I'm good with that.
-
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!
Irony of the evolutionary belief
- Thread starter Eli G
- Start date
Some people that are lonely, they get a dog. Apparently, others try to walk back 500 years of intellectual achievement.
@Revoltingest does have a much higher fitness in the context of this forum.
I was going to make a sandwich but came up with a brilliant idea for the hobby morgue on the way to the kitchen! You should market it towards the younger generation and call it something like Juniors First Morgue.
cladking
Well-Known Member
No. We are homo omniscience. We are homo circularis rationatio. Most human assumptions are wrong. We are product of our place and time and every place and time since the tower of babel has had bad assumptions; very bad assumptions. Assumptions are virtually bad by definition. We have the double slit experiment to highlight how bad all of our assumptions are. We have the failed unified field theory to show how bad science's axioms and definitions must really be. Peoples' models and beliefs are all wrong. This is why I keep saying even math is "wrong" because only two numbers really exist "0" and "1". There's nothing in between and nothing on either side in reality. It's impossible to pick an apple or have one fall on your head. You can only pick "the" apple and if you want applesauce you'll need to pick the first the second and the third because "3" certainly doesn't exist either.
This isn't about "philosophy" or what you believe is "science". It is about a different way of defining terms. It is virtually unprecedented in some ways but is similar to ancient science. Like ALL of reality it is a different perspective on exactly the same thing. From this perspective some things are much harder to see but that all life is individual and all individuals are conscious and equally fit is quite apparent. There is no logic or experiment that contradicts these conclusions. No experiment exists that shows two like things exist. Logically there probably aren't two things alike. There is no experiment that shows that two apples plus two apples equals four apples until you first reduce the terms and the meaning to coincide with our assumptions. This is what Darwin did; he reduced the terms to coincide with the assumptions prevalent in 19th century England. He simply discounted things like individuality and consciousness because his science was wholly incapable of defining them. All of his many assumptions poured into his head on his father's knee were false or true only from a given perspective and then reduced reality to these assumptions. It's what our species does. We stand on the shoulders of giants and make giant leaps of speculation. It is what Darwin did and he was wrong. Bad Darwin.
We've been paying an enormous cost ever since. The weak and unfit have been paying with their lives and the world is becoming less and less stable and increasingly insane.
I missed this.
I know you believe it, but you actually don't have logic or evidence on your side. You don't even bother to offer evidence. Even when multiple different people at multiple different times have requested it.
No. I disagree. Your posts don't make sense to me and I've seen that they don't make sense to others either. You blame us for that, but we didn't write your posts.
Giving smartass answers doesn't show you take this serious or consider what others say with any respect. It is a behavior unfit for Christians in my opinion, but very consistent with what I've seen from creationists.
No. That is your erroneous conclusion and reflects a very poor understanding of the subject matter. I would guess that outside of these threads, you haven't read any technical material on these subjects.
If being faster, smarter, and stronger are traits favored by the environment, they should have greater fitness than those less fast, smart and strong. But those less fast, smart and strong may still breed successfully. The faster, smarter and stronger are not compelled by Darwin or the theory of evolution to seek to destroy them as you keep trying to allude.
I'll stipulate it. But stating the obvious is obtuse and irrelevant in the context of this subject.
Yeah. No that would be fitness. The conditions (environment) favor some phenotypes over others.
You can call it a straight line is the shortest distance between two points or the shortest distance between two point is a straight line, but you are describing fitness and denying it at the same time. Good grief!
I don't really care anymore. If you want to repeat some rambling agenda constantly, that is your business, but I'm done with you.
I'm dismissing you from my view.
Last edited:
What kind of sandwich are we talking about here? Any mayo?
How about horseradish? I loves some horseradish on slices of roast beef with cheddar cheese.
What do you know about trephining? It's got at home kit written all over it.
It was just some toast. I'd already had a heap of stir fried vegetables because I need to clear the back log in the fridge unfortunately no matter how many I eat they don't fill me up.
Looking through the literature, there appears to be a lot of work carried out in the study of fitness in birds. It fits with what I recall from undergrad.
Here are a couple I ran across that look interesting. I just scanned them, but the second one interest me regarding the impact of humans on our environment.
https://www.researchgate.net/profil...e-phenotypic-and-fitness-effects-in-birds.pdf
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0039200&type=printable
I had to Google it but now I remember reading about it in a Wilbur Smith book, I think it was called the river God. An Egyptian slave performed it on a guard to release pressure on his brain after a head knock.
It was something my father taught me about when I was a kid. He was fascinated by the practice. I know he spent time in the South Pacific where he may have encountered it. But I think most of what I know of the subject what we discussed is from the practice in ancient peoples of South America.
In some cases, I think they did just that. Relieve pressure on the brain and in effect treat the person while attributing success to the release of demons in the head.
I've used the line about an at home kit a few times in reference to some wild claims people have made in other places outside of this forum.
Have you done anymore review on the insect eye and ocelli?
As someone with bad eyesight, I can appreciate the fitness advantage of eyes and that we may actually be selecting for poorer vision in our population due to our ability to circumvent the negative conditions artificially with the technology of optics and glasses.
It was my obsession last night. Karen wanted me to watch some dumb movie with her but I was reading as much as I could find about their eyes.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Those who love science, achieve something. One does not achieve anything by reading the scriptures.
No mistake
Obviously you don't understand the mechanics involved. It's not that complicated. I'd always assumed this was common knowledge to any high school student.
So... You're either not very bright -- which I seriously doubt, or are struggling to fit a square peg in a round hole; handicapped by a religious confirmation bias. You're not critically analyzing the facts.
It's been in my library for decades.