Darwin and Dawkins are both Wrong and Evil

reply to post by badmedia


Great post. Star for you. Yes, there are definately some point in which we disagree, mainly on the areas that I myself cannot claim "knowledge" mainly because there are too many variables and unknowns that are making it hard for me to decide what idea I prefer.

I don't want to hijack this thread with a response on this because the only way I can explain my view on this subject with any fairness is to explain my personal beliefs on the nature of the universe and everything's role within it. Not only will that be a long winded explaination, but it will likely be more than most posters will want to read by the time they get to page three of this forum.. *smirk*

I will make a valiant attempt to put it on my profile in my comments section later today. I have some errands to run for now, so I have to stop geeking on the puter.

reply to post by rogerstigers


I look at it like this. There are 2 realms of things here. 1 is creation, action and reaction etc, and the other is spirt/soul/consciousness.

Science is great at understanding the universe. It's repeatable in the lab because it has no free will, it's is bound to the laws of the universe. It is unwise to ignore science and deny what it brings.

The other realm is consciousness and soul. And this realm is beyond logic, and there is no logic to describe it. Consciousness creates logic, you can not create consciousness in free will/logic. And Science is unequipped to deal with this realm at all, because when choice enters the picture the "repeatable in a lab" is out the window.

Each have their proper places, and I really can't see the need for people to take 1 or the other as true, with the other as false.

In the end, there is only 1 observer of all things. A consciousness much greater than any of our individual experiences, and is eternal. If you think about it, it's actually impossible for you to not exist - because what would their be to perceive it?

I think it's really relevant to the topic at hand, because I think this is the fatal flaw in "evolution". It ignores the consciousness of it. It forgets it takes a scientist(conscious observer who can understand) in order to have science.

Survival of the fittest? I'd say so. Don't need to look at years of history to see it either. Earth and creation older than 6000 years? I'd say so. Take more than 7 earth days for the universe to form? Yes, I'd say so.

Did something come from nothing, randomly happening along until finally it became useful as something could observe it? Nonsense.

Consciousness creates such things, dreams are an example.

These are really the kind of things the bible talks about, but religions turn it into mumbo jumbo and marketing schemes for "followers" to leech off and control through fear.


[edit on 7/5/2009 by badmedia]

reply to post by badmedia


Well, I think for the sake of the conversation, I can trim this down.

I feel that the universe itself is the sentience involved here. We are merely extensions of this universe.

What is the universe doing? Dunno, maybe trying to figure out what it is.. A journey of self discovery. It does this by projecting timelines and scenarios. It creates a set of rules and guides and see what will happen. We can let life happen and follow the guides, trusting out instincts and wandering mindlesly. If we do this, essentially sacrificing our freewill to the game, as you put it, then yeah, we are automatons with predictable reactions. If, however, we choose to act outside the expected boundaries and break the rules, life will be unpredictable, we will be unpredictable, and the outcome will change. This is not always the easiest route, of course, but sometimes, it is the most rewarding.

This is why I don't believe in ANY absolutes whatsoever. I don't believe in perfection and I don't believe anyone can possibly know or understand everything that is really going on. How can you possibly understand the big picture from INSIDE it anyway?

As I came up with this theory over the years, I had a lot thinks to consider, including the fact that I may be (and probably am) wrong on this, either on the details or as a whole. But I like it in its elegance and simplicity and the fact that it reminds me that whatever happens, it was always MY choice to take the actions I have taken.

Incidentally, this is why I liked the Joker character in the recent Batman movies so much. He recognized that all of the rules we place on ourselves are just made up and arbitrary.

Originally posted by bwinwright
reply to post by fapython

 

Go to this site and actually do SOME research. Darwin actually believed a bear that spent a lot of time swimming could actually become a whale. DARWIN WAS WRONG

I don't seem to remember ever reading this part in Darwin's 'Origin of the Species'. Perhaps you could find a source for this (from a nonbiased source). Or, perhaps you could include actually reading Darwin while you continue your own research. Only reading the views and 'research' of those who agree with your position is not research.

Perhaps, if you will do even a little reading on this subject you will awaken from your deep trance-like sleep. The Tavistock Institute uses people like Dawkins to brainwash people like you. WAKE UP!!!!!! THINK for YOURSELF!!!!!!

Now that's just rich! A Creationist telling someone to think for themselves! I did wake up and start thinking for myself, hence I am no longer a Christian!

