Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 5:48 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 5:18 pm
But why would or should any human being born on this Earth require proving that we ARE not co-evolved with all other living things here?
That's obvious. It's because there's a plausible alternative. Whenever that's the case, we need evidence on both sides in order to decide the case.
Can you tell me what this 'plausible alternative' is that you also keep denying as religious, please?
...it doesn't matter if the prior world before Darwin had believed in irrational religious beliefs
Actually, it does...unless you're prepared to think that all those people were simply fools. You would need to prove, not merely assert, that their beliefs were irrational before you were warranted in calling the entire previous world crazy.
So, with this reasoning, do you think that children are such 'fools' as to not know by default where they came from that they need to be taught anything about God? I mean, if you just left them without telling them about any religion, they SHOULD KNOW the reality of religous truths without needing to be brainwashed while their little brains are forming. In fact, religion teaches children to DENY their natural atheism. So are you in effect insulting them by treating them as ...um....naive children?
Society has used PARTICULAR 'fundamentalist' dictations regarding things they cannot prove nor disprove but will promise that one doubing shall be threatened to death (or at least for today, eternal suffering) should they DARE to doubt their parental authorities' fairytale as 'real'.
No one can expend the infinite energy needed to dispell each and every possible fairytale proposed before being permitted to deal with the reality before our eyes. You know that your religion is NOT the only one either, right? And given how you resist change by being so religious now, how can those of even your enemy religions not resist change (like the Taliban and ISIS in Afghanistan) with the same ineffectiveness? In other words, there is NO means to 'disprove' a fairytale. But there are an infinite continity MORE of falsehoods that anyone can simply make a new religious assertion up in a heartbeat. And so NO, you are extremely ignorant about this fact not to mention you have the burden to disprove all other religions before proposing your own 'alternative' story of our origins.
The intelligence favors the FACT that I can see myself in the mirror by default and
not some ghost sitting beside me. If Nature (like your God) is at this moment telling me that he gave children the default LACK of knowledge, then this Nature (or for you, God) should not be required to default to knowing Nature (or God) prior to them determining it through their SENSES that this Nature (or God) gave them.
You are spitting in the face of your God for arrogantly attempting to deny what your God gave you. Perhaps the real test is to see if we can learn by using what he gave us SENSIBLY prior to having 'faith' in it? If you take a calculator and try to get it to function for you, would you prefer one that operated as you designed or do you think one that spits out accolades about how obviously loving and kind the user was rather than actually adding the fucking numbers one is trying to add into it? Which would be the better calculator to keep?
Why SHOULD God favor you for NOT using the functions he gave you to reason with? I think he'd toss you out in the same way one would toss out a bad calculator that sparks out fireworks and begs for constant repairs!
Now THAT is Darwinian evolution!
You, therefore, are arguing ONLY from a religious perspective.
Not at all. I'm arguing from the facts that science now admits are true. The "Ascent of Man" scheme was a fraud. You don't need to be religious at all to know that's true. One only has to be an honest scientist or historian.
Repeating the lie is just attempting to gaslight others into making them think you MUST be seeing something real because how could someone maintain such apparent certainty in light of all contrary evidence?
You think I insulted you as some
fool yet treat me this way? Fuck you! You are like God's fallen angel if you think that deception is fine when it is all for the Great A.I. Programmer in the Sky! [As though God can't take care of himself!?] Do you think you are acting on His side? ...or are the tactics of Deception you are practicing here what your 'god' is whispering to you as one of his
commandments?
I think if you were to succeed in making me religious, I'd only recognize you as the 'God of Deception', not the 'God of Wisdom'.
The Curse of
EVEryone is that to KNOW of God and the wisdom to be lile Him means to recognize that that Eden is merely an illusion. And once you learn that, you cannot unlearn it. It means that you are now responsible as a 'mature' adult that childish fairytales have to be left behind. It means that Death itself is the ideal end, not eternal selfish privilege given to you by some Caretaker because you cannot live by the free choice to think yourself. The choice taken by the Adam and Eve represents the FACT that you DID choose to be mature.
