Disproof of Darwinism

[questfortruth]

You're ignoring the probability of what's called a "common ancestor".

The thing A is not common ancestor, but the common source of all Reality. He is the God Father of all living beings.

 

[SomeRandom]

Not exactly peer reviewed literature

 

[SomeRandom]

The fossil record is not tape-recording, not film. Thus, it is interpreted by Theory of Evolution, which makes the theory false tautology: theory is "proven" by fossils, which are interpreted by theory.

What in Gods name are you talking about?

 

[questfortruth]

Not exactly peer reviewed literature

There was Natural Theology, but then came Science and won. Science is an anti-religious thing. Thus, the papers of God's people will never be accepted in Science.

 

[questfortruth]

There should be absolutely no doubt that the basic ToE is spot on

I'm glad you are here to tell me what I know and don't know But, yes, lack of full knowledge of any area doesn't mean you can't be a decent human, even not knowing about God

What in Gods name are you talking about?

There was Natural Theology, but then came Science and won. Science is an anti-religious thing. Thus, the papers of God's people will never be accepted in Science.

 

[Kenny]

Biology, like all of science, isn't looking for anything more than generalizations about nature that help us anticipate its vagaries better. If evidence that is best understood by invoking a god is uncovered, only then should that idea be entertained. This hasn't happened, so no gods are imputed.

Biology shouldn't be looking for a god. That's not good science. Science goes where evidence leads it. We can take a lesson from the intelligent design movement. Their mistake was that went looking for a god in nature that they assumed was there. Millions of dollars were allocated to this pursuit, all in vain.

People see what they want to see or expect to see. This is why the ID people kept seeing irreducible complexity where there was none. They were looking for it - a mistake. It the mistake that double blind medical trial hopes to eliminate. Both the patient and clinician are hoping for a good response. If you let them know when the tested medication is being used, they are prone to giving positive results, and the opposite with placebo.

I don't find them entertaining it. Are they really open?

Science has looked into the cosmos and into crystals to see what secrets nature holds. None of the discoveries requires a god, so why posit one? The predictive and explanatory power of no scientific theory is improved by the ad hoc insertion of a god into it. So it has never been done.

Like I said, it doesn't seem like they entertain the idea. (No issue here, just making the notation)

If a god or gods exist, we can conclude that they are non-interventionalist (no miracles, no revelation, no prayers answered, etc.), and it either doesn't want to be found, cannot manifest itself, no longer exists, is indifferent to man's problems, or is unaware that we exist. I don't see where identifying the existence of such a god (basically, the deists' god) is of any value. Did the universe come from an unconscious multiverse, or a conscious god that abandoned us like a reptile (usually) abandons its eggs after laying them. Why should the newborn turtle or snake care either way?

But I disagree.... I have had answered prayers, friends have had answered prayer, revelations (such as israel being a nation again) is real (no logical explanation for it to happen and no history of something like that happening.

Ok... we have many questions which only accentuate that we really don't have all the answers. (I don't see God as abandoning but, of course, I come from a Christian perspective.

Was it you that defined spirit as the combination of will, mind, and emotion? To me, that's all mind. I can't use that idea for anything.

No... I separated the spirit and the soul.

What is spiritual truth? Nothing like what I call truth.

Well, that's a hot button. It isn't just "the definition" but a definition that satisfies you--maybe to tall an order. So, for me, we have laws that drive the natural world. Gravity that hold us on the earth is a law that works what we see. (Maybe not the best example)

Spiritual truth is that which drives all areas of what we see and don't see. So doctors may say something natural is impossible as they understand that which they can't see. The return of cancer, they know it returned, but do they really know why it returned?

So, spiritual truth can change the facts that we understand. I think both the natural facts and the spiritual truths eventually should be in harmony.

Or when I read people talking about duality and non-duality. What's the value to them there? Are they having issues with ego or attachment or something else that's partially resolved with these ideas? If so, that's great for them, but I have no such need or issue. Such ideas clarify nothing for me. Nor do they help me understand our world.

It seems to me that many people need magic in their lives. They need to believe that they have arcane knowledge and great insight not available to the less evolved mind. They need to believe that there is more to reality than what they can experience with the mind and senses.

But what I see is people chasing their tails, usually for a lifetime, holding out their endless search as a token of their desire to keep learning, when in reality it appears to be the opposite - a fruitless chase, like somebody looking for his keys for a lifetime, and seeing that as a virtue compared to the man who found his keys and quit looking.