All Darwin is guilty of is observing nature and coming up with a theory that explained his observations. PERIOD! Since publishing his findings, discoveries in science have only given further merit to Darwin's observations.

Dawkins, on the other hand is actively trying to 'debunk' religion. I do not feel this makes him evil, just misguided. He truly believes he is right and doing the right thing, just as those who take the opposite position. If one is evil, then so is the other. I happen to think neither is evil, just equally misguided.

Originally posted by bwinwright
Atheism and Darwinism hold that NO INTELLIGENCE was necessary in any of it.

I'll give you that atheism does, but not Darwinism. It neither confirms nor denies an intelligent Divine being.

This entire argument, in my opinion, is absolutely ridiculous. Atheists and Darwin supporters get angry with me for using the WRIST WATCH example to establish just how ludicrous their position really is.

Placing all the separated parts of a wrist watch into a paper bag, either placing the bag on a mechanical arm that rotates, goes up and down, or side to side, or simply leaving the bag on a table top to rest motionless...Then...after some period of time...maybe a week, a month, a year..even 1,000 years later, the bag is opened and there you find a totally reassembled wrist watch, working perfectly....and this occurs without any intelligent direction?

While the atheist and Darwinist will scream, "Don't be ridiculous!", they ridicule my incredulity for rejecting their belief that the Dolphin's Sonar, a far more complex system than a wrist watch, JUST CAME TOGETHER WITHOUT ANY INTELLIGENT DIRECTION? P.L.E.A.S.E.....

Ahh, the old Watchmaker Analogy! Well, it was only a matter of time! How many times does this one have to be exposed as ludicrious? Watch parts are not living objects, and are incapable of mutating, therefore the analogy is utter tripe. The Divine did establish the laws of physics, from there the Universe was allowed to unfold. Again, much more complex beginings from a much more complex Divine being. I'm not even going to point out that the Old Testament God is a completely different being (vengeful, jealous SOB) from the New Testament God (God of peace and love)! (Oops, I guess I just did!)

Originally posted by rogerstigers
reply to post by badmedia

 

Well, I think for the sake of the conversation, I can trim this down.

I feel that the universe itself is the sentience involved here. We are merely extensions of this universe.

What is the universe doing? Dunno, maybe trying to figure out what it is.. A journey of self discovery. It does this by projecting timelines and scenarios. It creates a set of rules and guides and see what will happen. We can let life happen and follow the guides, trusting out instincts and wandering mindlesly. If we do this, essentially sacrificing our freewill to the game, as you put it, then yeah, we are automatons with predictable reactions. If, however, we choose to act outside the expected boundaries and break the rules, life will be unpredictable, we will be unpredictable, and the outcome will change. This is not always the easiest route, of course, but sometimes, it is the most rewarding.

This is why I don't believe in ANY absolutes whatsoever. I don't believe in perfection and I don't believe anyone can possibly know or understand everything that is really going on. How can you possibly understand the big picture from INSIDE it anyway?

As I came up with this theory over the years, I had a lot thinks to consider, including the fact that I may be (and probably am) wrong on this, either on the details or as a whole. But I like it in its elegance and simplicity and the fact that it reminds me that whatever happens, it was always MY choice to take the actions I have taken.

Incidentally, this is why I liked the Joker character in the recent Batman movies so much. He recognized that all of the rules we place on ourselves are just made up and arbitrary.

But those rules are made up for good reason(some of them). It's just good sense to not kill and so forth. How can you expect to live in a world without theft, if you yourself are a thief? The joker may have realized we put rules on ourselves, but he certainly didn't realize the consequences of his actions.

As for the universe, you are still treating it as a conscious being. AKA a god.



[edit on 7/5/2009 by badmedia]

reply to post by rogerstigers

I don't even understand why we have an issue here. Evolution works for what is intended, which is the understanding of how things grow and adapt. The people wanting it to be discounted apparently want to throw a few hundred years of scientific progress out the window and go back to guessing randomly based on anecdotal evidence.

Finally, I would like to point out that I am stunned by the blatent rudeness of people on this board sometimes. Mocking and name calling with laughing faces and rolling eyes does NOTHING to convince people that you are right. In fact, all it does is make people think you are an A**. If you already have made up your mind and nothing is going to change it, then go scream at the wind. Otherwise, have a rational grown up conversation.

