Fascinating!

[ecco]

cladking to Dan From Smithville:
You're taking this too literally.
cladking to ecco:
You are taking no heed of the literal meaning of what I say.

ecco said:
Maybe the problem lies in your writing.

I'm quite aware this is part of the problem. I think a lot like ancient people so I talk a little like them.

I'm well aware it's often ineffective and some individuals will be completely lost but it's the only way I think and the only way I know how to (try to) communicate.

Are you also aware that it comes across as you just trying to be deceitful?

You say one thing to someone and another thing to someone else. If that's the way the Ancients thought and talked, that doesn't make them seem intelligent, it makes them seem ridiculous.

Unlike most people I know that communication typically breaks down anyway and with the unusual things I'm saying it's even more likely to fail. We each deconstruct everything differently. There is no way around this.

One way around it is to be truthful and consistent and not make excuses.

Another problem is I see reality not from a religious or scientific perspective but from a metaphysical one. I am a nexialist but rarely explain my deductions. I leap to intuitive conclusions using facts and logic that aren't always apparent.

But I'm always willing to explain, elaborate, or rephrase something.

It seems that you leap to intuitive conclusions using facts and logic that don't really exist.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I don't know why I am bothering to reply to your empty responses, but for the sake of argument....



Seriously....this guy in the video is the best you've got? I have a feeling that he was "naturally selected"...

You think that this fellow somehow represents all who believe in creation? Says a lot about you actually.

If we all have one designer, then similarities are to be expected.
An artist is identified by his brush strokes and use of color you know.

I have explained what "kinds" entail. No need to rehash. Just show us any creature morphing outside of its "family" and it will be enough. No guesswork permitted though.



Thank you for confirming what I have said many times....there is no evidence provided for your side of this argument...all I ever get is a tirade of insults and put-downs. Where is your evidence? If science is so sure that macro-evolution is a fact, then why not produce the goods that show that it's true? Why the need for "might have's" and "could have's" in the literature? Why behave as if I have insulted your mother?

The truth is, in macro-evolution, science is taking a 'best guess' based entirely on what they want to be true....not on what the real evidence is saying...which isn't much. Fossils can't say anything without a scientist's hand up their bony anatomy.



Which would be fine if there was actual experiments that backed up what they claim. The experiments used to proffer "macro-evolution" are based on adaptation. There is not a single shred of solid evidence that any creature can morph itself into a whole new taxonomy. If there is then please share it.

What did Darwin see on the Galapagos? He saw adaptation....nothing more. Calling it "micro-evolution" is a dishonest means to "suggest" that it can go much further, when there is no experiment known to man that can back it up. Science cannot provide any solid evidence for their scenario of 'amoebas to dinosaurs' and I think you know it. Provide the evidence for this and I will have nothing more to say.



LOL...was that a tantrum?

If you'd really like the answers to those questions, I can provide them straight from the Bible....but I have a hunch that it would somehow be a waste of time.



Now, what is embarrassing is the fact that the Peppered Moth is given by science to students as an example of evolution. Its a prime example of adaptation. You can't use adaptation to invent a process that is not demonstrated in nature.

Let's take another example...Horse evolution...note the years between these specimens.

Here is an image depicting the size of the original horse 'ancestor' and today's version...

Now can you provide any substantive evidence that the small creature that is said to be the beginning of the horse family (what were they before this I wonder?) is even related to the rest of the animals in the graph in some kind of continuous line of evolution as science suggests?

Since there is nothing in between these creatures millions of years apart to suggest a gradual change, wasn't Darwin also a bit worried that if the links between creatures were missing, then it would topple the whole theory...? They have never been found.

Do we have a range of sizes in the horse family even today?

Are they all equines? Have they ever been anything but equines?
Science doesn't know, but assumes a lot because the theory demands it.



