Thread: Why this might refute Evolution

I look at fossil.I see fossil. I store fossil in my memory. My brain dreams using memory's.

That's all mate.

Originally Posted by elucid

It is related to dreams and it basically says that if we stay in a dream long enough to study a fossil, does that mean that the fossil has been there that long?

No. It means that you've had awareness of what a fossil is for long enough to dream about one, even if you just learned what a fossil looked like, that previous day.

No offense but you kind of sound like you are high or something. There was no science in that line of thinking at all. Stuff in dreams are created by your mind and can appear instantly. When you see a tv in a dream it wasn't build, it just appeared as a fully functional tv. You can't apply dream logic to physical reality, or physical reality to dream logic.

Originally Posted by elucid

Hey everyone,

This is a very interesting thought that needs some attention in the scientific community.

It is related to dreams and it basically says that if we stay in a dream long enough to study a fossil, does that mean that the fossil has been there that long? So does that mean that the dream had history? If dreams are created everynight, then how is it possible that the dreams had millions of years of history? And if that can happen then who is to say that the fossils we study in this world prove history?

The bolded part is where you lost me. Just because you see the fossil in the dream doesn't mean it was actually there for millions of years. It was only there for as long as you were looking at it... and even then only in your mind.

This doesn't really... mean anything.

I can't even begin to comprehend your train of thought. I'm not sure I'd want to actually...

Please purge this item from our pristine temple of Science and Mathematics.

Originally Posted by Alric

No offense but you kind of sound like you are high or something.

=======

Sorry man, but this theory makes no sense whatsoever.

Posting this thread demonstrated a considerable amount of courage.

Originally Posted by elucid

If dreams are created everynight, then how is it possible that the dreams had millions of years of history?

The dreamworlds are older than the physical universe.

Originally Posted by elucid

Hey everyone,

This is a very interesting thought that needs some attention in the scientific community.

It is related to dreams and it basically says that if we stay in a dream long enough to study a fossil, does that mean that the fossil has been there that long? So does that mean that the dream had history? If dreams are created everynight, then how is it possible that the dreams had millions of years of history? And if that can happen then who is to say that the fossils we study in this world prove history?

Fossils are not the only evidence of evolution. The current condition of the world exudes evidence of evolution. In my life time, I have seen evolution at work on a societal level. Evolution does not simply reflect the change in organisms' DNA over a period of time, it is demonstrated by the very nature of change in general. Change is random, the results of change are unpredictable, and the right to rule is decided not by any moral grant by God nor any other factor than the mere chance when it comes to distribution of the most powerful traits or methods.

Look at the strategies gangs practice to become more powerful. It is not the noblest gangs with the greatest values that come to dominate, it is the most inventive and the fiercest. Black gangs are on the decline in California because they fight among each other while Mexican gangs are not only more unified, but specifically target blacks (also throwing hitch in the idea that anti-racist is anti-white). As long as blacks cannot unite to meet this threat, they will continue getting gunned down in the streets by mexican mobsters more often than by other black mobsters and the mexicans will continue to take over.

You can observe noticeable changes in the practices of gangsters when meeting environmental changes. When Al Capone was arrested, Chicago shortly turned into a hotbed for drugs because they were never allowed into Chicago under Al Capone but without proper rulership and regulation, the most powerful tactic became the most successful. When Pablo Escobar got taken out, Central and South American Cartels replacing him adapted all sorts of vicious new strategies to compete with each other. Los Zetas dominated because they were the most vicious they could possibly be and nature rewarded it because nature is impartial, what works simply wins. This is the staple of the theory of Natural Selection. It is irrefutable in the face of our violent and disharmonious society.

Is that social Darwinism?

Yes. And it is also an argument in favor of some impartial regulating body, but that's another matter.

Hey elucid I've sent you a friend request. I reckon you would really like Terence McKenna's stuff on youtube. I don't but you might.

There's nothing left to do but LOL

That's not very nice.

I know right? Assaulting the Science & Mathematics section like that.... what nerve!

Your response is an assault on the field of science in general.

Ummmm.... no it's not?

Dismissing a claim on the grounds that it's too ridiculous to deserve proper evaluation simply because you think it's ridiculous is Circular Dogmatism, not adherence to the Scientific Method. You are assaulting Science by making it out to be a position rather than a process.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Dismissing a claim on the grounds that it's too ridiculous to deserve proper evaluation simply because you think it's ridiculous is Circular Dogmatism, not adherence to the Scientific Method. You are assaulting Science by making it out to be a position rather than a process.

Has it occurred to you that it was deemed ridiculous because it was given due evaluation? It's perfectly legitimate to call something such as this ludicrous because it simply holds no ground whatsoever. If you begin to evaluate it at all you will immediately see just how ridiculous it is--or how the Scientific Method does not apply. On the grounds of this taking place in a supposedly other realm, or the "dream world", it is no longer falsifiable, making it unsuitable for subjugation under the Scientific Method. Or rather, you could still use the Scientific Method, but it's plain to see that it could never be viewed as a Scientific Theory because it is not falsifiable. Therefore, at least at this point in time and any time in the relatively near and foreseeable future, it is a waste of time to seriously consider as a theory.

To quote wikipedia (or if you're unsatisfied with wikipedia as a source, look up criteria for scientific theory on google),

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

4. A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice.

5. Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it. Testability is falsifiability; but there are degrees of testability: some theories are more testable, more exposed to refutation, than others; they take, as it were, greater risks.

Because his hypothesis involves relying on heresay as evidence and involves visiting a realm that allegedly exists outside of one's mind (but doesn't), it cannot truly be falsified, nor even proven true for that matter. Satisfied?

I see a difference between evaluating the idea in the fashion that it cannot meet proper scientific observation and ridiculing the idea without explaining to the OP what about it is unsubstantial. In one, the OP learns and is able to reevaluate their hypothesis in order to refine or discard it. In the other, the OP's claim remains standing but ignored.

I find it hilarious that snoop even had to make such a serious post on the matter.

The fact is that the actual theory does not even make any sense, that's why it does not need refutation and the OP does not need to be asked to provide further evidence and we definitely don't need to apply the scientific method.

An object in a dream =/= refutation of evolution.

It would if realty were made up like the dream world, where we project the distant past into existence with our minds rather than emerge from it.

Yes but that history is made up.
Unless we collectively imagine the same history IRL, or I am the only one here that is real, imagining this whole universe.
It's not worth considering because there can be no proof.