Irony of the evolutionary belief

[cladking]

Homo sapiens is an intelligent and observant species. And some observations can lead to experiments and knowledge without a complete understanding of the entire process or divorcing it fully from belief.

It's so ironic that none of the words you use here even existed in Ancient Language. Only the word "observation" existed but this word had a scientific meaning in a scientific language. "Observation" can't exist in believers and the superstitious because they are going to ascribe things to their "Gods" or to unknowable forces. You say "intelligent" but ancient people lacked this abstraction. Indeed they even said they couldn't see reality directly and could only get peeks at it. Their only usage of the word was to describe what happens to individuals as they learned.

There is no more logic or evidence to suggest any highly complex endeavor can be completed through trial and error than there us to believe landing on the moon was trial and error. Highly complex behavior in any species requires theory, not intelligence and not trial and error. The invention of hypothesis and experiment and even the correct understanding of observation are all events, they are never truly processes. We believe it is a process but the reality is every understanding results from an idea and all ideas are events.

All ideas spring from our models and beliefs so Darwin's ideas are a product of Darwin and his place and time and not of experiment.

We are neither intelligent nor observant. It is shown in one experiment after another that we see what we expect and not what exists.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It's so ironic that none of the words you use here even existed in Ancient Language.

I wouldn't expect to know what words make up an imaginary language.

Only the word "observation" existed but this word had a scientific meaning in a scientific language. "Observation" can't exist in believers and the superstitious because they are going to ascribe things to their "Gods" or to unknowable forces. You say "intelligent" but ancient people lacked this abstraction. Indeed they even said they couldn't see reality directly and could only get peeks at it. Their only usage of the word was to describe what happens to individuals as they learned.

I can pretend that you are wrong and don't know all the words make up this imaginary language. In my imagination, you just aren't very literate in it.

There is no more logic or evidence to suggest any highly complex endeavor can be completed through trial and error than there us to believe landing on the moon was trial and error. Highly complex behavior in any species requires theory, not intelligence and not trial and error. The invention of hypothesis and experiment and even the correct understanding of observation are all events, they are never truly processes. We believe it is a process but the reality is every understanding results from an idea and all ideas are events.

There is no logic or evidence that you have ever offered to convince anyone to embrace your theology.

All ideas spring from our models and beliefs so Darwin's ideas are a product of Darwin and his place and time and not of experiment.

You have no experiments and only believe in using the word as lip service without benefit of conducting them or citing any.

We are neither intelligent nor observant. It is shown in one experiment after another that we see what we expect and not what exists.

All the evidence indicates that we are intelligent and observant. You have shown no experiments. You have presented your belief system as fact without evidence. Preached your theology as a reality without benefit of demonstration.

You can believe what you want, but there is no way to have a rational discussion with you when the rest of us don't exist in the world you have created in your head.

Evidence and explanation supporting your claim of Ancient Language. None. None offered.

Evidence and explanation supporting your claim of Ancient Science. None. None offered.

Evidence and explanation supporting your claim of Darwin was wrong. None. None offered.

Evidence and explanation supporting your claim of recent speciation in Homo sapiens. None. None offered.

Evidence and explanation supporting your claim of sudden change in living things. None. None offered.

Evidence and explanation supporting your claim of speciation at or because of bottlenecks. None. None offered.

I could go on and on at your failure to support your position and it would fill this post and others.

There is no reason to maintain a discussion with someone that considers themselves to be the only intelligent, knowledgeable and correct person in the conversation for no reason they can assert, but maintains that position resolutely despite what others ask or demonstrate logically or in fact. You have shown us that you will leave this thread exactly as you entered it with nothing that anyone else posted even mattering to you.

I do see you having moments where it looks like you might have been reached, but that doesn't appear to last and you are back at your proselytizing of your theology.

There is no incentive to a dialogue with a person with such a closed view.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It's so ironic that none of the words you use here even existed in Ancient Language. Only the word "observation" existed but this word had a scientific meaning in a scientific language. "Observation" can't exist in believers and the superstitious because they are going to ascribe things to their "Gods" or to unknowable forces. You say "intelligent" but ancient people lacked this abstraction. Indeed they even said they couldn't see reality directly and could only get peeks at it. Their only usage of the word was to describe what happens to individuals as they learned.

There is no more logic or evidence to suggest any highly complex endeavor can be completed through trial and error than there us to believe landing on the moon was trial and error. Highly complex behavior in any species requires theory, not intelligence and not trial and error. The invention of hypothesis and experiment and even the correct understanding of observation are all events, they are never truly processes. We believe it is a process but the reality is every understanding results from an idea and all ideas are events.

