A Nice Explanation of Why "Evolution" is Nonsense

[odanny]

If you are desperate to prove that there is no God, for a wide number of reasons, evolution is the only game in town so they feel that they must defend it at all costs, or be taken over by their boogie man theocracy nightmares

No one is "desperate" to disprove any God, you are free to believe the world was created in 7-8 days and that Jesus rode a T-Rex into Jerusalem, the problem is you cannot prove it.

But you're free to believe it if you choose to.

 

[Votto]

No one is "desperate" to disprove any God, you are free to believe the world was created in 7-8 days and that Jesus rode a T-Rex into Jerusalem, the problem is you cannot prove it.

But you're free to believe it if you choose to.

The need to be politically correct is the desperation within, which extends to other things.

For example, within the scientific community a student came up with the theory that stars are mostly made of hydrogen when the accepted teachings within the scientific community was something else entirely.

The young female astronomer who worked out what the sun is made of

100 years ago, Cecilia Payne deduced that the sun is mainly made of hydrogen - but was encouraged to downplay her findings by her PhD supervisor. Mike Sutton takes up the story

www.chemistryworld.com

Anytime a new scientific theory like this is introduced, this is often the knee jerk reaction, which is to reject and mock such radical notions. But since she was still a student and since she was a woman in a male dominated field, there were other reasons why she was rejected. She even later apologized to her professor for making such a crazy suggestion, even though she was proven correct later, just so she would maybe feel accepted by her scientific peers.

Einstein even fell into the PC trap with his theory of relativity. His world included the scientifically upheld notion that the universe was static and eternal, which his theory of relativity showed was incorrect. So, instead of trying to drive home the point that his theory showed that they were wrong, he fudged his theory to make their views of a static universe correct. You have to understand, but this time Einstein had already made a reputation and career for himself, which caused him to fudge the facts and the truth in order to protect himself.

But later on as science created devices to show us that there was a beginning to the universe, and that the universe was exponentially expanding, he once again embraced his original thesis as correct and said that his previous fudging of his theory was one of the biggest blunders of his life.

But when you invoke God into the picture, it gives even more reasons why people within the established PC world of the scientific community will want to shun you, especially if God is not measurable or detectable by scientific standards they live by.

 

[odanny]

But when you invoke God into the picture, it gives even more reasons why people within the established PC world of the scientific community will want to shun you, especially if God is not measurable or detectable by scientific standards they live by.

You know, that scientific part, that's kind of their job, not to rely on supposition, but to rely on measurable and provable hypothesis, or at least the necessary inference for what they cannot actually measure, or validate to be true, otherwise it is just an opinion, someones personal belief.

The Bible is, arguably, the greatest book ever written, but that does not make everything in it true, even though most of the observations in this book likely are true, as they relate to human behavior. The work of miracles, and the healing powers of Jesus, cannot be confirmed, but no one says you cannot assume them to be true.

 

[alang1216]

The more concerning thing is how those in academia who dare question such things as evolution are black balled and probably will lose their jobs.

Universities should be a place where you are free to question anything and everything instead of being indoctrination centers.

It is the job of universities to weed out religious indoctrination in the guise of science.

 

[alang1216]

The need to be politically correct is the desperation within, which extends to other things.

For example, within the scientific community a student came up with the theory that stars are mostly made of hydrogen when the accepted teachings within the scientific community was something else entirely.

The young female astronomer who worked out what the sun is made of

100 years ago, Cecilia Payne deduced that the sun is mainly made of hydrogen - but was encouraged to downplay her findings by her PhD supervisor. Mike Sutton takes up the story

www.chemistryworld.com

Anytime a new scientific theory like this is introduced, this is often the knee jerk reaction, which is to reject and mock such radical notions. But since she was still a student and since she was a woman in a male dominated field, there were other reasons why she was rejected. She even later apologized to her professor for making such a crazy suggestion, even though she was proven correct later, just so she would maybe feel accepted by her scientific peers.

Einstein even fell into the PC trap with his theory of relativity. His world included the scientifically upheld notion that the universe was static and eternal, which his theory of relativity showed was incorrect. So, instead of trying to drive home the point that his theory showed that they were wrong, he fudged his theory to make their views of a static universe correct. You have to understand, but this time Einstein had already made a reputation and career for himself, which caused him to fudge the facts and the truth in order to protect himself.

But later on as science created devices to show us that there was a beginning to the universe, and that the universe was exponentially expanding, he once again embraced his original thesis as correct and said that his previous fudging of his theory was one of the biggest blunders of his life.

But when you invoke God into the picture, it gives even more reasons why people within the established PC world of the scientific community will want to shun you, especially if God is not measurable or detectable by scientific standards they live by.

Science is based on the ability to falsify a theory based on evidence. It is not possible to falsify the concept of God so it should never be invoked in a discussion of science.

