Why I don't believe in you:

[Dan1 (Dan~)]

Why I don’t believe in “evolution” or “creationism”, in the standard ‘sense’ of the word.

“Evolution” : Very gradually, through random mutations, a primordial piss turns into everything. No. Totally un-observed and un-provable, especially during the most early organic stages of existence.
video.google.ca/videoplay?docid= … =evolution
video.google.ca/videoplay?docid= … =evolution
[ I didn’t mean for these anti-evolution arguments to be sourced by Christians, but what’s said is said. Still some good questions here.]

I don’t need to try very hard to disprove evolution’s supposed means. Example: human facial hair. This, genetically, in its entirety, does not aid survival, therefor it should have been subject to evolutionary neglect, and it should not exist. Why do I have eyebrows? It’s a pretty simple question, but one of a billion things that natural selection should not have produced so specifically and universally.

(When I’d defended the idea of evolution earlier in some posts, this was defense of parts of the idea, and not the whole. Eventually I realized that, despite how rapidly and widely the word’s use had become, the word’s meaning did not suit its common application. Change, development, etc. These words are not “evolution”. “Evolution’s” promoters attempted to claim rights to all change and development as proof of their ideology and part of their “truth”, in the same way that creationists claim all things which exist are “evidence” of their creator. It’s been common-place for human ideologies and faiths to lay-claim to as many “truths” & “facts” as possible, becoming more and more biased as every moment passes, seeking victory over commendatory beliefs, soon having nothing to do with reality in-and-of-itself.

With time, I began to realize that my entire language and culture was built in such a way that it would cause me to think incorrectly… I realized that it was motivational duality… The ‘reason’ why a person feels emotion for a movie or a TV show [which is not real], is because humans devout their entire life towards experiencing each other’s fantasies. Ever since someone is born, their self-image is based upon the opinions of the people around themselves, and these opinions are mere estimations, or more often, desires. Therefor, the human is an estimation and a desire, deep inside, and when approaching the real “truth” [not that this word holds any value on my tongue], the inner-self of the human suddenly becomes afraid There is an apparently deadly nothingness which accompanies the real “truth”; an opinionless, neutral substance known as fact, which the human, ever since conception, used as a tool. When someone comes too close to objectivity, they come too close to becoming what they, for so very long, only used as a means to satisfy their desire and their bias. Reality, without opinion, is dead. Truth is useless to man.)

“Creationism” : A big Jew makes everything right away because he felt like it… Not even gunnu go there.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphic_resonance
Morphic ressonance, no matter how misunderstood it may be, shows me that the natural effects of subtle, universal inter-connectivity & a sympathetic universe capable of reacting to itself in a primordially conscious fashion. It means that you are the universe and the universe is you, but your form & structure is just a small part of an integral whole.

The entire “logic” behind the idea that cause & effect, body parts and “individuals” are separate: – this idea was invented by the epidermis It’s just human instinct talking, it’s not a fact. If humans are not isolating parts of the whole & then labeling them into classes, and when reality is not being turned into “knowledge” by the preceptive digestion processes of the human brain, – reality is not split up into small parts. Isolation is focus. Focus is a tool which the human mind uses to concentrate all of its conscious-energy upon a single target, in an effort to obtain the most personally-beneficial information first, whilst being a perpetual form of bias and non-holistic perception.

Eventually, during a TOE, &/or a supposed explanation for the origin of existence, the methodology of concentrated focus will fail.

In the same way that humanity’s claims of superiority, rights and intelligence fall short of what humanity actually is, their claims of what reality is – have left much to be desired. It’s been a frustrating, outward display of supposed “proof”. It’s been a form of contest, and “logical” overcoming. It’s been about human satisfaction.

I’ve made a sober choice not to believe in humanity literally; not to take humanity literally.

Modern medicine is a perfect example of the way society thinks here:
If one part is too hard to deal with, cut it off; suppress symptoms of a condition; and face the problem only after it has already happened.

Facing “reality” is often not as appealing as the supposed liberation & relief of death, due to the drastically misplaced expectations of humanity. The main fuel for ignorance – is fear. Fear is a form of abortion, by any means; there are many, many forms of fear.

[ChimneySweep]

@Dan~

“Evolution” : Very gradually, through random mutations, a primordial piss turns into everything. No. Totally un-observed and un-provable, especially during the most early organic stages of existence.

