Evolution is the biggest lie ever told !

Post Reply New Topic

Did you watch the video?

That's what those college professors suggest .. that biological processes are not deterministic.

Why do you cling to old ideas?

EDIT:
The professor actually says, "Your science teacher taught you wrong".

Which isn't a surprise if you read what I write.

Last edited by LoveNotHate on 26 Aug 2017, 10:39 am, edited 1 time in total.

You'd equally have to abstract Adam and Eve to beginning of modern human and their making from the dust meaning their evolution from the most basic forms of life billions of years ago.

While I think there are interesting and useful purposes to play with stories like this and see if such symbolic stories enrich history and tell a greater symbolic truth that part seems relatively benign, ie. 'The Fall' or the flight from the Garden of Eden was our capacity to map past and future, defer gratification, and consider consequences (ie. knowledge of good and evil).

To me that really takes us toward the more Renaissance Rosicrucian and Hermetic view of things. The end result is that Christianity gets transformed by its Old Testament philosophic sources and we start moving onward toward concepts similar to Theosophic evolution of consciousness, similar to the Hermetic Great Work. Rudolph Steiner took aim at suggesting we were heading deeper and deeper into the consequences of such sight until Jesus died on the cross, the water and blood from the womb did something to the fundamental data held in the earth and that was the nadir of human society from which we've been evolving upward from. That seems to me like a rather clunky insertion for its own sake and having read several of his cosmologies his timelines, visions, and ideas seem to run into timeline paradoxes and stranger things still. We did have, for thousands of years the concept of the dying solar deity, ie. tracking the cycle of the seasons and the fertility of the ground. Adonis, Tamuz, Osiris, Horus, and Apollo were considered part of this heritage, Dionysus was interesting in even more ways in the way that he was supposedly carved up, eaten, and became the divine spark in all life (which - even from a non-mystical point - sunlight makes the plants grow, animals eat the plants, we eat both - makes sense!).

I think a lot of this works out to be a great set of tools for introspection but I do have challenges taking it in actuality. The more I hear of people's mystical experiences I only see the basic mechanics in common, maybe neurological or energy structure similarities that they feel from their own being, but everything after that and everything they start saying about the world is almost entirely their own and contradicted by the next person. Some suggestion of the 'oneness' of things seems persistent, I guess in a way that makes sense as causality knows no boundaries, but that's about it. Thus trying to subordinate evolution to a salvation good vs. evil narrative doesn't find much of a base.

I asked you a simple question with a simple answer.
If evolution is wrong that is this other thing that is right?
Are you saying the Biblical young earth creationism is right? Or what?

A study of the human brain is pretty solid proof we evolved.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4406946/

"We don't know" is the right answer.

Those college professors were explaining how "quantum biology" suggests biological processes may not be deterministic, so throw out your deterministic evolutionary theory; it's likely wrong.

Don't be too proud to admit that you've been believing a falsehood your whole life.

As they said, your science teacher taught you wrong.

I would say a Biblical "day" is an Earth day, approximately 24 hours.

There was no alternative notion of a "day" during Biblical times.

"We don't know" is the right answer.


.[/quote]

So...you are saying that BOTH the Bible, and evolution are wrong?

I think we do "know" quite a bit.....but there are some things which are not "absolute fact."

We know mutations lead to evolution (or at least, to change)--but not the exact mechanism, or precisely when they will arise, and under what precise conditions, We may never know for certain.

Most likely, there are multiple mechanisms based on precise conditions.

Are you seriously trying to say that ADHD is not a real thing? I can assure you from personal experience that it is, and many people do rely on things like Ritalin to function normally.


You do know that drugs must be tested extensively before getting released, right? Drugs later being found to be harmful and taken off the shelves is the exception and not the rule, and guess how we learn that they are harmful? That's right, science.


Again, this is the exception rather then the rule and science is the only reason why we are the wiser now. This is a perfect example of science correcting it's self, it happens all the time and it's one of the reasons science works because you can't always get it right the first time.


The Sun, rocks, potassium, and the carbon 14 in all living things are all radioactive if only a little bit. There is a such thing as a safe amount of radiation. The radiation level in water that is having this stuff dumped into it is usually in the ballpark of a few individual ionizing photons being produced per second in a cubic meter of water, and bananas are more radioactive then that.