So until somebody can give me a clear description of what they're talking about, and evidence that they are doing more than just massaging their minds with ideas that give them pleasure, I will continue to hold the position that this is a dead end pursuit after more than a few years of exploring. I did that in my thirties, found a worldview that worked for me, and the searching was over. I found the keys, so why keep looking?

There are people that do chase magic, no doubt. But I don't think that it eliminates the supernatural. We all are looking for if keys. If it works for you, great. I find that my faith works for me.

I thought that you had. Haven't you concluded that the world is proof of a god for you? You wrote, "Just look at everything around you... proof enough IMO." I gave you an alternative interpretation - either a god or a naturalistic explanation, and that no definitive conclusion could be reached as neither possibility could be ruled in or out at this time.

Can you explain how you eliminated the multiverse possibility? Or perhaps you haven't, and like me, consider it a viable possibility and alternative explanation to a supernatural answer.

I think there are two universes... (by viewpoint) - a physical and a spiritual one. When I see the world and someone says "that happened by chance - through billions of years of chance" I can't find the logic in that. Again, my personal view.

For an example, from Talk Origins:The second law of thermodynamics applies universally, but, as everyone can see, that does not mean that everything everywhere is always breaking down. The second law allows local decreases in entropy offset by increases elsewhere. The second law does not say that order from disorder is impossible; in fact, as anyone can see, order from disorder happens all the time.

Ok... they are expelling what they see with no explanation as to why. Just because "that does not mean that everything everywhere is always breaking down." because they can see it... just doesn't make sense to me. If it happens all the time... God? Why not?

The sun has an expiration date (so to speak) - it is breaking down. Their answer is simply "something is growing" - Why? We do not know. God. could be.

 

[questfortruth]

For an example, from Talk Origins:The second law of thermodynamics applies universally, but, as everyone can see, that does not mean that everything everywhere is always breaking down. The second law allows local decreases in entropy offset by increases elsewhere. The second law does not say that order from disorder is impossible; in fact, as anyone can see, order from disorder happens all the time.

Going back in time until the Virtual Big Bang, one can say, that it was 100% in order. Why there were no life forms in Big Bang then?

 

[McBell]

I don't whine. Is that your perception? Or is it a strawman attempt.

My apologies.
Do you prefer pissing and moaning?

 

[McBell]

Darwinism (in Natural Theology, but in science: "Theory of Evolution")
is not a real theory, because the talks about random mutations rely heavily on luck.

Anything, that needs luck is not a law of nature; because the law is the receipt, which for given circumstances gives the calculated result. Darwinism has no probability calculation. Thus, it is not a theory. How many chimps have become humans in 2020? Is it more than in 2019?


State A: the world of animals,
State B: humankind.
How probable is the transition from A to B?


Are there any transitions in Darwinism? If no, then it is not EVOLUTION.


If apes are fish, then the first law of logic is violated. If apes are not fish, then I have the question: how probable for fishes to become apes?


Darwinism has no single calculation of probabilities, no single experimental data of transition from fishes to apes, thus it is not a Theory.

Darwinism uses luck to create new information, that violates the natural laws: due to holding of laws, no new information can be added.

STILL waiting for disproof of Darwinism.

Good thing I ain't holding my breath

 

[Riders]

Darwinism (in Natural Theology, but in science: "Theory of Evolution")
is not a real theory, because the talks about random mutations rely heavily on luck.

Anything, that needs luck is not a law of nature; because the law is the receipt, which for given circumstances gives the calculated result. Darwinism has no probability calculation. Thus, it is not a theory. How many chimps have become humans in 2020? Is it more than in 2019?


State A: the world of animals,
State B: humankind.
How probable is the transition from A to B?


Are there any transitions in Darwinism? If no, then it is not EVOLUTION.


If apes are fish, then the first law of logic is violated. If apes are not fish, then I have the question: how probable for fishes to become apes?


Darwinism has no single calculation of probabilities, no single experimental data of transition from fishes to apes, thus it is not a Theory.

Darwinism uses luck to create new information, that violates the natural laws: due to holding of laws, no new information can be added.

It's simple. After nature made it so that chimpanzees could not live in trees anymore, they came out of the trees to live on ground and started walking upright. It is a probability and makes perfect sense.

 

[Riders]

The reason we don't have chimpanzees turning into people today is because they live in trees in their natural habitat. If they had to survive like man on the ground hunting and fishing they would turn into man.

 

[SomeRandom]

There was Natural Theology, but then came Science and won. Science is an anti-religious thing. Thus, the papers of God's people will never be accepted in Science.