Not your finest hour, Dan… First of all, most mutations are harmful, and only the beneficial minority persevere. It is observable (eg, the evolution of flus viruses, which lead to new vaccines) and yes, evolution isn’t provable in the mathematical sense, but what it is is the following: a theory of how life developed on Earth that works; that joins the dots simply and sensibly. There are two alternatives: creationism/ID, and nothing. The former demands much more “faith” whilst simultaneously over-complicating things, and the latter is, well, nothing. Occam’s razor leads to the theory of evolution here.

I don’t need to try very hard to disprove evolution’s supposed means. Example: human facial hair. This, genetically, in its entirety, does not aid survival, therefor it should have been subject to evolutionary neglect, and it should not exist. Why do I have eyebrows? It’s a pretty simple question, but one of a billion things that natural selection should not have produced so specifically and universally.

Maybe men have beards because early women found them attractive - that would keep them in our genes. And surely eyebrows are there to give added protection to the eyes?
Try harder…

[Tab]

Example: human facial hair. This, genetically, in its entirety, does not aid survival, therefor it should have been subject to evolutionary neglect, and it should not exist. Why do I have eyebrows? It’s a pretty simple question, but one of a billion things that natural selection should not have produced so specifically and universally.

Facial Hair: Hair growth patterns were very useful for demarking one of your own species back in the day when we weren’t alone. Even now - they are useful and easy signallers of credo.

It does not aid survival directly these days, but also, it does not jepordize it to the degree it should be selcted against.

Eyebrows: Major signalling devices. [[size=75]Looks quizzical[/size]]. Imagine [[size=75]arches eyebrow[/size]] a face unable to smile, to frown, to wiggle its ears. Should we lose those too…?

C’mon Dan… Don’t betray the Dawk.

[Del]

The theory of evolution is a great discovery, but sometimes people go overboard with evolutionary explanations for EVERYTHING around us. Why do most people like music? Ummm…well let’s see, music is rhythmical…maybe cavemen with a good sense of rhythm were faster runners and thereby escaped from predators?

It is my guess that there’s a large amount of traits (in all animals/plants) which have evolved for other reasons than pure reproduction/survival benefit. This is plausible if these traits were neither good nor bad for propagation of the species.

[W.C]

It’s a comfort thing, one way or the other.

Evolutionists like their theory; its got some real good points and it makes sense to them. Creationists feel the same, their theory ties in with their religious beliefs and it works just peachy for them. Try and say a bad word against either group and watch their teeth come out. Both groups are dogmatic psychopaths - put each in the same room and you’ll most likely have one hell of a barking match. No one wants their comfortable beliefs questsioned, but then, why should they? They know whats right better then anyone else does.

Oh, and by the way, Dan~, I love your current sig line; 'Be ‘ware, the frightful grasp of soberity.’ Pure class. Cheers.

[Tab]

Dear Del,

You see, that post you just made, it was an inevitable evolutionary step - the typing involved strengthened your finger muscles, which would have allowed you to grip a spear or other stabbing implement more confidently. In fact archeologists in southern France have found ancient keyboards, made of onyx, apparantly used for riual purpose, in burial mounds. But, and this is a critical but, only in the burial mounds of homosapia. The burial mounds of dolphins discovered in the same area, were empty of any such simular items. QED.

It is my guess that there’s a large amount of traits (in all animals/plants) which have evolved for other reasons than pure reproduction/survival benefit

Browsing through Nature magazine I see that botonists in America have discovered a new mutant fungus, temporarily dubbed “Moonwalk Fandango”, which instead of the traditional tough fibrous spore-casings contemporary to its kin - has a pattern of small square mirror-like encrustations, and a small hooked protrusion on top.

These fungal disco-balls are extremely attractive to the local Redneck population, who use them in their primitive mating rituals. The heat of the spotlights over time causes them to burst, scattering minute spores over the sweaty drunken dancers. Who then disperse them across the area, via beaten up old pick-up trucks.

Woof. Bark. Grr.

[soph]

del, i know what you mean, but as far as i know the theory of evolution is meant to be an all-encompassing view of the biology of all species - so to say that it is right, but not all the time, is to stray from the true spirit of the idea.

there are certainly cases where its explanatory power seems to fail (although not those that dan mentions), such as that of the mysterious appendix, which has no apparent function for humans. however, such cases can still often be explained in evolutionary terms by describing them as remnants from the biology of earlier life forms - for example, evidence suggests that our ancestors used the appendix to digest tree-bark. it seems plausible to say that even apparently useless biological parts (which are few and far between) can mostly be accounted for in this way.

