Darwin Was Full Of Crap

[Carl-Richard]

33 minutes ago, SQAAD said:

@Carl-Richard

Evolution's metaphysics is that basically the reason why a turtle ended up with a shell is not because of God's intentions or Intelligence. But merely because of some accidental/random forces and variants.

Then these variants survived because they were favorable for survival. 

Evolution tries to dismiss the idea that things are the way they are because of Intelligence, which i find laughable.

This is false. Natural selection still doesn't explain how everything can end up like it has. Their fundamental metaphysical explanation is some blind luck.

The way I see it is that natural selection and the randomness of mutations is a part of the infinite intelligence, or one perspective on it, and that the parts we have not yet explained in analytic terms are either yet to come or impossible to explain within those constraints.

[SQAAD]

@Carl-Richard

1 hour ago, Carl-Richard said:

The way I see it is that natural selection and the randomness of mutations is a part of the infinite intelligence, or one perspective on it, and that the parts we have not yet explained in analytic terms are either yet to come or impossible to explain within those constraints.

That is my point too or at least partially.

I don't believe in randomness. 'Apparent' randomness exists though for sure. If we are here by chance/randomness then this implies reality is not intelligent and therefore we  should not even be talking about the word 'God' anymore. God is made redundant, if its all originated by some blind luck, that somehow happened.

Intelligence means that everything has intention behind it. An engineer builds a house with clear intentions and doesn't leave anything at chance.

Darwin wanted to answer the question. ''How is it possible that there are all these creatures who look like they were pefectly designed to fit their environment with such intelligence and beauty?''

Then he observed natural selection and created his theory. But still he did not answer the original question. 

Evolution tries to imply that there is no intention behind evolution. That is all dumb mechanical luck. That is the problem right there.

When you explain something, you have the illusion that you've explained the whole thing. Evolution hasn't explained what is the underlying force that could allow such marvellous things to happen. Blind luck is the only explanation because God cannot be proven and is not suitable to their worldview.

I find it funny how there are so many things that work so incredibly well without a single glitch and still the intelligence behind of it all is never acknowledged. It just baffles me.. 

 

 

Edited July 5, 2022 by SQAAD

[Carl-Richard]

30 minutes ago, SQAAD said:

I don't believe in randomness. 'Apparent' randomness exists though for sure. If we are here by chance/randomness then this implies reality is not intelligen, nor should we talking about the word 'God' anymore.

So yes, that is what I mean by making the distinction between different types of randomness (specific vs broad; scientific vs. metaphysical). Creationism talks about a very specific type of plan, which can be tested scientifically and is debunked by Darwinism, and you can also say that all of it is not really random in a broader sense. So the type of randomness Darwin is talking about is in itself not metaphysical, but it's rather concerned with a particular behavior of nature, i.e. science, not what reality is in the most ultimate sense.

However, there is indeed a broader view of the Cartesian-Newtonian paradigm (materialism/physicalism) that considers the whole of reality as a soulless mechanical clockwork or machine (not random per se, but simply dead physical stuff interacting by natural laws), and Darwin was certainly part and parcel of spawning that view. It gets confusing, because physicalists essentially mix up metaphysics and science into one jumbled mess, and what I'm trying to say is that it's possible to untangle that mess and carefully delineate which parts of it is science and which is metaphysical.

[SQAAD]

@Carl-Richard

12 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

So yes, that is what I mean by making the distinction between different types of randomness (specific vs broad; scientific vs. metaphysical). Creationism talks about a very specific type of plan, which can be tested scientifically and is debunked by Darwinism, and you can also say that all of it is not really random in a broader sense. So the type of randomness Darwin is talking about is in itself not metaphysical, but it's rather concerned with a particular behavior of nature, i.e. science, not what reality is in the most ultimate sense.