All ideas spring from our models and beliefs so Darwin's ideas are a product of Darwin and his place and time and not of experiment.

We are neither intelligent nor observant. It is shown in one experiment after another that we see what we expect and not what exists.

That you believe what you want to believe is not evidence that such a paradigm applies or is held by all.

I see it as a means allowing you to get away with sloppy scholarship and injection of personal belief without evidence or experience and you think that happens unnoticed apparently. When it is clear that it doesn't, you just interject your built in excuse to ignore and continue with proselytizing your belief system as fact without evidence or experiment. I find it odd and contradictory that you would make evidence and experiment central to your theology, yet avoid them in practice at all apparent costs. But contradiction is also a common theme of what you post and apparently rampant in what you believe.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It's so ironic that none of the words you use here even existed in Ancient Language. Only the word "observation" existed but this word had a scientific meaning in a scientific language. "Observation" can't exist in believers and the superstitious because they are going to ascribe things to their "Gods" or to unknowable forces. You say "intelligent" but ancient people lacked this abstraction. Indeed they even said they couldn't see reality directly and could only get peeks at it. Their only usage of the word was to describe what happens to individuals as they learned.

There is no more logic or evidence to suggest any highly complex endeavor can be completed through trial and error than there us to believe landing on the moon was trial and error. Highly complex behavior in any species requires theory, not intelligence and not trial and error. The invention of hypothesis and experiment and even the correct understanding of observation are all events, they are never truly processes. We believe it is a process but the reality is every understanding results from an idea and all ideas are events.

All ideas spring from our models and beliefs so Darwin's ideas are a product of Darwin and his place and time and not of experiment.

We are neither intelligent nor observant. It is shown in one experiment after another that we see what we expect and not what exists.

The real irony here is your entire position based on what you believe that you have never been able to demonstrate put against the recognition of evidence and acceptance of logical and reasoned explanations of that evidence that you cannot find real fault with beyond the failed attempts to dismiss it without evidence, reliance on unsupported conspiracy, false association with unrelated conditions and reliance on others that know even less about science than you seem to.

Truly ironic.

 

[cladking]

There are literally thousands of experiments going back centuries which show this.

How Believing Can Be Seeing: Context Dictates What We Believe We See

Scientists have found the link between what we expect to see, and what our brain tells us we actually saw. The study reveals that the context surrounding what we see is all important -- sometimes overriding the evidence gathered by our eyes and even causing us to imagine things which aren't...

www.sciencedaily.com

These same experiments applied to Darwin and every single human at least since 2000 BC unless YOU can show evidence otherwise.

These are simple tautological facts.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

What evidence do you have that we invented [agriculture].

I haven't encountered any farms run by non-human animals, but I guess that doesn't have to mean that another species didn't invent it, teach it to man, and then return to foraging.

Even if your opinion is correct that our species invented it then remember other species did it long long before ours.

Some would see this comment as self-contradictory, unless you using the literal definition for man and a metaphorical one for other animals. If so, why would you do that - use different definitions of agriculture in the same sentence without specifying that and what you mean by them. Maybe you mean something like ants harvesting aphids or fungi.

What did early farmers know about Darwin?

About the same as they knew about Einstein, and for the same reason - very little. The probably knew a bit about the survival of the ficus.

No matter what color lipstick you put on a pig it still oinks the same and it still can't fly.

And they still can't farm, even if the lipstick is black.

My favorite witticism there is, "Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time, and it annoys the pig." That might come from Animal Farm.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

There are literally thousands of experiments going back centuries which show this.

How Believing Can Be Seeing: Context Dictates What We Believe We See

Scientists have found the link between what we expect to see, and what our brain tells us we actually saw. The study reveals that the context surrounding what we see is all important -- sometimes overriding the evidence gathered by our eyes and even causing us to imagine things which aren't...

www.sciencedaily.com

These same experiments applied to Darwin and every single human at least since 2000 BC unless YOU can show evidence otherwise.

These are simple tautological facts.

There is no experiment or evidence to get me or, I think, any reasonable person to accept your, so far, baseless version of reality.

I do not have any reason to take on your burden of proof that comes with a demand for your explanation. That you demand others do so is more evidence of the weakness of your position. I recognize that you do not see these things or appear to want to see them.

 

[John53]

I haven't encountered any farms run by non-human animals, but I guess that doesn't have to mean that another species didn't invent it, teach it to man, and then return to foraging.

