Creationism: If it's supernatural it's not science

[aquatus1]

Hmmm...what do you call a person who believes that creationism, created evolution ? 

373910[/snapback]

There's a little problem there. While I can think of 11 different types of creationism off the top of my head, every one of them states that all the major "types" of animals were originally created by God, not through the gradual growth and development of the genome. The closest I can think would be either Evolutionary Creationism or Theistic Evolution. The latter is the official position of the Protestant church, and it basically states that God created, evolution happened (and yes, man could be descended from more primitive animals), but as far as the human soul goes, that was God's creation all the way.

[Me_Again]

aquatus1 Posted Today, 02:27 AM

  QUOTE(Me_Again @ Nov 27 2004, 01:27 AM)

Hmmm...what do you call a person who believes that creationism, created evolution ? 

, but as far as the human soul goes, that was God's creation all the way.

Hmmmmm...lol

*head explodes and creates a universe

thanks for the info aquatus1

[Elvite]

For something that isn't an argument over creationism or even an issue of the validity of evolution, it sure does sound like that is all you are talking about.  Do you not believe that the Pythagorean Theorum has sufficient conclusive proof?

.......

If this isn't about creationism or validity of evolution, then what exactly are you referring to in the above text?

373691[/snapback]

You might not want to hold evolution up next to the Pythagorean Theorem. The Pythagorean Theorem has the advantage of not requiring physical evidence. Not a fair fight and to hold evolution up to it isn't going to make it look anymore credible. They're very different animals (so to speak).

My whole thrust in this has been that this group of educators have every right to express that because something is a theory does not make it a fact. You have stated that science does not consider theories to be fact. I agree with you. The disclaimer agrees with you. Conversely, you imply that this disclaimer is saying that science considers evolution to be 100% true. It doesn't say that that and there is not enough evidence in the disclaimer to support your assertion. Unless you can somehow prove this conspiracy theory that a force of evil creationists are the ones behind this, you're only sounding paranoid or prejudice.

You jumped to this conclusion solely because it had to do with evolution and nothing more. I can understand that, if one dedicates a huge part of their life towards studying something, he/she may become a bit defensive. I didn't think that creationism was gaining any sort of credibility, but your quickness to point the finger to a creationist conspiracy gives me pause.

I've not committed myself either way and have plainly said I do not know which is more factual than the other. But apparently, you believe that if I'm not for you I must therefore be against you, which is exactly what you have done to the school district of Cobb County.

I would love to know the truth about how life originated on this planet, but I'm not going to accept evolution solely because as a layman I must only believe what qualified practitioners of scientific methodology tell me to believe. I want to trust you haven't actually implied that, but this panic attack doesn't help. I say relax, don't worry so much about the stinking creationists. If evolution has soooo much evidence behind it and creationism has none if not virtually none, then these creationist conspirators have just digged there own grave. Right?

After all, they just told all students (both religious and non-religious) to be open minded, study carefully, and carefully consider evolution. They just told christians (who are not most known for being open minded) to hear you out. If I was so adamant about making sure my children believe in creationism, the last thing I'd want is for some school telling my kid to open their mind and consider evolution. Think about it. Which side has the most science teachers to represent their theory in public schools? Thanks to the Separation of Church and State, evolution has an almost total monopoly. You guys are in charge. As long as you are responsible and present the evidence, what could go wrong?

They're handing you a dagger placed at their own throats and all you have to do is finish them off.

Edited November 27, 2004 by Elvite

[Loge]

This whimsical theory of Darwin related to the origin of the Species with all its amendments and its random sequence of alterations is just the outcome of skepticism.

Indeed, the appearance of new species (as a result of Evolution) is merely a pseudo-scientific belief on an ill-bred hypothesis that has never been verified.

Nobody has ever witnessed the appearance of a new species by means a non specific prototype produced by an act or an instance randomly selected without the presence of an intelligence design within an unknown yet significant evolving phenomenon in nature.

Because of the much too limited field of intellectual vision of these times, when “CREATING” the theory of evolution, Darwin and his followers’ thought forgot that any specific type of energy within any evolving organic or inorganic system moves from such a system into another by means of a devolving natural process call entropy.

