+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 23

Thread: Science, Dogma and the Obsolescence of Evolution

  1. Link to Post #1
    France Administrator Hervé's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,729
    Thanks
    59,939
    Thanked 94,666 times in 15,439 posts

    Default Science, Dogma and the Obsolescence of Evolution

    The Theory of Evolution is Anti-Science

    Mandatory Intellectomy Sott.net
    Sat, 07 Sep 2019 17:33 UTC

    If at least this part of Darwin's theory is correct, then neo-Darwinian scientists today are an endangered species.

    In their desperate attempts to discredit anything that even remotely makes sense, Darwinists like to ask the question, "Is ID (Intelligent Design) science?", to which, of course, they answer "no" based on a random ridiculous claim of the day. But that's not the correct answer. The correct answer is, "Who the f**k cares?!?" If you had one theory that happens to be correct but isn't "scientific" (whatever that means) and another one that's perfectly "scientific" but happens to be wrong, you'd have to be an idiot to pick the one that's wrong. And by even just asking the question "Is ID science?", Darwinists are designating themselves as being exactly this kind of idiot. They'd rather be wrong than acknowledge the existence of any kind of intelligence.

    So if you let somebody convince you that the question of whether ID is "science" is important, you've already been duped and have little chance of figuring out the truth about anything. You're not concerned with what's true or correct. You're concerned with something completely irrelevant, and while engaged in a dumb argument about nothing, you're completely missing the point.

    But since this question is often being raised, let's look at just how scientific evolution itself really is.

    Darwinists say ID is not falsifiable and cannot be tested, so it's not scientific. But evolution happens through random mutations, and there's no way to prove whether the mutations are or aren't random, and natural selection is not falsifiable either, and cannot be tested, so it's not scientific. This is only one of the many indications that Darwinism and the theory of evolution are at least as unscientific as ID supposedly is. There's an obvious double standard and selective blindness here. But in fact, I would say that things in the evolution camp are much worse, which I will make abundantly clear.

