The Believabliltiy of Evolution

[cladking]

I understand metaphysics, I just don’t accept your crazy notion that metaphysics before this imaginary Tower of Babel of yours or pre-2000 BCE Bronze Age, or older still in the Neolithic period.

That's not even a sentence and I have no idea what you tried to say.

I always give authors the benefit of the doubt and try to parse their sentences so they make perfect sense but this was not a sentence at all.

 

[cladking]

There are no scientific method or peer review for translations of ancient texts.

Where do you get this stuff? I know you aren't naive.

The ways they were able to decipher, read and translate Egyptian hieroglyphs, was through the Ptolemaic stelae composed in the 3rd and 2nd centuries BCE.

The language changed in 2000 BC remember? There was no Ancient Language on the Rosetta Stone. Egyptologists used the "book of the dead" to translate older texts and didn't know the language changed.

I get it, you are anti-Egyptology,

No. I'm a big fan of Egyptology. I am anti-Look and See Science wherever it is found. "Survival of the fittest" is one of the most popular "theories" in the world. Few care about stinky footed bumpkins so few care about Egyptology.

Scholars and translated brought the Egyptian hieroglyphs back to life,

Good one. Egyptologists believe these people were highly superstitious, wrote in incantation, and were obsessed with death. They believe all the glyphs refer to death. They believe that there is no sample bias despite taking everything from tombs. But this is all Look and See Science. They took what was virtually a still living and breathing language and stuck a knife in it. They murdered it. They sliced and diced it and served it up cold. They parsed all the meaning out of it and pronounced it incantation. They invoked their own beliefs and their own way of thinking.

If your date for the Babel is true, then Genesis would have been by Iron Age superstitious men, whom you called the “Homo Omnisciensis”.

I don't want to continue addressing off topic arguments about my theory here. I've got a great new proof that I'm right (and the ancients were right about the cause of evolution) and plan to bring back the "Ancient Reality" thread. Save it for that.

Differences between species can be very subtle in appearance and enormous in reality. The first fish that lived on land wasn't much different in appearance to its parents but its life and niche were grossly different. So it is with Homo Omnisciensis. Since we act on our beliefs and only on our beliefs this makes our beliefs fundamental to the nature of the species. We believe we understand one another and believe modern man is the pinnacle of creation. Therefore we believe in survival of the fittest and that it's appropriate that most of our species are forced to live in squalor and ignorance. This has profound effects on both individuals which is the only thing that is species and on the "species" collectively. Genes are excluded by isolation and short life spans. Genetic diversity is artificially suppressed because of out beliefs. Only modern humans have beliefs but these are a part of the structure and nature of the species itself.

Reality is never what it appears because we see only our models and beliefs and are blind to the anomalies that always will prove we are wrong.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No I believe virtually all the ancient books written by sun addled bumpkins were in actuality transcriptions of ancient sources that could not be translated.

There were no stinky footed bumpkins until modern times. Now we even have plastic shoes because people are stupid enough to buy them and manufactures don't care what they sell and whether their products are garbage or not. So we reward them by letting them steal everything. It's the circle of life and we are approaching the end of the circle because everything has an end and a beginning (not necessarily in that order).

You are all over the place.
The only place you aren't, is rationality.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

In your world there are no rabbits and no humans. There are only species and it doesn't matter in what order you count them. Just don't end a sentence in a preposition. You must not a sentence with a preposition end.

Why are you married to a single way to view what's in front of your eyes. When you figure this out you'll probably agree with me.

How you think any of this is a rational / relevant reply to the quote you are responding to, is a complete mystery to me.

When you quote something to reply to, actually reply to it.
So, do you have anything relevant to say concerning the point in the quote you are supposedly responding to, or is this random drivel the best you can come up with?

Of course it is

No, it isn't.

If a Peer says something stupid or unbelieved he'll be laughed at and go to the bottom of the pecking order. He might be excommunicated altogether. The more whom agree the higher he rises. The more et als he cites the brighter his star. These things are especially true in fields that the popular opinion is incapable of creating technology, experiment, or prediction. In fields where the sole effect is to "increase understanding" it is Peers who define "understanding" and reality. So this is true not only in Egyptology but in gradual change caused by "survival of the fittest" as well.

No. You might want to learn how the scientific enterprise actually works, because you don't seem to have a clue.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I specifically said ALL OLD HOLY BOOKS CAME FROM OLDER SOURCES.

