Yup. That's what I'm talking about. So how long did God take to create the Earth and Adam and Eve. Six days right?. It's in the Bible , got to be right!
Donald Hoffman: Reality is an Illusion - How Evolution Hid the Truth | Lex Fridman Podcast #293 This happened to come up in my YouTube algorithmic autoplay feed this morning. Waking up, i've listened to the first 30% of it. It tends to corroborate some things i've been saying here. First things first, reality and truth are the same thing, to my way of thinking. Lex seems to be interested in those. The scientist suggests that scientists have job security insofar truth and reality are now, and ever will be, just a little beyond reach. It looks like it will be "turtles all the way down" for the foreseeable future. The scientist here reveals that space-time, as a theory, is "doomed", and has been for a long time. He suggests that just as Einstein replaced Newtonian theory, something else is going to replace Einstein's theory, if it hasn't already. It's interesting what the scientist has to say about evolution versus perception versus fitness models. It appears we can no longer take evolution for granted. But first things first. Whenever I hear the term "reality" or "truth", i translate that to a term that describes a living being i call "Christ". Arguably, this whole podcast is a discussion about Christ. Notably, we cannot see Christ, while we perceive these manifestations of particle physics, so-to-speak. Notably, what we see is more due to perception than actual evolution of something real. The laws the scientist is trying to uncover, which dictate what we see, is part of what i've tried to describe as the faith complex, versus a knowledge complex. I have proposed that faith is the mysterious process that makes up these laws of physics that scientists are having a hard time grasping. I have been suggesting that faith is not at all a revelatory function, but rather a concealatory function. It conceals Christ, which can't be seen, while we explore other identities that derive from our proverbial ancestor, the provererbial "prodigal son". Anyway, i'll be listening to the rest of this. Meanwhile, i thought it would be a good conversation piece within the general discussion of hell. It's hell to still be so ignorant of reality, despite the best efforts of our best scientists. It does support my general theory that while we see illusion, we cannot see Christ, and visa versa. While we see Christ, we cannot see illusion, which includes the phenomenon of bodies. I have listened up to the point 58:10, where Lex says, "At what point in our evolutionarily history, do we start to deviate the most from reality. Is it way before life even originated on earth?" To this i have been saying yes.
What an ignorantly absurd thing to say ... on hearing anything that doesn't jive with your religiclous philosophy, all you got is.. never gets old
Not at all, Stu. According to evolutionary biologist John Endler: “Natural selection must not be equated with evolution, though the two are intimately related,” and “natural selection does not explain the origin of new variants, only the process of changes in their frequency.” https://creation.com/is-evolution-true Be careful, Stu, on what you are basing your evolutionary faith!! The scientific consensus is that evolution is true. Regarding appeals to consensus, Michael Crichton said this: “There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.” In 2008, 16 of the world’s top evolutionists met, by invitation, in Altenberg, Austria. Their purpose was to discuss the crisis in evolutionary biology because many of them had come to see that the supposed mechanisms of mutations and natural selection did not explain the diversity of life. The only consensus was that there is a major problem. https://creation.com/is-evolution-true
Not sure who you are talking about. The bible demonizes knowledge, and glorifies faith. This is evident from its very beginning where it claims that mankind was brought forth without knowledge, and that it would be some kind of sin to desire to have the same knowledge as man's maker. While science seems to be a light, it has not yet answered the most important questions, and according to one scientist, might never. My thesis is: the reason knowledge is demonized is because the faith complex cannot survive actually knowing what's going on.