Thank you! But this is generally how these threads go. I REALLY appreciate your mature posts and ones that are open to freer thinking!

I am no longer religious at all, and that includes atheism. Yes Dawkins is considered the "Pope" of atheism and quite frankly is an embarrassment to his club, or tribe. This is the problem when religion of all types try to make more of science, than science is capable of. Attempting to make science fit ones religious views (again this includes atheism).

I definitely believe in a designer with intelligence and have had first hand experience. To me it broadens discussion and potentials with the cosmos if he/it is part of the picture. There really are no loopholes or missing links if we add him to the equation. I have no problem with evolution. I also have no problem with the idea of creationism either! Why not experiment with both? My Petri Dish thread gives more of my views scientifically.

Dawkins cannot answer the problem of the start of everything. Who or what caused the "super symmetry" and "spontaneous symmetry breaking/singularity?" If we think of M Theory we can easily imagine a force with intelligence behind the strings and multiple universes. It is ludicrous to imagine the almost musical complexity involved with the strings and membranes. Fascinating!

If we leave religion and prejudice out of the picture then we can maybe get somewhere! Thanks again for your position.

reply to post by badmedia


LOL, well, I never said I didn't believe in a supreme entity. I just don't view it as something remotely close to what the the Judeo Christian view of it is. My view of the universe in the supreme entity form is akin to what any of us might be to the toenail pieces we have clipped off or the bacteria in our stomachs.

As for the Joker, heh, well, this goes along with the Absolute Truth thread I have been participating in. I don't believe there is such a thing as absolute morality. It is a morality of the majority, really. Might makes right (in a cynical sort of way). My *only* rule, and it's just an arbitrary one, I admit, is to treat others the way I want to be treated.


reply to post by MatrixProphet


Thank you very mucjh for the kind words. I honestly and truly feel that I don't have even the foggiest clue what is really happening out there. Therefore I always keep an open mind. I am just not one to jump to conclusions without a logic trail behind it. So I feel that keeps me pretty buffered. I was after all trained as a scientist and a philosopherr, so I see the world from both sides of that equation.

I too struggle with a scientific genesis of life. There doesn't seem to be a original spark in the dogma yet, but then Science hasn't come up with a 100% solid definition of "life" yet either, much less sentience. I often ponder if one can be alive and not sentient. Maybe viruses, for example, are actually alive, not as induvidual units, but as a very large disconnected whole that is connected by some wierd life force.

Anyway, it is all supposition and conjuecture, but without thought experiments, we would never make discoveries, eh?

Hmm well if evolution is the end all and be all, how then do you explain the information boom of the past few thousand years? According to evolution, random mutations occur over vast periods of time through chance and genetic diversity.. But why did we all of a sudden go from essentially the stone age 5000 years ago to the advanced civilization we have now? To me, at the very least, evolution fails to explain the exponential jump we have made in recent centuries, and that which we continue to achieve today.
I heard this somewhere and I can't exactly place it, not even sure if it's 100% correct but I believe the general progression is close enough:
origin of man to ~1950s we accumulated a certain amount of information (textually, culturally, in all aspects of humanity)
from 1950 to 1975, that amount of info doubled.
from 1976-1985, it doubled again
from 1986-to 1990, doubled again
1991-1992, doubled again, and so on until now the amount of information doubles every few weeks
my point is, as we can see the intellectual evolution of man has followed an exponential trend of late, and this quantum leap is ill explained through evolution, from what I can tell..
To me, the theory of evolution has many implications and as such it should be a sound theory with ABSOLUTELY ZERO holes. And it is not, Darwin himself admitted to it. It's like as soon as he came up with the idea, someone noticed it's political control potential, and noticed a growing trend of blind faith in science and decided they would put it to work. How else do you explain the fact that we still essentially go by Darwin's exact definition and principles.. why hasn't the theory evolved at the same rate as the rest of humanity?
I just think further inquiry into this extremely important subject is held back because science of late just jumps on the Darwin band waggon, and if your not also on this waggon your a creationist kook. So much for scientific advancement.

reply to post by MacATK18


The advancement of human civilization has nothing to do with evolution. It is simply human discovery stacking. One discovery leads to the next discovery. As these dicoveries became more complex, the rapidity and complexity further discoveries increased. Now it is at nearly breakneck speed. It used to be that necessity was the mother of invention, now it's greed that is the true mother of invention. Evolution just gave us the tools (opposable thumb and larger, more complex brains) to enable us to make such discoveries.