None of which agree with eachother.

 

[tas8831]

Ah yes, the Ancient Language that was around, but never found. Your credentials place your expertise on an international level. But my own attendance in creative writing will give you a run for your money.

Weird how only one person knows about a language that is not actually known to have existed. Almost as if it is all in his head...

 

[tas8831]

It find it increasingly difficult to engage the Dunning Kruger graduates in lengthy debate. Trudging through the repetition, closed minds, ignorance, egotism, delusion and deceit that are a continual requirement in such exchanges is tiresome. Some I see no point to engaging, but I am trying to transition to just dealing with points they raise exclusive of the mire they raise them in.

Most of the arguments still seem to be some variation of gap argument. Since science does not offer absolutes any view can exist in the gap, therefore view x is correct. That or just keep repeating something regardless of questions or criticism. Ignore, ignore, ignore is considered honesty.

Yeah - the repetition is the worst - ho many times are we going to be told 'all change in biology is sudden' and NEVER get even a high-school level attempt at supporting the claim?
That and ignoring 2/3 of a post to focus on some minutiae...

 

[tas8831]

I am not TRYING to do anything at all except to reconcile all known facts and logic. It is a simple FACT that the Bible exists!!!!!!!

Hilarious...

What "known facts" are there to support the fantastical tales of the bible, such as Genesis?

Let me guess - you will write a list, and claim that THAT is evidence...

 

[cladking]

No. You might want to learn how the scientific enterprise actually works, because you don't seem to have a clue.

There is no such thing. There is only metaphysics and its manifestation. Peers have nothing at all to do with science they are a manifestation of politics.

How you think any of this is a rational / relevant reply to the quote you are responding to, is a complete mystery to me.

What is a mystery to me is how anyone can make the logical assertion that "humans exist therefore there was no first human". On the other hand you believe "God doesn't exists therefore He had no beginning". The logic astounds me. Is there no limit to what we can do with language and the semantics we can employ to foster and encourage what we choose to believe? This is really a rhetorical question since I know the exact answer.

None of which agree with eachother.

But the original sources literally agreed with each other literally.

The problem is translation.

 

[cladking]

Yeah - the repetition is the worst - ho many times are we going to be told 'all change in biology is sudden' and NEVER get even a high-school level attempt at supporting the claim?
That and ignoring 2/3 of a post to focus on some minutiae...

I ONLY ignore irrelevancies and what we've gone over many times before.

Meanwhile I've listed a couple dozens changes in life that are sudden and you've failed to list even one that is gradual. You contend "survival of the fittest is gradual but this one doesn't count since it is the source of the disagreement. You can't count it as gradual any more than I count it as gradual.

What "known facts" are there to support the fantastical tales of the bible, such as Genesis?

And I would if it were relevant to the thread.

Well there is one in Judges that is relevant.

5. So he brought the people down to the water. And the LORD said to Gideon, "You shall separate everyone who laps the water with his tongue as a dog laps, as well as everyone who kneels to drink."
6. Now the number of those who lapped, putting their hand to their mouth, was 300 men; but all the rest of the people kneeled to drink water.
7. The LORD said to Gideon, "I will deliver you with the 300 men who lapped and will give the Midianites into your hands; so let all the other people go, each man to his home."

"God" separated the people by behavior. Those which lapped water like a dog bleated like a goat and kicked like an a$$ because their noses got next to the water which had a layer of CO2 on it. Those who used their hands to drink survived because they weren't asphyxiated. This is the only way that species are likely to change; behavior. Thou shalt not be a murderer, fornicator, thief etc etc because these things are harmful to individuals and to the human race. It is irrelevant that these things were mistranslated by the authors and they took great pains to not change words because they knew that Ancient Language was dependent on exact words and formatting. This is why some of the ancient sources can be estimated.

I've been waiting for 40 pages for anyone to tell me about a change in life that is gradual. Got anything?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There is no such thing.

There's not such thing as the scientific enterprise????

Now, you've really outdone yourself in irrational statements.

Peers have nothing at all to do with science they are a manifestation of politics.

This is such a waste of time.

What is a mystery to me is how anyone can make the logical assertion that "humans exist therefore there was no first human".

That is not at all what I said.

Perhaps if you would understand the concept of gradualism, you wouldn't have so much problems understanding statements like "there was no 'first' human", and "there was no 'first' spanish speaker".

