Evolution is the biggest lie ever told !

Post Reply New Topic

When answers are sought in the bible, you are asking for guidance from people who did not understand the physics of rainfall or the biology of sexual reproduction.

Of course that might also describe many of the people who read the bible

Human beings aren't special.

We look like hairless bipedal apes, because that's precisely what we are. Our cells contain DNA. This is the same substance that drives all other living cells.

Furthermore ...

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/fossils
^^^
Creationists think that all of these fossils are somehow fake. That would require a pretty massive conspiracy.

Is it any surprise that most creationists are also Illuminati conspiracy wackos?

Science is Illuminati conformed!

The resemblance is uncanny.

Nope, the fact of mankind being only a small part of everything does not dis-prove anything about the bible.

This has been know for decades. You aren't being very profound here.

Newtonian physics works, it not a perfect model neither is the standard model of quantum physics. In fact the standard model is known as a kludge. Newtonian physics is more than adequate for most purposes. It is not disproved. it is correct based on the physical POV it is used under. it works and we relay on every day. Engineers depend on it.

Newton's equations are not imperfect purely on the quantum level, there is classical mechanics of Newton and relative mechanics of Eisenstein. Just like there is quantum mechanic and quantum field theory.

We need to understand relative mechanic to do certain thing such as satellite technology. It doesn't make classical mechanics wrong, it simply makes it less accurate or unsuitable on it own to deal with certain problems.

Am I the only one with a favorite hominid? Mine is the Hobbit.

This was a breakthough in 2013.

In 2013, Physicists Smash Record For Wave-Particle Duality
https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-bl ... 2c39db8e7b

"The problem is that few large molecules can survive this process. Eibenberger and co solve it by creating tree-like molecules that have a porphyrin core with perfluoroalkyl chains added on. This molecule has the nominal formula: C284.H190.F320.N4.S12".


Another user on this topic said quantum on the molecular level is not possible; that's what I cited it.


First, Newton's laws appear to fail. That's the whole point of the "double slit experiment".

Newton's laws say that motion is deterministic, while the "double slit experiment" shows us that motion is probabilistic.

You can't sweep this distinction under the rug without some fantastic explanation.

Einstein didn't like it either.

Your argument that "engineers get good approximate answers sometimes" is not seeing the big picture.

If reality is probabilistic then, classical deterministic formulas are usually wrong.

That's where we're headed.

Building ever-bigger macro-world quantum objects, and showing that classical formulas are wrong in the macro-world.

I love reading about our genus spreading across the globe.

I'm curious as to how this bears out with the question of evolution in your mind if at all.

As far as I can tell - we have all of the geological and fossil evidence that we need that there was a very simple single-cell origin of life that slowly increases, for a few billion years was just a mat of bacteria on the ocean floor, then sponges were the thing for a few hundred million years. At some point around 600 million years ago mobile predators came about which ate the sponges as if they were grazing on plants. A lot of archaeologist consider that this had to do with the increase of oxygen content in the ocean, changing the possibilities for what types of metabolisms were possible. From there, and really through a cascade of different paths at different times, you ended up with the plant and animal kingdoms that we have today including us.

Where I would agree with you is that with physics we can talk all day about the behavior of matter but we can't say a thing about it's intrinsic properties, we have a tendency to make neurons into these magical entities that can turn dead matter into conscious matter, and if we aren't knee-jerk dismissing the double-slit experiment as quaint but meaningless we're going full-Chopra or Secret. Fortunately more gradients in between these days but they're still not getting taken as seriously as they should be or, in many cases, taking their content of examination as seriously as they should be.

As human cultures we only have a few thousand years of different systems for testing our reality. The earlier cultures were much more mystical and took that to its extremes - whether in Egypt, the Middle-East, Greece, or India and China. That seemed to give us some things but not nearly what we wanted, for the past few hundred years we've been trying to stomp that out as an embarrassment with physicalism, and as you mentioned physicalism is wearing thin and some sort of philosophy that handles both sides - ie consciousness and matter - and reconciles them in a sophisticated and adult manner is needed.

