The Delusion of Evolution

[Neandertal Ned]

There is plenty of evidence that the so-called "process" of evoution is more of a delusion than a real biological process. It is a delusion in the sense that you can only imagine a species of one genus "evolving" into the species of an entirely different animal genus by "natural selection" alone since no one has ever observed it to happen "naturally" in real life. Until physically demonstrated to have ever happened on earth let alone that is physically possible nowadays or at some distant time in the future, it can only be called a mass delusion on the part of the so-called "scientific community."

http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com/2009/ ... ution.html

http://www.god-book.com/TheEvolutionDelusion.htm



http://evolutiondelusion.blogspot.com/

Do you have any doubts or objections to evolution being classified as a mass delusion or modern myth?

[Artie]

What do you mean see the light?

The light of evolution. What else? You didn't even know that the only way for one genus to evolve into a susequently new genus would be for at least one species of the old genus to "evolve" (there's that magic word again) into at least one species of the new genus for the new genus to even appear in the fossil record.

Why would that be a problem? Do you think Australopithecus knew that at some point in the future Homo sapiens would classify him as one genus and Homo as another and that caused Australopithecus to stop evolving before he could become what we call Homo?

[Neandertal Ned]

Adam was created out of the dust of the ground, if memory serves me right. Eve out of Adam's rib. I have no idea how God created so many kinds of animals in one day.

Hows is this possible, if as you claim Adam was the progenitor for the entire human race and he was made out of dust why is it silica which is a major component of dust an incredibly insignificant component of the makeup of mankind? How do you propose a woman is produced from the rib of a male? Why is it you ascribe to this hypothesis and what evidence is there to support it? Do you consider this to be scientific in any way? And if so how.

I don't understand your questions. How can religious beliefs be explained or even observed scientifically? How do you go about investigating religious beliefs scientifically, let alone explaining them? Religion is metaphysics, not physics. You can't use the scientific method to understand religion. You have to use another approach.

[Neandertal Ned]

never mind. I'm finding you far to difficult to engage.

Well, if you don't care to discuss or debate the difficulties then we shall never make any progress. I regard the debates as an opportunity to learn what I want to learn so that I can increase my understanding of why my opponents say and believe what they do. I have no idea what your motives are or the reason for your debating.

My motives are very similar to yours--find out how my opponents think, why they say and believe what they do. I only got invovled in this thread to pin down something you said, but it's not getting anywhere.

At least 2 times in this thread, you asked your opponents to provide the actual fossils they were speaking of.

I am not sure where you got this idea. Are you referring to the human fossils they were speaking of?

So I asked you, what physical evidence you've seen to validate your views. I specified no 2nd hand materials, because that's what YOU specified--the actual fossils. You came back with the answer that you don't have any. This proves at least two things to me.

1) You are, in fact, engaging in double standards: demanding a higher bar of evidence from your opponents than you can provide for your own view.

Why? I don't use fossils to prove anything. I'm not in that line of work. Darwinists claim that the fossil record is evidence of human evolution so, since I have not seen the fossils, it is reasonable to ask if they have ever seen these human fossils, don't you think? Have you ever seen an original human fossil? I never have. I have seen photos of casts and reproductions but never the original fossils themselves. Artie posted a couple of photos of highly imaginative presentations of artificial reproductions of what Darwinists want us to see but you don't fall for that kind of artistic duplicity, do you?

2) Your OP--that there exists plenty of evidence against evolution--is *highly* suspect.

My creation science sources are probably highly suspect by you also but I get my "evidence" from them and am highly suspect of Darwinist propaganda. I think that Darwinists intentionally manipulate the fossil evidence to create the illusion of human evolution and use a double standard to promote their quasi-religious beliefs.

I can only conclude (unless/until these points are addressed) that you are not being completley honest or intellectually rigorous in this discussion. THIS is why I said you're too hard to engage for me to bother continuing.

Well, you could jump to those conclusions prematurely if you wanted to but the challenge for debators is to try to understand the position of others in order to better debate them. Don't try to win any debate points, just argue your case and find some way to respond to what your opponent claims. The evolution/creation controversy and debate has been going on for some time now, and probably will continue into the forseeable future. Learn to enjoy it and you wil grow stronger in your convictions and beliefs!

[Artie]

I don't understand your questions. How can religious beliefs be explained or even observed scientifically? How do you go about investigating religious beliefs scientifically, let alone explaining them? Religion is metaphysics, not physics. You can't use the scientific method to understand religion. You have to use another approach.

There is only one truth. We use logic, reason, common sense and the scientific method and evidence to get at that truth. You could use any other approach such as religion, faith and belief but the truth found must be the same as that found using logic, reason and common sense and the scientific method and evidence if the religious method was correct.

