Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
UM-Bot

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

121 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Stellar
rofl yes i understand it im not that dumb ya know tongue.gif i know what yall are talking about ok

372793[/snapback]

Then why dont you contribute to the convo instead of comments with such poor grammar as "fac it we cam fron god"

Edit:

Hell, you dont even realise wtf your talking about in this thread. You started misdirecting this thread into another EvsC debate... aquatus told you thats not what we're talking about, and you come back with that little sneering remark. Not too smart for a 28 year old, or is it 29 now?

Edited by Stellar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
blazer2004

i hate to say there has never been a proven fact about Evolution and there will never be 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stellar
i hate to say there has never been a proven fact about Evolution and there will never be 1

372808[/snapback]

*pulls a blazer*

yes well, you cant prove that theres been no proven fact about evolution, so that means there has been.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
blazer2004

hahaha yeah right ok stellar keep dreaming ok maybe some day you will wake up and see the real truth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stellar
hahaha yeah right ok stellar keep dreaming ok maybe some day you will wake up and see the real truth

372813[/snapback]

you mean, see that your belief is just another unsupported belief, just like islam and every other religion? I already see that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shadowsleet

*elbows Stellar* Hey, dude, don't you find actually lowering yourself to the point of responding to him a little embarassing? Don't let him screw up the conversation....hold your breath for people with IQs that are actually a posative number.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stellar
*elbows Stellar* Hey, dude, don't you find actually lowering yourself to the point of responding to him a little embarassing? Don't let him screw up the conversation....hold your breath for people with IQs that are actually a posative number.

372817[/snapback]

I was just about to write the same thing. I dont know why I'm even bothering responding to this child.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
blazer2004

i dont care what you 2 think of me let me ask you 2 a question when was the last time we as humans have changed we have never changed wE stay the same we havent grown talller or smarter this is part of the so called Evolution am i right??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stellar
i dont care what you 2 think of me let me ask you 2 a question when was the last time we as humans have changed we have never changed wE stay the same we havent grown talller or smarter this is part of the so called Evolution am i right??

372822[/snapback]

Last time I'm answering you. Hopefully this'll teach you something.

Short term changes include whiter skin for the caucasians, less hair, weakness, we've become taller... Bigger changes (although they look small when ur living them) include when we actually EVOLVED to the point we're at now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
blazer2004

your wrong about every thing stellar like always

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shadowsleet

There should be a law against five year olds registering on discussion boards...

Can we get back to the subject of the disclaimer, anyway?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
blazer2004

5 year old eh whatever maybe you will wake up 1 day to and see the truth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
blazer2004

and as far as i know my skin is peach not white

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DarkSinister
and as far as i know my skin is peach not white

372837[/snapback]

uhh Stellar was refering to the fact that skin has gotten lighter due to evolution. It takes a long period of time for such evolution to change. Consider early hominids who has now evoled into who we are now. It took millions of years. So please, if you don't have any intelligent to say, do us the favor and don't say anything at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Elvite

By the way, this is a really cool debate.

In short, the word theory, to a scientist, means nothing less than an explanation that has yet to be proven incorrect, and that has reliably and consistently provided answers to the questions it was created to explain.

372586[/snapback]

Other disciplines go by the principle of the Burden of Proof, where it is the sole responsibility of the proponent of an idea to prove something to be correct. It is not the responsibility of those who disagree to prove them wrong. It's disheartening to hear that the scientific method does not follow that principle.

You say that theories have "yet to be proven incorrect", but that doesn't mean they are incapable of being disproved or of containing serious flaws. I am sure you can think of many theories that were either entirely disproved or found to contain serious errors. In fact, I can't think of any theory that has "evolved" more throughout the years and continues to do so, then the theory of evolution.

Unfortunately, no one can prove the theory of evolution is infallible or that it contains no flaws whatsoever. That's why there are thousands of scientist across the world researching the subject with as much fervor as they do. This doesn't mean it isn't ultimately true, it very well may be. We just don't know. It does mean that evolution cannot ethically be considered to be fact or taught to students as a fact.