 

[Votto]

You know, that scientific part, that's kind of their job, not to rely on supposition, but to rely on measurable and provable hypothesis, or at least the necessary inference for what they cannot actually measure, or validate to be true, otherwise it is just an opinion, someones personal belief.

The Bible is, arguably, the greatest book ever written, but that does not make everything in it true, even though most of the observations in this book likely are true, as they relate to human behavior. The work of miracles, and the healing powers of Jesus, cannot be confirmed, but no one says you cannot assume them to be true.

I am in no way advocating science takes up the mantle of preaching the Bible because science cannot directly detect a God that is a self described unmaterial entity that is not subject to the material universe and outside of time itself because the God of the Bible makes the claim that he created time itself along with the rest of the material universe.

My point is, from a scientific perspective, is that any attack on evolution is to be perceived as going the direction of doing just that, because what else is there?

It is an angst far greater than letting a woman upstage a male dominated field of science, and by a student, no less.

 

[odanny]

My point is, from a scientific perspective, is that any attack on evolution is to be perceived as going the direction of doing just that, because what else is there

If you are going to attack it, by your explanation, then the actual, correct answer that invalidates evolution is that God created man, and the earth, without any scientific evidence to prove your hypothesis. This is your stance, and the guy who started this discussion.

So what do you expect of science, to sit back silently and pretend you might be correct? Some of these scientists may be religious, and differ in their beliefs on creation and evolution than many mainstream churches.

And which of these multitude of different Christian, religious doctrines will be adopted to replace evolution? Is there any particular denomination that is currently the front runner?

Will you exclude Jehovas Witness, Mormon, Mennonite and Amish? It's all open ended on your side of the argument. Basically, just fill in the blanks however you see fit.

 

[Votto]

If you are going to attack it, by your explanation, then the actual, correct answer that invalidates evolution is that God created man, and the earth, without any scientific evidence to prove your hypothesis. This is your stance, and the guy who started this discussion.

So what do you expect of science, to sit back silently and pretend you might be correct? Some of these scientists may be religious, and differ in their beliefs on creation and evolution than many mainstream churches.

And which of these multitude of different Christian, religious doctrines will be adopted to replace evolution? Is there any particular denomination that is currently the front runner?

Will you exclude Jehovas Witness, Mormon, Mennonite and Amish? It's all open ended on your side of the argument. Basically, just fill in the blanks however you see fit.

Again, I do not discount the entire theory, but I hardly think it is complete.

And as I said, evolution does not even address our origins.

My only point in all this is the fact that any hint of academic suggestions that evolution is flawed or even entirely wrong will cause you to get cancelled from academia and the scientific community, much like any time any other person in history has been cancelled for their ideas outside the mainstream of the scientific community. This type of PC prevents us from ever getting to truth.

 

[odanny]

My only point in all this is the fact that any hint of academic suggestions that evolution is flawed or even entirely wrong will cause you to get cancelled from academia and the scientific community

That is a completely subjective opinion, not to say that any profession or group of like minded people can get you cancelled for a variety of reasons, from Christians having an affair with another member of the congregation, to teachers being inappropriately affectionate towards their students, to scientists pushing pseudo-scientific beliefs as some absolute truth.

That is not to say "cancelling" someone is in any way the correct response to any of this, but there are situations where one can stray so far out of bounds as to see the necessity to no longer associate with these persons in each specific discipline of interest.

 

[Votto]

That is a completely subjective opinion, not to say that any profession or group of like minded people can get you cancelled for a variety of reasons, from Christians having an affair with another member of the congregation, to teachers being inappropriately affectionate towards their students, to scientists pushing pseudo-scientific beliefs as some absolute truth.

That is not to say "cancelling" someone is in any way the correct response to any of this, but there are situations where one can stray so far out of bounds as to see the necessity to no longer associate with these persons in each specific discipline of interest.

Just pointing out the PC aspect of human nature that is destructive to the human race no matter what human endeavor you are engaged in.

And you are right, the church can become just as PC as any other organized and rich and powerful group of people like those within the scientific community, which is why the last Pope preached about the evils of building walls and climate change instead of preaching the gospel.

It is also why the Catholic church refused to publicly condemn the Holocaust when that was going on as well.

It is more about political survival that seeking the truth.

 

[westwall]

"Evolution is a wonderful explanation for the living world around us that has no basis in scientific reality. Invoking millions of years and processes unknown and presently not reproducible, scientists simply say that it is a fact and like with the Covid/pangolin nexus, tell you to keep your mouth shut if you think otherwise."

The Biggest Lie of Them All

Exploring the biggest lie: evolution and its impact on belief and society.

townhall.com

Many of us have had similar reactions to the religion of Evolution, a religion that is believed most fervently by people with zero scientific background. This guy has the scientific chops to make the case more forcefully than most people, while stating his rationale in a way that is understandable to any literate reader.

