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]

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."

What? Truth is: "That which is true or in accordance with fact or reality." And we use logic, reason and common sense and evidence and the scientific method to determine what is in accordance with fact or reality.

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!

Didn't you read it? It doesn't say God is hiding out somewhere in our brains it says our brains are wired for belief.

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.

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!

Ridicule is a basic psychological response. Of course you prefer using religious (metaphysical) logic and reason for believing in God. You can't use "normal" logic, reason and common sense can you? Because if you did you would study the field of neurotheology and understand why you believe in the first place.

[Neandertal Ned]

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!

Ridicule is a basic psychological response. Of course you prefer using religious (metaphysical) logic and reason for believing in God. You can't use "normal" logic, reason and common sense can you? Because if you did you would study the field of neurotheology and understand why you believe in the first place.

You are being funny again. No one needs to know the first thing about their brain in order to know and to understand what and why they believe what they do. According to the logic based on your false premise, brain scientists could not know why they believed anything until they found the reason for it somewhere in their own brains! Hilarious! So much for Darwinist psychology, biosychology and neurotheology!

Maybe I should call myself a psychotheologist and set up shop like Ziggy Freud did!

[Artie]

You are being funny again. No one needs to know the first thing about their brain in order to know and to understand what and why they believe what they do. According to the logic based on your false premise, brain scientists could not know why they believed anything until they found the reason for it somewhere in their own brains! Hilarious! So much for Darwinist psychology, biosychology and evolutionary psychology.

Trying ridicule again because you can't employ "normal" logic, reason and common sense and science and evidence to properly comment on the subject? We are starting to understand why religion evolved and why brains are more or less programmed for belief. It's interesting to see the theory so well illustrated by you.

[Neandertal Ned]

You are being funny again. No one needs to know the first thing about their brain in order to know and to understand what and why they believe what they do. According to the logic based on your false premise, brain scientists could not know why they believed anything until they found the reason for it somewhere in their own brains! Hilarious! So much for Darwinist psychology, biosychology and evolutionary psychology.

Trying ridicule again because you can't employ "normal" logic, reason and common sense and science and evidence to properly comment on the subject?

Normal? You are an expert on what is normal now? Are only people who think like you normal?

We are starting to understand why religion evolved and why brains are more or less programmed for belief.

We? Who is "we?" You and a few other brain scientists?

It's interesting to see the theory so well illustrated by you.

I'll bet. Can I claim that I am living proof that your brain theories are true?

[Artie]

I'll bet. Can I claim that I am living proof that your brain theories are true?

Actually they are not my brain theories. The field of neurotheology has existed for decades. If you are interested in why you believe and react and respond the way you do here is another link: http://clinicallypsyched.com/neurotheol ... godinmind/

[Neandertal Ned]

I'll bet. Can I claim that I am living proof that your brain theories are true?

Actually they are not my brain theories.

They are if you believe in them. They are also part of your RBS (religious belief system.)

The field of neurotheology has existed for decades. If you are interested in why you believe and react and respond the way you do here is another link: http://clinicallypsyched.com/neurotheol ... godinmind/

Very amusing. Religious scientists! What next? The science of God?

Oh, I forgot. We already have a science of God. It's called Theology,

[Nilloc James]

Very amusing. Religious scientists! What next? The science of God?

Oh, I forgot. We already have a science of God. It's called Theology,

Is Ned rejecting that scientists can be religious? A false claim if he is.

Or is he insinuating the only thing religious people can study is theology? A false claim if he is.

Is he denying there is more than one way to think about god? A false claim if he is.

[Neandertal Ned]

Very amusing. Religious scientists! What next? The science of God?

Oh, I forgot. We already have a science of God. It's called Theology,

Is Ned rejecting that scientists can be religious?

Of course not. Devout and dedicated scientists are very religious.

Or is he insinuating the only thing religious people can study is theology?

Of course not. Relgious scientists can study other scientists and how religiously they believe in, methodically follow and ritualistically practice the scientific method. Neurotheologists can examine the brains of other scientists to find out how they are hot-wired to think scientifically about religion. There is also evidence of religious awe in scientists when they gaze at the Pillars of Creation in outer space.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pillars_of_Creation

Is he denying there is more than one way to think about god?

Of course not. Just look at the way Nietszche thought about God or the way Dawkins thinks about God. All atheists have a way of thinking about God and nobody can think like God thinks.

[Nilloc James]

Of course not. Devout and dedicated scientists are very religious.

Devout scientists are devout.

Of course not. Relgious scientists can study other scientists and how religiously they believe in, methodically follow and ritualistically practice the scientific method. Neurotheologists can examine the brains of other scientists to find out how they are hot-wired to think scientifically about religion. There is also evidence of religious awe in scientists when they gaze at the Pillars of Creation in outer space.

I agree there is a sense of awe in science, Neil Degrease Tyson made note that he feels a religious-like awe in his astronomy. Though this inspiration and amazement by no means means there is a god, only that people can have profound spiritual experiences without deities.

Of course not. Just look at the way Nietszche thought about God or the way Dawkins thinks about God. All atheists have a way of thinking about God and nobody can think like God thinks.

You are trying to shoe horn religion to your god or no god.

How about Spinoza's god? Or Einstein's cosmic religion? Or pantheism?

[Neandertal Ned]

I agree there is a sense of awe in science, Neil Degrease Tyson made note that he feels a religious-like awe in his astronomy. Though this inspiration and amazement by no means means there is a god, only that people can have profound spiritual experiences without deities.

Whoever said otherwise? Are you arguing with a strawman again?

You are trying to shoe horn religion to your god or no god.

How about Spinoza's god? Or Einstein's cosmic religion? Or pantheism?

What about them? They are of no concern to me.