I never said "all of science amounts to just guesswork, and questionable evidence" though, did I?
The only questionable science is related to that which science cannot prove and offers guesses based on biased thinking and a questionable interpretation of "evidence". Provable science has no need to do that.
I am not, and never have been anti-science. The Creator to me is the greatest scientist in existence.

Small changes over time would not take any creature outside of it taxonomic family.....science has never seen that happen. It assumes that it did. Big difference to being able to back it up with something other than suggestions. Have you ever heard a complaint in court where the witness was being led by the opposition?
You are all being led IMO....like bulls with a ring in your nose...but hey, you are as entitled to your beliefs as I am....just don't call evolution a "fact" when you don't really have any facts.



I am blaming men of science for taking their knowledge to places where it could create enormous harm to the earth and to all the creatures that share our planet. Critical thinking and self-criticism are not the strongest attributes of science either. (in case you hadn't noticed)

Who is responsible for the all the plastic and other non-biodegradable waste polluting this earth? The smog choking our air? The poisonous chemicals in our waterways? Who gave humans the ability to bring all life to the brink of extinction? I know who gave them that ability....don't you?

Um, no. Those things are HALLMARKS of good science.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Addressed, yes (mostly); but answered? Only with suggestion, using weak evidence....like, ‘Pakicetus is the forerunner of whales’.
Breaking the Chain of Early Whale Evolution

They've been thoroughly refuted. And long ago. many of the claims don't even pertain to how evolution actually works. Yet they are still being repeated and asserted as though they are fresh in some way. That's the issue.

 

[cladking]

"All of them in English" does not answer the question "what existing translations did you use".


Nevertheless, how could you have read translations of writings that could not be translated? Are you going to deny you said this?

You are engaging in semantics and word play again. The word "translation" has numerous meanings and YOU CHOSE THE ONE FOR THIS CONVERSATION AND THEN CHANGED IT!!!

What I said AL can't be translated I simply meant author intent can not be changed into any modern language. Changing author intent from one language to another is one of the definitions of "translation". Indeed, it's why most translation is done at all.

Egyptology missed author intent by a mile and author intent can not be directly expressed in English.

I might not even point out semantical arguments in the future if you insist on continuing to use them.

 

[cladking]

"All of them in English" does not answer the question "what existing translations did you use".


Nevertheless, how could you have read translations of writings that could not be translated? Are you going to deny you said this?

And exactly how in the hell did you miss post #288?

https://www.sacred-texts.com/egy/pyt/index.htm

This is the vast bulk of all the writing that survives in Ancient Language and it is part of a corpus that is the rituals associated with the transformation of the king into a pyramid (mnemonic). It was found in 1883 chiseled into the walls of a tiny little pile of rubble that Egyptologists insist on calling a "pyramid" which confuses and obfuscates reality. There is virtually nothing else except one word sentences and titles in the tombs of the ancients. There is "no" writing in the great pyramids. There is the Palermo Stone with some useful information but it dates to the 18th century BC so is modern language. There are also the Coffin Texts which is an amalgam of modern and Ancient Language but is mostly modern interpretation of Ancient Language. A lot of writing survives from after the great pyramids all the way to the tower of babel but it is all in modern language. Obviously very few people could speak Ancient Language the last centuries before the pidgin form was adopted as the official state language in 2000 BC (babel).

Do you not see the link? Most of these other sources are not even available online or you could find them in a search. Or you could ask for a link or why there is no link. Read the link provided. At least look at it. Maybe it will inspire you to make a relevant comment or an argument.

 

[cladking]

cladking to Dan From Smithville:
You're taking this too literally.
cladking to ecco:
You are taking no heed of the literal meaning of what I say.

ecco said:
Maybe the problem lies in your writing.

Every single word in the English language has many different definitions and each is expressed in words that also have many definitions. You do realize also that everybody has his own unique definitions for every word and a long list of connotations for words? It is always each person's job to try to deconstruct the meaning of a sentence. Trying to understand why I chose a specific word is your job and not mine. If you can't deconstruct a sentence so it makes sense why don't you ask for clarification? This is what we are supposed to be doing here; conversing and not looking for key phrases to attack in one anothers posts.

