Why do people deny evolution?

@kiuku,

"Den of thieves" is a funny remark, it's sort of, what they might have said to him, being there at night, that it is a place of prayer and he is making it a den of thieves. Otherwise Jesus is being a hypocrite, since he forgives thieves-so, I don't know, we know that's not the case; Jesus is not a hypocrite, like he is not a sinner; therefore I doubt anger is the real answer to this part. If his friend is a thief how can he be remarking?

I bet it's a joke, like the rest of it.

Where he is at night, is sort of interesting.

0 Replies

@Quehoniaomath,

Quote:

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

A scam and a myth. They are both false ideas or concepts. No need to get redundant with the meaning.

By the way, could you please explain you ideas of how the invention of the computer and of the internal combustion engine, and of penicilline occured without the applycation of the scientific method.

Perhaps a superior entity put our fully functional pcs or laptops in our desks? Or maybe you are of those who belive that modern technology came from some ufo recovered in Roswell New Mexico?

Also i want to know what you belive in.

2 Replies

@luismtzzz,

Quote:

By the way, could you please explain you ideas of how the invention of the computer and of the internal combustion engine, and of penicilline occured without the applycation of the scientific method.

that one is very very very simple. it is called ´trial and error´ a superior method invented by inventors.

e.g. a lot of times when I mention this, computers are mentioned and especially the transistor. According to the standard fairy tales of sciences it was made
in Bell labs. Nothing could be further from the truth! It was years made before quantum mechanics about this area was developed by an inventor.
But well, let´s face it, classical textbooks are really nothing more than propaganda for the students to read.
There is nothing, and I repeat nothing, that is made with thanks to ´modern science` and by ´moderns science´ I mean when the fairytale by Eisntein started and stalled physics for years.

1 Reply

@Syamsu,

Quote:

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.

I can barely understand what you said here. It seems you imply that DNA didn´t prefered one of the letters over the others.

ACTG work like an alphabet. Every three bases create a new word. They never work alone. Each word codes an aminoacid. The aminoacid sentence creates a Protein. The protein has a meaning or a porpouse.

What you try to say seems like complaing about english for using more the vowel A than the E.

Quote:

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 RNA is the temporal transcription of a code, like temporal archives on a computer. It is temporal and easily degradable, it was evolutionary practical to hace a temporal transcription code.

Quote:

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.

ACTG create an alphabetical code.

The alphabet by itself is useless. The importance of a sentence is revealed on its meaning.

A sequence of codons are useless untill a protein is created and an effect is produced. The genes live threw their effect, not threw themselves. There is no DNA organism.

The enviroment causes the selection of the genes with the highest possibilites for survival threw the birth and death of thousands to millions of generations of a species of organism.

Quote:

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

Wheres the freedom on an hypothesis that accepts no challenge, that denies the possibility of a different theory, that refuses to accept cathegorical truths of nature.

2 Replies

@luismtzzz,

in actuallity DNA is formed as an antenna for electromagnetic waves!

Quote:

'From the characteristic form of this giant molecule - a wound double helix - the DNA represents an ideal electromagnetic antenna. On one hand it is elongated and thus a blade antenna, which can take up very well electrical pulses. On the other hand, seen from above, it has the form of a ring and thus is a very good magnetical antenna.'

http://www.fosar-bludorf.com/archiv/Dna3.jpg

http://www.fosar-bludorf.com/archiv/biochip_eng.htm

1 Reply

@Quehoniaomath,

The scientific method is:

1. Formulation of a question
Determine which phenomenon you wish to understand.
2. Gather data
Examine the available verifiable data relating to the phenomenon.
3. Hypothesis
Formulate an explanation of all or part of the phenomenon based on
patterns in the data.
4. Prediction
Use the hypothesis to predict the result of experiments not yet
performed.
5. Testing
Experimentally test the prediction in item 4 above.
6. Conclusion
If experiments confirm the prediction, then the hypothesis is somewhat
confirmed. If experiments don't confirm the prediction, then the
hypothesis is wrong. Get over it and see if you can formulated another
hypothesis.

Scientific method is a trial and error system.

You have a problem, you search for what you need to solve it, you formulate a solution or an hypothesis, you predict the possible outcomes, you run a trial (test), you found a conclusion. The possibilities are, you were wrong (an eror you repeat changing the variables), you were right (you solved the problem.

1 Reply

@luismtzzz,

Quote:

The scientific method is:

1. Formulation of a question
Determine which phenomenon you wish to understand.
2. Gather data
Examine the available verifiable data relating to the phenomenon.
3. Hypothesis
Formulate an explanation of all or part of the phenomenon based on
patterns in the data.
4. Prediction
Use the hypothesis to predict the result of experiments not yet
performed.
5. Testing
Experimentally test the prediction in item 4 above.
6. Conclusion
If experiments confirm the prediction, then the hypothesis is somewhat
confirmed. If experiments don't confirm the prediction, then the
hypothesis is wrong. Get over it and see if you can formulated another
hypothesis.

Scientific method is a trial and error system.

You have a problem, you search for what you need to solve it, you formulate a solution or an hypothesis, you predict the possible outcomes, you run a trial (test), you found a conclusion. The possibilities are, you were wrong (an eror you repeat changing the variables), you were right (you solved the problem.

yes I know all that nonsense, it was stuffed down my my troath!

But there is so much wrong with it!
Just start thinking critically about it,

e.q. start with the collecting of data, start thinking about that one!