    What follows is a list of reasons why the theory of evolution isn't scientific. Not that it really matters much - what matters is that it's wrong - but since evolutionists like to wave the flag of science in your face, let's just show how dishonest that gesture is. If the "not science" accusation is considered a viable weapon to shoot down ID, then let's give these 'evolution' dimwits a taste of their own medicine.
    • The theory of evolution was imagined by a guy who knew nothing about the cell, heredity, and genetics. The theory was later shown by genetics, and the discovery of DNA and the complexity of everything in the cell, to be totally implausible. But instead of acknowledging that it doesn't work, evolution is being promoted as fact. We're told that species evolve into other species, even though nobody can explain how it could happen step by step, and nobody has ever seen it happen. That's not science. That's dogmatism of the worst kind.
    • Darwinists absolutely cannot explain the origin of life. Their attempts to do so invoke mechanisms that have never been observed in nature. That's not science. They are often reluctant to even admit that DNA contains very sophisticated code. They have no way of dealing with that fact. The only origin of a code that we've ever observed is design. Therefore the only theory of the origin of the code in the DNA that can be called scientific is that it was designed, because that's the only theory that reflects our real-world, observable and provable experience. But instead, Darwinists suggest ideas that are completely improbable and have never been observed to work. That's as unscientific as you can get. It's like observing all your life that nails end up in wood as a result of being hit by a hammer (or similar device), and then seeing a nail in wood and claiming that it must have accidentally sunk in. Why? Why ignore what you've been observing your whole life? The idea that atoms self-assemble into complex, functional living cells is not scientific. Saying "Yes, it's very improbable and nobody has ever seen it, but it happened!" is like saying "Yes, I know nobody has ever seen a Unicorn, but they exist!" No scientist takes such claims seriously, except in the case of evolution.
    • The idea that 'things could have started simple' and evolved gradually is nonsense. The smallest bacteria make hundreds of proteins. Nobody has a clue how a cell could function with, say, just a few dozen proteins. Just making a protein requires over a hundred already existing proteins. Replicating DNA requires 32 proteins. Suggesting all of these things could work with less, even though nobody has a damn clue how, is not science. It's just bull****ting one's way out of the fact that evolution doesn't work. These ideas are completely unrealistic and serve only to artificially keep alive the evolution zombie. Either you can show how it could work, or you're just making things up.
    • The interdependence of things in the cell and in living organisms shows that evolving such systems gradually doesn't make any sense. You can't make proteins without DNA, but you need proteins to read, transcribe, and replicate DNA. There are so many chicken-and-egg problems in biology that it's ridiculous. What's the explanation? "We can't really explain it exactly, but we know it happens." How do they "know"? They don't. They believe it. It's a dogmatic belief, not science.
    • If something is supposed to happen by random chance, we have to ask, what probability is there that this could really happen? If we find that the probability of such things happening is one in 10100 or one in 105000 or one in 1040000 or more, as it is with evolution, we know that our theory is garbage. If we asked 5-year-old children how life came to be, it is unlikely that they would have a worse theory than something that has a one in 1040000 chance of happening. Please spend a few minutes thinking about the fact that it would be difficult to make up something that's less probable than evolution.
    • When evolutionists concoct their theories on how something could have evolved, they focus on what they want to happen, not on the 9,999,999,999 things that could go wrong at every step. This is because they take species 1 and species 2, decide that 2 evolved from 1, and try to find ways how it could be possible, which means they have to make things up. Anything even marginally helpful, no matter how improbable, is accepted. This is somewhat understandable, though as stated above, the improbability of evolutionary mechanisms is way above the improbability of anything else. What's worse is that all potential problems, generally quintillions of times more probable than the required lucky events, are ignored. It's like explaining that a broken car was fixed by smashing it randomly with a hammer. All the focus is on how the hammer could, against all odds, hit the right spot. What's ignored is that you need many tries and every single hammer blow is likely to break things more. A theory that puts infinite hope into something infinitely improbable and brushes aside a huge number of things that are very likely to go wrong is not scientific. It's the antithesis of Ockham's razor.
    • The only kind of "evolution" ever observed has been minor mutations that happened to lead to some survival advantage under the present conditions. To extrapolate from this towards infinity, ignoring biological realities, mathematics, simple logic, and common sense isn't science. A single observed mutation in DNA has no way of explaining how a whole new gene could arise by chance. Let me repeat that, because this is really important. A single observed mutation in DNA has no way of explaining how a whole new gene could arise by chance. They are two separate problems, orders of magnitude apart. Any science actually done on that topic shows that new genes won't evolve by chance even with the entire age of the universe at our disposal.
    • Evolution ignores the main physical evidence: the fossil record. The reaction to discovered fossils is along the lines of "Wow, that's weird. How are we going to make this fit our evolutionary model?" Nothing in the fossil record makes sense in the context of evolution, but the apparent imperative is to somehow do our best to make it make sense. Occasionally something is found that seems to support the evolutionary model, and then they all say, "Ha! See? We told you so!" Then you ask what about the 99% evidence against evolution, and they all pretend they didn't hear you. Science should go from evidence to creating plausible theories. Evolution starts with an implausible theory and tries very hard to fit the evidence into this theory, even though it keeps failing.
    • According to the theory, the path from one species to another should be a gradual continuum. In the sense of evolution, there are no final forms of organisms. Everything is supposed to perpetually and randomly change. If evolution is driven by mutations and natural selection, then it should never stop. Mutations always occur, and natural selection has no way of stopping. But what we see in the fossil record is the appearance of organisms out of the blue, then long stretches of time where they are unchanged, and then their sudden disappearance. Observed reality is completely at odds with the "scientific" predictions of Darwinism, yet the promotion of this nonsense as "proven science" never changes. Ignoring inconvenient evidence is not science.
    • Speaking of predictions, Darwinists accuse ID of being unable to make any predictions (which is neither true nor relevant, but you get used to that kind of twisted logic when dealing with Darwinists.) But what predictions can Darwinism make? There is absolutely nothing specific that the theory of evolution can predict. All it can say is that species may randomly change into other species over time. ID predicts that they won't. So far our observations have not shown a single species, alive or extinct, evolving into another, so ID's prediction is consistent with what we see. Darwinism has only one very vague prediction, and it has not been confirmed by observation once.
    • Darwinists constantly glorify any evidence that even remotely speaks for evolution (which it often does only in their heads) and ignore evidence against it. Real science is less concerned with supporting evidence and more with evidence against the theory being tested. If you observe five facts that support your theory, you're far from proving that it's correct. But if you observe one single fact that disproves your theory, your theory is wrong. It's over. You can go home. Think about it some more and look for another solution. There's very little evidence for evolution and heaps of evidence against it. Darwinists either explain this undesirable evidence away by their implausible fairy tales or ignore it completely. That's not science - just wishful thinking.
    • A step-by-step evolution of complexity is assumed, with no evidence. Nobody has been able to explain how irreducibly complex systems could have evolved one step at a time, yet we're supposed to accept that they have, because some very smart (according to themselves) men say so. If an idea has no evidence to support it and no theoretical model to explain it, it's not scientific. "We believe it's possible" is not science.
    • Random mutations and natural selection are both poor candidates for producing novelty. Mutations produce mostly garbage, and natural selection can only eliminate the worst of that garbage. Neither of the processes has a plausible way of creating anything new. Promoting the idea that noise creates functionality, when all our experience tells us otherwise, is not scientific.
    • Evolution contradicts established scientific principles, namely information entropy. We're told that the information content in the DNA increases over time with no intelligent input, yet this makes no sense. Entropy dictates that the information content will decrease (which we actually do observe whenever we care to look). The only thing that can infuse new, functional information into a system is intelligence. Accidents don't do that. The theory of evolution is anti-science.
    • Darwinists work backwards from speculative conclusions towards interpretation of facts. They have decided that evolution must be true, and for every new discovery, they have to make up a story for how it fits into the sanctified evolutionary model, which usually involves some significant mental gymnastics and suspension of disbelief. Science should be about looking at what actually happens and figuring out how it happened, not about deciding how things happen and then making up theories about how the evidence fits their pre-formed belief.
    • Evolutionists dogmatically insist on falsities, ignoring well-known facts. One of the many examples is the appendix in the human body. This organ is known to have at least two functions, acknowledged by even something as mainstream as Wikipedia. Yet we keep hearing that the appendix is a "vestigial" organ and can be explained only by evolution. Many examples of similar claims relentlessly repeated despite having been proven false (often decades ago) can be found in Jonathan Wells's book Zombie Science. The obvious reason why false evidence keeps being thrown in our faces decade after decade is that there is no true evidence for evolution.
    • Evolutionary explanations usually say why things evolved, not how. If it cannot be shown how something has evolved step by step, insisting that it did is not different to a religious belief. "Giraffes have evolved long necks so that they could reach higher." HOW? "This monkey has evolved a long, thin finger so that it could reach inside holes to extract insects." HOW??? Scientists cannot explain how anything evolved. Ironically, explaining why is only hinting at intelligent design. Evolution is supposed to have no purpose. So explaining why something evolved doesn't even make sense in the mainstream science paradigm. In evolution, the answer to "why" always has to be "for no reason at all".
    • After 160 years, the theory of evolution is more controversial than ever, still trying to make things work. Instead of it strengthening during the 16 decades of scientific research, the theory of evolution has become increasingly dubious. If 160 years of science have made the theory less plausible than ever, it would seem that this theory and science aren't very compatible.
    • In dealing with what is or isn't science, evolutionists hold the view that the only real science is natural science, i.e. materialist science. But materialism is an ideology, no more proven to be true than the Bible. Materialism, just like religion, is a dogmatic belief. So saying that the only science that counts is materialist science is about the same as saying that the only science that counts is religious science. Evolutionists hold a certain belief and define science as operating within the limitations imposed by that belief. This then gets very stupid very quickly. You end up being told that your consciousness doesn't really exist, your decisions aren't made by you but by your genes, and other nonsense. Objectivity evaporates as learning about reality is limited by arbitrary assumptions.
    Darwinism is a disgrace to science. It ignores many scientific principles. It ignores facts and evidence and instead insists on a dogmatic belief, just like religion. Darwinists need to wake up and stop treating their unassailable theory like a sacred cow. They're doing exactly the things they accuse Creationists of.