And yet you remain as a spoiled brat demanding that you and all others shall worship your wish to remain in Eden or you'll throw a tantrum by making EVEryone else suffer your wrath for NOT believing in your delusion!
Wake up!
I pointed what denying Darwinian Evolutionary theory IMPLIES logically.
But you were incorrect. No "logic" compels a non-Darwinian to "imply" anything of the kind. So I was correcting the misimpression.
You imply your childish games of pretend are more valid than the reality of the senses. Thus you arrogantly act as though you DESERVE and EARNED your wisdom to know who has the 'correct' beliefs about whether I am supposed to lay down and die because you shot me with your pretend gun when playing good-guy/bad-guy. I'm not playing your pretend game of cops and robbers because as a mature being who DID opt to learn of the secrets of the Gods I know have the power to CHOOSE to act mature and accept reality for what it is.
The belief that you have of interpreting some literal beings such as Adam and Eve don't CURSE you, they Curse all the rest of us, EVEreyone else who now has to placate the child still OBEDIANT to the belief that he has
no choice but to stay in the garden while expecting everyone else to feed his fantasy.
When is it time for you to start questioning why God placed a tree in the Garden and warned you not to eat it as though He were powerless to simply have not planted it in the first place? Why do you think it is called, The Tree of Wisdom? Are you afraid that someone might see your tiny penis and feel ashamed?
Prior to genetic engineering, we did not actually have power to alter directly the way other animals evolve. Dogs, like our modern variety of pets for instance, came originally from the wild wolf.
Two problems here: one, and a big one, is that you are now arguing in favour of eugenics, which is Hitler's favourite understanding of Darwin.
NO, I am asserting that eugenics IS scientifically valid, not that it
should be used. We actually still practice it. The original practice was politically motivated by Hitler to IMPROVE the species based upon an ignorant rendering of Darwin's meaning of "fit", that the Social Darwinians thought valid. We know that variety is necessary because contrary to their false interpretation, if you weed out with force all that one believes is inferior, it leads to the likelihood of eventual death of the species because those who SEEM to be inferior are simply 'fit' in distinct environments.
For instance, when the dinosaurs dies out due to the cataclysmic asteroid/comet, they could not breathe the smoke filled air nor handle the cold because their lungs were 'fit' for a hot climate and lots more oxygen than after the event. Then, the small mammals, who had a two-cycle heart (versus the dinosaur's cold single pump) and separate cycle with lungs that can handle smoke and the cold, 'fit' in that NEW environment. We as mammals were relatively the 'inferior' beings unfit in the Dinosaur's prior world. And since the variation existed, those of us that could handle the new environental change were THERE to become the new 'superior' set of species. Thus, what may seem like a genetic defect is only a RELATIVE mis-'fit' in the given environment. If we cleansed out all things that seem 'inferior', this risks our very existence. Covid-19 is just such an example of the environmental change. We happen to have the actual power to forcefully adapt without dying off by the use of vaccines, which act as a novel 'environmental factor' for us as well.
Secondly, interbreeding does not show any evolution. That we can breed spaniels and daschunds and get a wiener-spaniel only shows that there is variety WITHIN a "species." It does not show evolution. Showing evolution would require you to demonstrate a dog turning into a squirrel, or a cat into a fish.
Such a thing is still not demonstrable. You've been too easily impressed.
You are 'demonstrating' that you are igorant here.
Evolution all domestic dogs came from ONE class of species: the wolf, ...the same kinds that still exist in the wild. We successfully bred them to ALL the varieties of domestic dogs that exist. The term 'species' is an arbitrary class referencing a DISTINCT divide. What occurs when species divides is that the inbetween species are eventually run to extinction and creates the clearer distinction through time. [This is similar to the polarizing effect of politics that is dividing us all today, as one such example. Those of us in between are forced to join the ranks of one of the hateful extremes or lose power of representation. I cannot even vote in my system because I don't accept any of the extremes here.]
