Evolution is illogical and non sense

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Herein lies the foundations of the horrors of religion: Assuming others are lost or evil based on the fact that they do not hold the beliefs of the speaker (in this case, Mohammud). Knowledge, in and of itself is evil; and if you dare educate yourself in this forbidden knowledge, you are a heretic. History has shown us time and time again the horrible consequences of such thinking. In fact, watching Sunday Morning News reporting on ISIS shows us the horrible consequences of this kind of deranged thinking.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Possibly, but the problem is how many times can a person be told with substantial evidence that A does not equal B, and yet they come back over and over again making them equal? If a person does not know or understand, I'm willing to cut them a lot of slack (about 2/3 of my students in my introductory anthropology course either didn't believe in evolution or questioned it), but when a person is informed in no uncertain terms, and yet comes back with the same nonsense over and over again, then I think the word "lie" can be applied.

Dunning-Kruger?

 

[metis]

Dunning-Kruger?

Wouldn't surprise me.

 

[Ouroboros]

More "lies"-- or, "a major misuse of terms"-- take your pick.

Or willful ignorance. People who are motivated to not listen or learn.

---edit

Oops. Grammur errør! Split infinitive.

...motivated not to listen ...

 

[Ouroboros]

Dunning-Kruger?

Oh. Interesting. Thanks for the link.

 

[metis]

To all:

I'm sorry to be so sarcastic towards MNS, and I guess there's no real excuse for my rudeness, but what he's posted hits "close to home". Let me briefly explain why.

I was raised in a fundamentalist Protestant church whereas I frequently was taught both in Sunday School and in church sermons about "evilution", and I believed as such going into high school. However, my parents were "museum freaks" (I'm one as well), and when I went to the Smithsonian in D.C. and the natural science museum at the University of Michigan in my sophomore year in high school, the evidence I saw for evolution was overwhelming. However, this only left me in a confused state, so I asked my pastor if one could believe in both evolution and the Bible, and he said no.

In the summer between my junior and senior year in high school, I talked with a pastor at another church, and he told me there was no conflict between accepting evolution and believing in God and the Bible. Now I was even more confused, and this was especially irksome since I was considering going into the seminary to become a minister.

When doing my undergrad work in college, I was planning on going into biology, and then my suspicions about being misled by the church that I was brought up in was confirmed, however I wasn't going to actually leave that church until my mid-20's. In my junior year of college, I fell in love with anthropology, and continued on to specialize in it during my graduate degree.

My point is that the "misinformation" I was being fed as a kid really caused quite a bit of consternation with me for quite a few years until I got it ironed out, and I hate to see other people being subject to this same or similar frustrations as I was put through.

However, that's still no reason for me to be rude, so I do apologize to MNS.

 

[ArtieE]

But evolutionists are against free will

We are? I have never been against free will. I have never known anybody who has been against free will. I evolved and I can make choices. Why shouldn't people who evolved be able to make choices?

 

[Ouroboros]

To all:

Just a tip. Use the "ignore" function. Trolls feed of conflict, and I learned with time that it's not healthy for me to engage them either. That's my view.

 

[David M]

The evolutionists arrive at the conclusion good and evil forced by evidence. They do not choose, they regard good and evil as facts.

Pure projection. It is religion that regards good and evil as facts, they mandate that objective morality exists which destroys subjectivity.

Without the input of religion people tend to state that good and evil are subjective and often matters of pure opinion.

 

[viole]

Explain this to me evolutionist. In science they can explain in specific detail many functions found in nature. Photosynthesis etc. All about systems, Muscular, Nerve and it goes on. Yet evolution never can explain evolution is that type detail. You can not give one proven example of evolution of one species to another higher order species. You can't tell us what it started at and what it became. You can't explain the no. of steps it took and what each step entailed to get there. That is not like the science I am referring to above. So evolution is really non science non sense.

Plus explain this. You say An explosion of energy started all the extreme order and precision we see in creation. Yet in no other example can you give where an explosion of energy ever produces order, precision etc. When I see storms, explosions etc. Much less energy than the Big Bang supposedly had and the aftermath is anything but order, precision, intracate design etc. My logic and common sense just doesn't buy it.

Evolution says the Design we see in creation only appears designed. Well that might be correct if talking about a cloud. But we are talking about FUNCTIONAL DESIGN etc. That is a big big difference. It is what makes life possible since that Function makes life possible.

Evolution has no real thinking brain. Yet you act as if it did. It reminds me of the illustration I like to give.
Mother Nature decides to form the faces on Mt Rushmore. So it gets the forces and processes of nature to join together and uses rain, wind, erosion and time to form those faces. It shows design (we know it was) yet it isn't life. But see life not only shows Design, it is functional and makes real life possible.

In all of my life, I have yet to see where I find functional Design, Engineering, Programming etc not have intelligent brains behind it. Yet evolution tries to sell me that what we have occured w/o an actual intelligent brain behind it. Really? Like Mother Nature and the faces on Mt Rushmore?

Even atheist mathematician Fred Hoyle admitted it took intelligence and evolution was impossible. He described it thusly. The odds for evolution are the same as a tornado going through a junkyard and forming a 747 ready for take off on a runway! How did he get around the obvious intelligence needed that he acknowledged. He said it had to have come from outer space! That is sure pure science huh!

Sir Isaac Newton had an atheist friend that he couldn't convince him of God. So he went to a skilled carpenter friend. He asked him to make for him a copy to a scale of our solar system. After it was finished Sir Isaac Newton went and picked it up after paying for it. The work was exquisite. He placed it on a prominate place in his house. Not too long afterwards his atheist friend came by. He couldn't help but notice the great artistic replica of our solar system. He asked Sir Isaac Newton who made it. Newton replied No one it just appeared out of no where. The friend kept asking and Newton kept replying the same. Finally the friend got really mad. Then Sir Isaac Newton explained what he had done and the purpose for it. He told him, This is basically what you keep telling me about our solar system etc. I wanted to show you how absurd that really is. Then the friend got the point. I hope you do too.

I want examples where precise intricate Design Engineering Programming has ever occurred w/o actual intelligence behind it? Gee, if I walk upon a beach and see a cell phone, computer etc I know it took intelligence to Design, Engineer and Program it? Why can't you admit the obvious?

Dawkins the Blind watchmaker has always amused me. Why? Regardless of whether a watchmaker was blind or not. He couldn't make Design, Engineer or Program the watch w/o actual intelligent thinking brain could he?

There are two books you should read. First one is "A Closer Look at the Evidence" by Richard and Tina Kleiss and "Inspired Evidence" by Bruce Malone. They are two books that are daily readings of one page each day. They go over many areas of science etc and show how when evolution has to get specific it falls flat on its face. Ironically, when you read evolutionist own words they actually betray the truth of the fraud and horrible science it truly is.

http://www.searchforthetruth.net/

BTW isn't it interesting that man's "evolved" brain still can't match what evolution says a non thinking intelligence Designed, Engineered and Programmed. Man study's nature to learn how to better things for man and still can't match it. Yet evolution did it so much better before mankind had "evolved" yet! How silly do you think I am! Worse is what man has tried to match, Kidney, heart machines etc. Mankind can't come close to matching. Yet evolution did it better than our top of the line "evolved" brain can do! Please explain how that is possible. Mother Nature example again!

So I want logical common sense replies to disprove my logical, comon sense "evolved" brain. Stick to the subject and don't use your usual tactics of avoidance and changing the subject to avoid answering what you can't. Much less personal attacks showing you can't answer so you attack saying I don't understand evolution. See the problem is I actually do. That is why, like Fred Hoyle, I realize it is impossible and took a supreme Intelligence. Difference I acknowledge God, Jesus the actual creator God. Colossians first Chapter and part of chapter 2 and Romans chapter 1.

That is the site you can go to the purchase those books.

BTW I taught a lesson on "How to filter evolutionary teaching using their own words" last Sunday. I had it recorded. I hope to post it on You Tube fairly soon. I am not a techno person. So my friend will have to help me. He has been real sick with strep throat. So not sure when we will be able to post it.

God Bless You All.

Could be. I am still not sure though, why God is so fond of apes to use them as design models for His highest achievement. The very reason He created trillions of galaxies for, allegedely.

I would have preferred if He used birds instead. That would have saved on dentists costs considerably. Not to speak of the obvious mobility advantages.

Does that have anything to do with His likeness?

Ciao

- viole

 

[LuisDantas]

It is not so, evolutionists are social darwinists of one kind or another. To avoid social darwinism on account of accepting natural selection theory requires to know the distinction between fact and opinion. But evolutionists do not know it, and they categorize goodness and evil as facts.
(...)
The evolutionists arrive at the conclusion good and evil forced by evidence. They do not choose, they regard good and evil as facts.

The Theory of Evolution does not actually dwell on phylosophical matters of good and evil.

For that matter, it is unrelated to so-called "social" darwinism as well.

And it has long overcome a lot of the flaws of Darwinism proper, as a matter of fact. Over one hundred years of research end up bringing some results...



But it seems to me that your pet peeve is not so much with the scientific knowledge proper (which, frankly, you are misrepresenting with a passion, to the point that I doubt that you have a functional grasp of it) as with the idea of science itself, as the search of knowledge "forced by evidence". You see it as an offense to God, apparently.

I think you are being disrespectful to both religion and science in so doing, because it amounts to surrendering to the fear that religion can't survive when confronted with facts.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

We are? I have never been against free will. I have never known anybody who has been against free will. I evolved and I can make choices. Why shouldn't people who evolved be able to make choices?

You can say the words free will and choice, but you mean something different than the religious and common concept of choosing.

You mean with choosing that you can sort out a course of action using your knowledge of good and evil as sorting criteria.

But a muslim means with choosing that he can make one of alternative future's the present, the choice being an expression of his spirit.

The result of your choice is forced by the sorting criteria, it cannot turn out any different way.

The deception of ecolutionists is sophisticated, but when you look into the details it turns out that the present day evolutionist relies just as much on knowledge of good and evil as the openly racist and sexist evolutionists of old.

 

[Kirran]

You can say the words free will and choice, but you mean something different than the religious and common concept of choosing.

You mean with choosing that you can sort out a course of action using your knowledge of good and evil as sorting criteria.

But a muslim means with choosing that he can make one of alternative future's the present, the choice being an expression of his spirit.

The result of your choice is forced by the sorting criteria, it cannot turn out any different way.

The deception of ecolutionists is sophisticated, but when you look into the details it turns out that the present day evolutionist relies just as much on knowledge of good and evil as the openly racist and sexist evolutionists of old.

But actually, in many religions, such as Islam, there is a very strong belief in objective morality.

The irreligious are less likely to have this belief, although it is still common.

 

[outhouse]

You see it as an offense to God, apparently.

Yes.

Something he also knows little about.


Its one thing to be scientifically ignorant and have passion for religion. But it takes the cake when their education in religion Is less then their scientific knowledge they fight.

I think you are being disrespectful to both religion and science in so doing

Exactly.

It is a perversion of both concepts.

 

[ArtieE]

You mean with choosing that you can sort out a course of action using your knowledge of good and evil as sorting criteria.

Correct.

But a muslim means with choosing that he can make one of alternative future's the present, the choice being an expression of his spirit.

Does that mean that a muslim can't sort out a course of action using his knowledge of good and evil? Doesn't he have any?

The result of your choice is forced by the sorting criteria, it cannot turn out any different way.

What turns out depends on my choice.

The deception of ecolutionists is sophisticated, but when you look into the details it turns out that the present day evolutionist relies just as much on knowledge of good and evil as the openly racist and sexist evolutionists of old.

Of course we rely on our knowledge of good and evil. We try to do good and avoid doing evil and how could we do that if we didn't know which was which? Don't you have any knowledge of good and evil to base your behavior on?

 

[Kirran]

For those following the very widespread transactional view of Islam (i.e. if I do such and such things then God will let me go to heaven) morality is really rather irrelevant - even if you believe that what Islam teaches is wrong, you do it anyway, because then you get to go to heaven. One need not believe that the teachings of Islam are the most beneficial to society to follow them for this purpose, although of course many do.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Correct.Does that mean that a muslim can't sort out a course of action using his knowledge of good and evil? Doesn't he have any?What turns out depends on my choice.Of course we rely on our knowledge of good and evil. We try to do good and avoid doing evil and how could we do that if we didn't know which was which? Don't you have any knowledge of good and evil to base your behavior on?

Such a litany of errors of logic does not provide any basis for reasonable discourse. The meaning of what you write is that you will regard what is good and evil as (scientific) fact, damn logic, damn reasonability, and damn emotions.

 

[ArtieE]

Such a litany of errors of logic does not provide any basis for reasonable discourse.

Why didn't you answer my questions?

The meaning of what you write is that you will regard what is good and evil as (scientific) fact, damn logic, damn reasonability, and damn emotions.

We use logic and reason to determine what is good behavior and what is evil behavior, we also feel good when we do something good and feel bad when we do something bad. We call that conscience. What do you use to determine right from wrong?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Why didn't you answer my questions?We use logic and reason to determine what is good behavior and what is evil behavior, we also feel good when we do something good and feel bad when we do something bad. We call that conscience. What do you use to determine right from wrong?

The wisdom of the ages is unmoved by your litany of errors.

Facts are obtained forced by evidence. Facts require force, while choosing requires freedom, these 2 don't match. Therefore the existence of what chooses is a matter of opinion, hence the unevidenced spirit and soul choose.

 

[Sapiens]

The wisdom of the ages is unmoved by your litany of errors.

Facts are obtained forced by evidence. Facts require force, while choosing requires freedom, these 2 don't match. Therefore the existence of what chooses is a matter of opinion, hence the unevidenced spirit and soul choose.

I'm keeping a collection of this stuff to use in a new comedy routine, it's a religious version of the old Professor Irwin Corey routine, and this is perfect for it: "Facts are obtained forced by evidence. Facts require force, while choosing requires freedom, these 2 don't match. Therefore the existence of what chooses is a matter of opinion, hence the unevidenced spirit and soul choose."