Math Logic Disproves Evoution

[artybloke]

If anybody doubts that we can process non-linear and discontinuous thought, they should read some modern poetry...

 

[juvenissun]

If anybody doubts that we can process non-linear and discontinuous thought, they should read some modern poetry...

Yes, true. But people do not think it is science.

 

[Assyrian]

hmmm... poetry is not science

Now there's a thought.

 

[juvenissun]

hmmm... poetry is not science

Now there's a thought.

Elaboration:

Poetry could describe God very well. But scientist won't take it seriously because what's described in the poem, although acceptable, but may not be logical.

When a scientist take a particular poem seriously, then it is an example of "discontinuous thought". I would simply call it: inspiration.

 

[no1nose]

My suspicions about evolution began when I was studying relativity and quantum mechanics. Both relativy and quantum desirbe the physical world with great precision but they are contra intuitive and seemingly implausible. The reason why it is so hard to get our heads around quantum mechanics or relativity is that our thinking process takes place in a different “space” than the actions in the world around us. Crudely put, it is like trying to stuff a three dimensional object into a two dimensional space. Information from the world around us comes into the brain from our senses where “who knows what” happens to convert a four dimensional world into a mind’s image of that world. Because our minds are working with images and not the real thing we will never fully grasp the natural world in our minds. And for this reason any real descriptions of the world around will always seem contra intuitive to our reasoning process.

The problem I have with the Theory of Evolution is that it is not at all contra intuitive. It is too plausible, too logical to be an accurate description of the natural world. It is something that exists only as images in our mind. It is a nothing more than a world view. And like some sociopath among Theories it has a sullied history associated with it. Mankind has a history of adopting world views that seem laughable in retrospect and I believe that this is just another episode of that scenario. As knowledge increases the Theory of Evolution will seem less and less relevant.

 

[Mallon]

My suspicions about evolution began when I was studying relativity and quantum mechanics. Both relativy and quantum desirbe the physical world with great precision but they are contra intuitive and seemingly implausible. The reason why it is so hard to get our heads around quantum mechanics or relativity is that our thinking process takes place in a different “space” than the actions in the world around us. Crudely put, it is like trying to stuff a three dimensional object into a two dimensional space. Information from the world around us comes into the brain from our senses where “who knows what” happens to convert a four dimensional world into a mind’s image of that world. Because our minds are working with images and not the real thing we will never fully grasp the natural world in our minds. And for this reason any real descriptions of the world around will always seem contra intuitive to our reasoning process.

The problem I have with the Theory of Evolution is that it is not at all contra intuitive. It is too plausible, too logical to be an accurate description of the natural world. It is something that exists only as images in our mind. It is a nothing more than a world view. And like some sociopath among Theories it has a sullied history associated with it. Mankind has a history of adopting world views that seem laughable in retrospect and I believe that this is just another episode of that scenario. As knowledge increases the Theory of Evolution will seem less and less relevant.

I can't help but think your doubt of evolution stems from personal distaste rather than from any actual evidence against it. You certainly haven't presented anything of substance... just an appeal to personal incredulity which (no offense) doesn't count for much.
Doesn't the fact that we can use the evolutionary theory (it's not a worldview) to make predictions, and that it has lived up to those predictions, not attest to its veracity? Of course current evolutionary theory is likely an oversimplification of what goes on in nature (as all theories are). But surely there must be something to it since it has survived testing for so long.

 

[Nathan45]

The idea of evolution and most of the tenets has been invented by Greek philosophers between the 3rd and 5th centauries BC.

[citation needed]

 

[Melethiel]

[citation needed]

http://www.iep.utm.edu/e/evolutio.htm#Ancient Greek Views

 

[Nathan45]

http://www.iep.utm.edu/e/evolutio.htm#Ancient Greek Views

Thanks for the info. reading that now.

 

[no1nose]

The theory of Evolution carries on an important human tradition - the redeemer scenario, Recently someone wrote this to me,

“Christianity plagiarized the gods of countless religions and mythologies that preceded it, from virgin births, to son of god made flesh, to turning water into wine, to dying for us and promising to return. Jesus is version XX.0 of the same, tired stories that were told thousands of years before him.