If that's the way the Ancients thought and talked, that doesn't make them seem intelligent, it makes them seem ridiculous.

I am not an ancient and I don't speak AL. I am the only individual who understands AL but this is because I've modeled it in my mind. I've created a set of "beliefs" about how the language works so I can process it and derive the meaning. I think linearly just like you and everyone else because I had to unlearn AL as a baby and grow a broca's area just like you.

Yes, it's true that I already thought like an Egyptian in some ways but this is because I taught myself generalism (nexialism). The perspective of seeing reality in terms of logic and all science is similar to thinking in AL though there are tremendous differences such as I know that I am conscious because I experience it. They did not experience consciousness so they had no words for "thought" or "believe". Of course they knew they were alive because all life knows it's alive and this is the very basis of language and survival. Instead of trying to see my perspective or understand the words your cursory glance will lead you to say I'm contradicting myself. You could be trying to deconstruct the words to understand my thoughts but you already know I'm wrong and you're right so you won't.

As I've said before there is no such thing as "intelligence" as we define it. Well... ...some individuals think faster than others and this will lead more often to correct answers, more knowledge (beliefs), or new insights but this is a tiny part of what creates the event I call "cleverness". There is no condition that we call "intelligent". The belief in "intelligence" is an artefact of confused language that we share.

It seems that you leap to intuitive conclusions using facts and logic that don't really exist.

You are ignoring the evidence. You can't see it. People are blind to things that don't fit their belief systems and you believe anything with the word "science" in front of it is gospel and anything with "gospel" in front of it is the musings of sun addled bumpkins. This is your reality and it is the reality shared by large numbers of people who have no clue about epistemology and metaphysics. Indeed, even those who do understand such fields still believe even in untested hypotheses of Look and See Science because they don't realize that perspective and definitions are also relevant to our understanding of everything.

I am merely presenting ALL the evidence and a logical means of interpreting it that is consistent with scientific theory. It is wholly inconsistent with most Look and See Science but it is consistent with physical evidence and theory. This offends sensibilities so badly that you can't even deconstruct my meaning from any sentence. You start with the assumptions I'm wrong, confused, and lying and deconstruct them to support these assumptions.

I see nobody responded to my contention that the ability of an individual to survive is more closely correlated to its "tastiness" than its "fitness" or ability to "adapt". Darwin was nonsense in the 1880's and it's nonsense now. Darwin led us down a dark path and used Look and See Science to do it. Now you can't even see the evidence stacked up against it and the continued lack of experimental justification.

 

[cladking]

I see nobody responded to my contention that the ability of an individual to survive is more closely correlated to its "tastiness" than its "fitness" or ability to "adapt". Darwin was nonsense in the 1880's and it's nonsense now. Darwin led us down a dark path and used Look and See Science to do it. Now you can't even see the evidence stacked up against it and the continued lack of experimental justification.

Since people can't see that being tasty is the largest factor in the death of individuals they can't see that consciousness is the largest factor in the survival of individuals. And they can't see that only individuals survive or die because they are focused on "species" instead of how the group of individuals that form species change over time. Instead of observing no two rabbits and no two foxes that eat them are identical they count foxes and rabbits instead. It's not the "fittest" rabbits that survive. Indeed, as a rule strength, speed, and agility will be poor tools once a fox gets into striking distance. The more important traits are usually consciousness which makes them avoid fox infested regions and alertness that allows them a head start. Even more than this is simple happenstance. A fox might be anywhere and even the smartest rabbit can wander right into its wheelhouse. Habit is the root of most behavior that is encoded in the genes and made manifest by consciousness. No theory of species that excludes individuals, consciousness, behavior, and happenstance can possibly describe reality.

I'm sorry reality is so complex but it is anyway.