Even humans have variation that can lead to distinct speciation. They are called 'races' for now because we politically want equality for all humans to choose their mates. But we cannot experiment on people to prove speciation as we can with animals.
You cannot presume that any of our pet dogs can still breed with wolves let alone with all other variations of dog. The 'dog' classification is itself just an arbitary label of the parent species, because technically, if any animal cannot breed with another it is the very definition of "species" which defines them as distinct. 'Classes' like our "Domestic Dog", a subclass of the proper class, "Dog", has subsets of new species but we give them more specific names (arbitrarily). A "Shitzu", for instance can still breed with a "Poodle" but not with a "Pit Bull". Each of these are new classes are technically distinct species. Where inbetween species could be eliminated, the wider the division, the more distinct they become.
Your argument is thus invalid.
This process is ALL that Darwin was demonstrating and is the first foundational logic that leads to modern genetics.
It's not, actually. Darwin knew nothing of genetics...that was one of his major faults. And genetics is a science that is derivable from observation...your DNA can be isolated and inspected, even today, as you know. But showing that your DNA can turn feline or bovine...that is a thing that has never been done. And that's what something like Evolutionism would require.
"Foundation" means 'the significant root of' something. Thus, Genetics follows AT LEAST the Darwinian Selection process foundationally. I already mentioned to you long before that Darwin's theory did not include knowledge of the genes. But only a few years later, Mendel's experiments DID. And collectively, this mechanism answered the factor unknown by Darwin in his day and was added to Natural Selection to become the modern Evolutionary theory.
Airplanes evolved from Cars and both evolved from Gas-Engines which in turn evolved from Steam-Engines, which evolved from Pumps, which evolved from Windmills. So if I take your logic, Airplanes could not possibly have "evolved" because Airplanes and Windmills are very distinct.
the LOGIC of evolution
Evolutionism is not logic. It's argument-by-analogy-and-assumption. No more.
No, evolution is a logical deductive inference for many facts and from many different fields of science. It is provable now through Genetics, which is the subfield (itself an 'evolution' in wisdom) of Darwinian Natural Selection.
This is 'soft' evidence of the faults of humans.
No, actually. It's confirmed, historical evidence for the defrauding of the public by Evolutionists. And today's scientists agree with me on that, for they have totally abandoned the ape-to-man paradigm. They would now be embarrassed even to profess the old "Ascent of Man" story. They've now gone for "Common Ancestor" instead.
Don't you believe today's scientists about that?
Are you still going to argue, against them, that ape-to-man theory is true?
Deception again. This is just plain false and I cannot believe that you would still insist on restating it.
I know your tactics. I studied what the Machivelian tactics of manipulation are. I'm not the one still wanting to sit in the playpen. But note what I said above. If you think that using these tactics are serving your God, I think you need to question who or what is whispering in your ears. Your deception will only backfire and put you at risk should God be real. I ate from the Tree of Wisdom. You only eat from the Tree of the Sophists who merely teach how to use tactics of practical rhetoric. If winning is what you want, then you can just have the rewarding smiley face stickers like kindergarten teachers give out freely for the asking:
[Don't worry there's still an endless supply left!]
I DO have an educated background
I will not wave mine in your face. But I do, too, of course. But I think you knew that.
I'm not looking to fight with you, Scott. But neither am I going to cave on the truth here. There's no reason I ought to. The "Ascent of Man" theory was a verified debacle. And you don't even have to believe me to know that's true. Just believe today's scientists.
Then we'll have to let this sink in for you. I cannot make you change regardless of how much logic I throw at you.
Here's some more smiley faces for you:
[P.S. Whatever you do, stay away from all these
Books on Evolution!. I hear there's a snake at Google trying to con you that there is some fruitful knowledge in them!]