Evolution is Unscientific

RJM said:
Who is the supreme Hindu god? Is it a trinity of Vishnu, Shiva and Brahma?
Click to expand...
Depends on whom you ask. For me, no God, just the 'stuff of the universe' - Brahman. For others Shiva, Vishnu, Durga. Brahma's name is there, but he is not considered the Supreme God. Worship of Brahma, Brahmanaspati, Prajapati was deprecated among Aryans at one time (some 4,000 years ago) before Aryans came to India. He (Orion) was accused of incestous intent towards one who was considered his daughter - Rohini (Aldebaran). That was a celestial event caused by precession of equinoxes. He never gained popularity against the strong indigenous Gods and Goddesses in India.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJM
TheLightWithin said:
I read somewhere that Hindu theology was not altogether polytheism, but something called "polynomial monotheism".
Click to expand...
There cannot be any generalized statement in Hinduism. Hindus generally are polytheistic. The base, the least common factor, in Hinduism is 'dharma' (social duties). Deities are not that important. Whether you say there are many Gods or there is just one, a Hindu may agree to both of these statements.
 
TheLightWithin said:
I've been reading this old thread with interest, but I'm not really sure where anybody is going with it.
Click to expand...
You missed the excitement. Sufi came in wanting a new board created for knock down drag out anything goes arguments, and was well on his way to selling the idea before I stepped in and reminded that there are plenty of other sites around where such uncivilized behaviour is readily available.

He attempted to demonstrate his prowess by rattling off various logical fallacies, thinking nobody else knew anything about them...and in large part he was correct. He didn't see me coming. High School forensics (speech and debate competition) training along with basic scholarship pointed out how mistaken he was. My purpose initially was to demonstrate what he was actually up to. He was just another wannabe prophet that thought he could wow the crowd, thinking he could get away with moving goalposts if he started losing...it all backfired on him.

I've participated in several Evolution v Creation debates here, and I typically send both sides away scratching their heads wondering what just happened. Not my intention, but seems to be what happens, evolution isn't nearly as cut and dried as some might lead to believe. Likewise regarding creation as it is commonly taught.
 
SufiPhilosophy said:
UPDATE:

It has become evident from this thread that none of the respondents can provide any evidence for evolution by gene mutation. Instead, all l have gotten is verbal abuse, deflection, circular logic, book references and links submitted by people that clearly don't understand evolution but believe in it nonetheless and so just pass me a book ref or a link that they have no idea of the meaning of.

Please, dear reader, read through this thread. You will see not one shred of evidence for evolution by gene mutation. You will see many respondents just taking it around the houses, deflected, talking about anything but evolution by gene mutation.

They have literally done all the things l admonished against in my OP. They do not have any real answer. Please carefully read this opening post and then be shocked at the responses.

The science non-literate will always fanatically - and dramatically - defend evolution by gene mutation and get angry when challenged. Please, calmly give me the evidence.

Show me the money.





EVOLUTION PART:

Hello. Evolution as we understand it these days is evolution by genes mutating.
That is to say, macro-evolution.

I think this is unscientific as l have not yet seen it demonstrated in the lab. Before you say it's a slow process, please: there are about 8.7 million species on earth. Some of these species exist in ginormous quantity, and also breed very rapidly. Plus we can breed fruit flies and bacteria in the lab quite fast.

In all that, where is the evidence for evolution by genetic mutation?

Some websites purporting to give examples will bait and switch and offer up something else. They will even say, evolution by genetic mutation happened because blue eyes, brown eyes. No, these traits existed from the start. Also, where is the laboratory evidence for these traits emerging in nature via mutations?

They will even, no irony, say it must have happened because how else we get these traits? This is unscientific. Also why can't it be that there are no dragons because they were exiled to Pern after the 4th Dragon War? Why is the evolutionist's backstory deemed cooler than dragons? I've even read that cats flatten ears and hiss in order to look like snakes. How would a cat know what itself looked like when hissing? How would that trait be inherited?

Evolution by genetic mutation is like saying you can download a corrupted software file, and it will still run. In fact, if you have enough instances of corrupted files, they will somehow be inherited to the server, and furthermore, you'll get NEW APPS developing within the download!

I'd love for an actual bioscience student to answer.

Please, can an atheist or a believer in evolution please take me on and show me the evidence for evolution by mutation?

That is, the type of evolution that causes a fish to give rise to a cat?


The science non-literate will always fanatically - and dramatically - defend evolution by gene mutation and get angry when challenged. Please, calmly give me the evidence.



NATURAL SELECTION PART:

I don't have an issue with Natural Selection, which l guess we would call micro-evolution. Natural selection is scientific, it is demonstrable in the lab.

I've seen a few sites purporting to list examples of evolution but do a bait and switch and offer up *drum roll*

... natural selection.


Antibiotic resistance is natural selection. Natural selection = nothing new under the sun. A species of bird might gradually gain a higher frequency of longer necks. But they are still the green necks of the green kiki bird of some Ecuadorian island. Nothing new under the sun. No new genetic information created.