You might want to take a look at this book: Desperate attempts to discover ‘the elusive process of evolution’ Posted on homepage: 2 November 2012 (GMT+10) A review of The Altenberg 16: An Exposé of the Evolution Industry by Suzan Mazur North Atlantic Books, Berkeley, CA, 2010 reviewed by Walter J. ReMine Because this book was written by an evolutionist, creation scholars will especially love it. The Altenberg 16 looks at the rivalry in science today surrounding attempts to discover “the elusive process of evolution”. Its centerpiece is the by-invitation-only symposium held at Altenberg, Austria, in July 2008, attended by 16 evolutionary scientists, called the Altenberg 16 (figure 1). “[W]hile the Altenberg 16 have roots in neo-Darwinian theory, they recognize the need to challenge the prevailing Modern Synthesis, because there’s too much it doesn’t explain [emphasis added]” (p. vii). “The Altenberg 16 … recognize that the theory of evolution which most practicing biologists accept and which is taught in classrooms today, is inadequate in explaining our existence [emphasis added]” (p. 19). “A wave of scientists now questions natural selection’s role, though fewer will publicly admit it” (p. 20). “Evolutionary science is as much about the posturing, salesmanship, stonewalling and bullying that goes on as it is about actual scientific theory. It is a social discourse involving hypotheses of staggering complexity with scientists, recipients of the biggest grants of any intellectuals, assuming the power of politicians while engaged in Animal House pie-throwing and name-calling: ‘ham-fisted’, ‘looney Marxist hangover’, ‘secular creationist’, ‘philosopher’ (a scientist who can’t get grants anymore), ‘quack’, ‘crackpot’ … ‘A wave of scientists now questions natural selection’s role, though fewer will publicly admit it.’ “In short, it’s a modern day quest for the holy grail, but with few knights. At a time that calls for scientific vision, scientific inquiry’s been hijacked by an industry of greed, with evolution books hyped like snake oil at a carnival. “Perhaps the most egregious display of commercial dishonesty is this year’s celebration of Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species—the so-called theory of evolution by natural selection, i.e., survival of the fittest, a brand foisted on us 150 years ago. “Scientists agree that natural selection can occur. But the scientific community also knows that natural selection has little to do with long-term changes in populations [emphasis added, ellipsis in original]” (p. v). ‘Scientists agree that natural selection can occur. But the scientific community also knows that natural selection has little to do with long-term changes in populations.’ Good reporting The book gives numerous statements that creation scholars will cheer. I therefore expected its author, Suzan Mazur, to offset those by giving the usual, obligatory, condemnation of creationists or the usual, stern (but empty), warning that ‘creationists will find nothing useful here’. I was pleasantly surprised these were absent from her prose. Though Mazur is an evolutionist, she is clearly a serious reporter, committed to the reporter’s craft of excluding her own views. The book is careful reportage throughout. She asks pointed questions of many evolutionary scientists, and gives lengthy transcripts of their responses, along with biographies, and observations about their appearance, manner, habits, and hobbies. It’s unlikely a creationist reporter could have gotten these same evolutionists to open up that much. Natural selection is insufficient The book openly acknowledges the insufficiency of explaining evolution via natural selection (i.e. mutation and recombination plus various forms of selection)—and documents this point with statements from leading evolutionary scientists. “We are grappling with the increasing feeling … that we just don’t have the theoretical and analytical tools necessary to make sense of the bewildering diversity and complexity of living organisms” (from the invitation to attend the Altenberg conference, p. 31). “Basically I don’t think anybody knows how evolution works [emphasis added]” (Jerry Fodor, p. 34). “Oh sure natural selection’s been demonstrated … the interesting point, however, is that it has rarely if ever been demonstrated to have anything to do with evolution in the sense of long-term changes in populations. … Summing up we can see that the import of the Darwinian theory of evolution is just unexplainable caprice from top to bottom. What evolves is just what happens to happen [ellipsis in original]” (Stanley Salthe, p. 21). “There are people spouting off as if we know the answer. We don’t know the answer” (Stuart Kauffman, p. 54). “Darwinism and the neo-Darwinian synthesis, last dusted off 70 years ago, actually hinder discovery of the mechanism of evolution” (Antonio Lima-de-Faria, p. 83). “Do I think natural selection should be relegated to a less import role in the discussion of evolution? Yes I do” (Scott Gilbert, p. 221). “She [Lynn Margulis] sees natural selection as ‘neither the source of heritable novelty nor the entire evolutionary process’ and has pronounced neo-Darwinism ‘dead’, since there’s no adequate evidence in the literature that random mutations result in new species” (Mazur, p. 257). “At that meeting [Francisco] Ayala agreed with me when I stated that this doctrinaire neo-Darwinism is dead. He was a practitioner of neo-Darwinism but advances in molecular genetics, evolution, ecology, biochemistry, and other news had led him to agree that neo-Darwinism’s now dead” (Lynn Margulis, p. 278). “The point is, however, that an organism can be modified and refined by natural selection, but that is not the way new species and new classes and new phyla originated” (Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini, p. 314). Why is natural selection insufficient? The book identifies key areas where natural