Who actually does that? Last I checked scientists agreed that smoking was harmful. Dishonest scientists are in the minority and this is an example where that is very evident.


What the actual f**k? There is so much wrong with that statement that I don't even know where to start.
-Heat doesn't cause cancer.
-Phone signals produce orders of magnitude less heat then your own body.
-The one study that showed that phones cause cancer could never be replicated and had many problems with it.


So now the magnetic fields produced by power lines cause cancer too even though they are absolutely minuscule compared to Earth's own magnetic field? I would love to know how you think that works.


Yes, because it makes absolutely no sense that they would and nobody can replicate the experiment that says they do. It is true that 802.11u standard wifi produces signals at a similar frequency to that used in microwave ovens (which is 2.5 gigahertz, although 802.11g wifi uses a frequency of 5 gigahertz) but it's intensity is much different. Microwave ovens take at least 500 watts of power which is converted into microwaves and focused onto food, but wifi routers use only around 2 watts of power only some of which goes to the antenna and instead of being focused on a single point it's spread out everywhere. Meanwhile humans generate around 120 watts of body heat even when sitting still due to the thermodynamic inefficiency in our metabolism. Even if you use an elliptical reflector to focus the entire output of a wifi router onto your hand you probably would not even feel the heat generated by the microwaves interacting with the water in your body, and even if you could there is no way that it could cause cancer because that requires damage to DNA.


Spacetime has already been tested and measured in all sorts of ways. Things like gravity waves, frame dragging, gravitational lensing, and time dilation have been measured multiple times. As for the rest of those things (except the whole randomness vs deterministic thing which I already addressed) actually do have a number of potential ways to test them which experimental scientists are working on. There was also a time when people initially thought that certain aspects of quantum mechanics were un-testable that ended up being tested thanks to some clever experimental scientists. I don't know if you are suggesting that we abandon theoretical physics just because you arbitrarily deemed that it will suddenly stop producing results, but that sounds like a bad idea.


That is what they said in the 1800's too, but science is advancing faster then ever before and showing no signs of stopping.

Last edited by mikeman7918 on 26 Aug 2017, 6:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

LoveNotHate does not believe in logic so she really has no place saying others have committed a logical fallacy.

I DISPUTE THE AD HOMINEM CLAIM!

I am pointing out how scoundrel, con-men scientists pretend to know how to fix people.

Are you seriously blind to all the damage these drugs have done to kids? Go to google right now, search "Ritlalin lawsuits" or "Ritalin damage to kids".

So, how does some idiot with a PHD not realize he is harming kids? Well, he's a con-man.


We take them off the market when people die, or it hurts people, not based on science.

A group of con-men scientists already tested it, and said it was OK.

WTF happened?


This is not a sure thing.

Science can "correct" itself to something even worse.


I don't know. However, I say to you, "drink up" that city water where they're dumping it.

Me. I'll stick to bottled water.


OK, but still a threat.


I don't the science, but it's easy to find studies to "prove" one thing or another.

Con men are on both sides of issues.

"The past conclusion that extremely low frequency magnetic fields are possibly carcinogenic is still valid. This was concluded based on studies indicating that children exposed to relatively strong magnetic fields from power lines were more likely to develop leukaemia".
https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/cau ... fact-sheet

"Brain cancer tripled for cell phone users"
https://pongcase.com/blog/study-tripled ... one-users/


You might be right.

However, I can find a con-man scientist to "prove" you wrong.

"The past conclusion that extremely low frequency magnetic fields are possibly carcinogenic is still valid. This was concluded based on studies indicating that children exposed to relatively strong magnetic fields from power lines were more likely to develop leukaemia".
https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/cau ... fact-sheet


OK.


We're still are not sure if the speed of light is the fastest something can travel.

Einstein requires this assumption in his theories.

So, in theoretical physics, we "prove" things by first making substantial assumptions about reality.

So, this is arguably not following the scientific method.

-I have an ASD.
-I was considered retarted all my life.
-I didn't function well until 35.
-I was fired from about 5 jobs.