You want to cross the street. You use logic, reason and common sense and the scientific method and gathering of evidence to determine whether the street is safe to cross. You look, you hear and when you have gathered enough evidence that there are no vehicles and it's safe to cross you cross. Try using just faith and belief to cross the street. Block out all sensory input, just cross when you believe the street is empty or when what you think is a god seems to be telling you in your head that the street is empty. No sane individual would try that approach would he? He would probably very fast become a dead or severely injured individual. So why would any rational being use the faith and belief approach?

[Boots]

My creation science sources are probably highly suspect by you also but I get my "evidence" from them...

They are, particularly if they're the same sources that convince you of the impossibility of a worldwide flood (mentioned earlier in this thread)

...and am highly suspect of Darwinist propaganda. I think that Darwinists intentionally manipulate the fossil evidence to create the illusion of human evolution and use a double standard to promote their quasi-religious beliefs.

You are suggesting a conspiracy.

The evolution/creation controversy and debate has been going on for some time now, and probably will continue into the forseeable future. Learn to enjoy it and you wil grow stronger in your convictions and beliefs!

I'm sorry, but
1) you're telling me that I can learn to enjoy banging my head against a wall? Doubtful.
2) I take issue with you saying I've got "convictions and beliefs" regarding science. I find the mainstream scientific theories of the day (of which I'm aware) believable, the sources credible, and am willing--as is any resonable person--to view credible evidence to the contrary (emphasis on "credible" and "evidence"), and to accept that science continually works to correct itself. I am not willing to believe it when Chicken Little tells me the sky is falling, no matter how loudly he squaks or how many others he convinces. I'm also not inclined to argue with him--unless he's affecting my nation's policies and thus spreading his superstitions to affect my life!

[Neandertal Ned]

I don't understand your questions. How can religious beliefs be explained or even observed scientifically? How do you go about investigating religious beliefs scientifically, let alone explaining them? Religion is metaphysics, not physics. You can't use the scientific method to understand religion. You have to use another approach.

There is only one truth.

That is a religious philosophy. What is truth?

We use logic, reason, common sense and the scientific method and evidence to get at that truth. You could use any other approach such as religion, faith and belief but the truth found must be the same as that found using logic, reason and common sense and the scientific method and evidence if the religious method was correct.

That is also a philosophy. Some call it scientism or scientific materialism. The scientific approach is ineffective when understanding the human mind, human emotions, human experience and beliefs.

You want to cross the street. You use logic, reason and common sense and the scientific method and gathering of evidence to determine whether the street is safe to cross. You look, you hear and when you have gathered enough evidence that there are no vehicles and it's safe to cross you cross. Try using just faith and belief to cross the street. Block out all sensory input, just cross when you believe the street is empty or when what you think is a god seems to be telling you in your head that the street is empty. No sane individual would try that approach would he? He would probably very fast become a dead or severely injured individual. So why would any rational being use the faith and belief approach?

You don't need any particular religion to cross the street as long as there are traffic signs posted or laws governing it. If there are none then you take your chances that no vehicle comes speeding around the corner.

[Wyvern]

Adam was created out of the dust of the ground, if memory serves me right. Eve out of Adam's rib. I have no idea how God created so many kinds of animals in one day.

Hows is this possible, if as you claim Adam was the progenitor for the entire human race and he was made out of dust why is it silica which is a major component of dust an incredibly insignificant component of the makeup of mankind? How do you propose a woman is produced from the rib of a male? Why is it you ascribe to this hypothesis and what evidence is there to support it? Do you consider this to be scientific in any way? And if so how.

I don't understand your questions. How can religious beliefs be explained or even observed scientifically? How do you go about investigating religious beliefs scientifically, let alone explaining them? Religion is metaphysics, not physics. You can't use the scientific method to understand religion. You have to use another approach.

You cant have it both ways, if you want your religion to just be a religion then stop trying to make science conform to your religious viewpoint. Once you start using your religion to make scientific claims then your religion can absolutely be required to follow the scientific method. Science makes no claims about religion so why do you think religion is special and can make claims about science as you have been doing for some time now?

[Neandertal Ned]

My creation science sources are probably highly suspect by you also but I get my "evidence" from them...

They are, particularly if they're the same sources that convince you of the impossibility of a worldwide flood (mentioned earlier in this thread)

You must mean that my sources convince YOU of the impossibility of a worldwide flood (mentioned earlier in this thread). It should be obvious that my sources convince me, not ony of the possibility, but the fact of a world wide flood. My convictions are as real as yours are.

...and am highly suspect of Darwinist propaganda. I think that Darwinists intentionally manipulate the fossil evidence to create the illusion of human evolution and use a double standard to promote their quasi-religious beliefs.

You are suggesting a conspiracy.

Certainly not a silent one. Can you show that Darwinists do not conspire together in order to create the illusion of evolution?