That said though I don't see this, or even proof of the eternal nature of human and other consciousness, whatever else have you, as something that instantly would throw us into the category of 6,000 year old earth, Satan-planted dinosaur bones, or a literal Adam and Eve in a literal garden. That, and almost any religious story out there taken literally not only doesn't fit our historical lens, it doesn't even fit our exploratory mystical lens with the accumulated reports of people's meditations, astral travels, NDE's, meetings with one's higher genius whether by the great Catholic mystics of the middle ages and renaissance, or of the Golden Dawn and Crowley era, and the picture looks even clearer within Buddhism and Hinduism that everything about us - to use what I think is a very aged and sagging expression 'both spiritual and material' is part of a natural biome that has its own united framework of causes. It's part of why I think the suggestion 'as above so below' can be taken seriously, ie. the same patterns we see shape everything and to go anywhere else, even places of existence that many people on the ground here don't believe exist, is to just find the same rules of nature operating at a different strata.

Actually you're right.

Scientists always make mistakes.

And then later those mistakes are always corrected. And the folks responsible for making those corrections are always...Fundamentalist preachers.

Newton created the theory of Gravity, and then centuries later a Fundie preacher had a revelation. The revelation was that there is no gravity, its warped space. That Fundy preacher was Albert Einstein.

They used to think that the sun went around the earth, but a fundy preacher talked to a burning bush and and the bush told him that its really the earth that goes around the sun. So science was corrected by a Holy Roller snake handling preacher named Galileo.

And so on.

Yep, if it weren't for Fundy preachers correcting those scientists we would all up a creek.

I see that quite a lot has happened here since I last visited this discussion, but I must make the point in response to this particular post that what fundamentalists (well, specifically U.S. fundamentalists) do to the Bible is nothing short of criminal. Maybe it's just because they are not terribly well-informed, or have a condition that prevents them from reading text other than literally, but it is clear - absolutely clear - that what we know of as "The Bible" was not created by authors who set out with the specific intention of writing a guide-book to reality that would form a complete and comprehensive whole. It's just not like that!

The Bible is more like an encyclopaedia than a single book, and it is often contradictory, incoherent, and at times gets things wrong from the perspective of science. However, it often - actually, most of the time - gets things right, and this is something that the more militant atheists (especially those on YouTube) are never willing to admit. For example, there is a brief description of the hydrological cycle in Ecclesiastes. It isn't particularly detailed, but it is there and it is accurate - http://doctrinesource.com/HydroCycle.html

There is history, poetry, science (yes, there is), metaphor (lots of metaphor), boring bits, exciting bits, contradictions, errors, inspiring stuff, crappy stuff, hideous stuff, and all manner of other things, because it is not a single text. Fundies seem to believe that it all came from God, is infallible, and doesn't show the evolution - yes, evolution - of the concept of God over time, from the more primitive and base, to the more sophisticated.

I myself used to be an atheist, when I was very young and terribly naive. For many years I was an agnostic, and simply couldn't decide, but I now find myself agreeing with the text of the Bible more than disagreeing, and before anyone asks, "Well, how can you tell what parts are inspired from those that are not, what is to be taken literally and what not?", my answer to this is that you are missing the entire point. Reading the text is like exploring new territory that, in the process, leaves one transformed. That's the simplest way to put it, although I'll admit it leaves more questions than answers.

Look, I'll have to explain later, because this computer that I am using is PAINFULLY SLOW. Internet speeds in Australia are worse than they are on Pluto (which is still a planet in my view).

Actually, that's a good point. I don't know why our apparent "smallness" seems to have such a disproportionate influence upon atheists who like to go on about it, because the size of something alone does not a) determine its importance, and b) at what point on what scale would the atheist be able to finally say, "Aha, now that is more like it! We are now big enough to matter to the universe"? It's a supremely silly argument, much like "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" one. That is, it's not even an argument to begin with.

The computer seems to be faster now. Good.

What I mean't before was that my entire perspective on life, the universe and all else changed, and in ways I had not anticipated and could not have predicted. It's hard to explain. I'm to a certain extent extremely cynical about most things and it usually shows, but there have been times when I've discovered things that have helped to turn that cynicism around 180 degrees, and this happened because I was forced into transcending the puny limitations of someone who usually sees things literally, in two-dimensional terms. I usually am a very limited person in most respects, and can be quite stupid sometimes, not seeing what others easily see. It's like a light turned on in a very, very dark room. I can now understand, and use, metaphors, and that is how I now approach this whole subject, and it has made all the difference.

I see fundamentalism for what it truly is - as an inability to see the big picture, as a failure of the imagination.

Except we are special. Don't you see yourself as being special? At all?

If we really are apes, then why do atheists get so offended when you call them one? Shouldn't they be flattered?

We aren't apes, we are hominids. Crack open a book on zoology as well as paleontology.

Hominids are apes. Hominidae is synonymous with 'the great apes'.

We're only as special as we all agree to pretend to be.