The great postulation of Einstein is ignored. Einstein said: “Mass transforms itself into energy.” All the wise men of the world bent themselves in reverence before this tremendous truth. The great Mathematician also said: "Energy transforms itself into mass.” Nobody could reject this postulation either.

There is no doubt that the most famous scientific equation of all time, first derived by Einstein is the relationship E = mc2. "Energy equals mass multiplied by the square of the velocity of light.”

These wise postulations demonstrate that the mass of all of the universes is eternal and immutable. Matter disappears here in order to reappear there as in a type of flux and reflux, activity and repose, day and night.

Entropy exists as a counter transference of the energy in evolution which is a complexity or order development of the energy in matter, whereas devolution or entropy is the simple releasing of energy through a disorderly unassembled decay of matter. If we observe order in any evolving system of the universe, we must also realize that such an order after reaching its utmost momentum starts to devolve to its natural original chaos.

Due to the lack of understanding of these two mechanical yet intelligent processes of nature and the cosmos, pompous theories are elaborated upon an ill-bred conception of evolution; all of them are very beautiful but all have an undeniable insufficient number of “Facts”. Obviously, within these theories, none of the processes are certainly and entirely known as we already prove it; these theories only observe part of the evolving process and set aside the obvious devolving process of any system. Erudites do not see that the evolving processes together with the devolving processes revolve in the natural spiral of life and death.

So far, in this day and age, the human mind is already so degenerated that it has become incapable of even comprehending the inverse degenerative process on a greater scale.

Present Erudites’ minds are so trapped, (bottled up within Darwin’s Dogma of Evolution) that their minds only know how to think or function according to their own bottled up condition; and what is even more academically frightening is that they attribute unto the other phenomena (that is entropy, devolution, destruction, decadence and degeneration) the qualification of Evolution, Development and Progress.

Darwin’s Dogma of Evolution is turning into a very dangerous cult, where the mind worships a demigod disguised with the name of evolution!

[STIX]

Religion always forces itself on children, if your parents are jewish then so are you, THERE IS NO DEBATE, you are jewish and you will live with it.

Schools teach facts, sciences, literature, history. Nowhere has it been said that a public school must cater to the needs of religious people. If it hasnt been proved then it wont be taught, and you will live with it.

thats just how it is.

[Loge]

Meaning of Natural Selection according with Darwinism-evolutionist’s reasoning:

“The act or an instance of selecting or the fact of having been selected by a not intelligent cause present in such selection that eventually produce in nature a non specific prototype, principle, or archetype for an unknown yet significant evolving phenomenon.”

If you are not a religious person, then you need to develop a lot of blind faith in order to believe in such nonsense!

[Me_Again]

Just had a great conversation with my grandfather last night, he mentioned to me about an article he read...some tiny 'humans' were found, the skull structure was smaller and these 'humans' are believed to be around 3' feet or shorter. So in my opinion as far as evolution goes, science must be able to change along with the discoveries that are being made. Why is it so easy to know, that change is something we know for sure to happen, but changing a one track mind can seem impossible. On either side evolutionists' vs. creationists', no one theory is totally right.

In my humble opinion

[aquatus1]

Well, first off, the reason you aren't hearing much more about these skulls since their debut is because there is some question regarding claims made about them.

A more significant question, however, is why creationists believe that this find, should it turn out to be true, would affect evolution in any way, shape, or form? It wouldn't be the first time that smaller than average races have been found. Heck, it would even be the first time seperates species of humans have been found. What about evolutionary theory would need to be changed to accomodate this? It already does.

[bathory]

uh don't mention entropy and evolution in the same sentence please, Loge, it makes you look dumb.

[Loge]

uh don't mention entropy and evolution in the same sentence please, Loge, it makes you look dumb.

378689[/snapback]

Nature is a system of the movement of energies. It is a machine -- the cog and gears in this machine are the plants and animals, and the intellectual animal mistakenly referred to as man. They all mechanically transform specific energies required for the Earth to live. Nature is a stomach for the Earth.