There is so much more, so it seems you haven´t read the article I linked to, right?

man o man

2 Replies

@luismtzzz,

Upon serious consideration, anybody can only reach the conclusion that all those scientists who ignore freedom, are unusually ignorant compared to average people.

Here is what real science looks like:

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-lviaXRsJy3U/U7VOfQG0dEI/AAAAAAAAAH8/eReqIX8gqTg/w480-h480/rewrite.png

1 Reply

@Quehoniaomath,

Quote:

e.q. start with the collecting of data, start thinking about that one!

For sure. Which data? Who chooses what to collect? Is there any data not being collected.

The confessional collected data.

1 Reply

@Quehoniaomath,

Quote:

e.q. start with the collecting of data, start thinking about that one!

I don´t see what is wrong with this point.

Imagine you are accused of thievery. Your defense has to formulate your innocent pledge, recover data that proves you where in another place the moment of the robbery, then explain your formulated defense to the judge, claim yourself innocent, and then wait or the conclusion.

Now imagine you are not allowed to gather proof of your inocence. Any judge will send you to jail inmediately.

...............................................

I had almost finish reading that text. I had find a lot of basic missconceptions about biology and light physics.

The only thing interesting about the whole text was:

Quote:

From the characteristic form of this giant molecule - a wound double helix - the DNA represents an ideal electromagnetic antenna. On one hand it is elongated and thus a blade antenna...

It REPRESENTS AN IDEAL ELECTROMAGNETIC ANTENNA.

But that it IS an electromagnetical antenna, i doubt it a lot.

The text then changes to light and hypothesis a lot on diverse themes even tries to tangle linguistics.

It stands as a very interesting sci fi idea for a book. But it lost the fun when starts talking about conspiracies.

And by the way it completely lacks references. And the name of the text was poorly choosen.

2 Replies

@Syamsu,

I am far more versed on biology than physics. But it honestly seems like a very very very simplistic way to resume science. From both biology and physics side.

.................................................................................................

Quote:

Upon serious consideration, anybody can only reach the conclusion that all those scientists who ignore freedom, are unusually ignorant compared to average people.

How can a scientist ignore freedom? Science needs freedom to achive conclusions.

In religions: accept what our escriptures as an absolute truth so you can have our Lord´s blessing. Anything else is heressy. Asking questions is heressy. Acting different to the group is heressy. Deny our god and you will repent on hell for ethernity.

How many religious persons had been burned on fire by the tirany of the scientists?

0 Replies

@Quehoniaomath,

And by the way those guys from the text

Quote:

The Biological Chip in our Cells

Revolutionary results of modern genetics

by Grazyna Fosar and Franz Bludorf

Are actually stating a hypothesis, gathering data, making prediction. But without any testing jumping to conclusions.

They too are using SM!!! They just lack the most important part.

1 Reply

@luismtzzz,

luismtzzz wrote:

Quote:
However what I wrote not that the 'scientific method' was a scam,
I wrote the 'scientific method' is a myth.

Also i want to know what you belive in.

He won't tell you because he's a coward. But most of his posts are copied straight from ID and creationist websites. Very simple conclusion to draw, despite his meaningless denials.

0 Replies

@luismtzzz,

Quote:

Are actually stating a hypothesis, gathering data, making prediction. But without any testing jumping to conclusions.

They too are using SM!!! They just lack the most important part.

sure

0 Replies

@luismtzzz,

Quote:

But that it IS an electromagnetical antenna, i doubt it a lot.

doubt all the way you want, it really is,

0 Replies

@luismtzzz,

Quote:

I don´t see what is wrong with this point.

Imagine you are accused of thievery. Your defense has to formulate your innocent pledge, recover data that proves you where in another place the moment of the robbery, then explain your formulated defense to the judge, claim yourself innocent, and then wait or the conclusion.

Now imagine you are not allowed to gather proof of your inocence. Any judge will send you to jail inmediately.

You really don't get it, I am not against data collection, at all.
But HOW do you do datacollection?

0 Replies

@Brandon9000,

I'm still waiting for you to give a single example to back up your claim that theologians use the scientific method, but all you do is run.

Brandon9000 wrote:

spendius wrote:

The objects studied in labs, do not have any inclinations towards pleasure or curiosity or ambition. They have no fears. No animation. Nor do they have any responsibilities regarding the provisions and infrastructures of the conditions in which they exist. And they can be studied in isolation and in a specific manner under the control of the researcher.

The theologian's laboratory of human behaviour has all of those problems to deal with, and much more, and results are difficult to measure and are a long time in coming.

Comparing the two is silly. Childish actually. It is like pretending to be an architect after spending Christmas day playing with a Lego kit.

The evidence is the civilisation you live in. Seen as a whole, warts and all.

Do me a favour Brandi--don't ask me again. If you have not got the general idea by now you never will have.

You made the specific claim that theologians regularly use the scientific method as I defined it. If that is true then you have thousands of examples to choose from. Give me one example of a case in which a theologian conducted an experiment designed to test a specific religious hypothesis and refuted it. If you can't back up your specific written claim, then your words were just hot air. Is that what you do here - just make stuff up?

2 Replies

@Brandon9000,

Spendi just painted himself into a corner and hell try to bluff his way out by getting successively more evasive and off topic. Hes a pro at using many words to say nothing.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

You said,

Quote:

Hes a pro at using many words to say nothing.

So often, his prose has no meaning, but the worst part is his on-going verbiage that has nothing to do with the subject under discussion.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

You mean Jane Austen, Proust and Tristram Shandy don't belong in a discussion about evolution? Go figure.

2 Replies

Why do people deny evolution?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know