    The theory of evolution is not just wrong. It is unscientific, nonsensical, illogical, and mathematically impossible.
    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

    Troll-hood motto: Never, ever, however, whatsoever, to anyone, a point concede.

  2. The Following 31 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    aoibhghaire (13th September 2019), arborealis (13th September 2019), avid (13th September 2019), Ben Macdonald (17th September 2019), Bill Ryan (13th September 2019), christian (12th September 2019), Ernie Nemeth (14th September 2019), Franny (12th September 2019), Gemma13 (12th September 2019), greybeard (13th September 2019), gs_powered (12th September 2019), James (12th September 2019), justntime2learn (13th September 2019), Kano (12th September 2019), kfm27917 (12th September 2019), Kotch (13th September 2019), Michi (12th September 2019), Pieman (17th September 2019), Sadieblue (13th September 2019), Sammy (15th September 2019), Satori (13th September 2019), Sir Eltor (13th September 2019), Soda (26th September 2019), Sophocles (13th September 2019), Star Mariner (13th September 2019), Sunny-side-up (17th September 2019), T Smith (17th September 2019), Tintin (12th September 2019), toppy (12th September 2019), Valerie Villars (13th September 2019), what is a name? (17th September 2019)

  3. Link to Post #2
    UK Avalon Member
    Join Date
    8th July 2019
    Age
    62
    Posts
    5
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 29 times in 4 posts

    Default Re: Science, Dogma and the Obsolescence of Evolution

    Absolutely spot on. I have been saying something similar for nearly half a century whilst precariously perched on my soap box.