The evolution/creation controversy and debate has been going on for some time now, and probably will continue into the forseeable future. Learn to enjoy it and you wil grow stronger in your convictions and beliefs!

I'm sorry, but
1) you're telling me that I can learn to enjoy banging my head against a wall? Doubtful.
2) I take issue with you saying I've got "convictions and beliefs" regarding science.

We all do. If you are not convinced of your own beliefs about science and have no scientific convictions that Darwinism is science then how can you expect anyone else to hold the same convictions which you deny that you do? Why do you think that you have to learn to enjoy banging your head against a wall in order to debate with me? It will only serve to give you a headache so I do not recommend either your learning how to do it, let alone actually doing it.

I find the mainstream scientific theories of the day (of which I'm aware) believable, the sources credible, and am willing--as is any resonable person--to view credible evidence to the contrary (emphasis on "credible" and "evidence"), and to accept that science continually works to correct itself.

So do I and most other people. The problem for Darwinism that most people in the world are not convicted that Darwinism is science.

I am not willing to believe it when Chicken Little tells me the sky is falling, no matter how loudly he squaks or how many others he convinces. I'm also not inclined to argue with him--unless he's affecting my nation's policies and thus spreading his superstitions to affect my life!

I wouldn't waste my time arguing with Chicken Little if I was you. Is he a poster on the forum? I haven't seen anything he has posted. Do you have any evidence of it?

[Artie]

That is a religious philosophy. What is truth?

Truth is what has been shown using logic, reason and common sense and the scientific method and evidence to be true.

We use logic, reason, common sense and the scientific method and evidence to get at that truth. You could use any other approach such as religion, faith and belief but the truth found must be the same as that found using logic, reason and common sense and the scientific method and evidence if the religious method was correct.

That is also a philosophy. Some call it scientism or scientific materialism. The scientific approach is ineffective when understanding the human mind, human emotions, human experience and beliefs.

Why? We know a lot about religion and why people believe stuff. The field is called neurotheology. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/scien ... 41022.html

You want to cross the street. You use logic, reason and common sense and the scientific method and gathering of evidence to determine whether the street is safe to cross. You look, you hear and when you have gathered enough evidence that there are no vehicles and it's safe to cross you cross. Try using just faith and belief to cross the street. Block out all sensory input, just cross when you believe the street is empty or when what you think is a god seems to be telling you in your head that the street is empty. No sane individual would try that approach would he? He would probably very fast become a dead or severely injured individual. So why would any rational being use the faith and belief approach?

You don't need any particular religion to cross the street as long as there are traffic signs posted or laws governing it. If there are none then you take your chances that no vehicle comes speeding around the corner.

That is true. You don't need any particular religion to cross the street because you use logic, reason and common sense and the scientific method and evidence to determine whether it's safe to cross or not. You risk your life on the veracity of logic, reason and common sense and the scientific method and observational evidence and that these can provide you with the truth about whether the street is safe to cross or not. Why in the world would you drop a method you even trust your life with in favor of some "belief and faith" stuff and religion? This is irrational.

[Neandertal Ned]

That is a religious philosophy. What is truth?

Truth is what has been shown using logic, reason and common sense and the scientific method and evidence to be true. We use logic, reason, common sense and the scientific method and evidence to get at that truth. You could use any other approach such as religion, faith and belief but the truth found must be the same as that found using logic, reason and common sense and the scientific method and evidence if the religious method was correct.

When did the so-called "scientific method" creep into the equation? Truth is a metaphysical and religious term. It does not consist of molecules, atoms or physical forces, which in and of themselves, are hardly "observable."

Why? We know a lot about religion and why people believe stuff. The field is called neurotheology. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/scien ... 41022.html

Very funny. Leave it to brain scientists to find God hiding out in their brains somewhere!

Maybe they will find their lost minds hiding out in their cerebellums too!

That is true. You don't need any particular religion to cross the street because you use logic, reason and common sense and the scientific method and evidence to determine whether it's safe to cross or not.

Logic, reason, common sense and experience are enough for most people. You can use the SM if you like but nobody else has to. I don't think the judge will excuse you for jaywalking just because you claim to have used the SM before deciding to jaywalk or cross against the red light.

You risk your life on the veracity of logic, reason and common sense and the scientific method and observational evidence and that these can provide you with the truth about whether the street is safe to cross or not. Why in the world would you drop a method you even trust your life with in favor of some "belief and faith" stuff and religion? This is irrational.

I use the SM for understanding some things about life but prefer using religious (metaphysical) logic and reason for believing in God. SM won't help you out there since metaphysics is not subject to physical law or physical observation. Do let me know when your brain scientists find some Aristotelian logic in their brain cells though.

Who knows? They may even find some scientific 'hot-spots' in their brains too!