There is no such thing as "evolution" that is caused by fitness. Large changes are driven by bottlenecks exactly as we see right before our eyes.

 

[Thief]

bottleneck...as displayed in the garden of Eden

 

[cladking]

bottleneck...as displayed in the garden of Eden

No. I don't believe any "bottleneck" was the origin of any of these stories I can think of.

"Adam" was the first homo sapiens but he was a mutation with a speech center closely tied to higher brain functions.

No population bottleneck here.

 

[CaptainA13579]

No - it happens because the pendulums (strings) are different lengths.

Duh.

What - you were thinking it was due to Jehovah magic or something?

LOL!!!

I think that what they meant was that the laws of physics are universal, and since they are universal, there must have been some form of design by a Creator.

 

[cladking]

Well, the thread started with pendulums and patterns.

My theory is reality is governed by logic and that the number of elements driving a system determines whether it behaves harmonically or chaotically. An odd number creates harmony and an even number chaos.

Here is a pendulum that behaves chaotically;

File:Double-compound-pendulum.gif - Wikipedia

You can not predict where it will go. Since all things are interrelated they all have attributes of both harmonic and chaotic systems. While both are always in play, the stronger one determines how it behaves.

Reality is a bear. This is why we must devise experiment to see it but experiment has not always been the only way to study reality. Animals and ancient man model it directly in the brain.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

No, what you are doing is repeatedly telling me I'm wrong, repeating the textbook answers of Look and See Science, and ignoring my argument, evidence, and logic. You seem to think I don't know how modern beliefs arose nor that I am aware of them. Repeatedly I mention evidence and repeatedly you simply ignore its existence because it doesn't fit your beliefs. It doesn't fit your interpretations. It can't be incorporated into what you believe is scientific theory. You can ignore a sabre toothed tiger outside the cave but it will still get you in the end.

You simply can't see my argument and you think you can gently point me in the right direction by telling me what's real.



Somehow I'm put in mind of a tribe of primitive savages with a truckload of iPhones trying to figure out what they do and how they work. "Look and See Igor, when I hit it with a rock here it won't even shine any more".

You say it wouldn't experience consciousness and ignore the fact I presented PROOF that ancient man didn't experience consciousness (at least nothing like we do).

Modern people are wholly and utterly blind to anything that doesn't suit their BELIEFS. But you can't see this either because you've read books with all the current theory and the results of Look and See Science. You see this instead.

Are you really completely unaware of chaos theory? I suppose even many scientists still refuse to see that reality isn't a giant clockwork that is explained by Newtonian harmonics. Very few people seem to be able to see the true complexity of reality and how it unfolds. They get hung up on "easier" answers like "infinity" or "God's will". At least the religious people can more easily see what they can't comprehend.

There is nothing wrong with being wrong. It is just another way that we can begin to acquire new knowledge. Unfortunately, you keep asserting everything and addressing nothing. How can any exchange of ideas ever occur? You never present objective evidence, and your arguments are based only on the logic you simply create. It is arrogance and dishonesty to assume that if people can't agree or understand your claims, that it is "because you've read books with all the current theory and the results of Look and See Science". Which ignores that the Theories in science are supported by mountains of falsifiable evidence and observations. Should we abandon this level of certainty, for an unfalsifiable belief system with zero levels of certainty? Just to avoid being labeled as not keeping an open mind? You will not be the last to create your own reality, language, and logic, just to give the appearance of complexity and logic. Most cult ideologies employ this same deceptive tactic. "If you can't impress them with knowledge, then just baffle them with...". It is you that have failed to provide any objective evidence to support your claims, no matter how many times you say you have. It is you the can only, create straw man, beg the question, make hasty generalizations, appeal to ignorance, and create false causes, to avoid presenting objective evidence. It is NOT us that must "deconstruct" the meaning of your claims. It is your responsibility as the author, to make your claims as clear and unambiguous as possible.

