Anti-Evolutionist Scientific Explanations On Human Origin-ALL VIEWPOINTS WELCOME

Such a short paragraph; so many errors.

ToE is based on the conclusions of scientists in many different fields of endeavor. These conclusions are the result of of over one hundred fifty years of research and studies . You dismiss it as "psuedo science".

The materialistic misrepresentations come from the Creationist crowd who make a very good living giving lectures, writing books and building "museums" and theme parks to cater to religious fundamentalists who take the Adam and Eve story as fact.

"Debate" is as necessary for good science, as are research and studies. After 150 years there is no longer any debate on the basic concepts of ToE. There is no disagreement that roses, pine trees, humans, cod, grasshoppers and oysters are all descendants of the same prehistoric entity.

Your comment, "Their religion being atheism", blatantly ignores the fact that most scientists do believe in a god.

 

What "philosophical materialism"?

 

I addressed comments that you made. If you don't want people addressing your comments, don't post in a discussion forum. More importantly, don't confuse rebuttals with hatred and anger.

If you don't want people addressing your comments, don't post in a discussion forum. More importantly, don't confuse rebuttals with hatred and anger.

Since ToE is based on "physics, chemistry, genetics", I will say, without hatred and anger, that your comment makes no sense.

 

It seems like you cannot repeat a simple sentence without making it in your own words.

Let me repeat again.

TOE makes Logical conclusions based on empirical (the one we Can Observe, Measure with our instruments, experiment with) Evidence.

Therefore it is a belief, a faith, a personal philosophy..............

What is not clear?

 

Quoting out of context is not addressing a text. It is more like trolling.

I don’t know how I can make it clearer.

Try to concentrate.

- TOE makes Logical conclusions based on empirical (the one we Can Observe, Measure with our instruments, experiment with) Evidence.


- Physics, chemistry, genetics and similar do not use the logic and have absolutely no use for empirical or any other kind (including physical, chemical, mechanical) of evidence.


Two totally different things.

Understand?

 

You support ToE because it is based on empirical Evidence.

You believe Physics, chemistry, genetics are nonsense.

Did I get that right?

 

I'm struggling with this as well, surely it is the other way around for Creationists?

Is it satire?

 

You didn't even get it wrong.


After 3 attempts.


Then you think you can argue logic.

 

Ok, if all you are after is having your ego stroked then yes, you are too damned clever for us. We are simply not worthy of your superior logical skills.

So, now that that is out of the way, can you explain exactly what you mean to say, make it simple so that we idiots can understand it.

 

There is no need for insults; I don’t consider anyone to be an idiot, and what I told is not matter of logic, but information.

There are certain reasons, certain logic and evidence, why you know that Logical conclusions based on empirical (the one we can observe, measure with our instruments, experiment with) evidence is science, the same as physics, chemistry, genetics etc.

May be this is the only view you and everyone around you have been directly thought in schools, colleges, and indirectly by TV, books, newspapers, Internet.

I think you should explain to me why should I think that I can somehow change this belief of yours?

Some people would die and spill blood for their beliefs.

Did you ever ask who made Logical conclusions based on empirical (the one we can observe, measure with our instruments, experiment with) evidence to be science, what God or a group of gods namely made it science?

Logical conclusions based on empirical (the one we can observe, measure with our instruments, experiment with) evidence is called empiricism, usfan is so fond of.

Empiricism was developed by Xn theologians and polished as the end product by one of greatest logicians of all times, namely St. T. Aquinas in XVI century.

Empiricism belongs to Xn theology, not science, and in case with atheists it is a paraphrase or even parody on theology and logic, since it lacks Aquinas' points of reference.

In XVIII century a Xn theologian under name Isaak Newton made what they call scientific revolution.

He denied such logic and any kind of evidence any place in what he called sometimes natural philosophy and sometimes experimental philosophy and what we call physics.

It is no surprise that laws of genetics were discovered by a Xn monk, physicist and mathematician by his University education.

Einstein seems to be fascinated by Newton’s rules as I see him referring to them quite often.

They are fascinating.

They are not allowed in schools and universities, because if you know and understand them you would be able to see difference between science and ideology, beliefs very clearly and easy.

I would link you to them, but it is XVIII century English translation from Latin.

What is the name of the movie where the guy got glasses which allowed him to see aliens controlling happy Earth population?

May be you should better continue to be happy with your beliefs and your vision of the world around you.

As long as you do not impose your beliefs on everyone.

What am I about?

Your beliefs are already imposed on everyone including yourself.

We will see what will happen.

 

? ? ?

 

Sad. truly sad.

Evolution has NOTHING to do with atheism. Evolution has nothing to do with belief in any god or particular religion.


as for your specious macro evolution argument, I guess we'll just have to wait until a) a million years or so has passed for an "experiment/observation" to come to fruition or b) science invents a time machine.

