What would it mean to your science beliefs if evolution is false?

[cladking]

No, you originally stated that ALL LIFE have consciousness.

No.

I said life is consciousness and all life is individual.

I choose not to discuss the consciousness that applies to acorns and cut flowers.

And you stated that life cannot exist without consciousness.

No. Life is consciousness. Every living individual is conscious by definition. No non-living thing is conscious now on earth.

But now you are changing what you are saying, claiming now there are some exceptions.

Nope. No exceptions. By definition.

Now you are saying bacteria, trees and acorns don’t have consciousness or limited consciousness.

No. Slime molds are conscious. Trees are conscious. Obviously a bouquet of roses doesn't have much consciousness. If you run a willow tree through a lumber mill and plant all the 2 by 4's a few will probably grow. There is often an indeterminant line between alive and dead. When an ant starts gnawing on an acorn at some point it will die and never become a mighty oak.

No gnarled old tree could come up with the theory of gravity no matter how many Newtons had sat under it. A tree can not stand on the shoulders of giants but they can all find their way out of a paper bag.

You are moving the goalpost...more dishonest tactics.

No. You are moving my goalposts. You are making assumptions that aren't true and extrapolation that fly in the face of definitions.

I have actually asked you older replies (repeatedly) about plants and bacteria, asking if these organisms have consciousness, but NOT ONCE, did you answer me...you just ignored my questions.

Let me try again; consciousness is life and life is consciousness. They are inseparable and always individual. This you can extrapolate if you maintain definitions and adherence to all the logic of nature that you call "natural law".

Just as your so-called laws of mechanics start breaking down on the small scale or the long time period the same thing occurs to living things (sortta). An elephant won't suddenly be immune to the effects of arsenic but simpler life forms can.

 

[cladking]

No, you are making guesses, since you cannot even read these cave markings, and you don’t even know if they are writings or just abstract symbols.

I think I do understand several of them but this is irrelevant.

The fact that these are universal, global, and identical strongly implies their meaning is as well. If their meaning is identical then there is an implication that the literal, binary, and representative language used by the pyramid builders is an outgrowth of the earlier language.

Or in other words this is very very strong support for the concept of a global language that failed spectacularly at some point in the recent past (~2000 BC). This would explain how our history became lost and how our ancestors were able to do such remarkably complex things like inventing cities and agriculture using bottlenecks which selected for behavior. We lost 40,000 years of history and science and getting it back requires spectacularly little effort. Regaining this knowledge will have consequences in all phases of modern life.

so saying these writings are “science”, are just pure fabrication.

Ancient Language was metaphysical. All animal languages are metaphysical. How do you think termites invented agriculture.

Without being able to translate or understand the symbols, you have already set in your belief they are are single language and you already believe that these are science.

Of course they are a single language!!! Do you suppose ancient people traveled the globe learning the languages and telling the local what symbols to paint in caves?

This is ridiculous. There is only one single viable theory that explains all the evidence and the implication is current paradigms are each and all bad. Bad paradigms.

Your so-called theory of 40,000-year-old “ancient language” and “ancient science” are just circular reasoning and confirmation bias.

How many times have we been through this.

OF COURSE IT'S CIRCULAR REASONING. This is the ONLY thing homo omnisciencis can do. Everything is circular reasoning. Paradigms good and bad are circular reasoning. We have a bad paradigm.

I just happened to start with the right assumption so I stumbled over this.

You keep saying you have experiments, but these are merely your claims and personal beliefs, you have shown no experiments.

All experiments support my theory because my theory was constructed from all experiments.

You still don’t grasp what a experiment is or what evidence is.

No. The problem is you don't grasp what science is. I'll give you a spoiler; it doesn't appear in any book still in print.

There is a book under the NE corner of the Great Pyramid called "The Book of Thot" that explains what science is but then, that is a different kind of science.

 

[gnostic]

I think I do understand several of them but this is irrelevant.

The fact that these are universal, global, and identical strongly implies their meaning is as well.

Again, if you cannot translate what the each cave’s symbols say or mean, then you cannot simply say the all have the same spoken language or what they are saying have anything to do with “science”. Both of your claims (single language and science) are just assumptions, hence guesses.

You need lot more than assumptions to verify what you’ve claimed to be true.

Plus, as the claimant making these assumptions or guesses than the burden of proof falls upon you, not to anyone else.

