1. 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!

Featured Fascinating!

Discussion in 'Science and Religion' started by Deeje, Apr 20, 2019.

  1. ecco

    ecco Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2016
    Messages:
    14,214
    Ratings:
    +7,172
    Religion:
    atheist
    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.

    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.

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

    It seems that you leap to intuitive conclusions using facts and logic that don't really exist.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. SkepticThinker

    SkepticThinker Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2013
    Messages:
    11,466
    Ratings:
    +5,729
    Um, no. Those things are HALLMARKS of good science.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. SkepticThinker

    SkepticThinker Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2013
    Messages:
    11,466
    Ratings:
    +5,729
    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.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Optimistic Optimistic x 1
  4. cladking

    cladking Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2018
    Messages:
    1,936
    Ratings:
    +292
    Religion:
    not applicable
    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.
     
  5. cladking

    cladking Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2018
    Messages:
    1,936
    Ratings:
    +292
    Religion:
    not applicable
    And exactly how in the hell did you miss post #288?

    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.
     
  6. cladking

    cladking Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2018
    Messages:
    1,936
    Ratings:
    +292
    Religion:
    not applicable
    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.

    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.
    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.
     
  7. cladking

    cladking Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2018
    Messages:
    1,936
    Ratings:
    +292
    Religion:
    not applicable
    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.
     
  8. Thief

    Thief Rogue Theologian

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2009
    Messages:
    48,775
    Ratings:
    +4,891
    bottleneck...as displayed in the garden of Eden
     
  9. cladking

    cladking Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2018
    Messages:
    1,936
    Ratings:
    +292
    Religion:
    not applicable
    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.
     
  10. CaptainA13579

    CaptainA13579 New Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2019
    Messages:
    2
    Ratings:
    +2
    Religion:
    Protestant
    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.
     
  11. cladking

    cladking Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2018
    Messages:
    1,936
    Ratings:
    +292
    Religion:
    not applicable
    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

    [​IMG]

    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.
     
  12. Truly Enlightened

    Truly Enlightened Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2017
    Messages:
    1,299
    Ratings:
    +596

    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.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. tas8831

    tas8831 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2018
    Messages:
    4,187
    Ratings:
    +3,523
    Exactly true.
     
  14. Truly Enlightened

    Truly Enlightened Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2017
    Messages:
    1,299
    Ratings:
    +596

    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.

    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.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  15. Thief

    Thief Rogue Theologian

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2009
    Messages:
    48,775
    Ratings:
    +4,891
    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
     
  16. cladking

    cladking Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2018
    Messages:
    1,936
    Ratings:
    +292
    Religion:
    not applicable
    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?

    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.

    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.

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

    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.

    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.
     
  17. Thief

    Thief Rogue Theologian

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2009
    Messages:
    48,775
    Ratings:
    +4,891
    Chaos.....is a science
    it gained that status decades ago
    (I saw the documentary)
     
  18. cladking

    cladking Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2018
    Messages:
    1,936
    Ratings:
    +292
    Religion:
    not applicable
    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.


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

    Thief Rogue Theologian

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2009
    Messages:
    48,775
    Ratings:
    +4,891
    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
     
  20. cladking

    cladking Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2018
    Messages:
    1,936
    Ratings:
    +292
    Religion:
    not applicable
    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.
     
Loading...