Why do people deny evolution?

The supernatural is also a concept, you saw a picture in your head that includes what you think to be yourself killing a spike at 330 yards with a Chinese SKS in the hills of North Carolina and all these others who are willing to go along with your version of events that appear in dreaming. Modern unbiased science has the evidence to present the facts, the question is wether one can put ones dreaming aside and look at it for what it is without imagination.

Can you explain to me the difference between the "Actual" and the "Remembered"?

Don't you see? You are try to describe events that emanate from a source that is not in the event itself, you are bound to contradict yourself.

If you say you killed a spike at 330 yards with a Chinese SKS in the hills of North Carolina then give me a sample of the killer? That lump of material that you think killed the spike is part of the event that happens aside you. A tree falls down and crushes a car killing all its occupants, you wouldn't say the tree killed the people in the car; ordinary you would put it down to an accident, it was a process that accidentally happened to take place at that particular point in time. There was no intention in the tree to do anything.

A memory is, as far as I can tell, a mental event. What it signifies, I'm not sure. I am neither a believer in the self nor free will. Nor a believer in the opposite of either. I use conventional language to communicate successfully and conveniently with others. I don't know what perspective you're driving at, but I can't see anything so far that fundamentally disagrees with "mine."

But to return to the context in which my post was written, the irreducibly complex argument has been debunked. Thoroughly. There's nothing in field dressing a whitetail - nor the mere memory of it - to support it.

You and Mark Isaak are both living in a bullshit fairytale world. NOBODY believes in Lamarkism and any other variant of evolution is still evolution. Anything else amounts to an intelligent processes and a designer or designers so that, basically, you have two choices and only two. You can either go on believing in bullshit or you can wake up.

Where did I say that I believed in anything, much less Lamarckian evolution? Strawman much?

You blatantly ignored the possiblility that Darwinian evolution (however robust it has proven to be so far) may sometime later be supplanted by more advanced theories that nevertheless do not require the god hypothesis. Black-or-white thinking, the false dilemma fallacy, is said to be an adolescent stage of cognitive development. Just saying.

What have you got against studying and learning the facts, anyway? I do understand that blind faith requires less intellectual effort, but you get what you pay for, eh?

Not to put too fine a point on it, snaKKKe, the whole intelligent designer/god hypothesis has a much higher bullshit factor than evolution. All the tenets so far suggested for an intelligent designer have been shown in fact to have evolutionary antecedents and not to be irreducibly complex. ID proponents said they had obvious examples which clearly were too complex to have evolved, and all those examples proved to not be true. So the bullshit is on your end of things, not on evolution's. Maybe you should wake up.

The significance of it is in itself insignificant; all is contained in the memory. The memory itself has a source irrespective of its content That is the significant factor. There needs to be somebody there for a process of mentation to happen to which cannot be of the memory itself.



Then you contradiction yourself. In your very denial of yourself you assert it. You are expressing a conviction in something despite wether you care to acknowledge it or not; it is there. There must be a support for this conviction. What is that supporting factor? Who is saying: "I do not believe in the self or free will" ? Incidentally free will is an illusion but to deny yourself is a ridiculous notion.



Again you contradict, how is it possible to communicate successfully in language without its opposites?

A relation in convention is exactly what memory is. There is nothing wrong with the memory per se since it is inherent in the consciousness itself. However the content has no grounding whatsoever ever it has all been given and you accept it on the premise that your were born. It is as you say merely a conventional relationships between those on agreeable or convenient terms.




From an absolute perspective your arguments contradict as stated above on two occasions.



Of course it is only a concept just as evolution is only a concept. They are both half baked. All secondary concepts must have a primary supporting concept. Take away that primary concept and all secondary concept become null and void.



There is also nothing in the field of consciousness that suggests any reality par it's source which to all intent and purpose cannot be put into words.