Give it ten minutes; you will be glad you did.

The initial statement makes this a screed, not a legitimate philosophical subject.

Sorry. Not interested.

 

[scruffy]

because they believe that EvoIution proves the BibIe to be false.

Only brainwashed fools believe that.

These are people like Dawkins who think genes are "selfish". Such a belief shows profound ignorance of biological evolution.

The Bible itself shows the correct sequence of evolution. It's in the very first book. How did they figure that out three thousand years ago with no DNA to play with?

To deny evolution is to deny God. Just one of a thousand ways people have of ridiculing His handiwork.

 

[Leo123]

This is just the first paragraph:

Lies are generally not told for their value but rather for what comes next. We were lied to about Trump being a Russian stooge in order to cripple his presidency and sock it to him for the crime of beating Hilary Clinton. We were lied to about the source of Covid so as to hide Tony Fauci’s illegal gain-of-function work outside of the U.S. We were lied to as to the safety and efficacy of the mRNA vaccines so that we would take them like sheep and not think about possible heart damage or premature death. Lies have their purposes, usually nefarious.


How stupid would you have to be to keep reading?

How stupid would you have to be to NOT keep reading? Insular much?

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

My main beef is with the theory of abiogenesis, although I think that the theory of evolution is full of holes.

Intelligence Designs Itself. Intelligence Took Over Non-Life.

I can't figure out where the individual intelligences came from, or why they have no clear memory of that world, but the theory that they were created by one Being is an insult to intelligence and an insult to individuality.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

If you are desperate to prove that there is no God, for a wide number of reasons, evolution is the only game in town so they feel that they must defend it at all costs, or be taken over by their boogie man theocracy nightmares

Problem is, most are too ignorant to even know that evolution does not even address our origins, that would be abiogenesis.

It Never Needed a Beginning, Only a Beginning Here

Intelligence is not a material substance. What form of existence does it have? In order to reach fulfillment and in order to be perceived, it has to take over a material substance, even an inanimate one back when nothing else was available.

 

[scruffy]

It Never Needed a Beginning, Only a Beginning Here

Intelligence is not a material substance.

It might be. It depends on a working brain.

What form of existence does it have?

Could be molecules, could be electricity and magnetism, could be exotic quantum effects.

Maybe all three.

In order to reach fulfillment and in order to be perceived, it has to take over a material substance, even an inanimate one back when nothing else was available.

Now you're saying intelligence has direct control over material substances.

Let's start here: sharks and skates have a sense we don't have. They can directly sense electric fields in the water. They have a "lateral line organ" that's kind of like an ear, but the hair cells evolved to sense electric fields rather than air pressure.

Eels, on the other hand, can directly generate electric currents in the hundreds of volts. And it turns out, sharks and skates have a scaled down version of this, they essentially "ping" with an electric field and listen for what comes back. Much like a bat uses its radar, except with an electric field instead of audio.

The human brain emits electromagnetic fields, we can measure them with EEG. And, it emits light. Directly. We can measure that too.

So, I don't know if you consider a photon or an electromagnetic field to be a material substance.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

It might be. It depends on a working brain.



Could be molecules, could be electricity and magnetism, could be exotic quantum effects.

Maybe all three.



Now you're saying intelligence has direct control over material substances.

Let's start here: sharks and skates have a sense we don't have. They can directly sense electric fields in the water. They have a "lateral line organ" that's kind of like an ear, but the hair cells evolved to sense electric fields rather than air pressure.

Eels, on the other hand, can directly generate electric currents in the hundreds of volts. And it turns out, sharks and skates have a scaled down version of this, they essentially "ping" with an electric field and listen for what comes back. Much like a bat uses its radar, except with an electric field instead of audio.

The human brain emits electromagnetic fields, we can measure them with EEG. And, it emits light. Directly. We can measure that too.

So, I don't know if you consider a photon or an electromagnetic field to be a material substance.

We Are What We Think

You're identifying an inanimate tool as some self-driven entity. In fact, intelligence not only uses tools outside itself, it also created their original forms from molecules that were useless until formed into a tool by intelligence.

 

[scruffy]

We Are What We Think

You're identifying an inanimate tool as some self-driven entity. In fact, intelligence not only uses tools outside itself, it also created their original forms from molecules that were useless until formed into a tool by intelligence.

Intelligence is selected for.

You'll notice that primitive creatures don't have much of it.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Evolution is well established fact. We can discuss it but not deny it

Would anyone ever say "Newton's inverse square law of gravitation is a fact"? Well many did and many were mistaken.

Just because something appears consistent with an explanation does not prove that that is the explanation.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Intelligence is selected for.

You'll notice that primitive creatures don't have much of it.

As in creatures who claim "chaos is not deterministic" for example?