NewGuy's Disproving Evolution Thread

[KLSuddeth]

Ok, Ive been reading this and the other posts regarding this subject and taking notes. Then I applied it with not only what I learned in my MANY YEARS (too too many lol) of school (for those of you that dont know, my education is a Phd in Quantum Metaphysics with a double minor in theology and theosophy); I then applied my own opinions, correlaries of other's and a dose of good common sense. Common sense that is not boxed in by one set of rules, but rather that is broad-spectrummed, even if it IS non-linear at times.

This will take up more than one post I fear, so happy reading!

If you want to dispute me on this, be my guest. However, keep a couple of things in mind. It WILL take me a couple days to answer. Why? I have a life, thats why. Also, I refuse to answer anything until Ive thought long and hard about it and then I write much the same way - I try to disprove myself - so I end up with many drafts. I am spending time wiht my kids today, so no responses of any length will be given today. Tomorrow is mother's day and I intend to relax and spend it doing what I want to do (IE NOT ANSWERING THIS THREAD). So dont think Im ignoring the post because I have no answers - Im ignoring the post because Im busy.

The answer to all is simple. One thing cannot exist without the other. The answer in completion is EDUCATE YOURSELF - QUESTION EVERYTHING. Only then, can you form your own opinions and be clearly aligned with Truth.

Explanation, you say? Read on, my friends.......

 

[KLSuddeth]

QUESTION: WHENCE DID MATER ORIGINATE?


Microevolution is known to be an undisputed fact of science. Macroevolution though, is a complex and sometimes controversial (outside science circles) belief that involves unnatural, speculative processes, outside the domain of physics and chemistry – it can also be considered to be a metaphysical system. Before we can truly go further, lets define metaphysics.

DEFINE METAPHYSICS:
META – a.more comprehensive : transcending
b. situated beyond.
c. later or more highly organized or specialized form of
PHYSICS - Science that deals with matter and energy and their interactions
(If youre not understanding the difference between micro and macro evolution(s), please educate yourself
by looking up those prefixes.)

Religion is also a metaphysical system, outside and beyond the domain of physics and chemistry. Since both macroevolution and humanists deny the role of God in the creation of the universe and Christianity affirms it, both systems of belief are metaphysical and equally religious, scientifically speaking

The Law of Cause and Effect The law of cause and effect declares that every effect requires a competent cause and the effect cannot be greater than its cause. Nothing, for instance, cannot be the cause of something as postulated by Big Bang advocates. A person is a living, feeling and thinking effect and must have been caused by at least a living, feeling and thinking cause. Parents of one kind have never been observed to produce offspring of a different kind. Lifeless chemicals cannot cause the greater effect of a living cell that in turn causes millions of even greater effects to cause people. This is not speculation. This is fact. It is A LAW OF SCIENCE that can unequivocally obliterate any and all speculation and/or argument regarding ONLY simple evolutionism (primarily microevolutionism)

 

[KLSuddeth]

For Question: -Is there one clear prediction of macroevolution that has proved true?

We are at risk of being downgraded once again as has happened before due society’s failure to do the simplest of tasks –
educate yourself….question everything.