Originally posted by rogerstigers
reply to post by badmedia

 

LOL, well, I never said I didn't believe in a supreme entity. I just don't view it as something remotely close to what the the Judeo Christian view of it is. My view of the universe in the supreme entity form is akin to what any of us might be to the toenail pieces we have clipped off or the bacteria in our stomachs.

As for the Joker, heh, well, this goes along with the Absolute Truth thread I have been participating in. I don't believe there is such a thing as absolute morality. It is a morality of the majority, really. Might makes right (in a cynical sort of way). My *only* rule, and it's just an arbitrary one, I admit, is to treat others the way I want to be treated.

I'm not a Christian, and I consider Christianity to be a satanic religion based on the sacrifice of truth so that they lie may live. They basically believe god came down in the form of Jesus, and died so that God could forgive them if they just "believe" in him. Such is nonsense and isn't what the bible or Jesus says.

It is common for people to think I am a Christian because I talk about the bible and Jesus a good bit, but my understanding is completely different than the Christian religion.

Truth is understanding. 1+1=2 is not "truth", knowing how to add is truth(expressed as A+B=C), where 1+1=2 is just a single expression of a greater truth which can only be understood. A+B=C is still an expression, but as you understand math you know what I mean etc.

You are god, but the father is much greater than you are. The understanding behind Jesus is that father and son relationship. But everything Jesus says of himself is also true of you(should you seek and realize it).

These 2 threads are about the father/son relationship. They go into detail with logical understanding. I'm not someone who is "faith" based.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You aren't too far off, the only real difference is that you don't recognize spirit and flesh, so you combine them. Aside from that detail, I think you will find the father/son relationship to be very similiar to what you can an "extension" of. The son would be the "extension" in the way you see it.

I am somewhat shocked that you being a programmer having come to understand the difference between the 2, but then again I didn't see it until recently and spent many years not knowing those things. I really just kind of slipped into it due to certain realizations and visions(I know the father, but I understand if you don't believe me, and don't blame you etc).




[edit on 7/6/2009 by badmedia]

Yeah evolution is a bunch of garbage. I happen to be a geology major and I can say that evolution is crap as defined by my 137 iq. I believe in mutation rather than evolution. Mutation also obeys the Law of Entropy whereas evolution does not. In a mutational system, mutation brings on new features and abilities, but also brings on disabilities. This follows the Law of Entropy to the tee.

If you are buying evolution then I would call those people shallow minded and mere sheep to the evolutionary cause. In this universe things can only go from order to disorder, not the other way around as evolution plainly suggests.

Another thing that people do not understand is that space time is very malleable and ductile. In fact it can be compressed, dialated, folded, unfolded and even looped. So this means that 14 billion light years of material can exist after creation in six thousand years or so, to the size it is today. How you say, I tell you that dark matter plays a huge role in this because a singularity big enough to dwarf several galaxies, has the power to transport entire regions of galaxies millions, even billions of lightyears almost instantly.

If you cannot see this very probable possibility then you are simply blinded by the religion of evolution. Any one who knows something about quantum mechanics should be able to understand this concept.

Good thread by the way I am in agreement with the writer of this thread.

reply to post by Angel One


So, your study of rocks makes you an expert on biology? Mutation is a big part of evolutionary theory. As for your 137 IQ, that's nice! Am I supposed to be impressed? Meanwhile over here at 156, evolution makes absolute perfect sense.

[edit on 6-7-2009 by JaxonRoberts]

There are no transitional fossils. The whole theory is just a cut and paste method to relieve people's minds so they don't have to think about God or judgment day. They say that the religious need God in order to real complete, yet they need Darwin and the evolution theory to feel independently free from the condemnation of sin.

As for the planet, the Bible does not give it's age, just that God created the heavens and the Earth before he started to prepare it for man to live on.

As for God. I would ask the people that take confidence in evolution this. How do you get a universe from nothing at all? If not, from what did it come from? And if you say it was always here, you establish eternity and need to ask, where does eternity come from? As for me, it came from God who created what is.

reply to post by Angel One


A 137 IQ cool... mine is almost the same at 138, at least when I took the last test on it. People don't realize that intelligence is all about three things. Wisdom, Knowledge, and Understanding. It's not enough to know something but to understand it as well, and to add wisdom for a conclusion. This is where evolution falls short. When people immediately dismiss the notion of God as Creator, they are not wise and therefore lack understanding (even in the scientific method), and that makes any knowledge incomplete.

reply to post by JaxonRoberts

As for your 137 IQ, that's nice! Am I supposed to be impressed? Meanwhile over here at 156, evolution makes absolute perfect sense.