selection is not a sufficient explanation, but discusses those only briefly and superficially. Mazur could have done a better job explaining these problems that are driving evolutionary scientists up the wall. I’ll greatly expand the discussion here. One area is obviously the origin of life, since natural selection can’t operate until after life has begun. Yet modern science has revealed breathtaking complexity of the simplest known self-reproducing lifeforms. To explain away these difficulties, evolutionists are claiming the existence, on Earth, of countless lifeforms unlike any known lifeforms. They have no evidence of that; instead they are trying to keep their worldview from being falsified, by floating untestable explanations. In addition, evolutionists are now offering unknown processes of ‘self-assembly’ and ‘self-organization’ (and associated terms like ‘plasticity’). Another key area is the origin of higher taxa, especially the origin of phyla and classes. According to evolutionists themselves, the origin of all the animal phyla occurred within (or very near) a brief geological twinkling of an eye, known as the Cambrian Explosion. This is a big problem in itself. But it gets worse. Stephen Jay Gould noted that the fossil sequence shows the most disparate (most different) biological designs tend to show up first! Followed by the slightly less-disparate designs. Followed by the still less different designs. Until, lastly, the last slight bits of interspecies biological diversity are filled-in at the very end of the process. The general trend in the fossil sequence is: the various phyla show up first, later various Linnaean classes are filled in, and still later various Linnaean orders are filled in … and so forth. Gould called this pattern ‘disparity precedes diversity’. And evolutionists cannot blame this sequence on an ‘incomplete fossil record’, as they often try to do. That contradicts the expectations of Darwinism (and neo-Darwinism), which expects slow change that, over time, will gradually accumulate to large differences. In short, Darwinism expects the most disparate designs to show up last, not first. This is contradicted by the fossil record. (To be honest, to most people not emotionally invested in the matter, it falsifies the Darwinism.) Something is wrong at the core of Darwinian theory. But it gets still worse. Recent discoveries in genetics are adding another interesting new challenge to the problem. Developmental biologists have observed a small set of genes coordinating organismal development of body plans—and these are present across the multicellular kingdom, in the various phyla and classes. Evolutionists call this the ‘Developmental Genetic Toolkit’. According to evolutionary thinking, this complex toolkit must have originated in some common ancestor to all the phyla. But that common ancestor must have existed prior to first appearance of these phyla—in other words, prior to the Cambrian Explosion. The common ancestor (whose identity is still unknown) must have existed in the Pre-Cambrian— prior to the origin of multicellular life. In short, the genes that control body plans had to have originated when there were no bodies. The genes that control embryological development had to have originated when there were no embryos. “At the point when the modern animal body plans first emerged [half a billion years ago] just about all the genes that are used in modern organisms to make embryos were already there. They had evolved in the single-celled world but they weren’t doing embryogenesis [Mazur’s braces]” (Stuart Newman, p. 52). Natural selection cannot solve that problem: it cannot ‘look ahead’ and create an embryological toolkit for some future use. It cannot develop the ‘tools’ for making multicellular bodies when there are no multicellular bodies. Natural selection is insufficient, so once again evolutionists are appealing to mechanisms of self-assembly and self-organization. Stuart Newman’s paper, which “served as the centerpiece of the Altenberg symposium” (Mazur, p. 12), claims that all 35 or so animal phyla physically self-organized by the time of the Cambrian explosion, and selection followed later as a ‘stabilizer’ of the self-organized novelties. “Look, when Sherman stresses that the sea urchin [which has no eyes] has, in-expressed, the genes for the eyes and for antibodies (genes that are well known and fully active in later species), how can we not agree with him that canonical neo-Darwinism cannot begin to explain such facts?” (Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini, p. 321). This problem, from genetics and the fossil record, is scientifically solid and firm—but the evolutionists’ solution is not. Yet Mazur inverts the proper handling by giving a superficial description of the problem. Few of her readers will understand what is driving evolutionary scientists to such desperate lengths. Testability and experimental demonstrations The evolutionary ideas of self-assembly and self-organization have two faults. First there is insufficient experimental demonstration. “Self-organization is of course an important component, but not much has been discovered beyond generalities. The immense amount of intricate detail that geneticists and developmentalists have been discovering over the years dwarfs general metaphors like autoevolution and even self-organization [emphasis added]” (Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini, p. 322). Moreover, these evolutionary explanations lack scientific testability, or seriously risk that they could potentially be empirically falsified. Nobody seems to know how to test these. “I think self-organization is part of an alternative to natural selection. Let me try to frame it for you. In fact, it’s a huge debate. The truth is that we don’t know how to think about it” (Stuart Kauffman, p. 291). Due to this two-fold scientific failure, these mechanisms can kindly be called