Plus those symbols from caves, predated the pyramids, so really they have nothing to do with Egypt. You are again, making assumptions a single language being spoken.

Hieroglyphs in the 5th and 6th dynasties pyramid walls have many repeated patterns that tell us, written language, so that you can identify sentences that have meanings.

No such repeated patterns in those in any single cave, demonstrate words and sentences. So again, you are guessing, without being translated what those symbols mean.

Your guesses are only assumptions, and without understanding what those symbols mean, you have already believe that your so-called theory to be true without evidence.

That’s not how hypotheses and theories work in science. You need evidence to test and verify. You have shown no such evidence, you just make up more claims, so it is really just confirmation bias and whole heaps of circular reasoning.

We need evidence, not you, making up more wild claims.

Here is another question.

If these caves with symbols in them were language of science, do any of them have invented objects that show their applications of science or ingenuity?

For instances, these caves (that have been dated to 40,000 years ago) showed signs they know how to farm (knowledge of agriculture), how to build structures (knowledge of building and engineering, eg how to build pyramids, since you keep bringing up Egyptian pyramids up).

Plus, another question: are any of those caves (especially 40,000 years old symbols) anywhere near the sites where those pyramids are in Saqqara, Egypt?

You keep linking the older symbols with historical 3rd millennium Egypt, but you have actual links between the two.

 

[cladking]

Plus, as the claimant making these assumptions or guesses than the burden of proof falls upon you, not to anyone else.

You're not paying attention. I've already shown the "tower of babel" was real and the pyramids were built with linear funiculars operated by metaphysicians who spoke a binary literal language and used the theory of Change in Species to invent agriculture. Seriously every single experiment ever done supports this. My ability to predict hot spots, their locations and strengths in the Great Pyramid shows we need some new paradigms where modern man is not sitting at the crown of creation and there's no such thing as "intelligence".

I am very sorry.

I am also sorry reality has to be so complex. If we start studying now we can catch up with the ancients in less than half a century.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You're not paying attention. I've already shown the "tower of babel" was real and the pyramids were built with linear funiculars operated by metaphysicians who spoke a binary literal language and used the theory of Change in Species to invent agriculture. Seriously every single experiment ever done supports this. My ability to predict hot spots, their locations and strengths in the Great Pyramid shows we need some new paradigms where modern man is not sitting at the crown of creation and there's no such thing as "intelligence".

I am very sorry.

I am also sorry reality has to be so complex. If we start studying now we can catch up with the ancients in less than half a century.

No, you never did that. You only made rather ridiculous claims at best. You should bookmark where you think that you have proved anything. People can explain to you again and again how you failed.

And you are back to your false claims about your paradigm. Before you can even begin to claim evidence you must first:

Publish your paradigm. Make it clear as to what it states.

Second, and this is an extremely important step:

State how you would test your paradigm. What possible test could show it to be false? If you can't do that you do not have any supporting evidence at all.

Let's start with step one:

What is your paradigm?

 

[cladking]

No such repeated patterns in those in any single cave, demonstrate words and sentences. So again, you are guessing, without being translated what those symbols mean.

No. I am making a logical deduction. Even if I didn't already know that there was an ancient global language the existence of the same marks all over the world would still strongly suggest exactly this. My theory predicts that the exact same language used by the pyramid builders was used by cavemen. What other theory predicts this or is even applicable to the facts?

All knowledge and all experiment fit a new paradigm.

If these caves with symbols in them were language of science, do any of them have invented objects that show their applications of science or ingenuity?

Possibly. Probably not.

As you correctly observed these could not possibly be "writing". They are merely vocabulary and most probably these are all known theory, or at least, all known theory relevant to context.

Plus, another question: are any of those caves (especially 40,000 years old symbols) anywhere near the sites where those pyramids are in Saqqara, Egypt?

Irrelevant. The language was global until the tower of babel. The Nile Valley was extremely sparsely populated until the end of the last ice age. Most "inhabitants" were nomads. Even then the entire valley flooded every year until about 5000 BC when population began to soar.

You keep linking the older symbols with historical 3rd millennium Egypt, but you have actual links between the two.