How is my awareness of the "chaos theory" relevant? Unexplained. What is the proof that ancient man did not experience consciousness? Only asserted, and not supported. What is this ancient language, and where does it come from? Not addressed, only more assertions. What is the rational for accepting what I can't comprehend? I am not only telling you where you are wrong, but explaining why you are wrong. If I am wrong then address where I am wrong. Please demonstrate how we can consciously control of our organs? Please demonstrate how and why consciousness is vital for life? And, maybe address some of my other concerns as well?

I'm afraid that even God himself would not be able to point you in the right direction. So, there is no hope for me. My comments are based only on the consistency of facts and data, that can easily be tested. My comments are not based on any subjective psychological need, or any presuppositional biased beliefs.

 

[tas8831]

His understanding of the concepts and definitions is entirely flawed and he is using that misunderstanding to make claims that do not make much sense. He does not understand extinction, genetic bottleneck, natural selection, fitness, or speciation. Among others. His claims about Darwin are another matter and he completely misrepresents him.

Exactly true.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

You really just don't get it.

A beaver will never need to know how long a year or a second are. They used their science to invent dams because that's what they need. Humans had complex language which allowed the accumulation of knowledge across generations. The need for such time keeping arose in humans. Even bees "keep time" in a sense because they must know the direction of the rising sun. This it five sentences already and you'l ignore each one with a blanket "no, it isn't".

Having free will allows us to do anything we want. Consciousness is free will and is the means all individuals survive. Forget "species". Whether an individual survives the next few seconds rarely has anything whatsoever to do with what species it is. It is a thousand times more likely to have to do with how tasty it is. It is related more to misadventure than Darwinian fitness. But you won't see this last sentence either because it is heresy and anti-Darwinian nonsense. It simply doesn't matter that it is obviously true because you already have a framework for seeing your own reality. You see reality from your models which are really just beliefs because they have never stood up to actual experiment. You have a perspective formed of beliefs, experimental results, and the definitions and axioms that underlie them. You've never even considered that definitions are arbitrary, contrived, ephemeral, and they impart a perspective. You may not be familiar with the axioms and seem not to even be aware of chaos theory. You can't see that your interpretations are all driven by your beliefs and your perspective might be very poor.

You've never tried to control your organs. You've never experienced phantom limb itching. You've never turned your ability to observe inward to see what you're thinking or how.

I said it before but I'm very well aware that my hypotheses are not supported by the beliefs of scientists but I believe they are supported by experimental results, logic, and many of those pesky little facts that people keep tuning out. I believe my "theories" better explain all the evidence and are far more logical. Ultimately these hypotheses are more a perspective than anything else.

It just gets worse and worse, every time you keep asserting things without giving them more thought. Building a dam, swimming, mating, sleeping, hibernating, etc., are all instinctual behaviors in beavers. They do not "invent" dams using "their science", they build them. This behavior is biologically, genetically, and instinctually hard-wired by evolution. Beavers may not know what a second or a year is, but they are keenly aware of the passage of time, seasonal changes, and other environmental changes. The bee assertion is just another fact-less assumption that you try to force fit, to support your conclusion. Even you don't need a watch to have a good idea of what time of day it is. Our complex language only allows us to accumulate MORE knowledge, but the mechanisms for learning is cognizant, not language. Hence, not necessary for life or survival.

I think that most people understand just how "free will"(if it exists), can easily be compromised, controlled, manipulated, or even taken away. You totally ignore the role of our social interactions, negative and positive feedbacks cues, our genetic makeup and hormone systems, and how our early development shape our conscious predilections. Do you think that these factors might have some effect on our consciousness, and the illusion of "free will"? So, no. Having free will does not allow us to do anything we like. Also, consciousness and free will, are not essential for life. How do the vast majority of other species survive without being self-aware or having free will. Just ask any worm. Simply stating that they must, is also not evidence.