Yes, the idea of a suffering redeemer is as old as mankind. And it can be found in many cultures. There were many people before Jesus who claimed to be the Messiah and there have been many since. Entertainment in our society is so saturated with this idea of a saviour that we take the whole thing for granted. The Western movie is famous for the lone hero who rides into town to save people from a gang of villains. But there are also many adventure, war, action or drama movies feature a hero who suffers and then rescues the innocent. Often in movies a hero appears to die only to have to somehow have escaped death and reappears to everyone’s joy. The fact saviour myths existed before the time of Christ doesn’t disprove the validity of Christianity. Far from it, if anything they show that in the heart of mankind there has always been the need for a saviour.

The Gospels in the Bible are the best accounts we have of the true Messiah. But long before the Gospels were written there were detailed prophetic accounts of the saviour in the books of the Old Testament. And before this the stories of the Messiah was passed on from one generation to the next by oral traditions. Some people believe that even the Zodiac was once used to tell the story of the one who would save mankind. The twelve signs of various “Zodiacs” are found Indian, Chinese, European and Mayan cultures. From ancient times it appears that the Zodiac was the one thing that most of mankind had in common. It was certainly known to the Jews. As the ancient Jewish historian Josephus wrote that astrology was handed down from Seth the son of Adam. And archaeological excavations in Israel often find Zodiacs in the floors of synagogues.

Today the signs of the Zodiac are used to predict one’s fortunes but this may not have been its original purpose. The star pictures of the constellations may have originally served as way for nomadic people to record picture stories. Instead of paper or tablets the story was recorded using the constellations in the skies at night. As the pictures of the constellations moved across the night skies people gathered around the camp fire and heard the prophecy of a saviour who would be born of a virgin and die and rise from death. This prophecy was played out in the figures of the constellations and the names of the stars within the constellations. Unfortunately there are only fragments of this story left to us now. It is thought to have originally began with Virgo. This virgin held within one hand a star named “branch” and within the other hand a star named “seed”. This matches up with the prophetic account of Jesus being the “seed of woman” and the “branch” of Jesse. The Zodiac ends with the Leo, the lion which is portrayed in the constellations as attacking and destroying Hydra the giant serpent. The appearance of the Magi at Jesus’ birth is evidence of existence a prophetic prediction of the true messiah based on the stars that was outside Judaism.

. The fact that there were many different ancient versions is really beside the point. The important questions are:

1. Why is there the idea of a saviour in the first place?
2. Why were all the different versions so similar?
3. Why is it common for the saviour to be born of a virgin?
4. Why is the saviour rejected and killed and then raised to life?
5. Why is the savour God as a man?

 

[Mallon]

The theory of Evolution carries on an important human tradition - the redeemer scenario, Recently someone wrote this to me,

“Christianity plagiarized the gods of countless religions and mythologies that preceded it, from virgin births, to son of god made flesh, to turning water into wine, to dying for us and promising to return. Jesus is version XX.0 of the same, tired stories that were told thousands of years before him.

Yes, the idea of a suffering redeemer is as old as mankind. And it can be found in many cultures. There were many people before Jesus who claimed to be the Messiah and there have been many since. Entertainment in our society is so saturated with this idea of a saviour that we take the whole thing for granted. The Western movie is famous for the lone hero who rides into town to save people from a gang of villains. But there are also many adventure, war, action or drama movies feature a hero who suffers and then rescues the innocent. Often in movies a hero appears to die only to have to somehow have escaped death and reappears to everyone’s joy. The fact saviour myths existed before the time of Christ doesn’t disprove the validity of Christianity. Far from it, if anything they show that in the heart of mankind there has always been the need for a saviour.