[ChimneySweep]

The crucial difference between neo-darwinism and creationism, WC, is that the latter is speculative. They most certainly not two equal and opposite types of explanation, which is the impression your post gave.

[W.C]

@ChimneySweep

The crucial difference between neo-darwinism and creationism, WC, is that the latter is speculative. They most certainly not two equal and opposite types of explanation, which is the impression your post gave.

The latter is speculative, I agree, but would add that the former is also speculative.

The difference? One group uses science and the other uses religion. One is fact and speculation, the other is faith and speculation. The bottom line is that niether is perfect; though both of them like to think that they are.

There will be neverending bickering until we find the truth [size=75]- and heres the giddy bit -[/size] its most likely that we never will, and I’m pretty content with that myself.

[Dan1 (Dan~)]

@ChimneySweep

@Dan~

“Evolution” : Very gradually, through random mutations, a primordial piss turns into everything. No. Totally un-observed and un-provable, especially during the most early organic stages of existence.

Not your finest hour, Dan… First of all, most mutations are harmful, and only the beneficial minority persevere. It is observable (eg, the evolution of flus viruses, which lead to new vaccines) and yes, evolution isn’t provable in the mathematical sense, but what it is is the following: a theory of how life developed on Earth that works; that joins the dots simply and sensibly. There are two alternatives: creationism/ID, and nothing. The former demands much more “faith” whilst simultaneously over-complicating things, and the latter is, well, nothing. Occam’s razor leads to the theory of evolution here.

“If they are not for us, they are against us.”

“There is a reason for everything.”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason

I don’t need to try very hard to disprove evolution’s supposed means. Example: human facial hair. This, genetically, in its entirety, does not aid survival, therefor it should have been subject to evolutionary neglect, and it should not exist. Why do I have eyebrows? It’s a pretty simple question, but one of a billion things that natural selection should not have produced so specifically and universally.

Maybe men have beards because early women found them attractive - that would keep them in our genes. And surely eyebrows are there to give added protection to the eyes?
Try harder…

Surely you’d be one dead-duck if you weren’t born with eyebrows.

Pull up those shorts, your faith is showing.

[ChimneySweep]

[This is a reply to W.C.'s post]

A good way to understand the difference between the scientific and religious explanations of the origins of life on Earth is by a joining-the-dots analogy. The “answer” to the question of whence came life can be thought of a a picture. Ideally, we’d have so many dots as to give us effectively unbroken lines, giving a perfectly clear picture. However, we only have a modest number of dots (the fossil record, genomes), and so what science does is form the simplest picture possible using the dots. Religion, on the other hand, draws a picture on a separate - blank - piece of paper. Yes, they both might be the true picture, but the scientific one is based on empirical evidence, whereas the religious one is, as I said, wholly speculative. This is the difference. This is why we should put our money on neo-darwinism.

Re the last part, yes, it may well be the case that we’ll never fully understand the universe. Be that as it may, we can still understand the gist of how life evolved on earth.

[To Dan]
You’ve linked me to a wiki page on reason. This proves that you’re more reasonable than me, and so therefore you’re right and I’m wrong

[Dan1 (Dan~)]

@Tabula Rasa

Example: human facial hair. This, genetically, in its entirety, does not aid survival, therefor it should have been subject to evolutionary neglect, and it should not exist. Why do I have eyebrows? It’s a pretty simple question, but one of a billion things that natural selection should not have produced so specifically and universally.

Facial Hair: Hair growth patterns were very useful for demarking one of your own species back in the day when we weren’t alone. Even now - they are useful and easy signallers of credo.

It does not aid survival directly these days, but also, it does not jepordize it to the degree it should be selcted against.

Eyebrows: Major signalling devices. [[size=75]Looks quizzical[/size]]. Imagine [[size=75]arches eyebrow[/size]] a face unable to smile, to frown, to wiggle its ears. Should we lose those too…?

C’mon Dan… Don’t betray the Dawk.

Interporatation of facial expression wouldn’t be possible without facial hair?

C’mon Tab… Don’t betray the question.

[Dan1 (Dan~)]

@Del

The theory of evolution is a great discovery, but sometimes people go overboard with evolutionary explanations for EVERYTHING around us. Why do most people like music? Ummm…well let’s see, music is rhythmical…maybe cavemen with a good sense of rhythm were faster runners and thereby escaped from predators?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationaliz … chology%29

It is my guess that there’s a large amount of traits (in all animals/plants) which have evolved for other reasons than pure reproduction/survival benefit.

That betrays the entire theory.

[Dan1 (Dan~)]

@W.C.