Why does society (not as a whole, mind you but as an individual entity) NOT educate themselves? (let me interject here that by using the term ‘educate themselves/YOURSELF, I am not referring to the higher form of education that we know as College – Educating oneself can simply be done by removing one’s fear to question everything, read, read ,read, READ then read some more) The answer is a simple one word answer. Fear. The basis of so many religions (note: I am not ‘slamming or marginalizing religion’) is based upon ‘the eating of the apple from what….from THE TREE OF KNOWLEDGE. Ergo, it can easily be seen that through the ages, this has become equated that to question everything, to EDUCATE oneself, is ‘wrong’ or ‘bad’ or ‘sinful’. How can knowledge or education be sinful? How can seeking wisdom be wrong? I don’t think it can.
For example, there was a time that we could not accept a heliocentric solar
system, so we obstinately clung to geocentrism despite all empirical
data to the contrary. We saw circles as more perfect than elispses and
could not attribute the latter to the work of a perfect Designer. We
held a young earth to be more agreeable to our interpretation of
scripture thus rejecting the true age of the universe and the earth.
Now, we cannot imagine the Designer using any but supernatural
mechanisms in creation--despite evidence that He used such mechanisms at
other times--so we reject all arguments that allow for natural
mechanisms.
The issue of whether macroevolution or microevolution for that matter
has occurred or not is completely irrelevant to the creationist position.
On the scientific side, the issue is not whether speciation has occurred
by macroevolution the issue is whether natural mechanisms account for everything from the Big Bang to the present. Looking at this issue from a metaphysical standpoint, the issue is not whether the battery exists, but if the AC and DC connections exist for the battery TO BE ABLE to work. Hence, the question and issue are both, ‘how much intelligent manipulation of nature is required to achieve a Higher Source’s purposes.
Lets look at this differently. Instead of microevolution and macroevolution, think instead, in terms of the two theories of evolution:
The Special Theory of Evolution and The General
Theory of Evolution.
The Special Theory of Evolution is expressed by two suppositions:
1. Changes occur to the genomes of species.
2. These changes are caused and preserved by natural mechanisms.
THE absolute of the Special Theory is in the fact that such changes have
been observed to occur in nature and that their causes can be accounted
for. Moreover, "micro" changes can theoretically--some say
certainly--accumulate into "macro" changes--even to the formation of new
species.
The General Theory of Evolution is also expressed by two propositions:
1. Natural mechanisms account for all changes to the genomes of all
species.
2. All biodiversity on earth is attributable to these natural
mechanisms.
The proof of the General Theory would be established by thorough models
of physiological and biochemical evolution derived from a complete
fossil record and extensive analysis of the preserved DNA of ancient
species. Moreover, all extra-natural activity must be completely and
impartially discounted.
The Special Theory can be proved simply through Einsteins Laws of
Relativity. For example – one group may ardently believe and argue as to the existence of the earth being flat as to try to refute the Special Theory of Evolution. The General Theory, however, is not only unproved but, even if true, is probably impossible to prove.
And, this is exactly where the religious faith of the materialistic
evolutionist comes in. The General Theory is ASSUMED to be true because
only naturalistic arguments and conclusions are allowed. The General
Theory has become the Great Naturalistic World View.
I cant remember who said this, but this pretty much explains the above:
"The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be."
This is not a scientific statement at all except insofar as Science has
been erected as the supreme discoverer and arbiter of Truth concerning
Cosmic and Human origins (ie origin of matter, itself).
However, truth is in the eye of the beholder, so to speak.

Now lets look at Darwinian Materialism. When the mathematicians and astrophysicists pulled down the eternal universe of Darwin's time and replaced it with an impossibly young one,did Darwin's theory die? No. It was transubstantiated from theory to
axiom..
So we are left with the unmitigated arrogance of the materialist view. When God is defined as the Creator is excluded as "unscientific" because only naturalistic propositions and
conclusions are permitted, we can easily see how this is not only a biased but irresponsible view – why? Because it IS irresponsible to accept rather than to educate oneself by asking questions, allowing the mind it’s God given right of free will to question everything. The fear of this is being taught or learning something that isn’t true – therefore its better to accept what one has been spoon-fed their entire life rather than going out on that proverbial limb to question as to why?

My opinion….HELL NO.

 

[KLSuddeth]