To a layman, a theory is a hunch dreamed up around the watercooler, as worthy of explaining the cosmos as it is the bewildering antics of the opposite sex.

372586[/snapback]

That statement indicates that you seem to have a very low opinion of the education of us non-scientist laymen. I'm a layman with a science background that doesn't go much beyond high school and the required electives I took in college. I have always thought that a theory is an explanation that has yet to be or may never be definitively proven correct or incorrect, but does draw upon a series of supporting and compelling evidence that when viewed as a whole support the explanation. While you may not agree exactly with how I defined it, it certainly has a lot more in common with your definition than a "watercooler hunch". My wife has less interest in science than I do and even she knew it was much much more than a hunch. It's kind of demeaning.

Creationism is about nothing less than the Judeo-Christian God.  Other creation stories need not apply.  This disclaimer is an attempt by the creationists to leach off the authority and credibility of science without doing any of the work or meeting any of the requirements.  Yes, this is a creationist tactic to discredit science

372586[/snapback]

You tell me you are a scientist, but I cannot see how you could come to that conclusion with no written evidence in the disclaimer which directly supports your argument. Instead you have to infer your evidence and draw a conclusion which is totally based on your own conjecture, belief system, and prejudices. Being a layman, perhaps I don't completely understand scientific methodology and that is acceptable scientific practice. To my untrained eyes, however, it reads no better than what creationists are stating.

I wonder if the arguement by Elvite attempting to hammer home the "theory not fact" concept isn't proof enough that this is exactly what creationists think, and wanted to imply with the disclaimer in question? huh.gif

372762[/snapback]

I'm not hammering home either side. I honestly cannot say which theory is most factual. I do know that both theories, (although vastly different), do contain at least one thing in common. Both require a person to exercise an act of faith in order to totally commit themselves to either theory. Sure, one might have use more faith than the other does, but that's not the point.

I do not believe that saying a theory "is not fact" means that said theory must therefore be a lie. I believe the school board of that county would agree with me. However, it would be irresponsible to teach that any theory is a fact. When I was in school over 20 years ago, I had teachers that stated in no uncertain terms that evolution was fact. All I could think was how incredibly closed-minded they were. Their credibility took a deep hit, especially when they pointed out how certain parts of the theory were discovered to not be accurate and that evolution scientists do not universally agree with each other about current parts of the theory.

Maybe the school board could have added or changed a word or two to the disclaimer, like "Evolution is a theory, not an infallible truth, regarding the origin of living things." or "not necessarily a fact" or "not yet proven entirely correct or incorrect". However, the disclaimer is truthful when read without reading between the lines. Someone stated earlier that scientists can't stand it when non-scientists do not just accept what they say without question. It's like "how dare those morons!" It's looking more and more like that's the case.

Edited by Elvite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aquatus1
Other disciplines go by the principle of the Burden of Proof, where it is the sole responsibility of the proponent of an idea to prove something to be correct. It is not the responsibility of those who disagree to prove them wrong. It's disheartening to hear that the scientific method does not follow that principle.

Elvite, this sort of sly tactic is precisely why scientists are objecting so strenously to the disclaimer. What, in absolutely everything I or anyone else on this thread has written, indicates that theories do not take on the burden of proof? The fact that it is refered to as a scientific theory means, by sheer definition, that it has provided either the imperical evidence, the logical deductive reasoning, or both, that convinced a board of their peers that this research was done following all the rules of scientific methodology and is both valid and credible and should be considered correct up until a better theory comes along and proves its worth. You are doing exactly what the disclaimer does. First, you quite smartly state that all disciplines must have a burden of proof. Again, a statement so obvious that, to a scientist, it is absurd. Then you throw in a humble statement about responsibility. And finally, you piously outright, and incorrectly, claim that scientific method doesn't follow that principle, and by extension, anyone who follows the scientific method is guilty of shirking the responsibility of proof. I really can only see this as one of two ways. Either you are so inexperienced with scientific methodology that you truly believe anything with the word theory at the top is automatically considered scientific, or you are intentionally, like the disclaimer, trying to reduce science to the level of imprecision and vagueness that the layman works with.