  4. The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to Gerard For This Post:

    avid (13th September 2019), Bill Ryan (13th September 2019), Ernie Nemeth (14th September 2019), Franny (13th September 2019), Hervé (13th September 2019), Sadieblue (14th September 2019), Star Mariner (13th September 2019), T Smith (17th September 2019), Tintin (13th September 2019), Valerie Villars (13th September 2019)

  5. Link to Post #3
    UK Avalon Founder Bill Ryan's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th February 2010
    Location
    Ecuador
    Posts
    21,311
    Thanks
    73,514
    Thanked 268,273 times in 19,796 posts

    Default Re: Science, Dogma and the Obsolescence of Evolution

    Quote Posted by Gerard (here)
    Absolutely spot on. I have been saying something similar for nearly half a century whilst precariously perched on my soap box.
    Made me laugh. Absolutely! Me too.


  6. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Bill Ryan For This Post:

    avid (13th September 2019), Ernie Nemeth (14th September 2019), Hervé (13th September 2019), Sadieblue (14th September 2019), Star Mariner (13th September 2019), T Smith (17th September 2019), Tintin (13th September 2019), Valerie Villars (13th September 2019), Yoda (13th September 2019)

  7. Link to Post #4
    Avalon Member Hughe's Avatar
    Join Date
    19th November 2010
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    754
    Thanks
    1,129
    Thanked 2,576 times in 604 posts

    Default Re: Science, Dogma and the Obsolescence of Evolution

    Well said!

    Quote Darwinism is a disgrace to science.
    The Big Bang Theory is a disgrace to science!

    All life forms would extinct long long time ago due to the law of entropy in the Big Bang universe. Every second passes, the total amount of usable energy gets smaller. How could life form evolves from single cell organism to complex ones? Let's assume five cells make one organism. To create one organism, five cells required to travel five units in space for collecting energy. At time passes, to create one organism, five cells would have to travel ten units in space for collecting energy because they used up available energy in adjacent region, so they need to travel further. And cells stopped building five-cell organism any more.

    In thermodynamics where the entropy flows only one way, provided the world is a close system, the present is the ever complex, highest energetic state of expression of the whole - system. Tomorrow will be darker and colder, depressing future. So this is bull**** pseudo science at fundamental level but mainstream scientists believe in the Big Bang Theory no matter what!
    For free society!

  8. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Hughe For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (13th September 2019), conk (13th September 2019), Hervé (13th September 2019), kfm27917 (17th September 2019), Sadieblue (14th September 2019), T Smith (17th September 2019), Tintin (13th September 2019)

  9. Link to Post #5
    Scotland Avalon Member greybeard's Avatar
    Join Date
    17th March 2010
    Location
    Inverness-----Scotland
    Age
    74
    Posts
    9,820
    Thanks
    23,032
    Thanked 50,539 times in 8,514 posts

    Default Re: Science, Dogma and the Obsolescence of Evolution

    According to the Enlightened the Universe is an appearance in consciousness.
    Consciousness is prior to all and is eternal--permanent.
    Everything else is impermanent.
    Universes come an go.
    Science does state that the sun for example will eventualy burn out but has a problem with consciousness being prior to all.
    The first cause so to speak.
    Not that consciousness actually causes--it is the field of potential in which things manifest.
    Thats as best I understand what has been expressed, since the beginning of time, by Mystics
    Chris
    A charity to help African Children become self sufficient. :attention:

    http://www.learningtoolsforselfdevelopment.co.uk/

    Be kind to all life, including your own, no matter what!!

  10. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to greybeard For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (13th September 2019), conk (13th September 2019), earthdreamer (25th September 2019), Ernie Nemeth (14th September 2019), Hervé (13th September 2019), Sadieblue (14th September 2019), Star Mariner (13th September 2019), T Smith (17th September 2019), Tintin (13th September 2019)

  11. Link to Post #6
    Madagascar Avalon Member silvanelf's Avatar
    Join Date
    19th May 2019
    Age
    59
    Posts
    143
    Thanks
    1,473
    Thanked 406 times in 119 posts

    Default Re: Science, Dogma and the Obsolescence of Evolution

    Quote Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
    Quote Posted by Gerard (here)
    Absolutely spot on. I have been saying something similar for nearly half a century whilst precariously perched on my soap box.
    Made me laugh. Absolutely! Me too.