It hurts to be a victim of con-men scientists. Lower functioning people get hurt bad by these people.

Over the last few years, I got focused on physics.

I completed Professor Shankar's physics courses on youtube.

Intro to Classical Physics
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOKnWaLiL8w

Into to quantum physics
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK2eFv7ne_Q

It's a pity you feel that way.

I was better off than the ones who get experimented on with drugs and restraints.

But back to the topic, I posted a video earlier of college professors talking about "quantum biology", and one of the first comments was "what you science teacher taught was wrong". Quantum biology suggests that biology is probabilistic, not deterministic.

That should of quelled the arrogance on this thread.

How sad, these people who actually get degrees in science, teach it, believe in falsehoods their whole lives. That's the pity. Some one like me didn't pull them aside, and say, "wake up, it's all made up".

I looked it up and this is what I found:

"By 2002 all five class action lawsuits had been dismissed or had been withdrawn."
"Plaintiffs failed to provide any concrete statements to document their claims."
Source.


Would you mind providing an example of when this happened?


Be that as it may, it's very unlikely though.


Gladly. If such tiny amounts of radiation are so harmful then make sure to stay well away from rocks and sunlight and don't even think about flying on a plane, in fact you should probably just wear a hazmat suit everywhere you go, although the suit it's self will be ever so slightly radioactive too.


Agreed, but it's only a threat to civilians who don't bother to read their research and not to the scientific community as a whole. If a con man scientist tries to get his or her paper published then the peer review process would shoot it down quickly because instead of just going on the conclusion they would analyze the research and find it's flaws and/or bias, this is why the vast majority of con papers such as ones denying climate change or suggesting that vaccines cause autism don't even try to get peer reviewed and instead just try to convince the comparatively gullible public by writing books and claiming that the peer review process is rigged. I don't dispute the claim that con man scientists exist, I am just saying that they are outcasts from scientific institutions that take themselves seriously and a minority.


~~~
You might be right.

However, I can find a con-man scientist to "prove" you wrong.

"The past conclusion that extremely low frequency magnetic fields are possibly carcinogenic is still valid. This was concluded based on studies indicating that children exposed to relatively strong magnetic fields from power lines were more likely to develop leukaemia".
https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/cau ... fact-sheet[/quote]
I used my browser text search functoin on both of those web pages and did not find anything resembling your quote. Instead I found stuff like this:

"No consistent evidence for an association between any source of non-ionizing EMF and cancer has been found."
"Nevertheless, a definitive link between cell phone and brain tumors has not been established yet."


That's a prime example of fallibility. Science can never prove something with 100% certainty and in the words of Einstein himself "no amount of experimentation could ever prove me right but a single experiment could prove me wrong."

The prediction that nothing can go faster then light is a good thing for the theory because it gives it fallibility, it means that if we ever observe something going faster then light then the theory is instantly disproven and similarly for every day we don't see something going faster then light we can be a little more confident that it's right. Since the theory was devised we have built particle accelerators and no matter how much energy we pump into the things we can never get a particle to go faster then light. They can get the particles as fast as 99.999999% the speed of light in the LHC but they can never make them go just that little bit faster.

It's just like how Newtonian mechanics predicted that every action has an equal and opposite reaction, even in quantum mechanics this stands true. It's a very bold claim and we can never claim with 100% certainty that no action has ever lacked an equal and opposite reaction out of everything that has ever happened in the universe, but if we see a reactionless action then it would falsify the theory and for every day we go without seeing that the more confident we can be even though our confidence can never truely be 100%. That is how empiricism works, if I had to be 100% sure of something before accepting it then I wouldn't even be able to confidently say that we are not in the Matrix or that my memories of what happened yesterday are real.

Responding to the whole quantum biology thing, my level of surprise upon learning that it's a field of study was approximately zero because biology is based largely on chemistry and chemistry relies on quantum mechanics considering that it involves the interactions of electrons which are fundamental quantum particles which surround atoms in the form of probability waves.

In any case, this has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is not a deterministic process contrary to your claim, it is random mutations combined with non-random natural selection. The same concept behind evolution can be used to make computer programs which design things way better then any humans can and we have actually observed specialization. Before I go any further I would like to hear your explanation of what you think evolution is.