If you stay with evolution, you will never go beyond its mechanical influence and eventually you will end with entropy, the entropy will eventually eat you, in spite of your beliefs. Thus, the statement goes, "You will be a parasite whether in evolution or in entropy."

It is good to understand what Entropy and Sacrifice are. Those who do not sacrifice their life will die. This is because all energy is naturally (Nature) diffusing through mechanics of entropy. It is basic thermodynamics. It is only possible to sustain life through applying pressure to the energy into a superior octave. Death is nothing more than a change of the octave of energy.

I am neither interested in being eaten by your entropy nor by your evolution. Evolution is life and entropy is death, round and round, up and down, good and evil.

Obviously, if you do not understand my point it is because your mind is not going anywhere but in circles.

All technology and invention already exist within the mind of nature; it is only when nature throws a new "toy" out to the investor's mind that we marvel and say "wow" with glassy eyes and sleepy minds believing that we have "progressed." In fact, it is not progress. It is just condensation and diffusion of energy.

Wisdom is the intelligent use of the mind. A human being is the one who intelligently uses wisdom. They are both one Being. A true man is beyond evolution and entropy.

[bathory]

to be honest, i didn't understand a single word you just said...something inside me wants to scream out "pseudo-intellectual babble". I mean what the crap sacrifice? death? are these all metaphors that i'm not grasping?

Regardless i think you'll find that thermodynamics (and i guess what we are skirting around is the ever coveted claim regarding the 2nd law), such things only apply in a closed system, and even then i have the thought that its only applicable in the transfer of heat (but don't quote me on that), regardless entropy is not applicable to evolution

ie it seems to me you are trying to apply a theory to something it wasn't intended for, thus coming to wrong conclusions. One doesn't use pythagoras theory to try and prove the area of a circle:P

Edited December 1, 2004 by bathory

[aquatus1]

Fallacy of Composition: A logical fallacy in which the user assumes that the properties of the individual elements can be transferred as properties of the system as a whole.

Ex:

A.) Sodium is poisonous

B.) Chlorine is poisonous

C.) Sodium Chloride (NaCl: table salt) must be poisonous as well.

You can't use a law of the Quantum realm to dictate actions in the Macro world.

[Loge]

This whimsical theory of Darwin related to the origin of the Species with all its amendments and its random sequence of alterations is just the outcome of skepticism.

Indeed, the appearance of new species (as a result of Evolution) is merely a pseudo-scientific belief on an ill-bred hypothesis that has never been verified.

Nobody has ever witnessed the appearance of a new species by means a non specific prototype produced by an act or an instance randomly selected without the presence of an intelligence design within an unknown yet significant evolving phenomenon in nature.

Because of the much too limited field of intellectual vision of these times, when “CREATING” the theory of evolution, Darwin and his followers’ thought forgot that any specific type of energy within any evolving organic or inorganic system moves from such a system into another by means of a devolving natural process call entropy.

The great postulation of Einstein is ignored. Einstein said: “Mass transforms itself into energy.” All the wise men of the world bent themselves in reverence before this tremendous truth. The great Mathematician also said: "Energy transforms itself into mass.” Nobody could reject this postulation either.

There is no doubt that the most famous scientific equation of all time, first derived by Einstein is the relationship E = mc2. "Energy equals mass multiplied by the square of the velocity of light.”

These wise postulations demonstrate that the mass of all of the universes is eternal and immutable. Matter disappears here in order to reappear there as in a type of flux and reflux, activity and repose, day and night.

Entropy exists as a counter transference of the energy in evolution which is a complexity or order development of the energy in matter, whereas devolution or entropy is the simple releasing of energy through a disorderly unassembled decay of matter. If we observe order in any evolving system of the universe, we must also realize that such an order after reaching its utmost momentum starts to devolve to its natural original chaos.

Due to the lack of understanding of these two mechanical yet intelligent processes of nature and the cosmos, pompous theories are elaborated upon an ill-bred conception of evolution; all of them are very beautiful but all have an undeniable insufficient number of “Facts”. Obviously, within these theories, none of the processes are certainly and entirely known as we already prove it; these theories only observe part of the evolving process and set aside the obvious devolving process of any system. Erudites do not see that the evolving processes together with the devolving processes revolve in the natural spiral of life and death.

