Irony of the evolutionary belief

[Little Dragon]

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

An interesting species, notable for it's contempt for any natural phenomena that cannot be fully explained in one sentence.

 

[Little Dragon]

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

That is rather peculiar. However they have the glimmering of a point in the sense we cannot look back before the big bang. That is when our physical laws break down, and we're dealing with metaphysics, not science.

 

[SkepticThinker]

LOL, that made me laugh. OK, maybe a butterfly did not "evolve" to become a lion -- after all -- a butterfly has wings and a lion does not unless it's in a comic strip, but -- where is the EVIDENCE? OK, can't call it proof that a butterfly did or did not become a lion and, of course, the common excuse (answer) is that it takes a lot of time to have sponges evolve to something else. I do not go along with all that supposition.

The poster's comment was apt, as you've just confirmed with this post.

"The comments you make show a profound lack of education in TOE."

 

[SkepticThinker]

lol, really...you mean education to agree with you about evolution? no need for me to go any further with this

No. To UNDERSTAND evolution.
You clearly do not understand evolution. It is evident in your posts.

 

[Little Dragon]

You clearly do not understand evolution. It is evident in your posts.

The major issue I find with certain people, is the notion that evolution via natural selection has some goal or objective. So they think all organisms are striving to become, well, humans, or like humans.
This is very wrong! That is not what the theory is communicating.

Yet they persist in this fundamental misconception.

 

[cladking]

The major issue I find with certain people, is the notion that evolution via natural selection has some goal or objective. So they think all organisms are striving to become, well, humans, or like humans.
This is very wrong! That is not what the theory is communicating.

Yet they persist in this fundamental misconception.

No. The believers in a "goal" are darwinists who believe every species is striving to become faster, stronger, and smarter.

All any species or individuals "strives" to do is survive and reproduce. There is no such thing as "species" so "strives" is in quotations.

 

[Little Dragon]

The believers in a "goal" are darwinists who believe every species is striving to become faster, stronger, and smarter.

That is not true. That is a claim. A misrepresentation. A straw man argument.

 

[Little Dragon]

There is no such thing as "species"

Yes there is, it's an abstract taxonomic definition. Invented by scientists, to categorize closely related individuals into a single group. Humans are closely related to each other. This group is defined as a species, exclusive to all other life forms. They can all reproduce with each other and produce viable offspring. Therefore collectively, they are a single species.

 

[cladking]

That is not true. That is a claim. A misrepresentation. A straw man argument.

So you're telling me faster rabbits don't have faster offspring? Stronger bulls don't breed stronger offspring and smarter dogs don't have smarter pups.

What would be the point of natural selection if the species just reverted to its starting point?

These are your beliefs and they are not supported by observation or experiment. People don't see anomalies, they see what they expect.

 

[cladking]

Reducing your overly wordy fluff fill posts to their core is something some of us find more entertaining than, say, crossword puzzles.

I laid out the basis and meaning of two different sciences and touched on the formatting of both reality and life itself. I showed religion is more accurate than science and you dismissed it all with one word "fluff" without ever addressing a single word in the post.

This is par for the course. No homo omniscience wants truth or understanding, we all want confirmation for our beliefs.

 

[McBell]

I laid out the basis and meaning of two different sciences and touched on the formatting of both reality and life itself. I showed religion is more accurate than science

Except you have not done any such thing.
At least not in any forum I have seen you post in....

and you dismissed it all with one word "fluff" without ever addressing a single word in the post.

I agree.
the word "fluff" is giving it far more credit than it deserves.

This is par for the course. No homo omniscience wants truth or understanding, we all want confirmation for our beliefs.

Ah, the martyrs lie.
You certainly do excel at that.

 

[cladking]

Ah, the martyrs lie.

You're not even trying. I'm aware I reason in circles, don't know everything, and want confirmation for my beliefs.

Like every member of the species you think you are the exception.

 

[McBell]

Like every member of the species you think you are the exception.

That I call you out on your bullshi...bovine feces, does not mean anything other than I call you out on your bullshi...bovine feces.

However, it it helps you to sleep at night making assumptions about me, by all means, assume away.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

How many times have I said this?

Who knows. Who cares. That you have made this erroneous claim even once shows how detached you are from reason and evidence.

I believe "homo omnisciencis" is the most accurate term for our species that arose at the tower of babel.

A made up name to describe Homo sapiens based on a unverified event of the Bible. It isn't a recognized taxon. It is just a fetish to call modern humans a name other than Homo sapiens. I assume you use it to make yourself seem like you know something of have done something sciency.

It is just more pseudoscience.

We each believe we know everything.

You seem to. Not everyone does. Certainly those that do don't go to such lengths to craft a pseudoscience.

But "all knowing" is not the only way our species can be named.

It isn't even a way we are named. It is something you do that has no recognized validity or useful application.

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.

Another made up name that is, again, unrecognized by anyone that studies humans. There is no evidence we are all knowing. You don't consider that anyone that challenges your pseudoscience knows anything.

"All knowing" and "circularly reasoning" are both defining characteristics of our species and every single individual within our species.

No they are not. There is no evidence. Just your empty claim for words you use as if they mean something. It's nonsense. Why you bother to do this and cling to it so tightly is unknown.

I am a member of our species and I reason in circles.

I agree that you do reason in circles. That does not mean everyone does. That does not mean challenges to your empty, pseudoscience claims are meaningless. Quite meaningful given you can't answer them and go into your built defense mechanism mode.

I also believe I am the first "human" to know the formatting of reality and consciousness in 4000 years.