A 'first' human implies that a non-human gave birth to a human.
A 'firs' spanish speaker implies that a latin speaking mother raised a spanish speaking child.

That's just not how gradual change works.

On the other hand you believe "God doesn't exists therefore He had no beginning".

Huh?

I don't even know how to respond to this level of irrational strawmen.

But the original sources literally agreed with each other literally.

I "literally" need a citation for that.

The problem is translation.

No. The problem is your crackpot beliefs.

 

[cladking]

There's not such thing as the scientific enterprise????

There is no such thing in the context in which you used it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There is no such thing in the context in which you used it.

Peer review is an important part of the scientific process, regardless of your twisted crackpot beliefs.

 

[cladking]

Peer review is an important part of the scientific process, regardless of your twisted crackpot beliefs.

And there we have it.

Peers vote on reality!

It's no matter that no Egyptological Peer has access to the infrared data because They don't need data or facts or logic to establish a pecking order. They don't need to better understand reality to rise in the pecking order; They merely need to impress Everyone Else and avoid being shown to be wrong. It's chiefly politics and the appearance of being smarter and more correct. Outsiders are simply ignored because it's impossible to improve your position engaging outsiders. Most of these Groups are insular and inert.

 

[cladking]

Almost anyone at all can engage in Look and See Science. Without being enabled by Peers we wouldn't know soup of the day science from crackpottery.

I bet I could invent better "science" than some of the nonsense being rubber stamped by Peers.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Weird how only one person knows about a language that is not actually known to have existed. Almost as if it is all in his head...

Ple bob sequisited ba mer wassle. Ple fisteration meezle bob fantagoozle!

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yeah - the repetition is the worst - ho many times are we going to be told 'all change in biology is sudden' and NEVER get even a high-school level attempt at supporting the claim?
That and ignoring 2/3 of a post to focus on some minutiae...

And the "I've gone over this before" when that never happened. In many cases someone explaining the theory, evidence or details has had to repeat themselves, but rarely if ever had a creationist provided anything the first time.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Almost anyone at all can engage in Look and See Science. Without being enabled by Peers we wouldn't know soup of the day science from crackpottery.

I bet I could invent better "science" than some of the nonsense being rubber stamped by Peers.

LOL, go ahead and try. That has been the claim of pushers of woo woo for ages. They have nothing to their credit that I can think of.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

LOL, go ahead and try. That has been the claim of pushers of woo woo for ages. They have nothing to their credit that I can think of.

He made up a term to apply to science he either doesn't like or doesn't understand and then repeats the use of it as if it means something.

 

[gnostic]

Where do you get this stuff? I know you aren't naive.

I know that are utterly ignorant in both science and history.

You clearly don’t understand the concept or the mechanisms of peer reviews.

Translators are not subjected to peer reviewed. What translators are subjected to are the publishers and editors, who would proofread and edit their works, but they (publishers, editors) are not necessarily themselves experts in the ancient foreign languages.

Do you understand what I am saying here?

The publishers and editors are not the translator’s “Peer”.

To give you an example, if. I had translated the Book Of the Dead into English, and submitted before publication, the editor(s) would only check my works, for grammar errors, typos, what to be modified, what to be leave out, etc, only they would only work on my text in English.

The editor(s) isn’t examining the original source and reading the Egyptian hieroglyphs themselves. Meaning, they (eg the editors) are not my peers.

In science, the people who does the Peer Review as occupations, would not be examining for grammars or typos, but will be examining the supplied evidence, data and any records pertaining to this hypothesis.

To give you an example, if I was a biologist, who wrote a better explanation/model as to the mechanism of mutations, and submitted for review, the reviewers would have to similar backgrounds and experiences, such as another biologist, molecular biologists, biochemists, biology professors, etc. The people who would have related professions, hence “peers”.

You wouldn’t ask physicists, astronomers, civil engineers, lawyers, mayors, florists, waiters, car salespeople, electricians, Joe the Plumber, etc, none of these people would be appropriated to review a biology hypothesis.

My point is that with translations of ancient texts, the editors don’t require knowledge or abilities to read Sumerian cuneiforms, Egyptian hieroglyphs or Phoenician alphabets, or Zhou dynasty Han characters, etc. All the editor had to ensure is the English is readable and not the problem for English readers, before being printed.

Of course, a translator can always ask another translator to check his translation, but this is strictly voluntary.

There are no Peer Review with translations of ancient texts.