hyperbole, or just plain hype—not science. These do not meet the requirements for science that evolutionists endorsed in all their court cases. But this deficiency is not discussed in the book. As we would predict for an evolutionary book of this type, it suggests no need whatever for testability of evolutionary explanations, in fact it scarcely mentions testability. Meanwhile evolutionists elsewhere resolutely demand testability from creation theories. This book is another example of the evolutionists’ routine double standard: One standard (testability) required of creation theory; and a far lower standard required of evolutionary theory. Evolutionary epistemology Here is how evolutionists arrive at what they ‘know’ about origins: they take evolution as an unshakeable ‘fact’, and science provides compelling evidence against many evolutionary explanations. Those are taken together as evidence for the remaining evolutionary explanations—no matter how flakey, unsupported, or unscientific. This method of knowing runs deep within the evolutionist mindset. Evolutionists are constitutionally unable to ‘see’ evidence against evolution, even when hitting them in the face. The Altenberg 16 provides an example. There are many examples. There is so-called ‘convergence’, which is superabundant in life. For example, evolutionists claim vision arose more than forty separate times, and that a complex eye like yours—with a lens and retina— originated at least five separate times, as it is found separately in vertebrates, cephalopods (octopus/squid), annelid worms, jellyfish, and a spider (figure 2). Such origins have not remotely been demonstrated experimentally, and though these designs are complex, their similarity cannot be explained: by common descent, or by atavism (i.e. the masking, and later un-masking of genetic traits), or by sideways transposition of traits from one lineage to another (such as by lateral gene transfer, or endosymbiosis). Wikipedia Figure 2. Jumping spider eyes. Evolutionists claim that the complex eye—with a lens and retina—originated at least five separate times, as it is found separately in vertebrates, cephalopods, annelid worms, jellyfish, and spiders. Those are merely the three versions of simple inheritance that evolutionists actively employ in their storytelling. But all three of these simple explanations are eliminated by the data. (Note: this was necessary to meet the goals predicted by Message Theory.The Biotic Message: Evolution Versus Message Theory, St Paul Science, St Paul, MN, 1993; see review: Batten, D., J. Creation 11(3):292–298, 1997; creation.com/biotic. Evolutionists are left with their least-easy, least plausible ‘explanation’ of the situation—the bald-faced, unscientific claim for the independent origin of similar biological complexities. In short, these are strong anti-evolutionary evidences. Given the incredible flexibility of evolutionary storytelling, ‘convergences’ are as anti-evolutionary as they can be. Ironically, the more profound the antievolutionary evidence, the more the evolutionist sees it as evidence for the incredible power of some evolutionary mechanism! All evolutionists interpret convergence as evidence for the incredible power of natural selection. Evolutionists instinctively recognize convergence as antievolutionary evidence, because they tend to avoid it in venues where evolution is not assumed as fact, such as debates with creationists. The evolutionist method is to set aside the anti-evolutionary evidences long enough to conclude evolution is a ‘fact’, and then later reinterpret those as evidence for some evolutionary mechanism. Simon Conway Morris gives convergence a book-length discussion.review of Life’s Solution: Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe, by Simon Conway Morris, J. Creation 20(2):29–35, 2006. He documents countless examples of astounding convergence, and, taken together with his assumption of evolution as ‘fact’, he is forced to conclude that convergence is inevitable, and extraterrestrial life, if it produces higher lifeforms, would likely produce bilateral large-brained humanoids, much like ourselves! Natural selection is that powerful! Convergence is that inevitable! What is the evidence that convergence is inevitable? Answer: that it exists, abundantly—no further evidence is needed. To evolutionists, sufficient experimental demonstration is not required of evolution, and neither is scientific testability. More of this book review can be found here: https://creation.com/review-altenberg-16
Again, this stuff you posted is about about current evolutionary hypotheses. An HYPOTHESIS is an educated guess. That guess is not proven. once it is proven it becomes a Theory. A theory is an hypothesis that has been proven to be correct. Myths such as the Christian myths in the Bible are not hypotheses. they don't result from educated guesses consistent with current theory. They are just myths. Fairy tales are myths. The Christian account of the beginning of the world is a myth. You want me to read a book which I neither have time for nor the inclination. Regardless that book has nothing whatsoever to do with the myth you believe is real. Well, it is every bit as real as Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. Why do you persist in thinking that because an hypothesis is being logically argued, such as the various evolution hypotheses, that the questioning of the correctness of these hypotheses somehow offers support for your myth being not a myth but a truth! The correctness or falseness of evolution hypotheses that are currently being debated, has nothing to do with your myth. Myths are never real. It's a trivial matter to show they can not be real. That's why they are myths. They are neither real, nor logical hypotheses, and certainly they are not theories. They are just myths, there value lies in their charm and usefulness for making up stories or producing religious writings.