Deduction says it's the exact same language. On this basis I can make inductive guesses as to the meaning of several of the symbols. I know how ancient people thought. I am homo omnisciencis but I have already modeled the language and can make countless inferences about how they thought. From here it's a pretty tiny step to knowing the outline of a hand means "present" in our language. Natural science and natural language are hardly rocket surgery or brain science. These were primitive means of understanding and thought and I've used much of their vocabulary since I was small. Extrapolations are probably safer than any you made in regards to "Evolution".

 

[Subduction Zone]

No. I am making a logical deduction. Even if I didn't already know that there was an ancient global language the existence of the same marks all over the world would still strongly suggest exactly this. My theory predicts that the exact same language used by the pyramid builders was used by cavemen. What other theory predicts this or is even applicable to the facts?

All knowledge and all experiment fit a new paradigm.



Possibly. Probably not.

As you correctly observed these could not possibly be "writing". They are merely vocabulary and most probably these are all known theory, or at least, all known theory relevant to context.



Irrelevant. The language was global until the tower of babel. The Nile Valley was extremely sparsely populated until the end of the last ice age. Most "inhabitants" were nomads. Even then the entire valley flooded every year until about 5000 BC when population began to soar.



Deduction says it's the exact same language. On this basis I can make inductive guesses as to the meaning of several of the symbols. I know how ancient people thought. I am homo omnisciencis but I have already modeled the language and can make countless inferences about how they thought. From here it's a pretty tiny step to knowing the outline of a hand means "present" in our language. Natural science and natural language are hardly rocket surgery or brain science. These were primitive means of understanding and thought and I've used much of their vocabulary since I was small. Extrapolations are probably safer than any you made in regards to "Evolution".

Sorry, no paradigm, no evidence. You only claim to have a paradigm, just as you only claim to have evidence.

Here is a question for you: What test could possibly refute your "paradigm"? If you can't answer this, if you duck this question, you have admitted that you have no evidence.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What he does is pretty straight forward engineering. But for some weird reason the various nutter groups have adopted him. I need to see if I can find his website with some of the videos that he made.

Basically he found some techniques to move big blocks of rock and said "Wow! Look at what I can do." He tends to use concrete blocks since they are easy to make to the size that he wants, but if one had a quarry it would be no problem for workers to cut such blocks.

Interesting. Thanks for the info.

 

[cladking]

Publish your paradigm. Make it clear as to what it states.

I have. Many times.

Life is consciousness. All change in life is consciousness. All experiment and observation support this. If you think something doesn't support it then change the way you think or use it as an argument against the new paradigm.

Ancient people were not superstitious and understood no abstractions. They did not experience thought and used a metaphysical language. They built no tombs shaped like pyramids and used linear funiculars to construct these mnemonics.


It is very difficult to see anything from the perspective of ancient people. But part of grokking the new paradigm is to recognize that our consciousness s colored and defined by the way we think which is a derivative of our language. You don't need to know there are no two identical things to understand change in species but you certainly need to know that rabbits change but there's no such thing as a "rabbit". All life is individual and it is this individuality that nature selects. But species change principally when nature selects for unusual behavior at bottlenecks. Nature selecting one fit individual over another equally fit individual has no effect on species change. It might be easier to imagine much of this if you do try to remember all things affects all other things and reality is logic manifest and binary.

Our thinking and languages are analog and there is not a clean fit.

Modern man has tamed his world and learned his environments. It's easy to forget that each of us is almost perfectly ignorant. We see what we believe and mistake this for reality itself in part because our beliefs are increasingly reflective of reality. But it is still belief that we see and every individual has a distinct set of beliefs. This is what makes this so hard for us; we like the security of knowing everything and I am proposing nobody knows anything; that we only catch glimpses of reality and even these glimpses are through a kaleidoscope.

Everything we know is no less true, but much of what we think we know is not.

Most individuals in specialties will probably always be trained much as they are today but there needs to be more training in metaphysics and some individuals should be trained as nexialists. The schools are a wreck but this is probably a separate issue. More metaphysics should help this at least limitedly.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have. Many times.

Life is consciousness. All change in life is consciousness. All experiment and observation support this. If you think something doesn't support it then change the way you think or use it as an argument against the new paradigm.

Ancient people were not superstitious and understood no abstractions. They did not experience thought and used a metaphysical language. They built no tombs shaped like pyramids and used linear funiculars to construct these mnemonics.