So far, in this day and age, the human mind is already so degenerated that it has become incapable of even comprehending the inverse degenerative process on a greater scale.

Present Erudites’ minds are so trapped, (bottled up within Darwin’s Dogma of Evolution) that their minds only know how to think or function according to their own bottled up condition; and what is even more academically frightening is that they attribute unto the other phenomena (that is entropy, devolution, destruction, decadence and degeneration) the qualification of Evolution, Development and Progress.

Darwin’s Dogma of Evolution is turning into a very dangerous cult, where the mind worships a demigod disguised with the name of evolution!

Edited December 3, 2004 by Loge

[aquatus1]

So, other than calling us ignorant and devolved...

You have no answer to the logical fallacy you presented, and instead tell us that the only way to be as enlightened as you is to think how you think?

Science is showing us paths and methods that have not been seen in the world throughout history. You are hashing over territory that has been covered in almost every philosophy and religion to date. How is what you offer progress?

Science makes no claims that cannot be supported by imperical evidence and logical deduction, and that have not been reviewed by experts in the specific field, and disseminated to the scientific community in general for scrutiny. Your only argument is "You don't understand your own science, and I do, and I say you are wrong, so you need to believe me."

Science demands of absolutely every single theory worthy of the name scientific to have a manner in which it is unprovable. Wether it be gravity, evolution, or the Pythagorean Theorum, there must be a way for the theory to be proven false, or else it is not a credible scientific theory. You claim that, if we think you are incorrect, then "Obviously, if you do not understand my point it is because your mind is not going anywhere but in circles."

Loge, what possible reason could we have to consider you credible enough to pass judgement on anything scientific?

[Loge]

This whimsical theory of Darwin related to the origin of the Species with all its amendments and its random sequence of alterations is just the outcome of skepticism.

Indeed, the appearance of new species (as a result of Evolution) is merely a pseudo-scientific belief on an ill-bred hypothesis that has never been verified.

Nobody has ever witnessed the appearance of a new species by means a non specific prototype produced by an act or an instance randomly selected without the presence of an intelligence design within an unknown yet significant evolving phenomenon in nature.

Because of the much too limited field of intellectual vision of these times, when “CREATING” the theory of evolution, Darwin and his followers’ thought forgot that any specific type of energy within any evolving organic or inorganic system moves from such a system into another by means of a devolving natural process call entropy.

The great postulation of Einstein is ignored. Einstein said: “Mass transforms itself into energy.” All the wise men of the world bent themselves in reverence before this tremendous truth. The great Mathematician also said: "Energy transforms itself into mass.” Nobody could reject this postulation either.

There is no doubt that the most famous scientific equation of all time, first derived by Einstein is the relationship E = mc2. "Energy equals mass multiplied by the square of the velocity of light.”

These wise postulations demonstrate that the mass of all of the universes is eternal and immutable. Matter disappears here in order to reappear there as in a type of flux and reflux, activity and repose, day and night.

Entropy exists as a counter transference of the energy in evolution which is a complexity or order development of the energy in matter, whereas devolution or entropy is the simple releasing of energy through a disorderly unassembled decay of matter. If we observe order in any evolving system of the universe, we must also realize that such an order after reaching its utmost momentum starts to devolve to its natural original chaos.

Due to the lack of understanding of these two mechanical yet intelligent processes of nature and the cosmos, pompous theories are elaborated upon an ill-bred conception of evolution; all of them are very beautiful but all have an undeniable insufficient number of “Facts”. Obviously, within these theories, none of the processes are certainly and entirely known as we already prove it; these theories only observe part of the evolving process and set aside the obvious devolving process of any system. Erudites do not see that the evolving processes together with the devolving processes revolve in the natural spiral of life and death.

So far, in this day and age, the human mind is already so degenerated that it has become incapable of even comprehending the inverse degenerative process on a greater scale.