    The article posted by the OP has a strong anti-scientific undercurrent. It seems to me that most people don't notice it -- or they even agree with that attitude. Whatever.

    I don't like Darwin's theory, but IMO 'Intelligent Design' is much worse than any scientific theory.

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to silvanelf For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (13th September 2019)

  13. Link to Post #7
    France Administrator Hervé's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,729
    Thanks
    59,939
    Thanked 94,666 times in 15,439 posts

    Default Re: Science, Dogma and the Obsolescence of Evolution

    hmmm... if there is a design that's intelligent, maybe there is a method that's scientific in going about implementing it?


    And, maybe, the "evolution" occurs in the mind of the designer(s) as in: "Let's scrap that Model-T and build a new Ferrari!"


    Related:
    Last edited by Hervé; 13th September 2019 at 14:47.
    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

    Troll-hood motto: Never, ever, however, whatsoever, to anyone, a point concede.

  14. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (13th September 2019), greybeard (13th September 2019), Sadieblue (14th September 2019), T Smith (17th September 2019), Tintin (13th September 2019)

  15. Link to Post #8
    UK Avalon Member Star Mariner's Avatar
    Join Date
    15th November 2011
    Location
    Southwest UK
    Posts
    1,630
    Thanks
    8,786
    Thanked 10,373 times in 1,551 posts

    Default Re: Science, Dogma and the Obsolescence of Evolution

    Quote Posted by Hervé (here)
    Evolution contradicts established scientific principles, namely information entropy. We're told that the information content in the DNA increases over time with no intelligent input, yet this makes no sense. Entropy dictates that the information content will decrease (which we actually do observe whenever we care to look). The only thing that can infuse new, functional information into a system is intelligence. Accidents don't do that. The theory of evolution is anti-science.
    An important argument. Resonance cannot emerge from dissonance without input. Order cannot just arise out of chaos. It requires intervention - conception, construction, consciousness.

    Quote Posted by Hervé (here)
    You end up being told that your consciousness doesn't really exist, your decisions aren't made by you but by your genes, and other nonsense.
    A secularist model of reality is being intentionally promoted here. Intelligent Design expounds the idea of "GOD", and that's antithetical to the pursuits and goals of our Orwellian masters. I'm convinced of that. I'm convinced they aim to usher in a new world of godlessness and transhumanism. A nihilistic, materialistic apocalypse, where super-human, semi-immortal mega-rich elites rule over an obedient, probably autistic, atheistic, AI driven and controlled worker class.

    I'm not talking about the fall of religion, which is just another man-made artifice of control. I'm talking about the soul being under attack here, the divine nature of it, and spirituality as a whole.

    I see Darwinism as just one component of many, which together strive to obfuscate enquiry, subvert our true nature, and underlay the construction of a New World Order dystopia.

    The secular model of Darwinism is demonstrably bunk, just by possessing one iota of basic awareness. The world around us is a miracle of immeasurable complexity, from the wonders of the night sky, to a simple leaf on a tree, to the intricate workings of the inner ear. From a spot of mould growing on your bathroom tile, to galactic super-clusters – everything has purpose, reason, follows cause and effect and is moving, adapting, changing, ever-growing in one harmonious, connected, and vast (or tiny) cosmic dance, in accordance with pre-ordained laws and principles, many of which are mathematically quantifiable.

    This is order, and order cannot just blink into being from nowhere, by chance, with random forces driving it. Without intelligent order, the Universe would be that randomness, a sea of protons and electrons swirling aimlessly for all eternity. Then again, without order, without Design, there wouldn't even be protons or electrons, or eternity, because there'd be no time. There'd be no anything.

    In one sense, the Evolutionists are correct. The building blocks of life, the environment and the rules in which it flourishes or fails – all those things together do constitute adaptation, mutation, and therefore evolution in a real sense. The science that describes it is partially correct. But the blueprint on which all these intricate processes are founded, made possible...? It came from somewhere. That's the Intelligent Design, the Spiritual component. In a way, Darwinists and Creationists are both correct, they both hold one half of the puzzle. One day, if they're ever allowed to, they may put 2 and 2 together.
    "When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace."
    ~ Jimi Hendrix

  16. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Star Mariner For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (13th September 2019), Ernie Nemeth (14th September 2019), greybeard (13th September 2019), gs_powered (13th September 2019), Hervé (13th September 2019), Ron Mauer Sr (13th September 2019), T Smith (17th September 2019), what is a name? (17th September 2019)