It is a thousand times more likely to have to do with how tasty it is. It is related more to misadventure than Darwinian fitness. But you won't see this last sentence either because it is heresy and anti-Darwinian nonsense. It simply doesn't matter that it is obviously true because you already have a framework for seeing your own reality.

Please, what is the evidence that backs up these assertions? This is not about what I believe, or the belief-models that I cling to. This is about what evidence you can present to support your claims. So, stop shifting your responsibility by just making more assertions and claims.

I do not try to control my organs, because I understand the science of human physiology. I understand the functions of the 3 nervous systems. I do accept "phantom itching" because the evidence supports that belief. No one can observe the location, or be cognisant of any processes of the brain, because Neural transmission are unidirectional. Just because you see the cat, does not mean that the cat can also sees you. Just because the mind can project its perception of reality, doesn't mean that the perception can project the mind. What is your evidence for organ control?

Even a hypothesis must include some independent facts. If science rejects your hypothesis, then I suggest that you re-examine them again.

 

[Thief]

No. I don't believe any "bottleneck" was the origin of any of these stories I can think of.

"Adam" was the first homo sapiens but he was a mutation with a speech center closely tied to higher brain functions.

No population bottleneck here.

new testament......Adam is a CHOSEN son of God

a selected specimen
ideal living conditions
years of training
anesthesia
surgery
cloning
a test
and release into the environment

a new direction for Man
the bottle was dismantled

 

[cladking]

There is nothing wrong with being wrong. It is just another way that we can begin to acquire new knowledge. Unfortunately, you keep asserting everything and addressing nothing. How can any exchange of ideas ever occur? You never present objective evidence, and your arguments are based only on the logic you simply create.

Show your objective evidence and I have no interest at all in wiki pages or "science" derived from anything other than experiment.

I HAVE OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE BUT YOU IGNORE IT OVER AND OVER AGAIN. There is no word for "belief", remember. I've cited dozens of facts and have many more to support those but you can't see them so why go deeper into it? Why don't you challenge something you believe is merely assertion? People see the world in terms of their beliefs. This is obviously true but if you challenged it I could provide extensive experimental evidence to show it. Instead you are dismissing what I say and presenting the conclusion of Look and See Science. Darwin was wrong. Why can't you address what I say?

It is arrogance and dishonesty to assume that if people can't agree or understand your claims, that it is "because you've read books with all the current theory and the results of Look and See Science".

I don't know what this means except you must not understand anything I've said.

I am self taught. I did long ago use scientific text books to aid me but this was before Look and See Science was so commonplace. There was very little soup of the day science until more modern times. I don't read Look and See studies and results because I don't care. I care about theory based on experiment.

Which ignores that the Theories in science are supported by mountains of falsifiable evidence and observations.

YES. REAL THEORY IS SUPPORTED BY EXPERIMENT. What is supported only by observation IS NOT THEORY. It is Look And See Science.

What is so complex about this? Even scientists now days often can't understand what science is and how it works.

You will not be the last to create your own reality, language, and logic, just to give the appearance of complexity and logic.

MY REALITY makes accurate prediction where Look and See science refuses to even release data because it doesn't agree with their beliefs.

It is NOT us that must "deconstruct" the meaning of your claims.

You just said you refuse to try to understand what I'm saying. Or maybe you can't understand such a simple concept as you must assign meaning to every word in this sentence on a real time basis to understand it. It's hard for me to tell when you aren't even trying to keep up.

How is my awareness of the "chaos theory" relevant? Unexplained.

Because you don't seem to understand the sentence, Habit is the root of most behavior that is encoded in the genes and made manifest by consciousness. Without understanding "free will" which underlies this you can't understand the PERSPECTIVE from which we can more easily see the evidence. As I said many times, it's not that science is wrong, it's that it sees reality from a poor perspective which doesn't include all the evidence and logic. Facts and logic are just tossed aside because they are deemed to be irrelevancies.