Present Erudites’ minds are so trapped, (bottled up within Darwin’s Dogma of Evolution) that their minds only know how to think or function according to their own bottled up condition; and what is even more academically frightening is that they attribute unto the other phenomena (that is entropy, devolution, destruction, decadence and degeneration) the qualification of Evolution, Development and Progress.

Darwin’s Dogma of Evolution is turning into a very dangerous cult, where the mind worships a demigod disguised with the name of evolution!

Edited December 3, 2004 by Loge

[Shadowsleet]

Loge...I must admit, I'm not entirerly sure what you're trying to prove. What you have to say seems to be 100% rhetoric garbage, and 0% substance and fact

Edited December 1, 2004 by Shadowsleet

[aquatus1]

Loge, you have three people here, who are very politely and patiently asking you to explain yourself. Three times you have been asked, and three times you have responded with the same general attittude "Obviously, if you do not understand my point it is because your mind is not going anywhere but in circles. ", "Your ignorant thoughts emerge from devolution,", "My thoughts were not for you! Please, if you do not understand my posts, ignore them; other minds will get them!"

If, after saying these things, you wish to call me pretentious, then do so, but you are still not answering the question that I posed to you. Wether you like it or not, you are posting in a public forum, and any claims that you make are subject to analysis and discussion. As for credibility, I have, in this forum, established a reputation that I would like to to think, shows that I do not make claims without backing them up, and that I have enough of an understanding of science to not be refered to as a "pseudo-scientific fanatic". If you find my arguments faulty, then please point out the faults, much as I did to you in my previous post, and in this one. Show me how I am wrong, as opposed to continously preaching that I am and that I should take your word for it.

I re-pose my question: "Loge, what possible reason could we have to consider you credible enough to pass judgement on anything scientific?"

[Me_Again]

I don't think he needs to prove anything, the same for anyone else. Proof, in my humble opinion - is overrated [quoteo·ver·rate ( P ) Pronunciation Key (vr-rt)

tr.v. o·ver·rat·ed, o·ver·rat·ing, o·ver·rates

To overestimate the merits of; rate too highly.

You can prove how grass grows, but can you 'feel' how grass grows (without smoking it...lol)? You can prove how a light bulb works, but can you 'feel' it? You can't prove supernatural science or can you? Its really an individual choice

Replying to Creationism: If it's supernatural it's not science

A seed doesn't need proof, first it knows and then it changes, then it becomes. Weren't we all at one time just a tiny seed? Evoultion is change. Creation is change. Evolve into the change, you wish to be

[aquatus1]

Anyone is entitled to their opinion, Me Again. No one, however, is entitled to make unquestioned claims. If you say you believe, then by all means, believe away, more power to you. If, however, you start saying that other people are wrong, are ignorant, and do not understand the system they support, then you have gone beyond making an opinion to making a claim, and a rather aggressive one at that.

When a person presumes to judge another, the first question that they will need to answer is, "Why should we be judged by you?". The second question will be, "Are your accusations credible?". A person who accuses others of failings does indeed need to show proof; if not, then what is his accusation if not simply slander?

By claiming scientists in general and evolutionist in particular to be any of the above quotes I have posted, Loge has, by insinuation, insulted those of us who follow a path different than his. By accusing others of the same fallacies he has commited, he has made himself a hypocrite. By refusing to provide support for his statements, he has lost credibility. Does he have to justify his opinions regarding science and evolution to us? No, he most certainly does not. Does he have to justify calling evolutionists wrong? Yes, he does. To refuse to do so is to demand a privilige nobody else shares; unquestioned intellectual authority.

[Me_Again]

*makes an unquestioned claim to unquestioned itellectual authority

The article in reference to this thread, states this...