  17. Link to Post #9
    UK Avalon Founder Bill Ryan's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th February 2010
    Location
    Ecuador
    Posts
    21,311
    Thanks
    73,514
    Thanked 268,273 times in 19,796 posts

    Default Re: Science, Dogma and the Obsolescence of Evolution

    Do also see this most interesting thread:

  18. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Bill Ryan For This Post:

    Hervé (13th September 2019), silvanelf (13th September 2019), Yoda (14th September 2019)

  19. Link to Post #10
    Madagascar Avalon Member silvanelf's Avatar
    Join Date
    19th May 2019
    Age
    59
    Posts
    143
    Thanks
    1,473
    Thanked 406 times in 119 posts

    Default Re: Science, Dogma and the Obsolescence of Evolution

    If you think that these arguments are new, then you are plain wrong. These arguments and counter-arguments have been discussed for centuries!

    Two well-known advocates of the 'argument from design' aka 'teleological argument':
    • William Paley's Natural Theology (1802) and
    • Aquinas’ Fifth Way and the Teleological Arguments for the Existence of God (1224/25–1274).

    Quote taken from the sott.net article at #1:

    Quote In their desperate attempts to discredit anything that even remotely makes sense, Darwinists like to ask the question, "Is ID (Intelligent Design) science?", to which, of course, they answer "no" based on a random ridiculous claim of the day.
    It is not 'a random ridiculous claim' -- it is a well-known fact that Intelligent Design is based on an theological argument, therefore it is not science. The author of that article, Mandatory Intellectomy (Sott.net), is just dishonest.

    Intelligent Design: Crash Course Philosophy #11


  20. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to silvanelf For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (18th September 2019), greybeard (14th September 2019)

  21. Link to Post #11
    United States Avalon Member
    Join Date
    24th June 2013
    Posts
    1,361
    Thanks
    821
    Thanked 3,812 times in 1,114 posts

    Default Re: Science, Dogma and the Obsolescence of Evolution

    Greybeard has the truth and any creation must be designed either incrementally or instantly (visualization becomes reality, whatever that really is). The frog to salamander using vibration is interesting. Mind is vibration. There are always multiple ways for creation to create, because it is the Creator! I can extend this minutely, but I am starving and my dinner is getting cold.

  22. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to amor For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (18th September 2019), greybeard (14th September 2019), Sammy (15th September 2019), T Smith (17th September 2019)

  23. Link to Post #12
    Scotland Avalon Member greybeard's Avatar
    Join Date
    17th March 2010
    Location
    Inverness-----Scotland
    Age
    74
    Posts
    9,820
    Thanks
    23,032
    Thanked 50,539 times in 8,514 posts

    Default Re: Science, Dogma and the Obsolescence of Evolution

    In the last twenty minutes or so in the video on this link posted by ichingcarpenter the Dogan knowledge of quatum is discussed--they knew so much totally amazing.
    Evolution --what evolution---more like devolution--smiling
    Chris

    http://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...=1#post1313956
    A charity to help African Children become self sufficient. :attention:

    http://www.learningtoolsforselfdevelopment.co.uk/

    Be kind to all life, including your own, no matter what!!

  24. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to greybeard For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (18th September 2019), silvanelf (14th September 2019)

  25. Link to Post #13
    Madagascar Avalon Member silvanelf's Avatar
    Join Date
    19th May 2019
    Age
    59
    Posts
    143
    Thanks
    1,473
    Thanked 406 times in 119 posts

    Default Re: Science, Dogma and the Obsolescence of Evolution

    Quote Posted by greybeard (here)
    In the last twenty minutes or so in the video on this link posted by ichingcarpenter the Dogan knowledge of quatum is discussed--they knew so much totally amazing.
    Evolution --what evolution---more like devolution--smiling
    Chris
    Here is another article:

    The Science of the Dogon by Laird Scranton

    These discoveries support the idea of 'Extraterrestrial Design' or a hypthesis like 'Extraterrestrial Meddling in our evolution' -- it's a bit different than the usual religious claim about 'Intelligent Creator' ...

  26. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to silvanelf For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (18th September 2019), greybeard (14th September 2019)

  27. Link to Post #14
    Madagascar Avalon Member silvanelf's Avatar
    Join Date
    19th May 2019
    Age
    59
    Posts
    143
    Thanks
    1,473
    Thanked 406 times in 119 posts

    Default Re: Science, Dogma and the Obsolescence of Evolution

    Quote Posted by Star Mariner (here)
    Quote Posted by Hervé (here)
    Evolution contradicts established scientific principles, namely information entropy. We're told that the information content in the DNA increases over time with no intelligent input, yet this makes no sense. Entropy dictates that the information content will decrease (which we actually do observe whenever we care to look). The only thing that can infuse new, functional information into a system is intelligence. Accidents don't do that. The theory of evolution is anti-science.
    An important argument.
    No, it's not. It takes just half a minute to search the web, then you will know that this argument has been discussed by scientists at great length.