Some species of ant farm fungus. Others tend to aphid, protecting them from predators and moving them around to find food. But I doubt if early human farmers got any tips from them.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Some species of ant farm fungus. Others tend to aphid, protecting them from predators and moving them around to find food. But I doubt if early human farmers got any tips from them.

Probably in Ancient Ant or Ancient Pidgin Aphid that no one understood, since they didn't believe in ants and aphids that talk so they missed the conversation entirely. I wonder what Ancient Fungi was like. I imagine it would grow on you.

 

[cladking]

I haven't encountered any farms run by non-human animals, but I guess that doesn't have to mean that another species didn't invent it, teach it to man, and then return to foraging.

Our species was handed agriculture like a gift. It is the only thing that sustained us after the tower of babel because without it all we had was superstition and belief. It wasn't given to us by other species nor was it invented by means of watching other species because it is too complex. You can't understand any complex process by simply Looking and Seeing which is why Look and See Science has no value whatsoever except to obscure and confuse. Homo Sapiens (our predecessor species) invented agriculture as a technology derived from their understanding of the theory of "Change in Species". This theory was a part of ancient science.

This same thing applied to every species that invented agriculture. Of course in nature these things vary over many parameters and have to be seen on a case by case basis. Termite "Theory of Change in Species" differs in degree and nature from "Beaver" "Theory of Change in Species". in other species all known instances are simpler in form than human agriculture in ancient times. This isn't "intelligence" but rather caused by the greater complexity of human language and a greater ability to extrapolate observed patterns in terms of metaphysics (language). Complex language has many advantages beyond the merely apparent.

Some would see this comment as self-contradictory, unless you using the literal definition for man and a metaphorical one for other animals. If so, why would you do that - use different definitions of agriculture in the same sentence without specifying that and what you mean by them. Maybe you mean something like ants harvesting aphids or fungi.

There is no difference between homo sapiens (our predecessors) and animals except language. We (homo omnisciencis) are the odd man out. We are different in every meaningful way. We see what we believe (remember?) and this is true whether it appears right here or not. It is always true and it has been true since the tower fell.

If we're so smart then why do you believe termites lived in air conditioned cities eating crops while humans lived in caves eating raw meat? There is no such thing as "intelligence". Human progress results from language that leads inexorably to experiment and Darwin performed no experiment.

 

[cladking]

There is no experiment or evidence to get me or, I think, any reasonable person to accept your, so far, baseless version of reality.

The evidence shows our reality is based on our beliefs.

Do you believe experiment?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

There are literally thousands of experiments going back centuries which show this.

Really. You just point to one. Why not the other thousands?

How Believing Can Be Seeing: Context Dictates What We Believe We See

Scientists have found the link between what we expect to see, and what our brain tells us we actually saw. The study reveals that the context surrounding what we see is all important -- sometimes overriding the evidence gathered by our eyes and even causing us to imagine things which aren't...

www.sciencedaily.com

These same experiments applied to Darwin and every single human at least since 2000 BC unless YOU can show evidence otherwise.

But the experiment wasn't applied to Darwin and the false association that this does occur is not evidence that it occurred with Darwin.

These are simple tautological facts.

No. They are not. You have demonstrated that you can find something on the internet, use that ham handedly in an attempt to show it supports your belief while failing to do that.

The real question here is whether you will learn something or not. I'm going with NOT.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Our species was handed agriculture like a gift. It is the only thing that sustained us after the tower of babel because without it all we had was superstition and belief. It wasn't given to us by other species nor was it invented by means of watching other species because it is too complex. You can't understand any complex process by simply Looking and Seeing which is why Look and See Science has no value whatsoever except to obscure and confuse. Homo Sapiens (our predecessor species) invented agriculture as a technology derived from their understanding of the theory of "Change in Species". This theory was a part of ancient science.

This same thing applied to every species that invented agriculture. Of course in nature these things vary over many parameters and have to be seen on a case by case basis. Termite "Theory of Change in Species" differs in degree and nature from "Beaver" "Theory of Change in Species". in other species all known instances are simpler in form than human agriculture in ancient times. This isn't "intelligence" but rather caused by the greater complexity of human language and a greater ability to extrapolate observed patterns in terms of metaphysics (language). Complex language has many advantages beyond the merely apparent.



There is no difference between homo sapiens (our predecessors) and animals except language. We (homo omnisciencis) are the odd man out. We are different in every meaningful way. We see what we believe (remember?) and this is true whether it appears right here or not. It is always true and it has been true since the tower fell.

