Poll on the forum denizens views on evolution

[Phil8659]

Do you distinguish nature as being further divided into the perceptible and the intelligible, such as the difference between body and mind in regard to particulars?

Out of curiosity what do you mean by 'perceptible' and 'intelligible', exactly, and will you provide examples?

If no, then why not?

You are one person who clearly cannot have this conversation, as the intelligible to you is incomprehensible, however, I will submit a division in all life forms given many thousands of years ago.

Those Systems that Acquire the Element of Material.
1) The Digestive-System.
2) The Musculoskeletal-System.
3) The Respiratory-System.
Those Systems that Acquire the Element of Form.
4) The Ocular-System.
5) The Vestibular-System.
6) The Procreative-System.
7) The Judgmental-System

[Phil8659]

Those seven are given in metaphors;
Seven women shall, one jew.

Seven eyes and seven horns which are the seven Spirits of God.

It is the image of man.

Seven means of perception, seven means of self defense, Most people lack the seventh. It is still being made.

Six of those can become functional through technology, but which one cannot be replaced at all, which one defines Man?

Now the whole metaphor goes like this, we will do our own work, only let us be called by your name, which eventually will be true. Each life support system doing its own work, only if the seventh, the mind does its own work.
So, take a look around the whole globe, which life support system is provably not doing its own work?
The entire Bible outlines the evolution of mankind.
It is really the result of being a complete dumbass, claiming that the Bible contradicts evolution, when in fact, if you have even read it, it is all about evolution.

[accelafine]

Undiluted insanity on full display. It's not a pretty sight

[Phil8659]

Wow it took longer than expected for the dogs to start barking.

[Maia]

I am not sure, if all the 'matter' in the whole infinite Universe contracted into one singular, infinitely compressed particle, or piece, of 'matter', so that there was just only infinite 'space' all around 'that singularity', and then 'that singularity' expanded with a so-called 'bang', again, then how there could, logically nor empirically, even be any one other, or any bigger, cycle then 'that one'.

Again, 'I' do not do theories, speculations, assumptions, or any other sort of 'guesses', here. 'I' 'look at' what actually is, only.

And, 'what is' is that the One and only Universe, Itself, is infinite, and eternal.

Perhaps there wasn't a big bang, as such,

That there are 'bangs' occurring, is irrefutable. Now, what the words 'big bang' mean and refer to, exactly, would have to be first discussed, and agreed upon, before I could even begin to let you know if there was a so-called 'big bang', or not.

or an infinitely compressed particle, just a very small one,

Just a very small one' is what 'an infinitely compressed particle' means, and refers to, exactly.

compared to the size of the universe now.

Obviously what the 'Universe' actually is, exactly, is still being missed, misunderstood, and misinterpreted, here.

See, when the word 'Universe' means or is referring to, All-there-is; Everything; Totality, then the Universe remains the exact same size ALWAYS.

The Universe, Itself, can never ever change in size.

And, as always, if absolutely any one would like the actual irrefutable proof for this claim, then by all means let 'us' have a discussion.

This is very much, though, beyond my area of expertise.

Is there some thing, here, that you are interested in and would like to 'know', for sure?

The cycles of nature that concern us are on a much smaller scale.

If, as you were talking about, Nature/Universe, Itself, being 'in cycles', then 'that' concerns you human beings just as much as any other 'cycle', if only if 'that cycle' was not 'cycling', then you human beings would not have come to be 'created', through 'evolution', itself.

May I ask why you refer to humans as if you are not one, yourself?

I don't know the answers to the eternal questions about the universe, and I'm pretty sure that no one else does, either, but I'm fine with that. How boring life would be, if we knew everything, with nothing ever to find out, or discover.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

I wonder who the genius is who clicked number two

Me.

That's even more absurd than being a bog standard creationist. So you acknowledge scientific fact except for humans. Everything evolves--except for humans. We just suddenly appeared, fully formed....when, exactly, and from where?

Speaking for myself, absurd it certainly was when I knew a variant of it. I never believed. I always knew. It's all about when you know God exists as revealed by one or more texts. You then have to become a fundamentalist to some degree. Always. You believe. An incoherent, unjustified untrue belief at least, by faith, whatever that is, and all else follows from that, including an immense flow of good reasoning on that premise. There are straight wooden literalists, but as soon as you allow for metaphor, carriers of meaning, anything is possible. Absurd is normal, there's a vast spectrum of it. You can make it work. Easily. Absurdly easily. The vast majority of Christians believe to some degree that Jesus' death atoned, for them, for all. Including ones smarter, better educated and nicer than anyone else we know, especially ourselves. That is as fundamentalist as a universe in 6 days 6000 years ago.

[Phil8659]

Me.

That's even more absurd than being a bog standard creationist. So you acknowledge scientific fact except for humans. Everything evolves--except for humans. We just suddenly appeared, fully formed....when, exactly, and from where?