What's the use of arguing about a context within a context? It is like arguing about the periphery of a wheel and disregarding the hub in which the periphery of the wheel revolves around.
I'm trying to get you to recede further back; no argument is valid unless everything has been taken into consideration, otherwise there can be no conclusive results. Your irreducibly complex argument maybe true or false as far as the mind is concerned but it does not address the root.

You can't see anything wrong because you have not thoroughly investigated.

The root to all of this is yourself, to deny it is absurd.

Have you realised that it is all in dreaming?

It is all mental illusion, what I've demonstrated here is simple logic, if you cannot understand, that's your problem, go sort it. It does not invalidate what I've said. If you did not experience your birth then death cannot be considered an experience. The experience, experiencer and the experienced are mental construct; suffice to say somebody must be there for an experience to take place. If you've not figured that one out yet then I suggest you re-spec, at whatever it is you define as logic, I suggest you go purchase a dictionary for starters, it might help.

Your premise AND conclusion are wrong. Perception is the result of subjective-objective observation.

All I can do is recommend that you work on your reading comprehension skill and bone up on logic. You equivocated on terms, made false equivalences and wrote non sequiturs. You seem intensely intent on asserting something - I can't tell what - and it's not interesting enough for me to pursue it further. Best of luck to you.

Why do people deny evolution?

maybe they too small for this world

They live in a different "world."

What is perception? Is it not based on memory. The subject- object nexus is also a mental state under observation. Apperception is a sense of something entirely unfamiliar; it is not contained in the memory.

Likewise, all I can say to you is ditch the book talk and come into your own. It is not an English class. If the chick does not break free of its shell it will suffocate and die. Mind is also like a shell, it becomes moulded according to the conditions in which it is exposed to. You must break the mould yourself, Learn to read to understand.

There is no deception here, you deceive yourself by not knowing yourself or rather refusing to acknowledge yourself.

You fail to grasp the deeper meaning of what is being expounded here due to the lack of discernment. Essentially it is beyond the equivalences and since all distinctions and categorisation belong to the mind of equivalences how they are used here is merely for description and communication purposes. There are no rules for communication, only spontaneous responses that are according to the circumstances that warrant them

As long as your claim to know something you will know nothing that will be of any significance. You wasn't born with a book in hand. And all the knowledge you have collected was not there in the beginning either. All this as been imposed upon you.

It is not the mind that knows, somebody know because of the mind. But to know you must undeceive yourself and be earnest in your endeavour to do so.

We can all spout technical terminology but of what use is it if we don't have a basis for it? For these matters you must learn to put your intellect aside and allow your field of awareness to broaden and deepen.

Best of look to you sir.

If you're serious about skepticism: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pyrrho/

I'm serious about what is real, this cannot be discussed in any capacity. Words can only be used as pointers. You can only be real.

A tiny little particle floats about in all of this space, within this particle there is a universe. In this universe there is a happening; nobody is responsible for it, it is spontaneously happening by itself. The reality of this is in the attention to detail. You turn your attention to a particular aspect of this happening and it proliferates according to the concepts that stick to you. How it pans out from here is anybody business.

If something happens according to your likes, you say this is good, positive or assuring. If something happens according to what you don't like you say this is bad, negative and not so assuring. This is the sum total of skepticism.

Unless you know yourself as you are, no approach is valid.

When you equivocate then you're not using the words as pointers. You are using the words to obfuscate.

Apparently she is attempting to do what JL and Fresco do in post after post...spewing non-dualism as THE ANSWER.

Only JL is much easier to understand.

I didn't mean to imply that it was done on purpose. I think it was probably a reading comprehension issue.

It is all to do with you taking yourself to be a body that is born and will die. Your language is based around this premise. But in actual fact it is all contradiction.

There's nothing confusing about what I'm say. It is simple talk. It is your mind that is confused. Confusion and mind are synonymous. You problem is you take the inside to be outside and the outside to be inside. Your thought and feelings are external but in your unawareness you identify with them and take them as personal.

All you see outside is actual constructed inside you head. It is a well know scientific fact of modern science today, although the sage and wise men have know this for thousands of years.