There is NO effort required to prove that god or some "intelligence" was not needed. But I am not at all surprised you must engage in such nonscientific analysis of science.
Seems only theists insist that science is about disproving god because they haven't got a clue as to what science is truly about, nor how to go about proving their faith based contention.

given the size and age of the universe, I find it hilarious that some humans actually think their existence was the very cause of an unknowable supernatural force's creation of that entire universe just so they could exist and slavishly worship that same force. Now there's a leap that only the faithful can make.

 

OK....... I am going to have something of a problem.... because I do believe that G-d evolved......
but once G-d evolved then Elohim and arch-Angels and angels and aliens and ghosts and all kinds of life forms were created......

...... I believe in Theistic Evolutionary Theory......
an off the scale powerful Intelligence capable of planning and choreographing Big Bang type events over eternity in the past.......

Here is the summary of my idea.....
www.CarbonBias.blogspot.ca/

 

Thank you for your input DennisTate. I have often thought that evolution and intelligent design are not necessarily mutually exclusive. On the assumption a creator exist, there is little reason to doubt that they would be capable of creating life in a process that seems incredibly slow by human perception. However for a superior being living outside of time, billions of years are irrelevant.
The powerful intelligence may simply be the cause, through will alone, that compelled non-living matter ("water dripping on rocks" as one anti-evolutionist said) to form basic single-cell lifeforms and carry on the process from there. Turning simple animals into human beings through genetic changes. Possibly even forming metaphysical, spiritual changes to the primate mind in the process. Of course, this is only a guess of mine for one possibility, not a scientifically accurate statement.

 

All modern scientific method is based on observation. All.

If a result isn't derived as you describe, it is outside of science. It may refer to science or sound "sciency" or include logic in some way, but that doesn't make it science.

Things outside of science include string theory, the Higgs boson (until the observations at Cern), homeopathy, intelligent design, absolutely anything refering to god or the "supernatural".

Things inside science include the theory of relativity, the theory evolution, and other theory that meets the requirements of scientific method.

There is no room for religion in science.

That does NOT mean there is no God. It means that the method of science can not say anythingabout God, positive, negative or neutral.

 

Well I'm a Christian and the evidence of evolution is all around us and therefore can't be denied..
But at the same time I can sense the guiding hand of a "Master Geneticist" ("God") behind it, tweaking it and polishing it over the millennia to keep it on track.
Senator John McCain put it nicely with-
"I believe in evolution, but when I hike the Grand Canyon at sunset, I see the hand of God there also"

"Sorry kiddo, you're on the way out"

 

Well said.... I do believe that you will truly enjoy the quotations from Dr. Chaim Henry TEjman that you will find
in this other discussion.

I will leave you with an especially intriguing one.....

Dr. Chaim Henry Tejman deserves the "Origin of Life Prize."


http://www.grandunifiedtheory.org.il/book/life1.htm

 

Says who?

Observation of what?

Listen, it is very simple.

Everyone so far agrees that ToE makes Logical conclusions deducted from observed empirical evidence.

I just pointed to the fact that it is the method given by St. Thomas Aquinas, and it is used in theology, personal philosophy, ideology, personal and group beliefs and it is called empiricism.

I just pointed to the fact that Isaac Newton made scientific revolution – against empiricism – and in his method he disregarded logical deductions and he allows no place for any kind of evidence in natural sciences.

Newton’s method has been used in all natural sciences - physics, chemistry, genetics by all givers of natural laws and theories– starting from Newton himself and finishing Einstein with his admiration and references to the Newton’s rules.

Nuclear theory, Thermodynamics, Hydraulics, air dynamics, Dynamics of liquid and gases, Materials, Metals, Pharmaceutical science, Medicine, Genetics produced everything using Newton’s rules.

St. Thomas Aquinas method and its variants has no other use rather than for theology, philosophy, ideology, beliefs.

Accordingly ToE has been having no other practical use rather than for Marxism-Leninism, Nazism, Virginia Act of 1923 and suppression of the Newton’s method you have never heard about, less ever read, - because you are not allowed.

I mentioned that St. T. Aquinas and Newton were Xn theologians, and Mendel was a Xn monk just to tease, but I never said a word about place of God in natural sciences as Newton saw and explained it, - because I did not want to blow your mind when you have difficulties chewing on simple historical facts.

So your rumbling about God has no relevance.

 

Nonsense. Nothing we use from Newton includes anything regarding the supernatural, let alone some "Xn" god you postulate. The same is true for Einstein.

You're still confusing religion and scientific method. Scientific method accepts no hypothesis or theory that mentions the supernatural in any way.

There is a sound reason for that. Scientific method depends on the ability to falsify hypotheses. And, once you mention God, science has no way to approach falsification. There is simply no way to determine whether "god did it" or "god didn't do it" using the rules of scientific method.