The Gospels in the Bible are the best accounts we have of the true Messiah. But long before the Gospels were written there were detailed prophetic accounts of the saviour in the books of the Old Testament. And before this the stories of the Messiah was passed on from one generation to the next by oral traditions. Some people believe that even the Zodiac was once used to tell the story of the one who would save mankind. The twelve signs of various “Zodiacs” are found Indian, Chinese, European and Mayan cultures. From ancient times it appears that the Zodiac was the one thing that most of mankind had in common. It was certainly known to the Jews. As the ancient Jewish historian Josephus wrote that astrology was handed down from Seth the son of Adam. And archaeological excavations in Israel often find Zodiacs in the floors of synagogues.

Today the signs of the Zodiac are used to predict one’s fortunes but this may not have been its original purpose. The star pictures of the constellations may have originally served as way for nomadic people to record picture stories. Instead of paper or tablets the story was recorded using the constellations in the skies at night. As the pictures of the constellations moved across the night skies people gathered around the camp fire and heard the prophecy of a saviour who would be born of a virgin and die and rise from death. This prophecy was played out in the figures of the constellations and the names of the stars within the constellations. Unfortunately there are only fragments of this story left to us now. It is thought to have originally began with Virgo. This virgin held within one hand a star named “branch” and within the other hand a star named “seed”. This matches up with the prophetic account of Jesus being the “seed of woman” and the “branch” of Jesse. The Zodiac ends with the Leo, the lion which is portrayed in the constellations as attacking and destroying Hydra the giant serpent. The appearance of the Magi at Jesus’ birth is evidence of existence a prophetic prediction of the true messiah based on the stars that was outside Judaism.

. The fact that there were many different ancient versions is really beside the point. The important questions are:

1. Why is there the idea of a saviour in the first place?
2. Why were all the different versions so similar?
3. Why is it common for the saviour to be born of a virgin?
4. Why is the saviour rejected and killed and then raised to life?
5. Why is the savour God as a man?

I'm afraid I didn't understand what any of that had to do with evolution. Can you please explain?

 

[Melethiel]

The theory of Evolution carries on an important human tradition - the redeemer scenario, Recently someone wrote this to me,

“Christianity plagiarized the gods of countless religions and mythologies that preceded it, from virgin births, to son of god made flesh, to turning water into wine, to dying for us and promising to return. Jesus is version XX.0 of the same, tired stories that were told thousands of years before him.

Yes, the idea of a suffering redeemer is as old as mankind. And it can be found in many cultures. There were many people before Jesus who claimed to be the Messiah and there have been many since. Entertainment in our society is so saturated with this idea of a saviour that we take the whole thing for granted. The Western movie is famous for the lone hero who rides into town to save people from a gang of villains. But there are also many adventure, war, action or drama movies feature a hero who suffers and then rescues the innocent. Often in movies a hero appears to die only to have to somehow have escaped death and reappears to everyone’s joy. The fact saviour myths existed before the time of Christ doesn’t disprove the validity of Christianity. Far from it, if anything they show that in the heart of mankind there has always been the need for a saviour.

The Gospels in the Bible are the best accounts we have of the true Messiah. But long before the Gospels were written there were detailed prophetic accounts of the saviour in the books of the Old Testament. And before this the stories of the Messiah was passed on from one generation to the next by oral traditions. Some people believe that even the Zodiac was once used to tell the story of the one who would save mankind. The twelve signs of various “Zodiacs” are found Indian, Chinese, European and Mayan cultures. From ancient times it appears that the Zodiac was the one thing that most of mankind had in common. It was certainly known to the Jews. As the ancient Jewish historian Josephus wrote that astrology was handed down from Seth the son of Adam. And archaeological excavations in Israel often find Zodiacs in the floors of synagogues.