 

[Thief]

Chaos.....is a science
it gained that status decades ago
(I saw the documentary)

 

[cladking]

What is the proof that ancient man did not experience consciousness? Only asserted, and not supported. What is this ancient language, and where does it come from? Not addressed, only more assertions. What is the rational for accepting what I can't comprehend? I am not only telling you where you are wrong, but explaining why you are wrong. If I am wrong then address where I am wrong. Please demonstrate how we can consciously control of our organs? Please demonstrate how and why consciousness is vital for life? And, maybe address some of my other concerns as well?

These are great questions. Why didn't you ask them before?

All of them have been explained to death in this thread already and you didn't address the relevant facts and logic.

I suppose I could "demonstrate" how consciousness is vital for life by showing that birds which land on an electrified grid stop using that grid. Rabbits that ignore danger become fox chow. Animals have experience and from that experience is knowledge. Beavers invented dams to create habitat. You will claim now that it's just blind instinct and there's no such thing as animal intelligence or animal consciousness. But your argument is Look and See Science and what I am presenting isn't "science" at all by our definitions but rather it's a different perspective to see all experiment and human knowledge. I am suggesting that when ALL OF THE EVIDENCE and experiments are taken simultaneously a different paradigm emerges that is really exactly the same reality seen from another perspective. Yes, a lot of Look and See NONSENSE is shown to be unsupported but this is IRRELEVANT. Conclusions drawn from observation are meaningless because, as I mentioned, modern humans see what they believe not what is real.

Animals see what is real. Their language and brains are in tune with nature/ REALITY. Since their knowledge is limited due only to the lack of complex language, what they can see is limited but nothing they see is superstition or unreal in any way. That ancient people saw the world this exact same ways is shown by the fact that they had no words for "belief" or "thought". We become our beliefs but ancient people became what they know. I BELIEVE this is proven by the fact that the only writing in Ancient Writing can be shown to be able to make predictions about the future. They called this "prophesy" but that's just a word. The simple fact is that science makes prediction and this isn't just a word. Science can predict. It follows that Ancient Language must be science. Indeed, the nature of ancient science can be deduced from the writing and one of its axioms was that "hypotheses" that make "prediction" is "theory". From this perspective my hypotheses are already theory.

My comments are based only on the consistency of facts and data, that can easily be tested.

This "consistency" is merely apparent and is caused by language and not seeing what doesn't fit your beliefs.

 

[Thief]

is caused by language and not seeing what doesn't fit your beliefs.

so.....an ancient man sees lightning…..
but not having words for it...…

I think you have overlooked response that doesn't need a language

so? you haven't seen movies or books wherein two characters have no common words
never a storyline ever.?...wherein the words are muted
the characters have to deal with reality as it approaches

yes of course.....complex language deepens thought and feeling

it also deepens dogma and politics
it deepens social unrest and stirs the masses

and the complexity can deepen the confusion far quicker
than you can stop it

the voice of reason tends to be solitary and quiet

 

[cladking]

Please, what is the evidence that backs up these assertions?

So a man buys a lottery ticket wins millions and then crashes his private jet on the side of a mountain in the Arctic and you ask me what happenstance has to do with anything!

I just don't know how to get through to you. Everything you actually know supports my beliefs but you can neither see it nor tell me anything that contradicts it. Your beliefs are so strong you can see I put facts and logic in every post. It is a simple fact too basic to show by experiment that most things are the result not of free will but of blind chance.

Every single time a molecule collides with another its resulting momentum is unknowable in advance but it still shapes all of reality forever. An oxygen molecule bumps a nitrogen molecule which causes a chain reaction that results in an itch in a butterfly's wing in China causing it to flap leading to a hurricane in the US which causes a man to buy a lottery ticket and crash his jet.

But, no, your world is much simpler and can be understood by just observing. And you might never notice what you are observing is merely what you already believe rather than what's before your eyes.

Sigh...

I'm sorry reality is far too complex to really understand or make prediction (prophesy) outside of science but that's the way it is.