Topic: Evolution is a hoax - page 215. (Read 108046 times)

Wrong. Almost all of the evidence in favor of evolution can be applied to other things, as well, and does not have to support evolution.

Cause and effect (science law), probability math, and Irreducible Complexity are 3 major pieces of science that utterly contradict evolution, thereby disproving it.


What is your question about free will?


Like others, I am not here to formulate some monstrous writing that will cover encyclopedias of pages. We all make up our own "ramblings" in the forum. I have presented enough basics that if a person is interested, he can go out and research it... using my "ramblings" as a start or a direction for his research.


Thank you for explaining your question. Please ignore my question of your question, above.

1. Cause and effect, entropy, and complexity combine to prove that God exists - https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.16961242. They don't express much about God. They only point to the fact that He exists.
2. God is extremely more powerful and complex than this universe, as can be seen by the way cause and effect works in everything.
3. God has left open a tiny part of the soul/spirit/mind of people to believe in Him in any varying degree.
4. God examines this tiny free will part, and goes back to the beginning of creation, and jiggles/juggles all of the beginning causes to match our tiny free will, and to accomplish His goals according to this matching. This means that there have existed countless timelines throughout the universe and history, God regulating where we all exist within them.
5. Some starting questions. >>> Is this cause-and-effect-changing-process automatic with God? How far greater is God's Spirit (not mind) than ours? We recognize about 32 dimensions; are there an infinity of dimensions that God regulates entirely?



"Randomness" is a term we apply to things that we can't understand by analyzing them directly. Rather, we "plot points" that we can see, and use probability to "guess at" the rest. There is no random.


The info in this post covers a lot of thinking and formulation. It will probably not be understood without a reasonable amount of thinking. The start of it is to understand that science proves that God exists, even though many scientists ignore this proof.

Because there is a huge amount of evidence supporting it, and barely any disproving it. That's why all credible scientists believe it. So your answer to why basically all scientists believe in this supposedly flawed theory is "they might be mistaken". OK, what are your thoughts on my other question about free will?

I read your last few posts, and although you use scientific language you don't actually explain what you mean in a coherent manner, so it's impossible to debate your points. I explained why the theory of evolution cannot logically become a law, yet you make up your own rambling explanation about "cause and effect" etc.

Like I said earlier, I've grown disinterested in convincing you of certain scientific facts, but I'm eager to know your thoughts on the free will problem in a deterministic universe, if everything is programmed.

Bonus question: What are your thoughts on the randomness of radioactive decay?

Is that an accurate statistic? Even if it is, scientists make mistakes all the time. The reason that they create theories is to attempt to correct their mistakes. Why not be mistaken about evolution?

Any great changes of the past were not so great as to keep past peoples from recording what they saw and did, and what happened. The best of these records is the Bible.

When you compare the scientific history of how the Bible came into being, the strength of the 25,000 hand-copied copies that we have, and lots of other things about the Bible, including the numbers of people that receive God's blessing through reading it daily... compare these to any other writing that we have, you can eliminate the potentially flawed past of potentially flawed physics.

Potentially flawed physics is like science theory. It might have worked that way in the past. But nobody knows.

The Bible is a record that has strength.

Potentially flawed physics is just another point that nullifies the evolution idea.

Gravity is science law. Everybody uses it every day. It is in existence all over the place that we know of, and has been as far back as any historical writings and carvings tell us.

Gravity theory is simply explanations about why gravity works the way it does. Gravity theory is not known to be true.

Evolution is not law. Why not? Because everything that we see that might be attributed to it, can be attributed to something else that we see, as well. Regarding evolution, cause and effect, which is law, alone eliminates evolution, because nobody can even envision what a universe would be like with its opposite, pure random, which would have to be there for unprogrammed mutation.

Evolution theory is simply a story being used to try to explain something that doesn't exist.

