Darwin Was Full Of Crap

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, JoeVolcano said:

The irony of what you're doing is that you're not wanting to admit to the unmistakable lie. Just like everyone else.

Thanks

I'm admitting to it. I just disagree with the framing.

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, JoeVolcano said:

That's because you want to frame it as a denial of the fact that it's an unmistakable lie. You're still doing it.

Cheers

How do I qualify as accepting that it's an unmistakeable lie in your mind? Let's stop with the clever responses and communicate like an adult.

[AtheisticNonduality]

@JoeVolcano Smoke less crack.

Edited July 6, 2022 by AtheisticNonduality

[Carl-Richard]

56 minutes ago, JoeVolcano said:

Lol, you don't...

Cheers

 How would I qualify then?

[JuliusCaesar]

This is probably a somewhat unpopular position, and likely Leo would criticize me for giving creationists ammunition with which to defend their wrong views. But the versions of evolutionary theory taught in universities and also the variant originally conceived of by Darwin are not factually correct at all. You can be certain of this for one simple reason. That being that supposedly, for instance, humans evolved from apes gradually. If this were true, then there would be instances of lifeforms that bear 1% human dna and 99% ape, as well as half ape half humans(otherwise known as "missing links" for good reason). Forget about fossils for a second, and realize that there would be countless LIVING missing links if this hypothesis of macroevolution were correct. And there would be no doubt millions of examples of these living interstitial forms naturally occurring. And yet there hasn't been one scientist to publish a paper, not even one to try to create a fake study claiming to have observed such an organism.

 

The only logical way out of this(besides the possibility of punctuated equilibrium, a completely unsubstantiated hypothesis I don't feel I need to address), would be to argue that evolution stopped with man. There are obviously many problems with this position, not the least of which is the fact that it wouldn't explain why lifeforms "below" human have also stopped evolving when man came to life. And yet, it's a direct logical consequence of evolutionism which always goes unevaluated as the people believing this nonsense are never aware of it.

 

There's also the problem that abiogenesis has never been observationally demonstrated(researchers have failed miserably attempting to do this under highly artificial circumstances) when if the theory were true, it would be constantly occurring in nature. And in fact, you can't have this hypothetical chain of macroevolutionary progression without first the initial unicellular lifeform arising. So this fact alone is enough to throw a monkey wrench in things as if it weren't bad enough that there's no scientific evidence to support any aspect of the evolutionary hypothesis.

 

Now, there are ways evolutionary theory could be that are not so easy to refute and are thus potentially true. Like the model of evolution in the Ra material where instead of lifeforms evolving, consciousness is evolving. And lifeforms simply exist as imaginary vehicles for various different states of consciousness.

[Carl-Richard]

2 hours ago, JuliusCaesar said:

That being that supposedly, for instance, humans evolved from apes gradually. If this were true, then there would be instances of lifeforms that bear 1% human dna and 99% ape, as well as half ape half humans(otherwise known as "missing links" for good reason). Forget about fossils for a second, and realize that there would be countless LIVING missing links if this hypothesis of macroevolution were correct. And there would be no doubt millions of examples of these living interstitial forms naturally occurring. And yet there hasn't been one scientist to publish a paper, not even one to try to create a fake study claiming to have observed such an organism.

I think the level of variability in species you're looking for is untenable. Divergent evolution (species creation) requires very long periods of separation (reproductively or environmentally) between different groups within a species, and the homo genus is very young compared to other genera. I also think that homo was less likely to experience considerable adaptive radiation when migrating to new environments compared to other animals, as homo evolution seems to mainly select for general adaptability (intelligence and brain size) rather than niche-specific adaptability (physical features like beak size, wing size etc.).

 

2 hours ago, JuliusCaesar said:

There's also the problem that abiogenesis has never been observationally demonstrated(researchers have failed miserably attempting to do this under highly artificial circumstances) when if the theory were true, it would be constantly occurring in nature. And in fact, you can't have this hypothetical chain of macroevolutionary progression without first the initial unicellular lifeform arising. So this fact alone is enough to throw a monkey wrench in things as if it weren't bad enough that there's no scientific evidence to support any aspect of the evolutionary hypothesis.

The principles behind evolution by natural selection (how life behaves) has really nothing to do with abiogenesis (how life arose from non-life). It's kinda like how the instructions for making a pizza does not involve growing a tomato.

[AtheisticNonduality]

3 minutes ago, JoeVolcano said:

That edit was an improvement buddy.

??????

Edited July 6, 2022 by AtheisticNonduality

[AtheisticNonduality]

Rocks are not conscious. Things of your unconscious are not conscious. Not all things are reducible to consciousness. But all things are the same as Consciousness. It's totally apparent this is a semantic issue, rooted in the naive skepticism Carl is against.

Edited July 6, 2022 by AtheisticNonduality

[Carl-Richard]

@JoeVolcano Why troll a perfectly good conversation?

[Carl-Richard]

1 minute ago, AtheisticNonduality said:

Rocks are not conscious. Things of your unconscious are not conscious. Not all things are reducible to consciousness. But all things are the same as Consciousness. It's totally apparent this is a semantic issue, rooted in the naive skepticism Carl is against.

?

[AtheisticNonduality]

Rocks, as inanimate beings, are not conscious, even if they are only graspable by the cosmic Consciousness. Things of your unconscious psyche are not conscious, though they are under the care of the overarching Consciousness we call Existence. Not all things are reducible to consciousness, and yet they are still Conscious. Despite many states and a duality between unconsciousness and consciousness, between unknown and unseen and known and seen, all things are the same as an ontological fabric of phenomena we ascribe the phrase Consciousness, in this specific context. It's totally apparent this is a semantic issue, rooted in the naive skepticism Carl is against.

[AtheisticNonduality]

6 minutes ago, JoeVolcano said:

Cheers

No

[Mason Riggle]

@JoeVolcano knows what's up.. Cheers Joe

[Carl-Richard]

@JoeVolcano

Enough fooling around.

 

[AtheisticNonduality]

@Carl-Richard Ban him.

[Mason Riggle]

@JoeVolcano they think you're trolling because you're kind of 'talking over their heads', and to them it appears as trolling,

 

[AtheisticNonduality]

1 minute ago, Mason Riggle said:

@JoeVolcano they think you're trolling because you're kind of 'talking over their heads', and to them it appears as trolling,

 

He is talking under our feet.

[Carl-Richard]

3 minutes ago, Mason Riggle said:

@JoeVolcano they think you're trolling because you're kind of 'talking over their heads', and to them it appears as trolling,

?

Still waiting for people to get back on topic.

[Mason Riggle]

@AtheisticNonduality under/over.. whichever is the case, it's more an issue of understanding/communication than it is ill intent.  I totally understand what Joe is saying, because I am comfortable with his language, and the structure of his speaking style/communication.. you and Carl are misunderstanding what he's saying through no fault of your own, and this is frustrating for both sides.. trust me, @JoeVolcano is sincere in his wishes to simply help you have a similar understanding about the whole situation as himself, because he understands the answers to your questions, but he's not giving you the answer you want in a format you want it, and this, rightfully so, is frustrating. 

Edited July 6, 2022 by Mason Riggle

[AtheisticNonduality]

@Mason Riggle If we want to "spiritually bypass" we'll just end up with solipsism. This moment, this cluster of sensations in the space of my awareness timelessly here, is all that is real, and all else is delusion or something which simply can't be known. That doesn't just render the unconsciousness vs. consciousness distinction obsolete. In fact, it makes all of this forum strange because it's just self-communication, a single moment held together by only you, or at least that is how solipsism presents itself.