It is very difficult to see anything from the perspective of ancient people. But part of grokking the new paradigm is to recognize that our consciousness s colored and defined by the way we think which is a derivative of our language. You don't need to know there are no two identical things to understand change in species but you certainly need to know that rabbits change but there's no such thing as a "rabbit". All life is individual and it is this individuality that nature selects. But species change principally when nature selects for unusual behavior at bottlenecks. Nature selecting one fit individual over another equally fit individual has no effect on species change. It might be easier to imagine much of this if you do try to remember all things affects all other things and reality is logic manifest and binary.

Our thinking and languages are analog and there is not a clean fit.

Modern man has tamed his world and learned his environments. It's easy to forget that each of us is almost perfectly ignorant. We see what we believe and mistake this for reality itself in part because our beliefs are increasingly reflective of reality. But it is still belief that we see and every individual has a distinct set of beliefs. This is what makes this so hard for us; we like the security of knowing everything and I am proposing nobody knows anything; that we only catch glimpses of reality and even these glimpses are through a kaleidoscope.

Everything we know is no less true, but much of what we think we know is not.

Most individuals in specialties will probably always be trained much as they are today but there needs to be more training in metaphysics and some individuals should be trained as nexialists. The schools are a wreck but this is probably a separate issue. More metaphysics should help this at least limitedly.

Sorry, word salad does not qualify.

So no paradigm.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Sorry, word salad does not qualify.

So no paradigm.

I note the integration of science fiction into the discussion. Nexalist. Grok.

At least van Vogt and Heinlein gave their readers definitions.

 

[cladking]

Here is a question for you: What test could possibly refute your "paradigm"? If you can't answer this, if you duck this question, you have admitted that you have no evidence.

We've been through this at least 100 times as well. Any experiment showing gradual change in species would be almost fatal to the theory. Frankly I suspect there are at least a few such changes but they are a rare exception. I've listed a few ways this could be done with current technology or with technology on the horizon. The most obvious would be to date a series of fossils in the same strata showing a significant change over a long period of time in small incremental steps.

Or you could discover the metaphysics for ancient science. All science by definition must have metaphysics. So what theory developed by what means allowed our ancestors to invent agriculture. This nonsense about them being stinky footed bumpkins who operated on trial and error is tiresome in the extreme. "Praise the Gods and climb up on that horse". You better praise the gods first because you'll be going for one hell of a ride.

Show actual proof any great pyramid was built with ramps. Make a convincing argument that doesn't start and end with "they mustta used ramps" and ignore the simple fact that the word "ramp" is unattested in Ancient Language.

I can think of many ways to prove me wrong but there are even more ways to prove I'm right. Indeed, I campaigned for many years to get Egyptologists to use century old infrared technology to prove I was right about the pyramids. When the evidence was found they simply decided not to release the results because they didn't want to "confuse" the general public.

My theory predicts there is copper hydroxide on the north sides of the great pyramids (especially Djoser's, Red, and G1). This is very easily checked. There should be CO2 in the water in the Osiris Shaft and the "dust" floating on it should be the anaerobic decomposition products of insects. There are a million predictions and means to check these things but every experiment ever done supports the theory of Change in Species. A few support "Evolution" but this is irrelevant because every hypothesis has some support and even the best theory has anomalies. Nature is highly complex and our observation of it is more complex yet.

 

[cladking]

No, you never did that. You only made rather ridiculous claims at best. You should bookmark where you think that you have proved anything.

Read the posts. I effectively proved that the pyramids were built with linear funiculars by people who implied they used the theory of Change in Species" to invent agriculture. I'm sure they would have "said" it but Ancient Language" couldn't be used to "say" anything. Understanding utterances was like seeing the speakers thoughts directly. It can not be translated.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Read the posts. I effectively proved that the pyramids were built with linear funiculars by people who implied they used the theory of Change in Species" to invent agriculture. I'm sure they would have "said" it but Ancient Language" couldn't be used to "say" anything. Understanding utterances was like seeing the speakers thoughts directly. It can not be translated.

No, you didn't. You only claimed that. But you know that in reality it was done using turbo encabulators.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No, you didn't. You only claimed that. But you know that in reality it was done using turbo encabulators.

I don't know of any evidence that supports speciation being a rapid process. Another theory...well can't really call it a theory, empty claim...bites the dust.

Those encabulators are pretty efficient.

 

[cladking]

I note the integration of science fiction into the discussion. Nexalist. Grok.

At least van Vogt and Heinlein gave their readers definitions.