Today the signs of the Zodiac are used to predict one’s fortunes but this may not have been its original purpose. The star pictures of the constellations may have originally served as way for nomadic people to record picture stories. Instead of paper or tablets the story was recorded using the constellations in the skies at night. As the pictures of the constellations moved across the night skies people gathered around the camp fire and heard the prophecy of a saviour who would be born of a virgin and die and rise from death. This prophecy was played out in the figures of the constellations and the names of the stars within the constellations. Unfortunately there are only fragments of this story left to us now. It is thought to have originally began with Virgo. This virgin held within one hand a star named “branch” and within the other hand a star named “seed”. This matches up with the prophetic account of Jesus being the “seed of woman” and the “branch” of Jesse. The Zodiac ends with the Leo, the lion which is portrayed in the constellations as attacking and destroying Hydra the giant serpent. The appearance of the Magi at Jesus’ birth is evidence of existence a prophetic prediction of the true messiah based on the stars that was outside Judaism.

. The fact that there were many different ancient versions is really beside the point. The important questions are:

1. Why is there the idea of a saviour in the first place?
2. Why were all the different versions so similar?
3. Why is it common for the saviour to be born of a virgin?
4. Why is the saviour rejected and killed and then raised to life?
5. Why is the savour God as a man?

I second Mallon's question. What "redeemer scenario", exactly, does evolution put forward? How does your idea square with the fact that Christians who accept evolution only accept Christ as the Redeemer, no different from other Christians?

I could answer your questions easily, and in depth, but it would have nothing to do with the topic of evolution, and would go into some pretty hefty theology.

 

[Mallon]

The only "redeemer scenario" I can imagine anyone associating with evolution is based on the long outdated and faulty thinking that evolution is "progressive", leading to better and better forms (a la Great Chain of Being). Suffice it to say, it has long been known that this is not how evolution works.
Still, I'm curious to hear no1nose's explanation.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

My suspicions about evolution began when I was studying relativity and quantum mechanics. Both relativy and quantum desirbe the physical world with great precision but they are contra intuitive and seemingly implausible. The reason why it is so hard to get our heads around quantum mechanics or relativity is that our thinking process takes place in a different “space” than the actions in the world around us. Crudely put, it is like trying to stuff a three dimensional object into a two dimensional space. Information from the world around us comes into the brain from our senses where “who knows what” happens to convert a four dimensional world into a mind’s image of that world. Because our minds are working with images and not the real thing we will never fully grasp the natural world in our minds. And for this reason any real descriptions of the world around will always seem contra intuitive to our reasoning process.

The problem I have with the Theory of Evolution is that it is not at all contra intuitive. It is too plausible, too logical to be an accurate description of the natural world. It is something that exists only as images in our mind. It is a nothing more than a world view. And like some sociopath among Theories it has a sullied history associated with it. Mankind has a history of adopting world views that seem laughable in retrospect and I believe that this is just another episode of that scenario. As knowledge increases the Theory of Evolution will seem less and less relevant.

You doubt common descent beause it is too plausable? I think you need to learn the terms you are using, dear. Your OP alone made the mathematician in me shudder.

 

[no1nose]

No, it is more that the Theory of Evolution doesn’t fit the profile of theories that really do represent the world “out there”. These theories are very challenging often don’t seem plausible. Evolution is like a plausible lie that keeps changing as more information comes in.


Evolution is often presented as a stroke of original genius by Darwin. What I am trying to point out is that it is really a heretical offshoot of Christianity that has tried to disguise it true origin. Christianity is about the redemption of the unfit and Evolution is about the survival of the fittest (this is true whether evolutionist admit it or not). In Christianity God plays an active role in the creation of life and in evolution life happens by “chance".


Despite many differences both Evolution and Christianity are about the transformation of one species into another. For Christianity it is the creation of the new man. Darwin’s scenario begins with one member being different at birth. This follows Christianity as Jesus was different – being conceived by the Holy Spirit. In Evolution this “mutation” gives the individual an advantage in survival. Having been raised from the dead proves that Jesus was a survivor. Finally in evolution the member of a species are not like this new individual becomes “extinct”. This too follows the Christianity in that those who do not accept Jesus are lost. Please note that none of these ideas are self evident in the natural world. They are read into it by Darwin’s preconceived Christian ideas.