National media attention focused on suburban Cobb County, Ga., last week as a federal court heard constitutional challenges to a school district policy requiring that a biology textbook carry this disclaimer: "Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things

Evolution nor creation prove facts and thats the supernatural part of it

Science is a wonderful tool, as with our many other wonderful tools, make this a wonderful world (awww, I know I just get tooooo sappy )

Note: this is only my opionion (aquatus1 - taught me that )

*waves sparkly, purple magic wand

[aquatus1]

Evolution nor creation prove facts and thats the supernatural part of it

Ahh, yes, well, that would be one of those "claims" we were talking about before. An opinion, such as science is wonderful, science is dreadful, creationism is evil, creationism is the true path to god, heck, take your pick and no one can gainsay you. But if you start saying that something is not doing what it says it is doing (wether "wrong", or "incorrect", or "misguided") then you are no longer stating your opinion, but rather you are making a claim and passing judgement. You can choose to defend or not defend your claim, but by not defending it, you lose credibility. Anyone can slander anything else without the slightest need for research or cause, but only well-supported arguments have any credibility to them, and should be considered valid. This is the difference between respectful critique and childish flaming.

[Loge]

This whimsical theory of Darwin related to the origin of the Species with all its amendments and its random sequence of alterations is just the outcome of skepticism.

Indeed, the appearance of new species (as a result of Evolution) is merely a pseudo-scientific belief on an ill-bred hypothesis that has never been verified.

Nobody has ever witnessed the appearance of a new species by means a non specific prototype produced by an act or an instance randomly selected without the presence of an intelligence design within an unknown yet significant evolving phenomenon in nature.

Because of the much too limited field of intellectual vision of these times, when “CREATING” the theory of evolution, Darwin and his followers’ thought forgot that any specific type of energy within any evolving organic or inorganic system moves from such a system into another by means of a devolving natural process call entropy.

The great postulation of Einstein is ignored. Einstein said: “Mass transforms itself into energy.” All the wise men of the world bent themselves in reverence before this tremendous truth. The great Mathematician also said: "Energy transforms itself into mass.” Nobody could reject this postulation either.

There is no doubt that the most famous scientific equation of all time, first derived by Einstein is the relationship E = mc2. "Energy equals mass multiplied by the square of the velocity of light.”

These wise postulations demonstrate that the mass of all of the universes is eternal and immutable. Matter disappears here in order to reappear there as in a type of flux and reflux, activity and repose, day and night.

Entropy exists as a counter transference of the energy in evolution which is a complexity or order development of the energy in matter, whereas devolution or entropy is the simple releasing of energy through a disorderly unassembled decay of matter. If we observe order in any evolving system of the universe, we must also realize that such an order after reaching its utmost momentum starts to devolve to its natural original chaos.

Due to the lack of understanding of these two mechanical yet intelligent processes of nature and the cosmos, pompous theories are elaborated upon an ill-bred conception of evolution; all of them are very beautiful but all have an undeniable insufficient number of “Facts”. Obviously, within these theories, none of the processes are certainly and entirely known as we already prove it; these theories only observe part of the evolving process and set aside the obvious devolving process of any system. Erudites do not see that the evolving processes together with the devolving processes revolve in the natural spiral of life and death.

So far, in this day and age, the human mind is already so degenerated that it has become incapable of even comprehending the inverse degenerative process on a greater scale.

Present Erudites’ minds are so trapped, (bottled up within Darwin’s Dogma of Evolution) that their minds only know how to think or function according to their own bottled up condition; and what is even more academically frightening is that they attribute unto the other phenomena (that is entropy, devolution, destruction, decadence and degeneration) the qualification of Evolution, Development and Progress.

Darwin’s Dogma of Evolution is turning into a very dangerous cult, where the mind worships a demigod disguised with the name of evolution!

Edited December 3, 2004 by Loge

[aquatus1]

"When we discover that which offends us the most at any given moment, when someone bothers us by dint of one thing or another, we then discover the foundations we psychologically depend on.

Nevertheless, such an observation must not be something merely theoretical. We must be practical and observe ourselves closely in a direct way from instant to instant."

When our mind cannot understand then we enviously create disturbances with criticism so that others cannot understand such messages.

We say something out of envy and fail to realize that our incomprehension makes us hypocrites.

Oh, no need to be so hard on yourself, Loge. We all do that sometimes. The important thing is that you realize that you have been acting this way and try to repair it.

And the real question is:

The real question is the one that was asked three times already, but since you already acknowledged error above, I won't push the issue.