Ah...ah...ah....HA HA HA HA HA!!!

SLAM, and a dunk!!!

Well played, sir! Well played! Point to Mr. Roberts!



[edit on 6 July 2009 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by Fromabove
As for God. I would ask the people that take confidence in evolution this. How do you get a universe from nothing at all? If not, from what did it come from? And if you say it was always here, you establish eternity and need to ask, where does eternity come from? As for me, it came from God who created what is.

Here it is again! Acceptance of evolution as the most probable explanation of how life on Earth became diverse does not make one an atheist. Why do Creationists insist that the only choices are black and white. As I've said before, starting with just a spark (the Big Bang) knowing that it would lead to complex life (evolution) is a much more complex begining from a much more complex God. The Creation story, on the other hand, is a much more childlike begining from a much more childlike God. I'm going for complex beyond our understanding and comprehension. To equate God to a Divine Magician is insulting at best.

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts

Originally posted by Fromabove
As for God. I would ask the people that take confidence in evolution this. How do you get a universe from nothing at all? If not, from what did it come from? And if you say it was always here, you establish eternity and need to ask, where does eternity come from? As for me, it came from God who created what is.

Here it is again! Acceptance of evolution as the most probable explanation of how life on Earth became diverse does not make one an atheist. Why do Creationists insist that the only choices are black and white. As I've said before, starting with just a spark (the Big Bang) knowing that it would lead to complex life (evolution) is a much more complex begining from a much more complex God. The Creation story, on the other hand, is a much more childlike begining from a much more childlike God. I'm going for complex beyond our understanding and comprehension. To equate God to a Divine Magician is insulting at best.

If I take the whole truth, and add a lie to it, does it not all become a falsehood of lies? Or if I take milk and put a drop of chocolate into the glass, does it not change all of it so that it can no longer be called milk? So it is with evolution. If I say I don't dismiss God, yet I give Him no place in anything I believe about life and existence, does it not mean that I am only saying there may be a God yet I don't really believe it at all?

reply to post by Fromabove


And if my aunt had wheels, she'd be a wagon. In other words, that goobledy gook, while poetic, says nothing about the topic at hand!

reply to post by Angel One

...a geology major .... Mutation also obeys the Law of Entropy whereas evolution does not.

SO....a Geology major (graduated yet???) makes you an expert on entropy as well? WOW...you must know ALL of the sciences!!!

physics.about.com...

Definition:

Entropy is the quantitative measure of disorder in a system. The concept comes out of thermodynamics, which deals with the transfer of heat energy within a system. Instead of talking about some form of "absolute entropy," physicists generally talk about the change in entropy that takes place in a specific thermodynamic process.

Calculating Entropy

In an isothermal process, the change in entropy (delta-S) is the change in heat (Q) divided by the absolute temperature (T):

delta-S = Q/T
In any reversible thermodynamic process, it can be represented in calculus as the integral from a processes initial state to final state of dQ/T.
The SI units of entropy are J/K (joules/degrees Kelvin).

Entropy & The Second Law of Thermodynamics

One way of stating the second law of thermodynamics is:
In any closed system, the entropy of the system will either remain constant or increase.
One way to view this is that adding heat to a system causes the molecules and atoms to speed up. It may be possible (though tricky) to reverse the process in a closed system (i.e. without drawing any energy from or releasing energy somewhere else) to reach the initial state, but you can never get the entire system "less energetic" than it started ... the energy just doesn't have anyplace to go.

NOW, for the juicy bits:

Misconceptions about Entropy

This view of the second law of thermodynamics is very popular, and it has been misused. Some argue that the second law of thermodynamics means that a system can never become more orderly. Not true. It just means that in order to become more orderly (for entropy to decrease), you must transfer energy from somewhere outside the system, such as when a pregnant woman draws energy from food to cause the fertilized egg to become a complete baby, completely in line with the second line's provisions.

SO....in YOUR view of entropy, Human reproduction is impossible.

Uh huh. You may stay in your fantasy, I prefer reality.

[edit on 6 July 2009 by weedwhacker]