32
   

Is Evolution a Dangerous Idea? If so, why?

 
 
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Wed 27 Jan, 2021 11:00 am
@Jasper10,
Quote:

With all due respect....there is alternative evidence that refutes evolution...so much so that evolutionist have given up debating with creationist because they know that the evidence the creationist have fits better.
I hear this most often ince the internet had arrived on the scene and folks can share and build upon their myths.

Can you explain this "competing hypothesis", because we know theres really no evidence existing that lifts this belief to the level of "theory"
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Jan, 2021 12:19 pm
@farmerman,
BTW "refuting " evolution does nothing to "support" your alternative. Its merely an attempt to find something wrong with the science (nd Ive yet to hear an "alternative " argument that is cognizant of what science even says and getting it correct.
Jasper10
 
  0  
Reply Wed 27 Jan, 2021 01:11 pm
@farmerman,
I accept science....there is nothing wrong with science.Who cares who’s voted and has come to the conclusion that my belief system maybe worthless? their believe system maybe worthless.They KNOW that all they have is HOPE just like me because they KNOW that they can’t definitively prove their belief system is true.Belief never saved anyone anyway.Forget carnal proof Farmerman you are wasting your time.You’re a SPECTATOR.
0 Replies
 
Jasper10
 
  0  
Reply Wed 27 Jan, 2021 01:13 pm
@farmerman,
I refute evolution because creationist evidence fits better.I am not biased like you.
popeye1945
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Jan, 2021 01:23 pm
@Jasper10,
Jasper, you need to crack open some books, and I don't mean the bible.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Jan, 2021 01:31 pm
@Jasper10,
no, youre biased upon stuff that has no evidence at all. How old is the earth?
Jasper10
 
  0  
Reply Wed 27 Jan, 2021 01:35 pm
@farmerman,
Evolution is a myth and scientists can build upon it as much as they want.That’s up to them.

My “competing hypothesis“ as you call it is logically sound.Everything about who we are is totally embroiled together.This means all the sciences are related.Define SELF.
Jasper10
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Jan, 2021 01:38 pm
@farmerman,
There is experience which is personal to each individual and can be tested....but only if you are a PLAYER.
0 Replies
 
Jasper10
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 27 Jan, 2021 01:42 pm
@farmerman,
Creationist science is sound science.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Wed 27 Jan, 2021 01:46 pm
@Jasper10,
Quote:
My “competing hypothesis“ as you call it is logically sound.
. Then you shouldn't be hesitant to just bring it up and explain it to me. You sound like a "fat burner" commercial, lots of promises, no detail .

How old is the earth?

If you deny evolution, you already deny much of the underlying sciences like geology, radio-isotopic dating, continental drift, paleoanatomy, even gene expressions and organic molecular chemistry.

Can you name ONE thing that a Creationism based "scientific hypothesis" has helped develop ? something like radioisotope dating as derived from understanding atomic fission .
Jasper10
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 27 Jan, 2021 03:38 pm
@farmerman,
There is more to the hypothesis however when it comes to internal reasonings then there are 2 off internal reasonings that compete or agree with each other.So for example some people will say that good is bad and bad is good.These are competing reasonings.However,the same internal reasonings can also agree with each other so both can agree that good is good and bad is bad.Both reasonings can therefore be either a 0 or a 1.This principle is strikingly familiar with quantum computing logic.I can carry on if you wish.
coluber2001
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Jan, 2021 03:49 pm
Religion is a system of myths described by the language of metaphors--clumsily--the internal experience we undergo in trying to relate to the outside world of nature. And it's a mistake to take them literally. Projecting spiritual experience into something with an objective reality is an attempt to make the ego substantial.

Science and religion or spirituality must remain separate. One is objective and the other is subjective. Bringing subjectivity into science contaminates it and attempting to make religion objective contaminates it.

There is great beauty in both. Alan Watts said that belief is holding on to and faith is letting go. Sometimes you just have to let go in order to find spirituality.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Jan, 2021 03:50 pm
@Jasper10,
no thanks, when someone cpares quantum mechanics to evolutionary biology I call for balsamic dressing
Jasper10
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 27 Jan, 2021 03:51 pm
@coluber2001,
Remain a SPECTATOR then.It’s your choice.
0 Replies
 
Jasper10
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 27 Jan, 2021 03:52 pm
@farmerman,
Fair enough remain a SPECTATOR.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Jan, 2021 05:32 pm
@Jasper10,
Ive been a spectator for over 40 years I can tell science "phonies" by how many times they drag QM into a discussion in biology.
Sorta Like mentioning Hitler in a debate precludes winning it.
Jasper10
 
  0  
Reply Thu 28 Jan, 2021 01:29 am
@farmerman,
Why do you think that your biological computer brain doesn’t work like a quantum computer? Take PROOF out of the equation and it operates exactly like one when it comes to reasonings.One knows this because one experiences it.Where do you think the notion of nihilism comes from? Negative nihilism leads on to the conclusion that there are no morals which then leads on to the notion that God doesn’t exist.....All this without definitive proof therefore the potential for false reasoning.
Jasper10
 
  0  
Reply Thu 28 Jan, 2021 02:03 am
@Jasper10,
If definitive academic proof is a non starter then one needs start considering other possibilities.One needs to at least accept the complete 0,1 formula and not just half of it.One needs to turn ones attention to CONSCIOUSNESS types.There are at least 3 types and one can experience them so I suppose if one wants some EXPERIENTIAL “nuts and bolts” proof then you will receive it.Scientists know very little about consciousness types.One starts applying the formula.One becomes a PLAYER.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Jan, 2021 06:21 am
@Jasper10,
do understand that just merely tossing out random phrases signifies nothing in the way of you really understanding what BS your trying to sell.

How old is the earth approximately.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Thu 28 Jan, 2021 06:34 am
@Jasper10,
Let's stick with evidence of evolution, youre just trying to wander all over the paddock hoping that youll impress someone with your"Erudition".
Im not an easy sell when it comes to evidence-free arguments made mostly by analogy or "what if's". Creationits and IDers have been trying this for years and they still have only their one or two analogy arguments, no real evidence.
Do you believe that life appeared on earth fully formed or do you recognize the evidence that states that life modified itself through time into the many forms weve seen in the past and we see today?? Are all these fossils merely some kind of a joke played on us by a menacing god? or do they represent evidence of life in the past?

Im going to try to engage you unless and until I see that youre just going to continue youre word salads . If you really think as a Creationist, you should embrace thir many arguments made through their "Creation science" centers and amusement parks.

Science is way too busy trying to understand the basis and development of life through time. The only time most of us come up for air is when some Creationist or ID group tries to force teaching their religious worl view in our pulic SChools, then w usually ris up and have to spnd tim in court bting em down so they dont wreck our Constitutional freedoms and responsibilities.



 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 02/26/2021 at 07:33:37