No, you still don't understand the difference. A scientific law is a description of a phenonemon - it tells us what happens within certain parameters. A scientific theory aims to tell us why it happens. They are two different things, and a theory doesn't just turn into a law if it's been proven enough times. Apples and oranges.
If we consider that there were great changes in the physics of the past, then anything anyone says about the past can conveniently be nullified. That includes any and all of your "scientific evidence" for evolution being false. So we're back to square one. Your argument is a ridiculous catch 22.

And then you say that the Bible somehow rises above all this pseudo-philosophical claptrap, and is somehow more credible. Not only that, but one of the reasons you give is that Bible followers are strong in numbers...

By that logic, the Backstreet Boys are one of the most musically talented groups that has ever been, and the Fast and Furious films are some of the finest pieces of cinema in the history of mankind.
Again, don't you think it's odd that less than 1% of actual scientists in the fields of biology, chemistry and physics agree with you? Why do you think that is?

Now think about what you just said. And think about what I have been saying.

Both, science law and science theory are based on the idea that things have been working somewhat like they presently are throughout the past. The difference is that science theory is known to be based on probability, while science law is based on fact. Evolution is science theory that has been debunked by science fact.

Now, let's go the next step. Let's consider that there were great changes in the physics of the past. Some of these changes nullify science law. But science theory is essentially nullified already, by the fact that it is based on probability. What is left?

The religious writings, and the traditions regarding each... plus a certain amount of archaeology. In these, the Bible reigns supreme among records from the past. There are some very good reasons why, not the least of them being the strength of Bible followers of today.

Any way you look at it, evolution isn't even in the running science-wise. The fact that it is still around proves it is a hoax.

BADecker, if you want to have a proper discussion about these sort of topics then you need to:

A. Stop moving the goalposts around. You can't try and use scientific evidence to prove one of your points, and then turn around and say something like "ah but in the distant past we're not sure that time and space were running at the same speed they are today... so anything could be possible...". That kind of logic renders any discussion meaningless.

B. Listen to people when they tell you simple facts about semantics. For example, the definition of a scientific theory. Arguing about these things just muddy the waters.

And did you read my questions a few pages upthread? I don't believe you replied to them...

[edit]

Are you trying to say that an equal and opposite reaction is not an effect? Go back to school.

No it doesn't and we already discussed this in the other topic, stop spreading your bullshit, you can't even defend yourself anymore in the other thread. It's pathetic. Newton's 3rd law is not that anyways, I don't know where you got that definition from. ''The third law states that all forces between two objects exist in equal magnitude and opposite direction: if one object A exerts a force FA on a second object B, then B simultaneously exerts a force FB on A, and the two forces are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction: FA = −FB.[24] The third law means that all forces are interactions between different bodies,[25][26] or different regions within one body, and thus that there is no such thing as a force that is not accompanied by an equal and opposite force. In some situations, the magnitude and direction of the forces are determined entirely by one of the two bodies, say Body A; the force exerted by Body A on Body B is called the "action", and the force exerted by Body B on Body A is called the "reaction". This law is sometimes referred to as the action-reaction law, with FA called the "action" and FB the "reaction". In other situations the magnitude and directions of the forces are determined jointly by both bodies and it isn't necessary to identify one force as the "action" and the other as the "reaction". The action and the reaction are simultaneous, and it does not matter which is called the action and which is called reaction; both forces are part of a single interaction, and neither force exists without the other.[24]''

Nowhere it says anything about everything having a cause and definitely it doesn't say that the cause for everything is God.

Cause and effect is science law that proves that the universe has been programmed.

Evolution is obvious - nature has so many variations, even in dog breeds, you can see evolution at work.

The Real Secrets of Alien Covenant Leaked - The Globalists don't even believe in evolution themselves. They are just using it to deceive the masses.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsdyahvKN3g

In the forum, and in life, we assume some basic standards. If we are going to be talking from the standpoint that nothing is absolute, our whole base of the way we talk about things has to change. If we are going to change to that kind of a base, it is something that we have to agree on in order to converse clearly.