If we're so smart then why do you believe termites lived in air conditioned cities eating crops while humans lived in caves eating raw meat? There is no such thing as "intelligence". Human progress results from language that leads inexorably to experiment and Darwin performed no experiment.

They're at the gate. The sky is clear and the track is fast. He's doubled down again. And...and...your horse died.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Our species was handed agriculture like a gift. It is the only thing that sustained us after the tower of babel because without it all we had was superstition and belief. It wasn't given to us by other species nor was it invented by means of watching other species because it is too complex. You can't understand any complex process by simply Looking and Seeing which is why Look and See Science has no value whatsoever except to obscure and confuse. Homo Sapiens (our predecessor species) invented agriculture as a technology derived from their understanding of the theory of "Change in Species". This theory was a part of ancient science.

This same thing applied to every species that invented agriculture. Of course in nature these things vary over many parameters and have to be seen on a case by case basis. Termite "Theory of Change in Species" differs in degree and nature from "Beaver" "Theory of Change in Species". in other species all known instances are simpler in form than human agriculture in ancient times. This isn't "intelligence" but rather caused by the greater complexity of human language and a greater ability to extrapolate observed patterns in terms of metaphysics (language). Complex language has many advantages beyond the merely apparent.



There is no difference between homo sapiens (our predecessors) and animals except language. We (homo omnisciencis) are the odd man out. We are different in every meaningful way. We see what we believe (remember?) and this is true whether it appears right here or not. It is always true and it has been true since the tower fell.

If we're so smart then why do you believe termites lived in air conditioned cities eating crops while humans lived in caves eating raw meat? There is no such thing as "intelligence". Human progress results from language that leads inexorably to experiment and Darwin performed no experiment.

It's a series of radical, unsupported beliefs. There is no evidence or any offered.

There is no reason to accept what you believe. I don't.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The evidence shows our reality is based on our beliefs.

The experiment shows that in some instances it can be. Not that in every instance or the particular instances you deny based on your radical, syncretic belief system.

Do you believe experiment?

I don't believe it like you seem to. You use it like a magic incantation or an appeal without any substance or hyperbole without benefit of showing the experiments that you believe always support your position. You can't even list the assumptions of Darwin.

 

[cladking]

But the experiment wasn't applied to Darwin and the false association that this does occur is not evidence that it occurred with Darwin.

No. It applies all the time in every corner of the universe. Reality is constant. Everything affects everything. All experiment shows bits of reality which all apply to everything all the time. It applies to you and me and it certainly applied to Darwin.

You want to look at one experiment and say "see, Darwin was right" but it never worked this way. Everything applies. And Darwin never performed experiment.

 

[cladking]

...experiments that you believe always support your position.

Anomaly applies to every theory. But every experiment applies to everything.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

If we're so smart then why do you believe termites lived in air conditioned cities eating crops while humans lived in caves eating raw meat?

Termites had a head start. I have air conditioning and eat crops now, too.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No. It applies all the time in every corner of the universe.

Uncorroborated supposition that you see as some sort of revealed truth apparently. This appears to be more of your grandiose hyperbole.

Reality is constant.

Don't know what you mean by that and your record shows you will never provide reasonable explanation.

Everything affects everything.

A claim without meaning here, given you are trying to associate the findings of a single experiment to everything and failing as you have traditionally failed.

All experiment shows bits of reality which all apply to everything all the time.

Again, a claim with little meaning or explanation that tells me nothing useful.

It applies to you and me and it certainly applied to Darwin.

There is no evidence that Darwin followed the creationist view that observation had to be fit into a pre-existing box of his own imagination.

I have plenty of evidence of that happening, but it is not from Darwin.

You want to look at one experiment and say "see, Darwin was right" but it never worked this way.

I didn't. I looked at your attempt to use one experiment to show that Darwin did a host of things not indicated in the experiment. I look at is someone that has an agenda against science and uses any means in an attempt to carry out that agenda regardless of how ridiculous those means are.

Everything applies. And Darwin never performed experiment.

Darwin conducted science and used the information of his observations to draw rational conclusions. The theory is based on evidence and reasoning and you have never, AND I MEAN NEVER, shown otherwise.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Anomaly applies to every theory. But every experiment applies to everything.

Meaningless, since they would apply to everything you have been told too. This supports my conclusion that you have a radical, syncretic belief system and not a sound view based on evidence.

Funny how your belief system seems to retain the bias of every experiment, yet no one else has that same grace.