The concept of macroevolution’s historical roots:
In the "modern synthesis" of neo-Darwinism, which developed in the period from 1930 to 1950 with the reconciliation of evolution by natural selection and modern genetics, macroevolution is thought to be the combined effects of microevolutionary processes. In theories proposing "orthogenetic evolution" (literally, straight line evolution), macroevolution is thought to be of a different calibre and process than microevolution. Nobody has been able to make a good case for orthogenesis since the 1950s, especially since the uncovering of molecular genetics between 1952 and the late 1960s.
Antievolutionists argue that there has been no proof of macroevolutionary processes. However, synthesists claim that the same processes that cause within-species changes of the frequencies of alleles can be extrapolated to between species changes, so this argument fails unless some mechanism for preventing microevolution causing macroevolution is discovered. Since every step of the process has been demonstrated in genetics and the rest of biology, the argument against macroevolution fails. Non-Darwinian evolutionists think that the processes that cause speciation are of a different kind to those that occur within species. That is, they admit that macroevolution occurs, but think that normal genetic change is restricted by such proposed mechanisms as developmental constraints. The terms macroevolution and microevolution were first coined in 1927 by the Russian entomologist Iurii Filipchenko in his German-language work Variabilität und Variation, which was the first attempt to reconcile Mendelian genetics and evolution. Filipchenko was an evolutionist, but as he wrote during the period when Mendelism seemed to have made Darwinism redundant, the so-called
"eclipse of Darwinism", he was not a Darwinian, but an orthogeneticist. Moreover Russian biologists of the period had a history of rejecting Darwin's Malthusian mechanism of evolution by competition.
In Theodosius Dobzhansky's Genetics and the Origin of Species, he began by saying that "we are compelled at the present level of knowledge reluctantly to put a sign of equality between the mechanisms of macro- and microevolution”, thereby introducing the terms into the English-speaking biological community. Dobzhansky had been Filipchenko's student and regarded him as his mentor. In science, it is difficult to deny a major tenet of one's teachers due to filial loyalty, and Dobzhansky, who effectively started the modern Darwinian synthesis with this book, found it disagreeable to have to deny his teacher's views.
The term fell into limited disfavor when it was taken over by such writers as the geneticist Richard Goldschmidt (sometime in the 40’s I believe) and the paleontologist Otto Schindewolf to describe their orthogenetic theories. As a result, apart from Dobzhansky, Bernhardt Rensch and Ernst Mayr, very few neo-Darwinian writers used the term, preferring instead to talk of evolution as changes in allele frequencies without mention of the level of the changes (above species level or below). Those who do are generally working within the continental European traditions and those who don't are generally working within the Anglo-American tradition. Hence, the term is sometimes wrongly used as a litmus test of whether the writer is "properly" neo-Darwinian or not.

My Conclusion?
The difference between micro- and macroevolution is quite simply, that genes between species usually diverge, while genes within species usually combine. The same processes that cause within-species evolution are responsible for above-species evolution, except that the processes that cause speciation include things that cannot happen to lesser groups, such as the evolution of different sexual apparatus (because, by definition, once organisms cannot interbreed, they aredifferent species)
The idea that the origin of higher taxa, such as genera (canines versus felines, for example), requires something special is based on the misunderstanding of the way in which new lineages arise. The two species that are the origin of canines and felines probably differed very little from their common ancestral species and each other. But once they were reproductively isolated from each other, they evolved more and more differences that they shared but the other lineages didn't. This is true of all lineages back to the first eukaryotic (nuclear) cell. Even the changes in the Cambrian explosion are of this kind, although some think that the genomes (gene structures) of these early animals were not as tightly regulated as modern animals, and therefore had more freedom to change.

 

[KLSuddeth]

My Bottom line:
The Theory of Evolution alone does not explain what life is, how life exists as matter in Space, how life interacts with other life and matter at a distance in Space, how life reproduces, and how this caused life to evolve and adapt. Nor does the theory of Creationism. BOTH must exist to have any true explanation of fact. Just as water must have BOTH the hydrogen and oxygen atoms to exist. One cannot exist without the other – plain and simple.

