/lit/ - Literature

>>14358319
You know you've hit peak pseudry, when you can't even look up one opposing piece of information, in the fear that your quackery might find an end

>>12774230
The fact you can believe in both a pseudoscientific (read: unobserved) doctrine which doesn't even correspond to basic rationality either is what I find most telling. One or the other, sure. But both? What a catch.

>>12774245
I'm speaking to someone who thinks "consciousness evolved", so I really don't know what worth there is in our conversation.

>>12774218
Yeah, and these genes just kind of created themselves from nothing and then like millions of year went by where they were just mutating by like pure, random chance the whole world of fully-formed creatures before us came to be. Our minds, which we presently communicate to eachother, and are the ones speaking about concepts like "randomness", are themselves the products of such randomness. It's okay if I've misunderstood the elements of the doctrine because it's already unobserved and already logically nonsensical.

The whole world you see is in your vision, and that means nothing can precede your eye. The sun, the sky, the trees, the grass, water, the gene mutations, and even the eye itself - are all visual and seen through the eye. You can't ever speak about a cell structure or a gene mutation or any other visual data (read: the entire world you know of) without admitting there was a fully-formed eye already in existence. And please don't show me the laughable diagrams current scientists use to demonstrate their lack of logic to the world, which I've attached, that use visual data to explain the source of vision. Oh, what a comedy! This is what we call epistimology, friends. It's great, you should try it.

>>11773939
>If I don't understand how something works, there is no way it possibly could
No evolutionary biologist is making the claims you're attacking, that anything "suddenly" turned from flat skin into a fully functioning eye or that it "arranged itself" magically.
>It sounds plausible if you just don't think about it in detail.
I assure you that many, many people think about it in much more detail than you do every day, and if you could come up with a better theory, you would be lauded as one of the most famous geniuses the world had ever seen.