LOGICAL FALLACIES:

Please don't sophistry. Please consult the Wikipedia list of logical fallacies here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

It's not that l'm being arrogant in demanding eloquence. It's just intellectual honesty.



ANGER:

I have no hatred to you in this message and in fact l don't know you and it's not about your or me. So please, don't show anger.



RUSH MIGHT WORK?

Please don't rush me with responses hoping that some eventually go unanswered and therefore victory woo woo. Just, wait for replies and if l say l'm done and explain why we've reached an impasse, l hope you follow suit and explain why you think there's an impasse too.



MODERATOR GOTTA MEAN SOMETHING:

I respect all moderators. Thank you. But l'll take an argument as l find it, regardless who puts it forward.



DON'T HURT LINKS / BOOK REFERENCES:

Please don't link stack or book hurl, just put it in your own words - if you actually have an answer, and understand it.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, I am late to the party however, I would like to give my three cents to this thread discussion. Since I am certain both Dawkins' Selfish Gene and Darwin's Theory have been discussed throughout this thread, I would like to offer something else to ponder.

Proto-man was just one of many animal species fighting for survival over the millennia. If his brain could evolve through processes of natural selection, then why did the brains of other creatures not similarly evolve - at least a little? The fact is that the brains of other creatures have remained practically the same while man’s has “evolved”. By the law of averages - which applies to natural selection as much as to anything else - there should have been at least some species other than man evolving in intelligence at least partway to the human level. There is none.

So what has taken place?

We are left with the explanation: Deliberate Cause
And this implies an Isolate Intelligence working through our physical being (brain/body)

Human intelligence is a violation of Objective Universal Law. That evidence for the existence of an intelligent entity distinct from the objective universe has instilled in humanity the potential to enjoy the same external perspective, as well as the intelligence to do so with a deliberate, creative purpose.

This Greater Self / GodSelf does not behave as though it were merely a “sum total” of the brain’s sensory and manipulative capacities, combining and recombining inputted information as though it were an “organic” electronic computer. It has a sense of identity, a sense of uniqueness, a sense of distance and differentiation from everything else that exists

In conclusion:
Organisms evolve in order to 1) Survive 2) Replicate
Natural Selection enables this to happen, if not haphazardly
Man has amazingly evolved since Proto-Man
This evolution was achieved partly by Natural Selection
This evolution was achieved (guided) by our Greater Self/GodSelf
 
juantoo3 said:
For the most part I would agree.
Click to expand...
.. other than the reference to the Greater Self. What is the evidence for that?
muhammad_isa said:
seven days .. seven seas .. and more.
Click to expand...
Seven suns in Vedic religion.
But that was for a reason. In the Indo-European homeland, the sun was continuously visible for seven months of the year.
'Amir Alzzalam said:
Human intelligence is a violation of Objective Universal Law.
Click to expand...
You are correct. intelligence is a hindrance. Allah made humans as differs.
 
Aupmanyav said:
.. other than the reference to the Greater Self. What is the evidence for that?
Click to expand...
That's where I begin to disagree. However, my conclusion based on what I see demonstrated throughout anthropological findings dating back 50-100 thousand years, do demonstrate a significant increase in mental acuity that cannot reasonably be explained by evolution alone. Clearly Amir reaches a different conclusion as to the source of that increase than I do, but there is no apparent reason for denying the increase exists.

That mental acuity took off like a rocket with the advent of agriculture and walled cities...to the detriment of the health of the inhabitants...can't reasonably be denied either. Mental function and the shift to symbolic / abstract reasoning and the attendant increase in "knowledge" is there for anyone to see who cares to look.

And I'm right back to "why did cave dwelling humans seek to connect with the Divine (however one wishes to describe "it") if there is nothing there?" This wasn't prehistoric graffiti artists decorating the living room. The painted caves were deep into the recesses where people did not "live." They went into the recesses ceremonially.
 
Since it has been a couple of days with no response, may I understand that @Aupmanyav and @muhammad_isa concur with Amir's definition?

If so, I'm not understanding how acquiring and applying knowledge and skills is a hindrance to connecting to the Divine?
 
juantoo3 said:
"why did cave dwelling humans seek to connect with the Divine (however one wishes to describe "it") if there is nothing there?"
Click to expand...
That is not surprising. They were ignorant. What is surprising is that even in this 21st Century, people believe in the balder-dash.
 
Aupmanyav said:
That is not surprising. They were ignorant. What is surprising is that even in this 21st Century, people believe in the balder-dash.
Click to expand...
That is because even in the 21st century, the divine is still being experienced by many. You are free to call it balderdash of course but then, you may be speaking on the veracity of something others have, but you, have not experienced.
 
Last edited:
Aupmanyav said:
Sure, animals are intelligent, otherwise the beasts of prey will not be able to feed and the prey will not be able to survive. That includes humans too.
Click to expand...
And yet I know of no other animals that compute mathematical equations or compose words. No other animals made the shift to symbolic and abstract thought processes. If evolution is the be all and end all, why is this so?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top