You can be a scientist and still be religious, my guy.
I mean I’ll grant you that there might be a larger portion of “non believers” in scientific fields, than believers. But it’s not like science demands you to give up your religious beliefs.
And Dawkins is considered an ***. Even in skeptical communities.

 

[ecco]

What is the name of the scientist in the videos so that I can evaluate his competency in the field of fossils?

Science is an anti-religious thing. Thus, the papers of God's people will never be accepted in Science.

Science is not anti-religious. Science just does not accept superstitious claims as evidence. If it did, it would have to accept a thousand different creation stories. You don't accept a thousand different creation stories, do you?

Would you like science to accept the papers of the Hindu God Shiva? Perhaps you would like to see Rastafarianism taught in schools alongside geology.

 

[questfortruth]

What is the name of the scientist in the videos so that I can evaluate his competency in the field of fossils?



Science is not anti-religious. Science just does not accept superstitious claims as evidence. If it did, it would have to accept a thousand different creation stories. You don't accept a thousand different creation stories, do you?

Would you like science to accept the papers of the Hindu God Shiva? Perhaps you would like to see Rastafarianism taught in schools alongside geology.

You can be a scientist and still be religious, my guy.
I mean I’ll grant you that there might be a larger portion of “non believers” in scientific fields, than believers. But it’s not like science demands you to give up your religious beliefs.
And Dawkins is considered an ***. Even in skeptical communities.

I repeat, that there two options: 1. Natural Theology, 2. Science. Both study nature. However, the main difference is that there are morning and evening official prayers in Natural Theology -- that is Trump doing in the oval office. Natural Theology provides peace between Reason and Faith.
All theistic religions have at least one common knowledge: God of Existence exists, and His name is God. On the other hand, the god of non-existence does not exist and his names are the evil spirit, satan, death, idol, hatred, disrespect, Darwinism, Russel Teapot, Flying Spaghetti Monster, red invisible dragon in atheists' garage, UFO.

 

[SomeRandom]

I repeat, that there two options: 1. Natural Theology, 2. Science. Both study nature. However, the main difference is that there are morning and evening official prayers in Natural Theology -- that is Trump doing in the oval office. Natural Theology provides peace between Reason and Faith.
All theistic religions have at least one common knowledge: God of Existence exists, and His name is God. On the other hand, the god of non-existence does not exist and his names are the evil spirit, satan, death, idol, hatred, disrespect, Darwinism, Russel Teapot, Flying Spaghetti Monster, red invisible dragon in atheists' garage, UFO.

Which has nothing whatsoever to do with the Theory of Evolution. It’s like trying to disprove mathematics using Shakespearean plays. Wtf?
Even the Catholic Church accepts evolution. You don’t have to be mindless in order to worship God.

 

[questfortruth]

Even the Catholic Church accepts evolution

The Eastern Orthodox Christianity is more ancient, more fundamental.

 

[ecco]

I repeat, that there two options: 1. Natural Theology, 2. Science.

Wrong. There are two options: 1. Science, 2. Religion.

Science is based on research and study over (in the case of evolution) the past hundreds of years. It is supported by geology, biology, nuclear physics, and other fields of study.

Religion (in your case) is based on the writings of relatively ignorant people who lived three thousand years ago. These people believed the spots on goats was determined by the kind of wood in the fence they were tied to. These people believed that eating shellfish was deadly. They didn't even understand that the month of harvest was important. These people believed that eating pork was deadly. They didn't even understand that proper cooking (which had been around for thousands of years) was important.

So, if you, and some other posters in this thread, want to base your beliefs on the writings of ignorant people well, OK. But would you want to fly in a 747 piloted by someone who has thousands of hours of flying experience or from someone flipping burgers at Wendy's?

 

[ecco]

All theistic religions have at least one common knowledge: God of Existence exists, and His name is God.

What does that have to do with your concepts of the origins of humans? You don't believe the creation stories from thousands of religions. You only believe the creation stories written by your chosen group of goatherders.

 

[ecco]

The Eastern Orthodox Christianity is more ancient, more fundamental.

Hmm...

The Split that Created Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Catholics - dummies
The Split that Created Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Catholics
Eastern Orthodox Catholics and Roman Catholics are the result of what is known as the East-West Schism (or Great Schism) of 1054, when medieval Christianity split into two branches.​

 

[metis]

The thing A is not common ancestor, but the common source of all Reality. He is the God Father of all living beings.

Again, you have failed to provide any objectively-derived evidence as you continue to conflate "beliefs" with "facts". I asked for your evidence, and it's clear you have none.