So... ...you want me to define "metaphysics" (the basis of science) again!!!!

Mebbe if we had better science we wouldn't need science fiction.

Both words are used today. "Grok" was quite popular in the '70's.

I'm not sure "nexialism" is really a thing. I imagine someone trained from a young age in metaphysics and generalism and then taught extensive theory from every branch of science would be a "nexialist". Only a few would be capable of it. My own knowledge of almost every subject is far to shallow to be a "nexialist". I do know a few polymaths who aren't so far from it but most lack much training in metaphysics. I'm just a generalist. I have a small knack for seeing how things fit together.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We've been through this at least 100 times as well. Any experiment showing gradual change in species would be almost fatal to the theory. Frankly I suspect there are at least a few such changes but they are a rare exception. I've listed a few ways this could be done with current technology or with technology on the horizon. The most obvious would be to date a series of fossils in the same strata showing a significant change over a long period of time in small incremental steps.

Or you could discover the metaphysics for ancient science. All science by definition must have metaphysics. So what theory developed by what means allowed our ancestors to invent agriculture. This nonsense about them being stinky footed bumpkins who operated on trial and error is tiresome in the extreme. "Praise the Gods and climb up on that horse". You better praise the gods first because you'll be going for one hell of a ride.

Show actual proof any great pyramid was built with ramps. Make a convincing argument that doesn't start and end with "they mustta used ramps" and ignore the simple fact that the word "ramp" is unattested in Ancient Language.

I can think of many ways to prove me wrong but there are even more ways to prove I'm right. Indeed, I campaigned for many years to get Egyptologists to use century old infrared technology to prove I was right about the pyramids. When the evidence was found they simply decided not to release the results because they didn't want to "confuse" the general public.

My theory predicts there is copper hydroxide on the north sides of the great pyramids (especially Djoser's, Red, and G1). This is very easily checked. There should be CO2 in the water in the Osiris Shaft and the "dust" floating on it should be the anaerobic decomposition products of insects. There are a million predictions and means to check these things but every experiment ever done supports the theory of Change in Species. A few support "Evolution" but this is irrelevant because every hypothesis has some support and even the best theory has anomalies. Nature is highly complex and our observation of it is more complex yet.

Then your "paradigm" has been refuted. Okay. Thanks for finally giving us a test..

 

[rational experiences]

The human truth...
Egyptian pyramids burnt mutated exodus human DNA to a mutant human similar to a downs syndrome human.

Ape looking.

Knowing that human blood cells bones change in atmospheric inherited new human life changed DNA.

See every evidence right now. Newly born babies DNA adapted inherit changed body bone types and cell and blood.

Then you have some ignorant scientist claiming yes it's proof those humans body type is who you evolved from before.

As I told you 2012 the heavens void zero peace would remove UFO fallout. A science caused attack. Slowly going away.

Life has re evolved and healed as human only taught by human only sciences. Human in both places.

As my science is only human thought and human taught words of the human descriptions human calculus human caused it.

I converted biologies life on earth I thought it was shifted back to causing it to non exist as the natural human.

And you're so engrossed in making a scientists claim you ignore the relativity that you did it to us yourselves human scientist.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So... ...you want me to define "metaphysics" (the basis of science) again!!!!

Mebbe if we had better science we wouldn't need science fiction.

Both words are used today. "Grok" was quite popular in the '70's.

I'm not sure "nexialism" is really a thing. I imagine someone trained from a young age in metaphysics and generalism and then taught extensive theory from every branch of science would be a "nexialist". Only a few would be capable of it. My own knowledge of almost every subject is far to shallow to be a "nexialist". I do know a few polymaths who aren't so far from it but most lack much training in metaphysics. I'm just a generalist. I have a small knack for seeing how things fit together.

I do not care what you do at this point. You haven't done anything substantial so far and I don't expect that to change. Gradually or instantaneously. Stasis.

 

[rational experiences]

If all human scientists around earth gather in one place.

A teacher would advise them future life on earth is the human baby by human sex.

Having nothing at all to do with any philosopher human arguments about any subject a human chooses to argue about.

Then the human says I have evidence of some dead things I dig up. Not evidence it's just a chosen human pursuit. No he says I also talk about things living in the same moment living as I am.

Okay so you talk about living things. Why? I'm afraid humans are destroying living life on earth.

Is the real scientist.

I'd then sack the rest of you.