think, before we output, via our verbal and body language interface. However, the words and meaning come out properly, often in a funny way. In this case, we react to the output of others, and unconscious processes do the behind the scenes brooding, in record time, before we do the t=0 output for them. One can even amaze themself as though someone inside, besides you; ego, was doing the brooding; inner self and archetypes.

 

[cladking]

Before you wrote your response, and posted for all to see, your ideas were developing inside your mind. Your mind at that time of contemplation, was a place where science cannot directly see, since they cannot read your mind. But this inner thought processing had to exist, or else you could not have written this down; mind to matter transition.

There is an inner world, within each person, which is also real, but it exists; is conscious, at the level of thought, feelings, sensations; awareness, etc. The philosophy of Science imposes a limitation on itself, that does not allow it to go there. It is real, but outside their box. They cannot read minds or prove intent so they avoid it.

The idea of coming into existence, in terms of your posted respond, began inside your mind. It emerged into reality through an interface; hand, eye and technology. All science can see and confirm is the hand, eye, technology part, while needing to deny that you first processed this output, internally; as information, since it cannot go there to see and verify what and how you did it.

The classic idea of the universe coming into existence is based on how the reflective human mind does it. We think of something, and at first nobody sees it, but us. It does not exist to anyone but you. Everyone else has to wait until your mind interfaces with reality; talk or write. To the outside world, this material and sensory output point is what they see as t=0. But you see that is t=0+. However, since science cannot prove or verify your claim; inner world, they assume that step was void=0. But since you lived it, you know their sensory t=0 is a collective illusion.

What we call t=0 for the universe is when a material interface appears that give off signals our senses can sense. We call it the Big Bang. This does not include, all the behind the scenes planning that goes into the project, before we break ground. The primordial atom of the singularity could have been there for a long time; brooding, before we can see what we call t=0. We start the clock when we can see it, not when creative consciousness begins to perceive and assemble it for output.

An interesting affect is conversation, where everyone is being spontaneous, such as with humor. There is not a lot of time to think, before we output, via our verbal and body language interface. However, the words and meaning come out properly, often in a funny way. In this case, we react to the output of others, and unconscious processes do the behind the scenes brooding, in record time, before we do the t=0 output for them. One can even amaze themself as though someone inside, besides you; ego, was doing the brooding; inner self and archetypes.

Indeed!

We can't even see something until someone points it out to us. We are blind to everything until we build models to see it.

As you allude to here one of the problems isn't that we can invent and discover what had never been known before but we can also see what does not exist and then show it to others who see it as well. Darwin pointed at "Evolution" and it's been a belief ever since.

 

[Little Dragon]

From 2003 to the present, I am still learning. Not that I am expert, but I do read what interests me…but that included other physics and astronomy subjects. Particularly particle physics, relativity, quantum physics & the Big Bang theory.

The good stuff eh?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

yes, they are found in nature, but transgender isn’t natural occurrence, but a personal choice of each individual.

If you think it is a choice, then you are talking about something completely different than how transgenderism is understood.

A transgender individual is someone who feels a mismatch between their inner sexual identity and their body's sexual identity, someone with the genitalia of a man who feels their authentic identity is that of a woman. They do not sit down and "decide" they are a woman. It is not a choice.

Sex or gender basically has three dimensions to it.

The first is chromosomal, XX being female and XY being male. However, things can go wrong and you can end up with a chromosomal abnormality such as XXY.

The second dimension is genitalia. If all goes well, the baby comes out either having testes and penis, or ovaries, womb, and vagina. But here also, various things can cause birth defects -- some individuals intersex.

And finally, there is the wiring of the brain. Our brains are sexually dimorphous, meaning that there are some things about women's brains that are different than a mans. There are areas of the brain that are different sizes, depending on whether the person is male or female. Now here is the KICKER: in transgender individuals, the size of these areas is more similar to the sex they identify with than the sex of their gonads. IOW they aren't imagining it, and they aren't "making a decision." Their brains are physiologically those of the sex they identify with.

I hope this helps bring clarity to the conversation.

 

[gnostic]

The good stuff eh?

They were the stuff I have heard about, but never learned while I was at universities.

The sciences I were taught were only ones that were relevant to the courses I did (civil engineering and later computer science), so fields such as relativity, quantum physics, big bang, etc, weren’t taught. They are subjects that I learned for myself in my free time.

so, yes…good stuff.

 

[McBell]

How many times have I said this? I believe "homo omnisciencis" is the most accurate term for our species that arose at the tower of babel. We each believe we know everything. But "all knowing" is not the only way our species can be named. There is also "homo circularis rationatio" which means "circularly reasoning man" and is how every single one of us became "all knowing". We each have distinct beliefs and use them to think.

"All knowing" and "circularly reasoning" are both defining characteristics of our species and every single individual within our species. I am a member of our species and I reason in circles. I also believe I am the first "human" to know the formatting of reality and consciousness in 4000 years. Homo omnisciencis! I am a member of a species that knows everything when it acquires the language which drives it in circles.

Every argument is circular and its conclusions are visible in its assumptions. The only thing that can derail a circular argument is experiment which is foundational to modern science.

I reasoned around to different beliefs than you have. I used science and empirical evidence to reason back to wholly different premises than anything you have. My fundamental beliefs are different than your fundamental beliefs. I believe I found truth not because of "intelligence" that doesn't exist but because I began with true premises. I never set out to study "natural law", "species", or "science" because these are abstractions. I set out to study what was tangible; reality, thought, and life itself.

And then I reasoned in circles.


Science is reductionistic and has no meaning whatsoever beyond its metaphysical meaning. There is no scientific meaning whatsoever outside of experiment and no experiment shows a gradual change caused by survival of the fittest. It is circular reasoning. Ancient people created the means by which home circularis rationatio could survive after the tower of babel; farming. They invented it using ancient science based not on experiment but had an entirely different metaphysic; logic. It was the exact same logic that is reality itself. Ancient people were NOT our species. We call them homo sapiens, which is a very apt term but it is not how they thought of themselves. They didn't think they knew anything and this is part of wisdom. The irony is so thick that it's one abstraction that might be palpable and cuttable with a knife. They knew far more about themselves and life than we do. They had a proper format to assemble the puzzle pieces where every part of the big picture we reduce to nothing at all.

Now this post will be reduced to nonsense just like the last ones. We want to see the world only in terms of our models where no mystery, no Gods, and no big picture can exist. We must believe we know everything or we can't even see.

Yes.
You have definitely revealed your blatant homo phobosciencis for everyone to see.

It is not the fault of anyone but yourself the length of your nonsense...
Reducing your overly wordy fluff fill posts to their core is something some of us find more entertaining than, say, crossword puzzles.

 

[Little Dragon]

They were the stuff I have heard about, but never learned while I was at universities.

I too am fascinated with physics, especially with regard to fundamental field forces and descriptions of matter, the standard model and the ultimate quest for a unified field theory of physics, incorporating gravity, quantum mechanically.