    The first counter-argument: the Earth is not an isolated system. There are other arguments as well.

    Quote Does Life On Earth Violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics?

    The second law of thermodynamics (the law of increase of entropy) is sometimes used as an argument against evolution. Evolution, the argument goes, is a decrease of entropy, because it involves things getting more organized over time, while the second law says that things get more disordered over time. So evolution violates the second law.

    There are many things wrong with this argument, and it has been discussed ad infinitum. A summary of the arguments on both sides can be found on the links at www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html. These discussions never seem to involve any numerical calculations. This is unfortunate, since a very simple calculation shows that it is physically impossible for evolution to violate the second law of thermodynamics.

    It is important to note that the earth is not an isolated system: it receives energy from the sun, and radiates energy back into space. The second law doesn't claim that the entropy of any part of a system increases: if it did, ice would never form and vapor would never condense, since both of those processes involve a decrease of entropy. Rather, the second law says that the total entropy of the whole system must increase. Any decrease of entropy (like the water freezing into ice cubes in your freezer) must be compensated by an increase in entropy elsewhere (the heat released into your kitchen by the refrigerator).

    A slightly more sophisticated form of the anti-evolution argument recognizes that the earth is not an isolated system; it receives energy from the sun. But, the argument goes on, the sun's energy only increases disorder. It speeds the processes of breakdown and decay. Therefore, even with an energy source, evolution still violates the second law.
    -- snip --
    http://physics.gmu.edu/~roerter/EvolutionEntropy.htm

  28. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to silvanelf For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (18th September 2019), greybeard (14th September 2019)

  29. Link to Post #15
    Canada Avalon Member Ernie Nemeth's Avatar
    Join Date
    25th January 2011
    Location
    Toronto
    Age
    61
    Posts
    3,530
    Thanks
    15,165
    Thanked 20,731 times in 3,297 posts

    Default Re: Science, Dogma and the Obsolescence of Evolution

    I also have never accepted evolution as fact. It is preposterous, in my way of thinking at least.

    As Hughe pointed out, there are many avenues of thought that are corralled in this way. Purposefully misleading mental constructs are currently at the forefront of all of our sciences. We are at the pinnacle of the misinformation age.

    Despite their best efforts, our controllers have lost the propaganda war that has been ongoing on this planet for many millennia. It is only a matter of time now before the entire machination is revealed.

    The more I learn of this massive generational plan to deceive, the more I see what it is designed to keep secret.

    There is an interstellar community with scientific knowledge far beyond our own. This community has always been here. We were once part of that community as a species. We were conquered and subjugated by one or more of these advanced races. In order to keep us docile and bereft of any knowledge that might allow us to revolt, our memories and histories were wiped - this is the generational part of the program...

    All of our institutions have long ago been subverted to this cause of ignorance. Our sciences have been purposefully steered in such a way as to ensure certain topics are never breached in any organized and sensible fashion. This is to guarantee any individual who finds the loopholes will not likely stumble upon the true foundation of the logos of the universe. This is the intellectual part of the program.

    We are mired in such a morass of conflicting interpretations of the data, ensnared in arguments about the merits of opposing theories, that we do not see the resulting conflict and doubt that has snaked its way into our minds via these very institutions. These same institutions attract the money that controls the trajectory of the dead-end sciences of today.

    Since the time of Babylon we have been deceived, and most likely much longer. Through the magic of money we have allowed our masters to propel us ever onward toward total slavery and increasing ignorance.

    Evolution, along with what passes as science in today's world, is designed for one thing only: to direct the heart of man away from the truth, the truth of the Great Architect and Universal Source of Love and our connection to that energetic field of consciousness that animates the cosmos!
    Forget about it

  30. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Ernie Nemeth For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (18th September 2019), greybeard (14th September 2019), Hervé (14th September 2019), Sammy (15th September 2019), what is a name? (17th September 2019)

  31. Link to Post #16
    Avalon Member Hughe's Avatar
    Join Date
    19th November 2010
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    754
    Thanks
    1,129
    Thanked 2,576 times in 604 posts

    Default Re: Science, Dogma and the Obsolescence of Evolution

    The presentation starts at 10:00.