Speaking for myself, absurd it certainly was when I knew a variant of it. I never believed. I always knew. It's all about when you know God exists as revealed by one or more texts. You then have to become a fundamentalist to some degree. Always. You believe. An incoherent, unjustified untrue belief at least, by faith, whatever that is, and all else follows from that, including an immense flow of good reasoning on that premise. There are straight wooden literalists, but as soon as you allow for metaphor, carriers of meaning, anything is possible. Absurd is normal, there's a vast spectrum of it. You can make it work. Easily. Absurdly easily. The vast majority of Christians believe to some degree that Jesus' death atoned, for them for all. Including ones smarter, better educated and nicer than anyone else we know, especially ourselves. That is as fundamentalist as a universe in 6 days 6000 years ago.

You write as if there is only one grammatically correct usage of grammar, when in fact, all systems of grammar function using both. And, you assume that somehow you know when one form is being used and not the other.

You group people by a provably false standard. By fact, we are either literate or not.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

That's even more absurd than being a bog standard creationist. So you acknowledge scientific fact except for humans. Everything evolves--except for humans. We just suddenly appeared, fully formed....when, exactly, and from where?

Speaking for myself, absurd it certainly was when I knew a variant of it. I never believed. I always knew. It's all about when you know God exists as revealed by one or more texts. You then have to become a fundamentalist to some degree. Always. You believe. An incoherent, unjustified untrue belief at least, by faith, whatever that is, and all else follows from that, including an immense flow of good reasoning on that premise. There are straight wooden literalists, but as soon as you allow for metaphor, carriers of meaning, anything is possible. Absurd is normal, there's a vast spectrum of it. You can make it work. Easily. Absurdly easily. The vast majority of Christians believe to some degree that Jesus' death atoned, for them for all. Including ones smarter, better educated and nicer than anyone else we know, especially ourselves. That is as fundamentalist as a universe in 6 days 6000 years ago.

You write as if there is only one grammatically correct usage of grammar, when in fact, all systems of grammar function using both. And, you assume that somehow you know when one form is being used and not the other.

You group people by a provably false standard. By fact, we are either literate or not.

Sorry?

[Phil8659]

Speaking for myself, absurd it certainly was when I knew a variant of it. I never believed. I always knew. It's all about when you know God exists as revealed by one or more texts. You then have to become a fundamentalist to some degree. Always. You believe. An incoherent, unjustified untrue belief at least, by faith, whatever that is, and all else follows from that, including an immense flow of good reasoning on that premise. There are straight wooden literalists, but as soon as you allow for metaphor, carriers of meaning, anything is possible. Absurd is normal, there's a vast spectrum of it. You can make it work. Easily. Absurdly easily. The vast majority of Christians believe to some degree that Jesus' death atoned, for them for all. Including ones smarter, better educated and nicer than anyone else we know, especially ourselves. That is as fundamentalist as a universe in 6 days 6000 years ago.

You write as if there is only one grammatically correct usage of grammar, when in fact, all systems of grammar function using both. And, you assume that somehow you know when one form is being used and not the other.

You group people by a provably false standard. By fact, we are either literate or not.

Sorry?

Law of Identity for the work of a mind, a grammatical principles first cited in various ways by Plato, and is a biological fact.
What may be predicated of any thing is wholly determined by the definition of that thing. i.e. the mind parses information by standards, which you apparently are not aware of.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

You write as if there is only one grammatically correct usage of grammar, when in fact, all systems of grammar function using both. And, you assume that somehow you know when one form is being used and not the other.

You group people by a provably false standard. By fact, we are either literate or not.

Sorry?

Law of Identity for the work of a mind, a grammatical principles first cited in various ways by Plato, and is a biological fact.
What may be predicated of any thing is wholly determined by the definition of that thing. i.e. the mind parses information by standards, which you apparently are not aware of.

I'm sorry? Can I have some vinaigrette please?

[Phil8659]

Sorry?

Law of Identity for the work of a mind, a grammatical principles first cited in various ways by Plato, and is a biological fact.
What may be predicated of any thing is wholly determined by the definition of that thing. i.e. the mind parses information by standards, which you apparently are not aware of.

I'm sorry?

You actually first learnt it in simple arithmetic. It is demonstrated by the computer today. Binary recursion only produces a binary result, however, it is a sign of illiteracy when you do not realize that common grammar is also a method of counting. For example, how do you think your computer orders directories on your drive?
Common Grammar has only been taught by one author in history, Plato.

[Flannel Jesus]

I'm sorry?

Yeah man, I don't think that first sentence works grammatically in English. I couldn't make heads or tails either.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

I'm sorry?

Yeah man, I don't think that first sentence works grammatically in English. I couldn't make heads or tails either.

I'm sure we can make it work, you know, forgive the solecisms, and deconstruct it to 'the gostak distims the doshes'.

[Phil8659]

Great example of childhood regression. Happens a lot when some people are properly rebuked.

Try not to follow it up by pissing your pants.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Undiluted insanity on full display. It's not a pretty sight

That ain't kind, old thing. Something i struggle with. Just foe them.