You say that theories have "yet to be proven incorrect", but that doesn't mean they are incapable of being disproved or of containing serious flaws.

Of course they are capable of being proven incorrect. In fact, it is an absolute requirement that they can be! Take my following statement:

Theories are not 100% accurate, or they violate Falsifiability. This does not, however, make them unreliable. The Pythagorean Theorum is completely falsifiable, yet it has not, not in the entire history of mathematics, ever been shown to be incorrect.
The law of falsifiability demands that, in order to be considered provable, a theory must have a manner in which it is unprovable. If there is no way to prove it wrong, it cannot be considered scientific. Again, this is something the layman generally does not think about, or even know, for the most part.

That statement indicates that you seem to have a very low opinion of the education of us non-scientist laymen. I'm a layman with a science background that doesn't go much beyond high school and the required electives I took in college. I have always thought that a theory is an explanation that has yet to be or may never be definitively proven correct or incorrect, but does draw upon a series of supporting and compelling evidence that when viewed as a whole support the explanation. While you may not agree exactly with how I defined it, it certainly has a lot more in common with your definition than a "watercooler hunch". My wife has less interest in science than I do and even she knew it was much much more than a hunch. It's kind of demeaning.

I do not consider it a low opinion, but I do consider it to be a highly accurate one. The simple reality of the situation is that a person who works in any given field is going to have specific terminology and experience that simply does not equate to an outsider's experience. Yes, your definition is far more accurate than 90% of the laymen out there, but it is still insufficient when dealing with scientific principles. In science, it isn't enough to know what a theory is, like you know what a car is, you must also be able to construct and identify significant points, so that you may be able to discern wether it is valid or not. A scientist must be the equivalent of a car mechanic in his field. As for "demeaning", take heart in that I was not referring either to you or your wife. I was referring to laymen in general, and laymen in general use the word theory far more glibly and casually than any scientist does.

You tell me you are a scientist, but I cannot see how you could come to that conclusion with no written evidence in the disclaimer which directly supports your argument. Instead you have to infer your evidence and draw a conclusion which is totally based on your own conjecture, belief system, and prejudices. Being a layman, perhaps I don't completely understand scientific methodology and that is acceptable scientific practice. To my untrained eyes, however, it reads no better than what creationists are stating.

Well then, layman, let me explain to you how I, as scientist, make my tea in the morning. I do not use graduated cylinders, powder scales, measuring units, or bunsen burners. I light the kettle, dump some tea in a cup, a lot of sugar, then remember to fill the kettle with water before it burns. Scientific methodology is a system used to find specific answers to specific phenomena. Detective work requires a different sort of methodology. Imperical evidence doesn't intentionally try to hide information, nor does it have ulterior motives for doing what it does. When dealing with humans, you must, out of sheer necessity, take into consideration conjecture, belief system, and prejudices. By nature, this tends to be imprecise and relies greatly on guesswork and inference. Make no mistake about it, this is not science. Leave the science in the lab. Stop trying to drag it down to the level of imprecision.

I'm not hammering home either side. I honestly cannot say which theory is most factual. I do know that both theories, (although vastly different), do contain at least one thing in common. Both require a person to exercise an act of faith in order to totally commit themselves to either theory. Sure, one might have use more faith than the other does, but that's not the point.

