Evolution is Unscientific

Aupmanyav said:
I am not a pretender. I am very straight-forward. I call a spade a spade.
Click to expand...
As do I.

We have known examples ranging across Southern Europe, into the Levant, also in Africa and Australia, demonstrating time and time and time again pre-literate humanity exploring the same concepts over and over again. Why?

Why did they go so deep into the caves to do their painting? This while every fiber of their being screaming "get out of here, you fool!" They were not in the living spaces, they were sometimes a quarter mile or more back into the recesses with no more than flickering torch light and perhaps some entheogenic substances. Likely it became a rite of passage, at least for males, and shaman experienced their ecstatic connections to the Divine...no different in substance than the Greeks and Romans with the Necromantiums / Psychomantiums, demonstrating a long standing tradition that transcends the shift from pre-literate humanity into historic times.

The casual dismissal of known archeological fact is an attempt to justify a foregone conclusion in atheism. Yet if there is nothing there, pre-historic cave dwelling humans and related spent an inordinate amount of time chasing nothing. Time that was needed for far more important needs and requirements of life was wasted routinely, across families, across species, across tens of thousands of years, for what purpose?
 
Last edited:
I mean that if one is intelligent, then he/she will realize that there is God, soul, etc., are imaginary things.
 
juantoo3 said:
.. they were sometimes a quarter mile or more back into the recesses with no more than flickering torch light and perhaps some entheogenic substances.

The casual dismissal of known archeological fact is an attempt to justify a foregone conclusion in atheism.
Click to expand...
More difficult, more venerated. Why do you think the places of veneration was on top of mountains, difficult to reach. Many major places of pilgrimage for Hindus are at the height of 14,000 ft., accessible only for one or two months in the year. Now we have roads, but in olden times people trudges there facing all difficulties, thugs, animals, diseases, etc. Many did not even return. Their last rights were done before they left on the pilgrimage. If they returned, it was considered a rebirth.

It is not a casual dismissal. It is because absolute lack of evidence for God or soul, and for those who claim to be messengers of God.
 
Last edited:
Aupmanyav said:
I mean that if one is intelligent, then he/she will realize that there is God, soul, etc., are imaginary things.
Click to expand...
Imagination has to be founded in something "real." That's just basic psychology.

1692641285034.png
 
Last edited:
Aupmanyav said:
What is real about FSM or Cthulhu? God too is such an entity.
Click to expand...
Now you're just flying off into space to avoid the reality placed in front of you.

Whether one calls it "G!d" or not is irrelevant. Clearly there was / is something that cave dwelling humans were trying to connect with. Something paranormal, something sub-conscious, something atheists refuse to see even if placed directly in front of their eyes.

1692638872017.png
 
Last edited:
Aupmanyav said:
What is real about FSM or Cthulhu?
Click to expand...
The question really is more "what is invented out of whole cloth" about these two examples?

Flying is real, and even in prehistoric times humans dreamed of being able to fly like a bird. Spaghetti is well known to anyone in the Western world that eats Italian style noodle dishes, and "monsters" are a first world creation borne of various creatures that instill fear.

Cthulhu continues along the line of monsters by evoking cuttlefish.

All are known entities, cobbled together in an effort to dismiss what one doesn't understand, and more importantly refuses to understand. From an imagination standpoint the psychology holds...they are constructed of known entities. Nothing fabricated uniquely of whole cloth.

With this is mind, how did primitive peoples "invent" something they could not see? From a psychological perspective it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

1692640569736.png
1692640833719.png
 
Last edited:
SufiPhilosophy said:
I think a lot of what you describe is strictly speaking tech not science but okay.
I don't see what most of it has to do with the topic.

Please may l ask: do you know why you believe in Evolution? If not, why do you believe it? Because other people said it's good?

Why would god not do evolution?
1. It goes against his role as creator
2. We are the focus of his revelations, so even if other things evolved, we should not, we are primary and his the role of creator is primal to god being god or at least primal to his relationship with us.
3. It raises the spectre of beastiality, we were once half human half beast? Or great great great great.... grandparents picnicked with apes and so made us?
4. There's just no basis for it, as per my OP :)
Click to expand...

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...
Mutations are a phenomenon that is often observed. Just consider the most common mutation of humans, trisomy. This mutation doesn't seem to yield a benefit in selection but it gives evidence that humans can change to humans with different properties just by a small change.
Selection has been made by humans to cultivate crop, bringing forth a variety of forms from one species. A good example is Brassica Oleracea.
Those sorts are still genetically very similar but already quite different in from. And they are genetically different; from a cauliflower, you will get a cauliflower, not kale.
Selection has also been observed in nature. Quite recently, it has been observed that most ash trees in Europe die from a novel fungus. The fungus seems to be a mutant, and it has been observed that some ashes are resistant due to a genetic variant (link). So, all phenomena you asked for have been observed.

Now, parting from the axiom that God is the Creator, he has also created all those possibilities for evolution.
We are apes with a large brain that allows us to understand a small part of the Art how creation works.
And in my opinion, it is also a valuable religious aspect to see that all creatures around us are our relatives, species with skills we don't have (could you replace a worm or a tree?), that have evolved so magnificently just because God created the world so that nature could spread out in this variety?
 
Aupmanyav said:
I mean that if one is intelligent, then he/she will realize that there is God, soul, etc., are imaginary things.
Click to expand...
Does that mean that believing and/or being open to those things, in those things = not intelligent, in your view?
 
Aupmanyav said:
I mean that if one is intelligent, then he/she will realize that there is God, soul, etc., are imaginary things.
Click to expand...
God and Soul/Psyche are two different things. To imply one is ignorant or unintelligent because they don't 'realize' something is just bullshit. I expected a lot more from you than that pathetic statement.
 
Thanks that you have a good opinion about me. I never said that they are same. I said both are imaginary. ;)
Except in case of some Hindu non-dualists (Advaitists), who consider that the Supreme soul and a person's soul are not different.
I too am an advaitist (non-dualism), but I do not accept the existence of God or soul.
 
juantoo3 said:
With this is mind, how did primitive peoples "invent" something they could not see? From a psychological perspective it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
Click to expand...
Why? They had seen old men with flowing white beards. That is how they configured God. Did not they referred to him as the Old Man in the Sky?

the-creation-of-adam-by-michelangelo-is-painted-on-the-ceiling-of-the-sistine-chapel-in-the.jpg
 
juantoo3 said:
Now you're just flying off into space to avoid the reality placed in front of you.

Whether one calls it "G!d" or not is irrelevant. Clearly there was / is something that cave dwelling humans were trying to connect with. Something paranormal, something sub-conscious, something atheists refuse to see even if placed directly in front of their eyes.

View attachment 3669
Click to expand...
Nothing paranormal here. They were depicting bulls and deer, men and women, sex, slain and victorious warriors, sometimes signing off with their hand prints.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top