Yes, Student likes to attack evolution as bunkum, but I'm reminded of this bible verse; Matthew 7:3 Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? What I'm attempting to convey, Student criticizes evolution theory, but then overlooks flaws in the bible myths. A type "Whataboutism". Distraction. I'm not pro life evolved from evolution (neither for nor against), but there is proof of minor evolution in the way humans breed animals into better pedigrees, think dogs cats, horses, pidgeons etc. Even fruit and vegetables, trees. Even humans evolve, smarter, taller, bigger, stronger, better looking, skills....
‘We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity; we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.’ Franklin M. Harold,* 2001. The way of the cell: molecules, organisms and the order of life, Oxford University Press, New York, p. 205. *Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry, Colorado State University, USA https://creation.com/franklin-harold-no-detailed-darwinian-accounts
Part of the issue here is if people quote studentofthemarkets, i don't see it while he is hiding behind the blocking functions at ET. So i don't always know who anyone is responding to. I theorize he doesn't block you because, as an evolution oriented atheist, you don't represent enough of a threat to his faith-based paradigm. That paradigm would lock you into a world where faith is glorified, and knowledge is panned, if not outright outlawed. It's not a coincidence that his, and Illini Trader's biggest issue here, is with the art of gnosis. It's why Gnostics were anathematized early, and made out to be heretics hard, by the mainstream promulgators of a hijacked version of Jesus' message. This is an ancient ideological battle between the faith-flesh complex, and the knowledge-spirit complex playing out right in front of our eyes. Gnosticism is simply an emphasis on the superior importance of knowledge, some tips on how to obtain knowledge, and some narratives that have arisen as a result of some acquisition of knowledge. The knowledge induces a distinct skepticism about the appearance of the material world, summed up by the one word, flesh. In this major battle, there were skirmishes along these lines between the eastern orthodox and the wester roman branches of the Jesus narrative. The west will not acknowledge, at all, that Jesus was squarely in the gnosis camp, having his own fairly detailed narrative, as a result of his own personal experiences with the acquisition of knowledge. This is important to understand whenever engaging. Technically speaking, the faith flesh complex, and the knowledge spirit complex cannot coexist, and the mere existence of one or the other represents a mortal enemy of the other. Expect resistance to be extreme. Within the faith-flesh complex, studentofthemarkets, along with the OP of this thread, are proposing the earth is a valid platform used by man's maker to test what grows here, and discard the rejects into some other place they call hell. This angle serves to satisfy their salivation to gain converts to their version of the faith-flesh complex. It's important to note that they are mainly only interested in preserving the faith-flesh complex. They don't give a damn about what truth any knowledge would actually bring. Indeed, they are very much against the revelation of truth through direct knowledge. My argument is that evolution is just one of several paradigms within the faith flesh complex. If you are in any way content with the flesh complex, then you really don't represent a threat to them. This might explain why you are not blocked. This gnashing of the teeth, which they are promoting, serves to distract from the prime ideological battle that is raging. Distraction is all they need to preserve the faith flesh complex, within which darkness, their favorite brand of mushrooms can grow. What you have in common with them, is a degree of contentment with the flesh complex. For example, Lex Fridman seems to be an honest seeker. But he is fascinated, impressed, enthralled, and therefore a bit content with what i call the status quo...to be ok with not necessarily knowing actual answers about reality...to be able to simply enjoy the moment. This contentment contrasts with what i am experiencing, and promote, which is a deep weariness with the status quo...with the faith-flesh complex. This deep weariness is really what is needed to penetrate the deceptive walls that the faith flesh complex imprisons us within. This weariness is paramount, and explains why the first call Jesus made was, "Come to me, ye who are weary". Knowledge will simply not be obtained by anyone content with the faith flesh complex. I am suggesting that parlay with them amounts to gnashing of teeth, leading in circles. They are not threatened by the concept of evolution, whether it is true, or untrue. They salivate for converts, and care not if they use the force of threats. They intend to be paid, one way or another. They care less about how we arrive here, and most about validating our existence here.