Yes, that is precisely the point. Every single theory in the scientific community, including all the theories of evolution, have got to, at an absolute minimum, meet the five pre-requisites of scientific methodology before they can be considered theories. Every single one, without exception. There is no "faith" about it. Creationism, quite simply, does not meet the pre-requisites, and therefore cannot be considered a scientific theory. The only way in which the word can be used in conjunction with it is in a layman's form, and creationist, just as you just did, use this misdirection, this layman label of "Theory of Creation", which means nothing scientifically, as an equivalent of "Theory of Evolution", which implies the strong support of imperical evidence, logical deduction, all five pre-reqs, a review by a board of peers, and complete dissemination amongs the scientific community.

However, the disclaimer is truthful when read without reading between the lines.

But it cannot be read without reading between the lines. There is absolutely nothing innocent about this disclaimer. It is an outright attack, a character assassination of the credibility of science. The creationists are not simple innocents concerned that there might be some miscommunication, no, they have a stated objective to remove, by whatever means they have, the authority and credibility that science has and which they do not possess. This is not even a secret, nor does it require inference or guesswork. Go to the major creationists websites, and they will state that outright for you.

Someone stated earlier that scientists can't stand it when non-scientists do not just accept what they say without question. It's like "how dare those morons!" It's looking more and more like that's the case.

Im not sure who said that, and I was unable to find it. It is unfortunate that, during the 1950's, scientists began to sequester themselves away. Science became almost a mystical pursuit, leaving the person outside the scientific loop feeling a bit overwhelmed by the incredible discoveries and all the new information that was being put out. It had the effect, unfortunately, of making science seem almost like a belief system, of comprising things so esoteric that the only poossible way to understand them was through faith. It is nothing so simple, though. Science can be understood, quite simply in fact, but when viewed as a whole, it is so imposing that it is so much simpler to claim, 'Oh, it's just a belief." rather than to think of the long, long hours spent by the student in the laboratory, writting papers, studying equations, and working out proofs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shadowsleet
Other disciplines go by the principle of the Burden of Proof, where it is the sole responsibility of the proponent of an idea to prove something to be correct. It is not the responsibility of those who disagree to prove them wrong. It's disheartening to hear that the scientific method does not follow that principle.

Would this be an inconvenient time to tell you that evolution does provide, and has been providing for years, evidence to support it. Evolution is not a randomly thrown together collection of ideas...it's a conclusion reached by the analysis of available facts.

Creationism has yet to provide any evidence at all....in fact, given the total lack of evidence to support their belief, creationists instead resort to cloak and dagger attempts at attacking evolution, under the mistaken belief that disproving evolution would somehow make creationism more viable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ThePortal

This is a very interesting topic. As another laymen...here his what I think....

while reading a question came into my mind.

People wish to put that disclaimer....by curiosity, is there any such disclaimer in any other books of science??? If there is, then it would be proper to follow the same. If there is not, then obliviously for me, this look like an attack from Creationism trying to undermine science.

For myself, I think it is the duty of the teacher to show the students all about science and explain to them what has been discovered as of yet and explain that some theory as evolved or change in time when presented with new proof.

I think it is unfortunate that science as used such a general word '' theory'' . A word that can be easely twisted to lower meanings. In this case once again, it his the teacher duty to teach it to the students, what ''theories'' really mean to science.

If they really wish to go trought with this disclaimer, I would be the first one to say, well we now need a disclaimer in the bible like sugested by another member here. Furthermore, in history.....it his in the end, the history from one point of view..I am sure that many would not agree with the interpretation given.

But science from my point of view his something that as been carefully observed and tested before it became general knowledge and accepted. Thus it must be seen with more than just a UNCh....It his an understanding of our world from what we could comprehend until now with proper examination. It may or may never change, science grow each day, find new piece of the puzzle each day.

I do not know much about science, but what I do know his that thousands of scientist strive each day to make sense of this world and make us understand it in turn. I know that some of it may be disproved, as with many things I keep an open mind as I know that our comprehension is far from the absolute truth. But everything that becomes an accepted theory in science as a baggage of proof behind them. Yes perhaps there as some gaps, but that to me does not make it untrue, just not totally understood yet. What we know now his a good base to work on, to keep studying until we either fill the gaps or we have proof of an enterily different process.