I have seen that you believe a lot of things that either make no sense or have no evidence. In this case, both it would seem.

Homo omnisciencis! I am a member of a species that knows everything when it acquires the language which drives it in circles.

More psuedoscience claims that mean nothing.

Every argument is circular and its conclusions are visible in its assumptions.

No they are not. Yours, sure, but not the arguments of everyone.

The only thing that can derail a circular argument is experiment which is foundational to modern science.

The very thing that derails your arguments and the thing that you don't have to support your claims.

I reasoned around to different beliefs than you have.

I don't know how you came to believe what you do, but there is no evidence to declare it is based on reasoning.

I used science and empirical evidence to reason back to wholly different premises than anything you have.

You don't use science. You take bits and pieces and string them together in some incomprehensible way so that they say nothing.

My fundamental beliefs are different than your fundamental beliefs.

I believe that. Your beliefs about reality involve a lot of things that have no evidence or experimental support.

I believe I found truth not because of "intelligence" that doesn't exist but because I began with true premises.

Now it doesn't exist again. Make up your mind. One of your many internal inconsistencies that you are famous to me for. You contradict yourself from one post to the next. Often from one sentence to the next.

I never set out to study "natural law", "species", or "science" because these are abstractions.

I believe you never did.

I set out to study what was tangible; reality, thought, and life itself.

And got totally lost believing your own ideas without bothering to learn science or vetting those ideas.

And then I reasoned in circles.

As I see it, you just reason 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.

This is all just word salad that you always return to as some sort of fan fiction, rationalization justify all your claims that have neither evidence or the support of experiment. It is nonsense cut from whole cloth and strung together with wishful thinking. It is a baseless conclusion about what you want things to be and not how they are.

Now this post will be reduced to nonsense just like the last ones.

You reduce all your posts to that state. It isn't my fault or the fault of anyone but you.

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.

Not agreeing with YOUR "big picture" doesn't make anyone a "believer" in science, doesn't make them wrong and doesn't make you right. You can't meet the burden of proof for anything you claim. By now, I reckon that is widely known across many places on the internet.

 

[John53]

You seem to. Not everyone does. Certainly those that do don't go to such lengths to craft a pseudoscience.

Thank goodness for that. I was beginning to think I was the only one who doesn't think they know everything.

 

[shunyadragon]

If, according to evolutionists, human intelligence eventually emerged in an environment that was previously lifeless for millions and millions of years... what is so strange that a Superior Intelligence has already existed for another INFINITE number of years BEFORE that period of time?

Not strange at all. This is what Theistic Evolutionists like myself believe.

Though I consider the 'Source' some call God(s) to be eternal, and God's Creation is eternal as attributes of God in many forms. Nature as we see it reflects the attributes of God.

Though God and Creation in the ancient tribal views, and the reality of God and Creation is beyond any particular belief in the history of humanity.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Indeed!

We can't even see something until someone points it out to us.

More of the internal and external inconsistencies that seem to make up the bulk of your posts. If we cannot see something, then who is it that sees it and points it out to those that cannot see? Your claim makes little if any sense.

We are blind to everything until we build models to see it.

Speak for yourself. Not everyone is blind to the world around them and has to resort to empty claims about people of ancient times based on what you imagine and not on any evidence.

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.

I think you invent what never happened and then spend all your time talking about it as if it did. That would be how pseudoscience is concocted.

Darwin pointed at "Evolution" and it's been a belief ever since.

Darwin looked at the evidence and formulated a theory that explains the evidence using sound assumptions. I know you decry those assumptions, yet you nave never been able to accurately state them. The one time you attempted to, you got it completely wrong. Darwin did not assume stable populations. He explains his assumption of unstable populations in the first to chapters of Origins. It doesn't even make sense to come up with an explanation for change if you assume no change.

I have seen that you believe a lot of things. Often they make no sense and not only like evidence and experiment for support, they defy evidence and experiment.

No one has to twist your words. What everyone addresses are YOUR words. What you spend all your time talking about on here without one millisecond spent providing any observation or experimental evidence. Even using your own definition, what you do isn't science. It isn't a consistent philosophical view either. At least philosophers are trying to explain and support their conclusions. You don't give anyone the courtesy of something substantial to review and examine.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No. The believers in a "goal" are darwinists

No one that accepts the theory of evolution "believes" in a goal.

who believe every species is striving to become faster, stronger, and smarter.

This is one of your fundamental misconceptions that you refuse to evaluate and learn from. You just keep repeating this erroneous claim as if it were a fact. It isn't.

All any species or individuals "strives" to do is survive and reproduce. There is no such thing as "species" so "strives" is in quotations.

This may be as close to correct as you have ever been, but I suppose randomly shooting in every direction, you are bound to hit a target on accident. Or at least come close.

 

[shunyadragon]

You're not even trying. I'm aware I reason in circles, don't know everything, and want confirmation for my beliefs.

Like every member of the species you think you are the exception.

Your circular reasoning is one reason that makes communication with you difficult at best.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I laid out the basis and meaning of two different sciences and touched on the formatting of both reality and life itself. I showed religion is more accurate than science and you dismissed it all with one word "fluff" without ever addressing a single word in the post.

All the evidence of these threads show is that you have made claim after claim without demonstrating anything.

This is par for the course. No homo omniscience wants truth or understanding, we all want confirmation for our beliefs.

Who knows what your made up species of human wants. Maybe they want curly fries. It doesn't sound like you are seeking confirmation. Clearly you believe without it.