Only True Knowledge of Reality (or should I say one's conception of what resonates as Truth for/to them?) can provide this metaphysical (pls see definition of this word in Part 1 if you are reading metaphysical to equate with 'New Age') foundation for Darwin's Theory of Evolution, and also our Cultural Evolution of Knowledge and Beliefs. Most significantly to humanity, as Wisdom is founded on Truth, until we know this Reality of What Exists, and thus what it truly means to be 'Human' it is impossible for humanity to be wise. And this wisdom is necessary if we are to succesfully evolve both Life and Knowledge (IE EDUCATE YOURSELVES NOW AND EVERYDAY FOR THE REMAINDER OF YOUR LIFE!!!!) Culture that enables us to live in harmony with Nature and the Cosmos (and thus continue to survive in a universe that is both brutal and beautiful - ex. creation and destruction are 2 sides of the same coin).
And so we realize that there is this profound problem for Evolution (and physics, philosophy, metaphysics, theology, religion and humanity) to understand what is Evolving, what is Matter, what is Reality such that we may know what is Truth, what is wisdom.
This longstanding and most fundamental problem can now be solved with Logic from Evolution or Evolutionary Philosophy.
Darwinian Evolution tells us that Evolution must have existed before Humans evolved or existed. Thus there was a time before humans existed when the human mind did not exist. Nonetheless, despit this absense of Mind, evolutionary reasoning still requires that our ancestors (Primates, Protomammals) physically existed for us to evolve from them. Thus life on earth existed before our ideas of life on earth
We can demonstrate the truth of this using the Motion of the Earth as it orbits the Sun, and how this would necessarily affect the evolution of life on Earth. Due to the Earth's daily spin, Animal life has consequently evolved daily behaviors. This is clearly confirmed by many evolutionary adaptations and behaviors; an example would be animals sleeping, photosynthesis of plants, growth patterns of leaves (meaning the 1-2-3 configuration). Likewise migration of birds and hibernation of bears are two of many obvious seasonal adaptations and behaviors that are caused by the yearly orbit of the Earth around the Sun.
Thus evolution deduces that the Earth does in fact exist, spin, and orbit the Sun. Now most people would think that this is pretty obvious, (we sleep every night because the earth spins as it orbits the sun - Galileo is famous for proving the motion of the Earth with his telescope and mathematical logic).
Amazingly, some in modern philosophy now believes that the motion of the Earth about the Sun is merely an idea, a human construction or representation. Can we never know what in Reality exists? Of course we can. How, you may ask? EDUCATE YOURSELF.
Yet Evolutionary Philosophy deduces that the earth physically existed and moved before we existed and had ideas of its motion. This contradicts Idealism. In fact reason from Evolution enables us to move beyond Idealism to the Realism of what must have first existed for us from evolution to existence. We know that the Earth must move and thus both Space and Motion must necessarily exist for the Earth to move ( as has been clearly proven from the causing of plants and animals to evolve certain adaptations.
This Evolutionary Logic, of deducing what must have existed before human minds existed, provides the necessary foundations for all human knowledge. This Reality of 'What Exists' can now be sensibly explained with the Metaphysics of Space and Motion and the Wave Structure of Matter.

We could go on forever with the arguments and fact proving fact, theories and so forth. However, it can be simply said that God is the One Infinite Eternal thing which Exists and Causes the Many things (Matter as Spherical Wave Motions of Space). Religion (from the Latin origin Religare meaning ‘to bind’) is our Connection to the One thing, God, as Spherical Standing Waves which determine the Size of our Finite Spherical Universe within an Infinite Space. This then Solves the Problem of Morality 'Do unto Others as you would have done unto Yourself' as Matter (and thus Humans) are the size of the Universe thus the Other is a Part of the Self. I.E. The Law Cause and Effect.

In other words, EDUCATE YOURSELVES! DARE to ask questions - DARE to seek answers. LEARN FOR THE SAKE OF LEARNING.
Each day should be an exercise in accumulating knowledge - for when you think youve figured it out or youve learned 'it all' - that is when you truly 'die'.

 

[5stringJeff]

KL, a great series of posts. It will take me a while to digest them.

To me, however, the question greater than micro/macro-evolution/creationism is that of the Origin of Life. But I think that's a different thread.

 

[007]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
KL, a great series of posts. It will take me a while to digest them.

To me, however, the question greater than micro/macro-evolution/creationism is that of the Origin of Life. But I think that's a different thread.

In my opinion, the "Origin of Life/Begining of Time" answers are buried so deep, that any speculation from you or I, or even a PhD Metaphysics could all be held in comparable consideration.

We don't know squat. Everyone has their "theory". Same with the question, "where did we come from". You can explain technically in a couple thousand words what our "THEORY" is, or just say, "we don't know".

(I do appreciate the posts though KLS. Very informative reading.)