All this to say that I disagree with this disclaimer. That would raise to many question from children and would undermine there view about sicence. The science credibility would take a big hit with no reasons whatsoever.

Once again I personnaly think it would be in the teachers duty to open the mind of its students to this aspect of science. Not a disclaimer in a book that can be twisted around or read between lines. At school it is not time to read between the lines, it is time to learn the basics of life. Then when you have a good basic understanding, you can make a proper educated opinion about these kind of things.

ok i'm done now laugh.gif I think...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Elvite
Other disciplines go by the principle of the Burden of Proof, where it is the sole responsibility of the proponent of an idea to prove something to be correct. It is not the responsibility of those who disagree to prove them wrong. It's disheartening to hear that the scientific method does not follow that principle.

Would this be an inconvenient time to tell you that evolution does provide, and has been providing for years, evidence to support it. Evolution is not a randomly thrown together collection of ideas...it's a conclusion reached by the analysis of available facts.

Creationism has yet to provide any evidence at all....in fact, given the total lack of evidence to support their belief, creationists instead resort to cloak and dagger attempts at attacking evolution, under the mistaken belief that disproving evolution would somehow make creationism more viable.

373233[/snapback]

This isn't an argument over creationism, nor is it ultimately an issue of the validity of evolution. Theories have supporting evidence and must have a lot of it. This is no surprise to me. However, they do not have sufficient conclusive evidence. Certainly not when scientists can not agree over the details, parts of it become discredited or majorly revised, or evidence turns out to not be what it was thought to be. That doesn't mean the whole theory is wrong, but it certainly means that it's not ready to be considered conclusive proof and immune to any skepticism.

In the history of scientific method, how many scientific theories have been completely discredited or revised so many times that they bear little resemblance to the original? What makes evolution such a holy icon that modern science puts forth little if any effort towards discrediting the theory and nearly all effort towards supporting it? There is an obvious bias where there should not be. Any dissenters within the community become outcasts. It's ok to question certain parts, but watch out if you even try to start a dialog which questions the whole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fluffybunny
and as far as i know my skin is peach not white

372837[/snapback]

Blazer, enough with the childish comments. You have made you opinion on the matter painfully clear. Please either add something of substance to the discussion or go find another thread to add something of substance to.

When it comes to these types of discussions, your constant trolling for an argument has got to stop. It isn't productive and it ends up turning otherwise good threads into childish, name calling, flame wars. Please either start backing up your end of the argument with something of substance or stop responding in these threads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Elvite
If they really wish to go trought with this disclaimer, I would be the first one to say, well we now need a disclaimer in the bible like sugested by another member here.

373465[/snapback]

The debate isn't over forcing all evolution publications to carry a disclaimer, so this argument about the Bible disclaimers is moot unless public schools start handing out Bibles. If that ever happened, I doubt that the issue of disclaimers would be at the forefront of most people's minds. This is over whether a group of trained educators have the right to point out to their community that, although evolution is has not been proven right or wrong, all should approach evolution with open minds. This is certainly a much better thing to tell students to not think it through, do not look for any problems, and above all do not challenge evolution because only scientists can tell you what is true.

If any of you can prove that the school board of that county are all covert creationists who work out of hidden labs within their basement, I really want to read it. If you can prove that they are being forced by creationist wackos to do something against their will, please let me know. If an apparent knucklehead like me has enough sense to know a theory is not a hunch, please give these educators the benefit of the doubt. Not everybody works at McDonald's.

The only thing I've read from the opposition to the disclaimer is assumption based on bigotry towards anyone who would doubt the Almighty Evolution without a shred of evidence that is not solely based on conjecture. It's the voice of bigotry, plain and simple. They are just as guilty of bias and hidden agenda as the creationists they so hate. I honestly can't tell which group is worse, sometimes.

There is no "faith" about it.