It’s a comfort thing, one way or the other.

Evolutionists like their theory; its got some real good points and it makes sense to them. Creationists feel the same, their theory ties in with their religious beliefs and it works just peachy for them. Try and say a bad word against either group and watch their teeth come out. Both groups are dogmatic psychopaths - put each in the same room and you’ll most likely have one hell of a barking match. No one wants their comfortable beliefs questsioned, but then, why should they? They know whats right better then anyone else does.

By default, due to the weaknesses of foundationalis and credibility within human-to-human thesis, anyone who can fully explain the origin of reality and the progression of reality, is judged, by default, as the master of reality, thus trusted and fallowed.

[Ulteriority]
thefreedictionary.com/ulteriority

Oh, and by the way, Dan~, I love your current sig line; 'Be ‘ware, the frightful grasp of soberity.’ Pure class. Cheers.

Thanks.

[Dan1 (Dan~)]

@Tabula Rasa

Dear Del,

You see, that post you just made, it was an inevitable evolutionary step - the typing involved strengthened your finger muscles, which would have allowed you to grip a spear or other stabbing implement more confidently. In fact archeologists in southern France have found ancient keyboards, made of onyx, apparantly used for riual purpose, in burial mounds. But, and this is a critical but, only in the burial mounds of homosapia. The burial mounds of dolphins discovered in the same area, were empty of any such simular items. QED.

It is my guess that there’s a large amount of traits (in all animals/plants) which have evolved for other reasons than pure reproduction/survival benefit

Browsing through Nature magazine I see that botonists in America have discovered a new mutant fungus, temporarily dubbed “Moonwalk Fandango”, which instead of the traditional tough fibrous spore-casings contemporary to its kin - has a pattern of small square mirror-like encrustations, and a small hooked protrusion on top.

These fungal disco-balls are extremely attractive to the local Redneck population, who use them in their primitive mating rituals. The heat of the spotlights over time causes them to burst, scattering minute spores over the sweaty drunken dancers. Who then disperse them across the area, via beaten up old pick-up trucks.

Woof. Bark. Grr.

And tomarrow, after sticking my head in the microwave for 2 minutes, I will deside to sprout irreducably complex new sensory organs and drasticly switch whichever environment that I “live” in.

[Dan1 (Dan~)]

@W.C.

@ChimneySweep

The crucial difference between neo-darwinism and creationism, WC, is that the latter is speculative. They most certainly not two equal and opposite types of explanation, which is the impression your post gave.

The latter is speculative, I agree, but would add that the former is also speculative.

The difference? One group uses science and the other uses religion. One is fact and speculation, the other is faith and speculation. The bottom line is that niether is perfect; though both of them like to think that they are.

There will be neverending bickering until we find the truth [size=75]- and heres the giddy bit -[/size] its most likely that we never will, and I’m pretty content with that myself.

m-w.com/dictionary/find
m-w.com/dictionary/perception
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimation_theory
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth

[robo_sapien]

@Dan~

Why do I have eyebrows? It’s a pretty simple question, but one of a billion things that natural selection should not have produced so specifically and universally.

Eyebrows might have a function. Eye brows may be keeping the moisture (sweat or even rain) from running down from ones forehead and straight in to the eyes. This might have been a survival advantage when humans were hunters.

Or it may be an evolutionary left over like the appendix in the stomach without any purpose but in the process of disappearing.

[Obw]

It’s not very useful to challenge the individual evolutionists ability to think up why we have certain things and what evolutionary purpose they might serve. put simply, evolution is just gradual change, some changes are better and some worse, the better ones reproduce more. It’s so simple it cannot be wrong. It’s not trying to suggest that the process itself somehow “knows” what is better and what is not, it’s just that better changes will last longer than worse changes. How can this be questioned? It’s completely observable and the only ingredient needed to prove all manner of results we see today is TIME. Enough time, and you get eyebrows.

[sirswedishmike]

eyebrows have many functions. They add sex apeal, they aid in emotion reading for other humans.

grrr,

just kidding about the grrr, at the end of the day neither party has a time machine, and we still just connect dots or speculate or both.

[Dan1 (Dan~)]

@Obw

It’s not very useful to challenge the individual evolutionists ability to think up why we have certain things and what evolutionary purpose they might serve. put simply, evolution is just gradual change, some changes are better and some worse, the better ones reproduce more. It’s so simple it cannot be wrong.

Depends on how the principal is applied.

The symetry and fancy accuracy of form and body-markings rarely has much to do with survival. I don’t think I’ll be heard here…