 

[Avatar4321]

You know. I think people are missing the obvious. When was matter created? It wasnt. Matter can neither be created nor destroyed. Its Eternal.

 

[KLSuddeth]

Avatar - that had already been addressed, the fact that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed which is why I didnt feel the need to re-address it.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by KLSuddeth
Avatar - that had already been addressed, the fact that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed which is why I didnt feel the need to re-address it.

Doesn't string-theory discuss the possibility of certain elementary particles appearing and disappear spontaneously?

 

[007]

So if it appears right now that there's virtually no way to find out/prove where our origins are, or that of "matter" i.e., the universe, and even figuring something out as simple as it may appear, where "we" came from, then why not speculate? Who knows.... your speculation just might be closer to the truth than any scientist has ever come.

Like we were dropped off here by a space ship long ago. And the cave man was just that. A "cave man", and he has nothing in common at all with modern man. Maybe whoever dropped us here was aware that the cave man was here and thought, "well that's pretty close to what we are, so we can assume that planet will support life for us"........ aye?

How far off am I?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

If humans evolved from primates, then humans become no better than any other animal.

Oh humans are much better than the other animals! We are much more efficient at killing each other, much more efficient at killing other animals, and much more efficient at damaging and destroying our own environment. Clearly, we are superior beings.

 

[007]

Originally posted by SpidermanTuba
Oh humans are much better than the other animals! We are much more efficient at killing each other, much more efficient at killing other animals, and much more efficient at damaging and destroying our own environment. Clearly, we are superior beings.

You should really look into some anger management classes. You have a lot of hostility in you.

So do you have anything "good" to say about "anything"?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Originally posted by Pale Rider
You should really look into some anger management classes. You have a lot of hostility in you.

So do you have anything "good" to say about "anything"?

Sure, I'll be moving away from Arizona at the end of the month forever, that's a good thing. Every place in this state is either to damn cold or to damn hot and theres no mardi gras.


How about.... I love you Pale Rider? Is that a good thing, or would that be a bad thing?

 

[KLSuddeth]

Originally posted by Pale Rider
So if it appears right now that there's virtually no way to find out/prove where our origins are, or that of "matter" i.e., the universe, and even figuring something out as simple as it may appear, where "we" came from, then why not speculate? Who knows.... your speculation just might be closer to the truth than any scientist has ever come.

Like we were dropped off here by a space ship long ago. And the cave man was just that. A "cave man", and he has nothing in common at all with modern man. Maybe whoever dropped us here was aware that the cave man was here and thought, "well that's pretty close to what we are, so we can assume that planet will support life for us"........ aye?

How far off am I?

Make a point. Then perhaps, if its intelligent enough, I will grace you with an answer.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Does anyone know where I can find this disproof of the Big Bang theory that NewGuy claims to have? He won't tell me where to find it, as if I'm not good enough to read about how the Big Bang is BS.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by SpidermanTuba
Does anyone know where I can find this disproof of the Big Bang theory that NewGuy claims to have? He won't tell me where to find it, as if I'm not good enough to read about how the Big Bang is BS.

He never delivers on proof. Get used to it. Accept him for what he is, amusing and SOMETIMES right. Contrast this to me, amusing and always right.

 

[007]

Originally posted by KLSuddeth
Make a point. Then perhaps, if its intelligent enough, I will grace you with an answer.

Don't bother. You missed the last one.

Sorry you can't keep up. I could go slower just for you, but that wouldn't be fair to the rest of the people here.

 

[KLSuddeth]

Sweetie, its ok. I know these principles are difficult to understand. Perhaps if you use the copy and paste feature and paste those big words you didnt understand into a dictionary....

 

[007]

Originally posted by SpidermanTuba
Sure, I'll be moving away from Arizona at the end of the month forever, that's a good thing. Every place in this state is either to damn cold or to damn hot and theres no mardi gras.


How about.... I love you Pale Rider? Is that a good thing, or would that be a bad thing?

Move to Hawaii then. I hear it's like between 60 and 80 degrees year round there. But still no Mardi Gras.

Skip the "I love you". It's disingenuous.