373192[/snapback]

I believe it is unlikely that we can ever really know for certain how life originated on this planet earth. Both creationists and evolutionists do not have all the answers and must rely on their personal faith to fill in the gaps. It's absurd to think otherwise. Take this example. A scientist says "I've got fact A and fact D and there must somewhere be a B and C which connects the two known fact in a larger way, but we cannot find any evidence that there really has been a B or C." In order to accept the overall idea, the scientist has to exercise faith, which does not demand that the unseen evidence become known before drawing a conclusion. Faith is not restricted only to religion. It's an everyday occurence in multiple facets of life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aquatus1
This isn't an argument over creationism, nor is it ultimately an issue of the validity of evolution. Theories have supporting evidence and must have a lot of it. This is no surprise to me. However, they do not have sufficient conclusive evidence. Certainly not when scientists can not agree over the details, parts of it become discredited or majorly revised, or evidence turns out to not be what it was thought to be. That doesn't mean the whole theory is wrong, but it certainly means that it's not ready to be considered conclusive proof and immune to any skepticism.

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? It is currently in the Guiness book of world records as the theory with the highest number of independently derived proofs of its validity. I could post many, many other examples of theories with what many would consider conclusive evidence; proofs which have no competing theories and which have yet to make an inaccurate prediction. If this isn't about creationism or validity of evolution, then what exactly are you referring to in the above text?

In the history of scientific method, how many scientific theories have been completely discredited or revised so many times that they bear little resemblance to the original?

Thousands, I would imagine. Evolution itself has so many different parts to it that Darwin would be boggled by what he started. Revision of theories is a standard part of the process; after all, when new information emerges, it cannot be covered up or ignored. To do so would violate one of the five pre-requisites. Many theories have even been discredited. Again, this is part of science, and a necessary part, or else anyone with a pad of paper and a pencil could themselves scientists and demand the same authority. Discrediting one theory, however, does absolutely nothing to support another. Each and every theory must support itself completely. There is no such thing as victory by disqualification or default.

What makes evolution such a holy icon that modern science puts forth little if any effort towards discrediting the theory and nearly all effort towards supporting it? There is an obvious bias where there should not be. Any dissenters within the community become outcasts. It's ok to question certain parts, but watch out if you even try to start a dialog which questions the whole.

Are you joking? Do you honestly believe that Darwin met no opposition when he published his theory? Thousands of scientists poured over his research, demanding answers that Darwin did not have, nor made any claims to have. For decades, people pointed to the questions Darwin himself posed as open gaps in the theory that were currently unaccounted for. His own protege, his most trusted research partner, eventually defected from evolution back to creationism. Why is such strenuous effort not made today? Becuase it has already been done. And evolutionary theory has withstood the test of time.

Evolution is not one single theory, but rather several dozen, each explaining another facet of biological development. Evolution is nothing more than an umbrella term describing all of these phenomena, much the same way that Erosion covers a great many forces which affect the earth. You claim that science puts all its efforts into supporting evolution, but you fail to point out that it is being supported against creationists with an agenda, not as a theory in and of itself. Scientists do not support evolution in the sense that they actively and solely look for evidence for its existance; this would be a violation of the five pre-reqs. Rather, all the evidence the natural world has yet offered up all points in the exact same direction, which is indeed evolutionary development.

Dissent isn't enough to become an outcast. There are quite a few strange theories out in the scientifc world today. What makes one an outcast isn't the inability to "follow the party line". What makes someone an outcast is bad science. In science, Faith is replaced by credibility. Credibility is difficult to earn and easy to lose. Darwin put in twenty hard years of science, doing research, publishing papers, essentially establishing his credibility so that, when he finally presented a theory, a theory that was so unbelievable, so utterly alien in concept and insulting in implication, his peers had no choice but to take it into consideration and grant that, despite being controversial to the extreme, it was, nonetheless, good science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Loge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Me_Again

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Loge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.