The real question of this thread, to return to a topic long deviated from, is wether or not the schoolboard should submit to putting disclaimers on the science books. I personally vote No, because I see the disclaimers as an outright attempt by the creationist faction to undermine the credibility that science has through the underhanded and sly use of etiquette. I do not consider it an honest mistake or misunderstanding, or an innocent call for clarification; I consider it a deliberate attack on a system of verification that has, in the few hundred years that it has existed, garnered greater credibility and authority, as well as provided far more answers and progress, than all of subjective thought has accomplished in the millenia in which it was the undisputed ruler.

[Loge]

The real question is the one that was asked three times already, but since you already acknowledged error above, I won't push the issue.

The real question of this thread, to return to a topic long deviated from, is wether or not the schoolboard should submit to putting disclaimers on the science books.

I personally vote No, because I see the disclaimers as an outright attempt by the creationist faction to undermine the credibility that science has through the underhanded and sly use of etiquette. I do not consider it an honest mistake or misunderstanding, or an innocent call for clarification; I consider it a deliberate attack on a system of verification that has, in the few hundred years that it has existed, garnered greater credibility and authority, as well as provided far more answers and progress, than all of subjective thought has accomplished in the millenia in which it was the undisputed ruler.

I personally vote Yes

Because:

This whimsical theory of Darwin related to the origin of the Species with all its amendments and its random sequence of alterations is just the outcome of skepticism.

Indeed, the appearance of new species (as a result of Evolution) is merely a pseudo-scientific belief on an ill-bred hypothesis that has never been verified.

Nobody has ever witnessed the appearance of a new species by means a non specific prototype produced by an act or an instance randomly selected without the presence of an intelligence design within an unknown yet significant evolving phenomenon in nature.

Because of the much too limited field of intellectual vision of these times, when “CREATING” the theory of evolution, Darwin and his followers’ thought forgot that any specific type of energy within any evolving organic or inorganic system moves from such a system into another by means of a devolving natural process call entropy.

The great postulation of Einstein is ignored. Einstein said: “Mass transforms itself into energy.” All the wise men of the world bent themselves in reverence before this tremendous truth. The great Mathematician also said: "Energy transforms itself into mass.” Nobody could reject this postulation either.

There is no doubt that the most famous scientific equation of all time, first derived by Einstein is the relationship E = mc2. "Energy equals mass multiplied by the square of the velocity of light.”

These wise postulations demonstrate that the mass of all of the universes is eternal and immutable. Matter disappears here in order to reappear there as in a type of flux and reflux, activity and repose, day and night.

Entropy exists as a counter transference of the energy in evolution which is a complexity or order development of the energy in matter, whereas devolution or entropy is the simple releasing of energy through a disorderly unassembled decay of matter. If we observe order in any evolving system of the universe, we must also realize that such an order after reaching its utmost momentum starts to devolve to its natural original chaos.

Due to the lack of understanding of these two mechanical yet intelligent processes of nature and the cosmos, pompous theories are elaborated upon an ill-bred conception of evolution; all of them are very beautiful but all have an undeniable insufficient number of “Facts”. Obviously, within these theories, none of the processes are certainly and entirely known as we already prove it; these theories only observe part of the evolving process and set aside the obvious devolving process of any system. Erudites do not see that the evolving processes together with the devolving processes revolve in the natural spiral of life and death.

So far, in this day and age, the human mind is already so degenerated that it has become incapable of even comprehending the inverse degenerative process on a greater scale.

Present Erudites’ minds are so trapped, (bottled up within Darwin’s Dogma of Evolution) that their minds only know how to think or function according to their own bottled up condition; and what is even more academically frightening is that they attribute unto the other phenomena (that is entropy, devolution, destruction, decadence and degeneration) the qualification of Evolution, Development and Progress.

Darwin’s Dogma of Evolution is turning into a very dangerous cult, where the mind worships a demigod disguised with the name of evolution!

[aquatus1]

For heaven's sake, Loge, don't tack on four words just to cut-and-paste a huge post you made just a single page ago. Especially when you have been asked to explain some of the claims (chief among them how you can reconcile using a rule of the Quantum realm to govern behaviour in the macro world) and have consistenly avoided answering.