Although the number of scientists who are Christians is disproportionately low, there is nothing stopping Christians (or those of other religions) from making scientific progress. BUT, that progress is characterized by there being no god in that science.

Newton's theory of gravity has no reference to god. Einstein's theory of relativity has no reference to god. Etc., etc. They may or may not have been Christians. They may or may not have been "inspired" in some way by their religious views. But, their science does not hold evidence of that.

Again, this is no assault on god. It's just that the rules of scientific method allow NOTHING from the world of the supernatural. So, science can have NO opinion about god - positive or negative.

As the last couple Popes have termed it, science and religion are two different realms. And, mixing them makes no sense.

 

But surely the phenomena in the Bible are a "superscience" that we know nothing about?
For example Jesus's 37 "miracles" are often vastly different from one another and deserve an in-depth study, yet atheist scientists don't seem interested, perhaps God doesn't want them to probe and explain the hidden secrets of "superscience", so he deliberately ensured they were born with a mindset that turns them off religious matters?
"When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it's very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion.
I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it." (Tony Rothman (physicist),Paradigms Lost. New York, Avon Books, p.482-483)

 

Please elaborate?

You have certainly got my attention!

 

It seems to me that we have to go down to what could be thought of as
low levels....... of energy and vibration.... in order to be able to handle the
highest levels of consciousness in the afterlife.

http://www.near-death.com/science/research/city-of-light.html

The City of Light and the Near-Death Experience

 

There is nothing like modern science in the Bible anywhere. There is no derivation of the laws on what we eat based on observation, for example. The 10C and the seven deadly sins are promulgated - not derived by observation of human behavior. When things happen that are hard to explain (the sun stopping in the sky, for example), there is no investigation - just the unequivocal statements that the report was literal and that "God did it".

This statement of the absence of science in the Bible is not anti-religion or anti-supernatural. The Bible isn't a physics manual. It's purpose was not to explain "how".

Religion is here to delve into questions of "why". Science just doesn't do that. Science looks for answers to "how" type questions. Religion just isn't interested in "how", because there is already a fully formed answer to all questions of "how" - and that answer is "God did it".

Today, we see people trying to use science to attack the idea that there is a God. But, really all they are doing is showing that there are real world explanations for some of the things that religion has claimed to answer - the advent of mankind, that the earth isn't the center of the universe, that the purpose of the heart isn't to be the human residence of the "soul", etc. It really should not be important to religion that we discover answers for these questions other than the "god did it" answer. God's existence isn't disproven by having answers to these "how" questions. We found that noting that the earth orbits the sun doesn't disprove God's existence. And, the fact that some religionists aren't (or weren't) aware of these answers shouldn't be some big concern - after all, at one time science didn't know those answers, either. And, mankind's knowledge of god's "mysterious ways" has long been declared by religion to be highly incomplete.

In the end, science should be left to science and religion should be left to religion. Answers to "how" shouldn't be seen as a threat by those in search of "why". Similarly, science shouldn't be worried about answers to "why" - but, that is thoroughly taken care of. "Why" is already excluded from modern science - not in terms of the beliefs of scientists, but in terms of limiting itself to identifying the answers to "how", which is what science does.

From time to time science IS going to find answers to "how" that don't match the religious beliefs of some constituency. I would argue that we need to stick to the world of science on answers to "how", but this is getting long and taking it case by case may be easier to explain.

 

But the two overlap..
For example Jesus said we could perform the same "miracles" as himself, so isn't it our scientific duty to explore that possibility for the betterment of humanity?
"..if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you.” (Matt 17:20)

 

I said:

Everyone so far agrees that ToE makes Logical conclusions deducted from observed empirical evidence.


I just pointed to the fact that it is the method given by St. Thomas Aquinas, and it is used in theology, personal philosophy, ideology, personal and group beliefs and it is called empiricism.


I just pointed to the fact that Isaac Newton made scientific revolution – against empiricism – and in his method he disregarded logical deductions and he allows no place for any kind of evidence in natural sciences.


Newton’s method has been used in all natural sciences - physics, chemistry, genetics by all givers of natural laws and theories– starting from Newton himself and finishing Einstein with his admiration and references to the Newton’s rules.


Nuclear theory, Thermodynamics, Hydraulics, air dynamics, Dynamics of liquid and gases, Materials, Metals, Pharmaceutical science, Medicine, Genetics produced everything using Newton’s rules.


St. Thomas Aquinas method and its variants has no other use rather than for theology, philosophy, ideology, beliefs.


Accordingly ToE has been having no other practical use rather than for Marxism-Leninism, Nazism, Virginia Act of 1923 and suppression of the Newton’s method you have never heard about, less ever read, - because you are not allowed.

WHERE DO YOU SEE GOD, SUPERNATURAL, RELIGION, OPINION ON GOD YOU KEEP ON RAMBLING ABOUT INSTEAD OF ADDRESSING MY POINTS THE SECOND POST IN A RAW?