    Jonathan Wells Presents His Latest Book Zombie Science
    For free society!

  32. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Hughe For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (18th September 2019), Ernie Nemeth (18th September 2019), Hervé (17th September 2019)

  33. Link to Post #17
    Canada Avalon Member Ernie Nemeth's Avatar
    Join Date
    25th January 2011
    Location
    Toronto
    Age
    61
    Posts
    3,530
    Thanks
    15,165
    Thanked 20,731 times in 3,297 posts

    Default Re: Science, Dogma and the Obsolescence of Evolution

    The picture of the ape turning progressively more human, as if a proven fact, is very disturbing to me. It has always made me want to jump up and call bull****! Even as a young boy, at a time when I really didn't know why it bothered me at all.

    I never bought the humans come from apes tagline. It seems not only improbable, but because of the true amount of time that would have necessarily transpired for 'evolution' to affect the required mutations, it is impossible. Case closed. But instead of that bit of logic, we are in a situation where black is white and up is down. In which case, 'evolution' makes all the sense in the world.
    Forget about it

  34. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Ernie Nemeth For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (18th September 2019), Hervé (18th September 2019)

  35. Link to Post #18
    Madagascar Avalon Member silvanelf's Avatar
    Join Date
    19th May 2019
    Age
    59
    Posts
    143
    Thanks
    1,473
    Thanked 406 times in 119 posts

    Default Re: Science, Dogma and the Obsolescence of Evolution

    Some scientific results which contradict all that hand-waving arguments against evolution:


  36. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to silvanelf For This Post:

    Ernie Nemeth (19th September 2019), rogparan (19th September 2019)

  37. Link to Post #19
    Canada Avalon Member Ernie Nemeth's Avatar
    Join Date
    25th January 2011
    Location
    Toronto
    Age
    61
    Posts
    3,530
    Thanks
    15,165
    Thanked 20,731 times in 3,297 posts

    Default Re: Science, Dogma and the Obsolescence of Evolution

    Good video.

    There was a lot of circumstantial evidence, with logical inference and extension. But, no proof. Imagine, for example that a chimpanzee has only 3% difference in its DNA compared to humans. This makes a strong tie to evolution and the common ancestor model. However, what isn't stated is just what exactly makes that 3% so immensely different? What it shows me is that DNA is a template for life and that all life has this template. What makes an ape and what makes a human is a 3% change in the universal DNA. When we finally get to test an alien from another world we will see that its DNA will also be a few percentage points different than humans. How will evolution explain that?

    I could argue every point in this obtuse fashion, leaving out the usual arguments that can be refuted because they have been anticipated by the proponents of evolution long ago.
    Forget about it

  38. The Following User Says Thank You to Ernie Nemeth For This Post:

    silvanelf (19th September 2019)

  39. Link to Post #20
    Madagascar Avalon Member silvanelf's Avatar
    Join Date
    19th May 2019
    Age
    59
    Posts
    143
    Thanks
    1,473
    Thanked 406 times in 119 posts

    Default Re: Science, Dogma and the Obsolescence of Evolution

    Quote Posted by Ernie Nemeth (here)
    The picture of the ape turning progressively more human, as if a proven fact, is very disturbing to me. It has always made me want to jump up and call bull****! Even as a young boy, at a time when I really didn't know why it bothered me at all.

    I never bought the humans come from apes tagline. It seems not only improbable, but because of the true amount of time that would have necessarily transpired for 'evolution' to affect the required mutations, it is impossible. Case closed. But instead of that bit of logic, we are in a situation where black is white and up is down. In which case, 'evolution' makes all the sense in the world.

    If you don't like the concept regarding the 'common ancestor' ... why don't you look for an alternative explanation instead of jumping up and down and calling bull****?

    The hypothesis about the common ancestor of humans and apes is just a specific hypothesis within the theory of evolution. In other words: lets assume that scientists made a discovery which contradicts this assumption. Now what? Would it disprove the theory of evolution? No.

    You are confusing the general theory of evolution with a specific hypothesis within this theory. Many advocates of Intelligent Design follow the same line of reasoning -- they think if one specific aspect of the theory of evolution is wrong, then the whole theory must be wrong. They don't understand the basics about the scientific method.

    Quote The hypothesis that all life on earth traces back to a single common ancestor is a fundamental postulate in modern evolutionary theory. Yet, despite its widespread acceptance in biology, there has been comparatively little attention to formally testing this “hypothesis of common ancestry”. We review and critically examine some arguments that have been proposed in support of this hypothesis.
    https://www.semanticscholar.org/pape...7a47d392fc409c

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts