The Four Dirty Secrets Against Darwin Evolution

[shunyadragon]

Casino science, which is the foundation of the Life Sciences and many others, is not objective. That approach is based on fuzzy dice data in a black box, which cannot be used for objectivity. You can correlate with that approach but a correlation is not solid for foundation premises. The black box adds a data gap and emotional subjectivity; Climate change fear. That semi-subjective objective approach, allows bad theory to linger, since you you cannot falsify fuzzy dice theory, especially if you induce fear; risk, or desire; winner.

For example, the theory of life on other planets have never been proven. It lingers because casino science give it some base logic and odds like winning the lottery; fuzzy dice desire.

Still an overwhelming intentional ignorance of science with a shotgun of anti-science rhetoric. Science does not prove anything. There is no relationship between science and atheism

The following is an example of your ridiculous false diatribe against science:

The possibility of life on other planets is NOT a theory. It is just considered a possibility depending on confirmation.

If the religious says there is God, but do not prove it, the theory is dead according to Atheists. They did not get the same benefit of a doubt as a similar fuzzy dice theory. The reason I religion claims determinism with such theory causal and falsifiable. Fuzzy dice allows you to play the dual injustice game we see in US politics. Politics also uses fuzzy dice and cannot be trusted.

The consciousness approach I take, in interpreting the Bible, may not be common, but it correlates. Carbon dating at about 6000 years ago; science approach, shows the start of civilization and the invention of written language. This was how I interfaced the two. Both innovations would be mind expanding and behavior altering. Both will also cause humans to leave natural selection in favor of manmade selection, which impacted the mind and consciousness; repressed instincts or as the bible says, loss of paradi

The consciousness approach agrees with material evolution, but human departs from natural selection, about 6000 years ago, as human consciousness changes; ego added, apart from nature and natural selection; man made selection. Consciousness today can alter the DNA, via will and choice, and not have wait for evolution; genetically modified food. It was not always that way. The stories of creation give us eyewitness clues on it update processes.

The parade of ancient tribal mythology continues without coherent reference.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Reminds me of an episode of the Atheist Experience.

The week before there was (yet another) mass shooting in the US. Someone had a bullet in the head and "survived". Quotes, because she had severe braindamage and it was unclear if she would actually ever be able to walk and talk again.

Some guy called in saying "it's a miracle! the doctor said he didn't understand how she survived! it's a miracle!!"

The host replied: "What about the other 7 that died???? Also, what's the miracle? That a person lives on as a plant unable to talk and walk?"

Deafening silence after that followed by quickly changing the subject.
All the while, off course, not acknowledging the point made.

I remember that one.
That's about the typical response, apparently. Nothing.

 

[gnostic]

Casino science, which is the foundation of the Life Sciences and many others, is not objective. That approach is based on fuzzy dice data in a black box, which cannot be used for objectivity. You can correlate with that approach but a correlation is not solid for foundation premises. The black box adds a data gap and emotional subjectivity; Climate change fear. That semi-subjective objective approach, allows bad theory to linger, since you you cannot falsify fuzzy dice theory, especially if you induce fear; risk, or desire; winner.

For example, the theory of life on other planets have never been proven. It lingers because casino science give it some base logic and odds like winning the lottery; fuzzy dice desire. If the religious says there is God, but do not prove it, the theory is dead according to Atheists. They did not get the same benefit of a doubt as a similar fuzzy dice theory. The reason I religion claims determinism with such theory causal and falsifiable. Fuzzy dice allows you to play the dual injustice game we see in US politics. Politics also uses fuzzy dice and cannot be trusted.

The consciousness approach I take, in interpreting the Bible, may not be common, but it correlates. Carbon dating at about 6000 years ago; science approach, shows the start of civilization and the invention of written language. This was how I interfaced the two. Both innovations would be mind expanding and behavior altering. Both will also cause humans to leave natural selection in favor of manmade selection, which impacted the mind and consciousness; repressed instincts or as the bible says, loss of paradise.

The consciousness approach agrees with material evolution, but human departs from natural selection, about 6000 years ago, as human consciousness changes; ego added, apart from nature and natural selection; man made selection. Consciousness today can alter the DNA, via will and choice, and not have wait for evolution; genetically modified food. It was not always that way. The stories of creation give us eyewitness clues on it update processes.

Well, now here, you are mixing sciences with atheism.

And science with American politics and laws.

And blaming sciences for atheism and for US politics/laws.

These straw man attacks and false equivalence only demonstrate your anti-science sentiments and your belief/faith-insecurity, which are desperate and pointless acts.

As to the start of civilisation and the writing systems, neither the Bible, nor the Hebrew genesis (Abraham, Jacob), nor the church (eg Jesus) have anything to do with these beginning of innovations. So it is just more of your empty posturing.

 

[gnostic]

The way you resolve this is that the Bible is speaking about consciousness, and not external materialism.

No external materialism? Are you sure about that?

Is it consciousness or materialism that God would only favor and accept the sacrifice of Abel over Cain's?

Is it consciousness or materialism that God giving Abraham, Isaac and Jacob more numerous and healthy flocks of goat and sheep (symbol of wealth) than their kinsmen and neighbors?

Is it consciousness or materialism that God provide wisdom to Solomon, who supposedly became a Hebrew version of King Midas, with the richest empire during his reign?

 

[gnostic]

btw @wellwisher

No where in the Bible say that any of Genesis characters "invented" writing.

So claiming the Bible were part of the innovation of writing, is just a clearly false claim.

 

[Khabeni412]

Yes, to what you said in the first couple of sentences. Evolution is a well-established fact. All known evidence supports evolution. In fact, there isn't a single piece of evidence that contradicts evolution. What you present isn't evidence. It's just lies, misrepresentations, and logical fallacies. That's the only thing creationists have.

 

[Altfish]

The evidence against Darwin Evolution. A simple straightforward presentation that gives us hope in a world that offers only the possibility of a Cosmic accident that cannot be proven:

Could you x-reference this with the peer reviewed scientific paper it is based on? Thank you.

 

[exchemist]

Could you x-reference this with the peer reviewed scientific paper it is based on? Thank you.

I think that poster has, er, gone from the forum, hem, hem.

@Khabeni412 seems to be resurrecting a dead or dormant thread.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The evidence against Darwin Evolution.

The Theory of Evolution has altered since Darwin's day, reflecting new evidence. It is therefore a mistake to refer to Darwinianism or Darwin Evolution.

 

[Revoltingest]

The Theory of Evolution has altered since Darwin's day, reflecting new evidence. It is therefore a mistake to refer to Darwinianism or Darwin Evolution.

I'm OK with the term. Alterations don't
debunk his work. They add to it.

 

[gnostic]

And that is probably why you have a problem with miracles which is fine. Living this life without miracles can still be lived... I just choose to live with them rather than without them.

what you called miracles, defy natural reality, replacing nature with beliefs in the supernatural.

you might as well as believe in magic, witchcraft and sorcery too, if you are going to believe in miracles. But they are all just fantasies.

And what you chooses to believe is indeed your choice, fantasy or not.

But given, to date, there are no evidence to support any supernatural occurrence, I would rather live without such delusions.

 

[Kenny]

what you called miracles, defy natural reality, replacing nature with beliefs in the supernatural.

you might as well as believe in magic, witchcraft and sorcery too, if you are going to believe in miracles. But they are all just fantasies.

And what you chooses to believe is indeed your choice, fantasy or not.

But given, to date, there are no evidence to support any supernatural occurrence, I would rather live without such delusions.

I think you just reiterated the response that I gave.

You can live without them… I just choose to live with them.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

I have a degree in Evolution. Your entire premise and sources are inaccurate and wrong.

That's a shame you wasted so much money!

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's a shame you wasted so much money!

He is actually quite right. Would you like to discuss the theory that you do not understand?

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Why did he make it look as if it was all the result of billions years of evolution?
If he did it in a couple days only a few thousand years ago, then he went seriously out of his way to make it look as if it all happened naturally over the course of 13.7 billion years. Why this need to deceive us all?

He didn't deceive you. He told you clearly in his word. You just don't believe him.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

I don't think it's necessary for anyone to comment on this stuff we've debunked a thousand times already.

Please repeat your debunk. Where did the simplest cell come from? How did evolution get started to begin with?

If DNA is assembled by proteins. How is that possible? - when you can't have proteins without DNA

Where are all the intermediate/ smooth transitional forms in the fossil record for all the different species?

 

[TrueBeliever37]

If they do give the appearance, it is to ask frivolous questions, ignore the answers and then ask them again and again and again.

Yep - sometimes we have to ask over and over until you answer. If the egg was first. What laid that first egg?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yep - sometimes we have to ask over and over until you answer. If the egg was first. What laid that first egg?

That has not been the model I've witnessed here. It is ask a question. Get several people answering it. Ignore the answers. Ask the questions over and over again as if never answered.

It is a tactic and doesn't represent sincere interest in getting answers in my opinion.

Like repeating the chicken and the egg and declaring is infallible proof against evolution when it was easily and readily explained how it is not by many people answering.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Please repeat your debunk.

Oddly, here you are asking another to repeat something.

Where did the simplest cell come from? How did evolution get started to begin with?

I asked you numerous questions and have yet to receive answers relevant to those questions. Response? Sure. But not answers.

Why do we need to know the origin of the simplest cell to establish that living things change over time?

Evolution occurs when their is reproduction, heritable variation and selection by the environment. I've answered this question numerous times.

If DNA is assembled by proteins. How is that possible? - when you can't have proteins without DNA

Demonstrate that you cannot have DNA with proteins? How do you explain ribozymes and show that they had no role in evolution?

Where are all the intermediate/ smooth transitional forms in the fossil record for all the different species?

Where is it demonstrated that the entire fossil record is necessary to show that evolution takes place?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That's a shame you wasted so much money!

That doesn't seem very civil, just or accurate.