With regard to evolution, cause and effect show that it is a impossible, the way that science suggests it. There are many other things that show that it is impossible, such as probability math. If you want to get to the point of suggesting that facts are impossible, while non-facts are the thing that is real, because science has suggested that nothing is 100% provable, have at it. You will wind up in the funny farm if you do that firmly enough.

Depending on the definition of evolution that you are using, you can say anything about evolution that you want, and it might be true... depending on the definition. But that holds for anything.

The standard definition of evolution that includes change that goes from inanimate material to life that we see today, and especially human life, is scientifically impossible. Some of the scientific principles that scientists say apply to evolution, are absolutely true. Not all evolution principles hold true for this (^^^) definition of evolution. If you want to get to the point of suggesting that facts are impossible, while non-facts are the thing that is real, because science has suggested that nothing is 100% provable, have at it. You will wind up in the funny farm if you do that firmly enough.

Gravity works. Gravity theory is not known to properly fit or match working gravity, even though aspects of gravity theory might work with real gravity very well. Gravity theory might be the way that gravity works. We just don't know. If you want to get to the point of suggesting that facts are impossible, while non-facts are the thing that is real, because science has suggested that nothing is 100% provable, have at it. You will wind up in the funny farm if you do that firmly enough.

Cause and effect, universal entropy, complex universe: are scientific laws and principles that, when combined, not only prove that God exists, but also prove that everything came into existence by Him... by the process of elimination... because that is the only way something like God (or even big bang) can be proven. If you want to get to the point of suggesting that facts are impossible, while non-facts are the thing that is real, because science has suggested that nothing is 100% provable, have at it. You will wind up in the funny farm if you do that firmly enough.

Evolution is a hoax. At best, it is a religion among those who want to make fiction be stronger than reality. If you want to get to the point of suggesting that facts are impossible, while non-facts are the thing that is real, because science has suggested that nothing is 100% provable, have at it. You will wind up in the funny farm if you do that firmly enough.

It's not

Fact: Observations about the world around us. Example: “It’s bright outside.”
Hypothesis: A proposed explanation for a phenomenon made as a starting point for further investigation. Example: “It’s bright outside because the sun is probably out.”
Theory: A well-substantiated explanation acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation. Example: “When the sun is out, it tends to make it bright outside.”
Law: A statement based on repeated experimental observations that describes some phenomenon of nature. Proof that something happens and how it happens, but not why it happens. Example: Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation.

Scientific laws are not considered absolute truths. In fact, the core philosophy of the scientific method is that no scientific fact is to be considered an absolute truth.

Scientific laws and facts are either (1) derived directly from empirical results (eg: Ohm's law) or (2) theoretical constructions which help explain empirical facts (eg: Maxwell's electromagnetic theory). In either case, the validity of the fact/law is not absolute. Every such fact/law will have conditions in which it is valid, outside which the validity of the law is either unverified or disproved by empirical evidence. For example, Maxwell's electromagnetic theory is valid for macroscopic scales, but fails when applied to subatomic scales. Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) is a theory which is valid both in macroscopic as well as subatomic scales, and Maxwell's theory is a special case of QED. The validity of QED when applied to very high temperatures and pressures as in the Big Bang is limited, where a more general theory is required.

In the same light, Ohm's law is not valid for all materials. For example, it does not work for semiconductors.

In general, the scientific community attaches a confidence level to each scientific law/fact based on empirical evidence, experience and its consistency with the rest of the knowledge.

Some theories are accepted to near-absolute status. Eg: "The earth is near-spherical", "The earth revolves around the sun"

Some are accepted to such a degree that all other facts must be consistent with them. Eg: Theory of evolution, Atomic theory, Chromosome theory

So everything you wrote has been debunked easily. Good luck with your next try

Right. There isn't any natural selection. It is all God selection.

God above is in charge of the natural selection and we here can’i do anything about it,
Without his permission we it's nothing,
Looks like you are smart enough and understand a lot