However, there is indeed a broader view of the Cartesian-Newtonian paradigm (materialism/physicalism) that considers the whole of reality as a soulless mechanical clockwork or machine (not random per se, but simply dead physical stuff interacting by natural laws), and Darwin was certainly part and parcel of spawning that view. It gets confusing, because physicalists essentially mix up metaphysics and science into one jumbled mess, and what I'm trying to say is that it's possible to untangle that mess and carefully delineate which parts of it is science and which is metaphysical.

I know very little about Creationism. That could have been debunked. But Intelligent Design has not been debunked. It has been called Blind luck.

[Carl-Richard]

1 minute ago, SQAAD said:

@Carl-Richard

I know very little about Creationism. That could have been debunked. But Intelligent Design has not been debunked. It has been called Blind luck.

Yup. The less sophisticated versions of religion and mythology often make scientific claims, and those are of course easier to debunk and discard, but when you scale out to the deeper metaphysical questions, then you're only left with logical inferences (if you're a naturalist), or direct experience (if you're a mystic), or dogma (if you're traditionally religious), and you can certainly make different cases for intelligent design in each of those domains.

[AtheisticNonduality]

23 hours ago, Gesundheit2 said:

@SQAAD Probably the greatest merger between Darwinism and intelligent (self-)design would be Pierre Teilhard de Chardin.

[DocWatts]

56 minutes ago, SQAAD said:

@Carl-Richard

That is my point too or at least partially.

I don't believe in randomness. 'Apparent' randomness exists though for sure. If we are here by chance/randomness then this implies reality is not intelligent and therefore we  should not even be talking about the word 'God' anymore. God is made redundant, if its all originated by some blind luck, that somehow happened.

The proximate reason a turtle shell is able to exist is because our Reality  seems to be structured so that self organizing structures are the vehicles for change and novelty.

It's not due to random chance.

Now, why it is that Reality seems to be structured in this way is a fair arena to question whether or not teleology plays a role. This is in principle a metaphysical and ontological question rather than a scientific one.

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, SQAAD said:

@Carl-Richard

I know very little about Creationism. That could have been debunked. But Intelligent Design has not been debunked. It has been called Blind luck.

Btw, "Intelligent Design" seems to be associated with creationism. Unless you think God is some kind of human that thinks human thoughts and makes human plans, I would suggest that you're simply appealing to God as Oneness or non-duality, emphasizing the infinity of forms and God's self-contained and self-created nature.

[SQAAD]

@Carl-Richard

1 hour ago, Carl-Richard said:

Btw, "Intelligent Design" seems to be associated with creationism. Unless you think God is some kind of human that thinks human thoughts and makes human plans, I would suggest that you're simply appealing to God as Oneness or non-duality, emphasizing the infinity of forms and God's self-contained and self-created nature.

Yes All is God. I would be too naive too believe in some God that sits outside all of this. And i have several mystical experiences at this point , that make it impossible to do so.

Quote

If you were a gene, what would facilitate your replication? First, you might try to ensure the well-being of the “vehicle” or body in which you reside (survival). Second, you might try to induce the vehicle to reproduce. Third, you might want to help the survival and reproduction of vehicles that contain copies of you. Genes, of course, do not have thoughts, and none of this occurs with consciousness or intentionality

This is just another quote from the evolutionary psychology book i am currently reading. They strip away the intelligence, the consciousness behind of it all which i find very amusing and very disturing at the same time.

They jump into metaphysical conlcusions that are not based on any  'solid' 'evidence'. 

How can this scientist know whether or not there is any intentonality behind all of this? I find it very arrogant and disrespectful to my intelligence.

Edited July 5, 2022 by SQAAD

[SQAAD]

@DocWatts

2 hours ago, DocWatts said:

 

It's not due to random chance.

 

Yes i agree with that. But today's science would have you to believe otherwise.

Scientists are skeptical of everything, except their atheistic materialism.

