Why do people deny evolution?

@Quehoniaomath,

Quote:

sounds plossible, right? However the scientific method is a myth!

and there are so many things wrong with the scientific method you mentioned above.

The only thing Quahog had said to belive in is electrical cosmology. Wich is an interesting topic.

What is strange is that there are real scientists applying scientifical method to gain real credibility about their theory. Some experiments are realy interesting.

So why other applycations of scientifical method are scams, but those that regard plasma theory are not?

1 Reply

@luismtzzz,

Quote:

All that makes their computers work is the consequence of the last 100 years of applying scientifical method to adquire knowledge about the world.

What? Out of nowhere?

How come, after 2 million years, it happened in western Europe?

2,000 years is o.o1% of human time. Scientific method was applied 100% of the time. Babies can do it. Flint implements came from SM. So does the boomerang. The boat. The rain dance.

The sheer ignorance and arrogance of Johnny-come lately is astounding considering an expensive education has been brought to bear.

SM is natural to humans.

1 Reply

@Brandon9000,

Quote:

Still waiting for you to back up your position.

I told you Brandi--it's out of your comfort zone in plain language.

I have provided the answer many times if you care to learn to read carefully.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

SM is natural to humans.

Of course it is!

What i am implying is how can creationism defensors deny the scientifical discoveries about the origins of the universe, but enjoy the scientifcial discoveries that make our life more confortable.

And by the way. I am waiting for your answer to Famerman.

1 Reply

@luismtzzz,

Quote:

And by the way. I am waiting for your answer to Famerman.

You can't be serious surely? I'm a fan of the alcohol base bit.

3 Replies

@spendius,

spendi, You can't even state it correctly! It's "I'm a fan of alcohol."

0 Replies

@spendius,

My bad. I meant the question Brandon made.

Quote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

spendius wrote:
Theologians are out of your comfort zone Brandi. But what you described is exactly what they do and have been doing....

You claim that theologians are using the scientific method. Can you provide

1. One example of a case in which theologians made a prediction of an experiment not yet performed in order to confirm or refute a very specific religious hypothesis, then performed the experiment, and either confirmed or refuted it?
2. One example of a case in which theologians abandoned a prior clearly stated religious hypothesis which they had based on an experiment designed to confirm or refute it which ended up refuting it?

If they didn't do this, then they are not using the scientific method.

Sorry Fm.

0 Replies

@spendius,

It sure would be worth a ticket watching you and Farma in a pub after some pint's, I wouldn't miss it for the world Spendi.

0 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Quote:
Still waiting for you to back up your position.

I told you Brandi--it's out of your comfort zone in plain language.

I have provided the answer many times if you care to learn to read carefully.

I asked you for only one or two examples to back up your stated claim:

Brandon9000 wrote:

You claim that theologians are using the scientific method. Can you provide

1. One example of a case in which theologians made a prediction of an experiment not yet performed in order to confirm or refute a very specific religious hypothesis, then performed the experiment, and either confirmed or refuted it?
2. One example of a case in which theologians abandoned a prior clearly stated religious hypothesis which they had based on an experiment designed to confirm or refute it which ended up refuting it?

If they didn't do this, then they are not using the scientific method.

Don't try to escape by making vague references to other posts. Post an example of what you claimed, or it will be clear that you can't. In that case, your statement to farmerman that theology is science and to me that theologians use the scientific method will have been shown to be nothing but hot air. You claim that theologians use the scientific method regularly. If so, there should be thousands of examples and your refusal to give even one or two will show clearly that you're spouting nonsense that you can't even pretend to back up. I'll even make it easier for you. If you provide an example of my #2 above, it will also serve to show #1. Now I'm asking you for a single example.

1 Reply

@Romeo Fabulini,

the pictures; they've been spinning it recently, following something I wrote.

no really; anyway this is their spin. I do not like it actually. I mean, sure, however when he was baptised he became Divine; one with God, there he was fully God, not hero.

1 Reply

@kiuku,

I just think these parts are misunderstood. I think that, this might be a joke about the law. See, Jesus was wanted by the police, for entirely made up reasons (Caiphas.) So they had to catch him doing something bad. His best friend, we'll say, Judas was a thief, meanwhile. I think this part is a matter of law; churches and temples. If it's a house, he can't be at the temple at odd hours. He can't be in the garden, where he was. He can't be sleeping in the garden, more particularly, or praying. So, possibly this is one reason he was chased; there he goes back to the church and tells them they can't be selling goods in their 'house' these are house laws; you can fight in houses and it is perfectly legal, since technically it is his house. He had already been proclaimed to be divine by John the Baptist, the witness, so, I think it was just a legal joke, honestly.

He does not get arrested for whipping the money changers. Why not? Because, it's just a joke, not a real moment of passion, by someone who knows the law; I don't think he's really whipping them; it doesn't describe that way either; but he is overturning tables, because you can, in a house. Those were the laws of the day; it's his house, actually. If they said it was a house which they could have he's basically calling it his house. They are in his house, his dad's house, God. Therefore he owns it.

I don't think he's angry at all. I think he's God, here. Not really human. Just mocking, sort of. They know not what they do, doesn't seem to fit the greater picture, then. I just disagree with this humanizing Jesus stuff. It doesn't look right, at all.

0 Replies

Quote:

Kiuku said: I just disagree with this humanizing Jesus stuff. It doesn't look right, at all.