Edited July 5, 2022 by SQAAD

[Carl-Richard]

@SQAAD

I agree that genes don't have thoughts ? Remember that your idea of consciousness is probably very different from most materialists. When a materialist says "consciousness", they can mean anything from phenomenal consciousness (qualitative experiences), intentionality (private inner experience), sentience (survival-salient perceptions; pleasure, pain, emotions etc.), meta-consciousness (reflective self-awareness; meta-cognition) and more.

[SQAAD]

@JoeVolcano

5 hours ago, JoeVolcano said:

@SQAAD It's also backward. The general notion of the arrow of time where the current state of the universe is caused by prior events, is also false.

Perhaps a more accurate way of describing time is by taking the present moment as a given, and history as the excuse that God invented in order to arrive here.

The creationist argument that God placed fossils on earth to test our faith, is not so far fetched afterall! 

Food for thought.

Cheers

 I think this is what Leo is suggesting aswell. He gave a top down explanation of the Universe in his States of Consciousness video. It makes some sense.

Edited July 5, 2022 by SQAAD

[Tyler Robinson]

@Carl-Richard do you get dehydrated when you take multi vitamins. Just asking you personally. I have been taking multi vitamin since last week, and God I'm so thirsty all the time. 

 

[SQAAD]

@Carl-Richard

7 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

@SQAAD

I agree that genes don't have thoughts ? Remember that your idea of consciousness is probably very different from most materialists. When a materialist says "consciousness", they can mean anything from phenomenal consciousness (qualitative experiences), intentionality (private inner experience), sentience (survival-salient perceptions; pleasure, pain, emotions etc.), meta-consciousness (reflective self-awareness; meta-cognition) and more.

How can you ever possibly know if a gene has thoughts or not? 

How can you even know if anything else has consciousness besides yourself to begin with?

Edited July 5, 2022 by SQAAD

[SQAAD]

@Carl-Richard

12 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

@SQAAD

When a materialist says "consciousness", they can mean anything from phenomenal consciousness 

There is nothing outside of 'phenomenal' consciousness. And even if it is, you don't know actually know about such thing. You have no evidence about it.

That is the issue right there with materialism. It assumes things which are not consciousness. This assumption is not based on any direct experience but rather on a fantasy.

''Scientific training is a very specific conditioning of the mind''

 

Edited July 5, 2022 by SQAAD

[Carl-Richard]

56 minutes ago, Tyler Robinson said:

@Carl-Richard do you get dehydrated when you take multi vitamins. Just asking you personally. I have been taking multi vitamin since last week, and God I'm so thirsty all the time. 

Haha no, but I only take magnesium and fish oil (A, D and E vitamins and omega-3 fatty acids).

 

55 minutes ago, SQAAD said:

@Carl-Richard

How can you ever possibly know if a gene has thoughts or not?

It's a very safe inference, just like the inference that other humans also have thoughts like me. But consciousness precedes thought, so while I believe there is no good reason to believe that a rock experiences thoughts, I believe that it consists of phenomenal consciousness.

 

55 minutes ago, SQAAD said:

How can you even know if anything else has consciousness besides yourself to begin with?

I believe phenomenal consciousness is transpersonal, but thoughts seem to be personal. A materialist would think all of it is personal.

[Carl-Richard]

3 hours ago, JoeVolcano said:

In fact it's even worse than that. What you find out is that you can't make any kind of proposition of what could potentially exist outside of consciousness, without starting with a logical absurdity. So the only way to set forth any kind of theory, is to base it on something that's knowably false and impossible. In short, an air castle.

That single, simple thing, is what every scientist, philosopher and religious person in the history of the world has been unwilling to admit: In order to construct their precious edifice, they have to start with an unmistakable lie.

Cheers

Unmistakeable lie or useful fiction?

[Carl-Richard]

19 hours ago, JoeVolcano said:

They wouldn't mind admitting to a useful fiction.

Cheers

Wait, are you saying they would agree that it's all a useful fiction? At least some of them do, certainly some philosophers and scientists. Not all naturalists are naive realists.

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, JoeVolcano said:

You do realize the irony of what you're doing, right?

Cheers

No.

[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.