Well he definitely was NOT God, he made that clear many times-
"I am going to the Father, for my Father is greater than I" (John 14:28 )
"Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone" (Luke 18:19)
"Only God knows when Judgment Day will be, I don't know myself" (Mark 13:32)
"I say nothing of my own accord, i only say what my father tells me to say.." (John 12:49)
"My teaching is not my own. It comes from him who sent me" (John 7:17)
Jesus said to God the day before his execution- “Father, the hour has come....I am coming to you now" (John 17:13)
"Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." (Luke 23:46)
"I am going to my Father and your Father, my God and your God" (John 20:17)
God himself said - "This is my beloved son, listen to him" (Matt 17:5)

The High Priest asks - Are you the Son of God?, and Jesus replies - "I am" (Mark 14:61)
so the High Priest goes ballistic-

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/PoorOldSpike/caiaphas-freaking_zps625071fb.jpg~original

1 Reply

@luismtzzz,

Quote:

The only thing Quahog had said to belive in is electrical cosmology. Wich is an interesting topic.

What is strange is that there are real scientists applying scientifical method to gain real credibility about their theory. Some experiments are realy interesting.

So why other applycations of scientifical method are scams, but those that regard plasma theory are not?

you have a point here.
However what I wrote not that the 'scientific method' was a scam,
I wrote the 'scientific method' is a myth.

of course there is research done, I don't deny that.
But not the way according to the 'scientific method'

Talking about that, take the 'collecting of data' in the scientific method.
what is wrong with that?

1 Reply

@luismtzzz,

Quote:

Advances on physics let their cell phones work, advances in medicine provide their medicines, advances in mechanics let their cars run, etc.

THIS is simply not true. Have you looked into this all?

0 Replies

@luismtzzz,

Quote:

computers work is the consequence of the last 100 years of applying scientifical method to adquire knowledge about the world.

Also NOT true.You have swallowed the propaganda hook line and sinker.
Have you researched this yourself? I guess not!

0 Replies

And still the questions remains:

I have two questions to the evolution adepts.

1. the bee and the flower etc has to both start at exactly the same time, in evolution.
How does evolution deals with this?

2. a host and a parasite (Of which there are a lot!) has also start at the same time in evolution,
how does evolution deals with this?

evolution is really getting unbelievable! it is a string of unbelievable and mathematical impossibilties, that is for sure.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

It is obvious that there would have to be equivalence of some sort between ACTG, that DNA would not be lopsided towards C being inherently more likely or something.

And if scientists would go find where exactly this point of absolute equivalence is in the RNA, then at this point the RNA is chosen as a whole.

The DNA system in essence being a selfcontained system like the universe proper is a selfcontained system with it's chemical elements, or like mathematics is selfcontained system with numbers. So to say, mathematics can provide an exacting description what is in the universe proper, and so too can DNA provide an exacting description of what is in the universe proper with it's bases and codons. So we can make a copy / model of the universe in mathematical description, as we can see in sciencebooks, and we can make a copy of the universe in DNA description. That there is then a mathematical universe, and a DNA universe, and a proper universe. So the DNA universe copies the state of the universe proper, and then a representation of a fully adult organism is chosen in this DNA universe, which then results in the development into the adult organism in the universe proper.

Which means therefore, DNA mostly doesn't contain information about the organism itself, but instead DNA mostly contains information about the environment. The supposedly 98 percent junk DNA, is not some bullshit evolutionary history, but is instead the environment of the DNA organism in the DNA universe, which environment is mostly copied from the universe proper.

As loosly interpreted based on theory by Taborsky, Rowlands, Hill etc.

Or in short, one can easily make likely creationist hypothesis, if you try. If you are not ideologically opposed to freedom.

2 Replies

@Brandon9000,

Quote:

Now I'm asking you for a single example.

The theological laboratory is human behaviour. There are no single examples. It is one large example. Behave as we tell you to and you will reap the rewards.

Each individual rule is consistent with the body of the rules.

The effect on behaviour of music. Stalin took some pains over that subject. As did Hitler. The US sent experts into Germany after the war ended to change the musical perceptions of the population. To re-establish artists who had been persecuted and discredit those who had found favour with the Nazis. See the Wagner argument which still goes on.

Would a US State ceremony have a brass band playing Roll Out the Barrel.

It is the same with painting and architecture. Compare a Gothic cathedral with a Mosque. Compare Titian to Warhol.

You are trying to level the wisdom of the ages with your own understanding. Your attempt to simplify in order to bring the matter within your own intellectual range is an absurdity.

Do you think that the Christian theological project has been a success? Or not? You answer that.

The scientific revolution of the last 1,000 years, involving the mathematical analysis of dynamic space, belongs to the Christian project and to no other.

Augustus, with all his power, tried to get Roman citizens to have more children. He failed.

Whether to legitimise alcohol or opium or marijuana.

The objective being to engineer a population for success.

Behaviour in human society does not deal with the simple and strict limits that are found in labs.

Should chastity be valued or not? Should private property be valued or not? Should inheritance of private property be valued or not?

What do you recommend?

2 Replies

@spendius,

Obviously, if we wreck the earth, the Christian project is a disaster.

0 Replies

@spendius,

You claimed that theology is science and that theologians routinely apply the scientific method. I say you're wrong. Time for you to support your assertion. Give me:

Quote:

2. One example of a case in which theologians abandoned a prior clearly stated religious hypothesis which they had based on an experiment designed to confirm or refute it which ended up refuting it

Either you can or you can't.

2 Replies

Why do people deny evolution?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know