The survival issues that face humanity are hunger, overpopulation, war, disease. Even from an evolutionary point of view if everyone became like Jesus there would be no hunger because he was able to feed people. Neither would be there be sickness, war or death. The same can not be said for Buddha, Mohamed, or Moses or anyone else one can think of. So even from an evolutionary point of view Jesus is the one.


Evolution, whether you like it or not, is about the survival of the fittest. You can deny this but still it is true and more importantly it is what the vast majority of people believe. Christianity is about the redemption of the unfit, even if many Christians have not lived up to this ideal. From these two starting blocks there will be different outcomes and Evolutionist are responsible for the outcomes of their core ideals. Many social evils follow naturally from the theory of evolution core ideas. This is not the case with Christianity whose core ideals are against social evil

 

[Skaloop]

For Christianity it is the creation of the new man. Darwin’s scenario begins with one member being different at birth.

Every living thing is different at birth. It's not just one member.

 

[Melethiel]

Darwin’s scenario begins with one member being different at birth. This follows Christianity as Jesus was different – being conceived by the Holy Spirit. In Evolution this “mutation” gives the individual an advantage in survival. Having been raised from the dead proves that Jesus was a survivor. Finally in evolution the member of a species are not like this new individual becomes “extinct”.

Simply put, false. Particularly the bolded part. Please go pick up a biology textbook.

 

[anonymous1515]

Despite many differences both Evolution and Christianity are about the transformation of one species into another. For Christianity it is the creation of the new man. Darwin’s scenario begins with one member being different at birth. This follows Christianity as Jesus was different – being conceived by the Holy Spirit. In Evolution this “mutation” gives the individual an advantage in survival. Having been raised from the dead proves that Jesus was a survivor. Finally in evolution the member of a species are not like this new individual becomes “extinct”. This too follows the Christianity in that those who do not accept Jesus are lost. Please note that none of these ideas are self evident in the natural world. They are read into it by Darwin’s preconceived Christian ideas.

Theres alot in your post to comment on, but I think this paragraph is a good place to start. Firstly, as already pointed out, an individual that is more fit than those around him is not the only one to survive. Secondly, how is it not self evident in the natural world? It's a simple probability distribution.

Take this hypothetical example:

There are 100 rocks. 80 of them are soft, and easily dissolve in water. 20 of them are hard, and do not dissolve. Throw them into a whirlpool, wait for 20 years, and afterwards see which ones are left. We would predict that the hard ones remain, no? That seems self evident.


Now what if those rocks could reproduce and pass their hardness to the next generation? Sounds alot like evolution.

If the result of my hypothetical scenario isn't obvious (as is evolution), then perhaps we mean different things when we say "self evident."

 

[Wiccan_Child]

No, it is more that the Theory of Evolution doesn’t fit the profile of theories that really do represent the world “out there”.

A theory is either true or not. It either explains the data or it does not. Who says it should resemble other theories?

These theories are very challenging often don’t seem plausible.

Do you even know what plausable means?

Evolution is like a plausible lie that keeps changing as more information comes in.

Every theory changes as new data is aquired. Atomic theory and the theory of gravity have undergone many such changes, as has the theory of common descent.

Evolution is often presented as a stroke of original genius by Darwin. What I am trying to point out is that it is really a heretical offshoot of Christianity that has tried to disguise it true origin. Christianity is about the redemption of the unfit and Evolution is about the survival of the fittest (this is true whether evolutionist admit it or not). In Christianity God plays an active role in the creation of life and in evolution life happens by “chance".

Strawmen of evolution, evolutionary theory, and the theory of common descent, do not an argument make. Try again.

Despite many differences both Evolution and Christianity are about the transformation of one species into another.

Nope. Evolution is about how species change. Christianity is about the salvation of human souls. One is based on reality, the other is a stab in the dark.

For Christianity it is the creation of the new man. Darwin’s scenario begins with one member being different at birth.

Which is an observed fact: reproduction with variation has been recorded since prehistory.

This follows Christianity as Jesus was different – being conceived by the Holy Spirit. In Evolution this “mutation” gives the individual an advantage in survival.

Or a disadvantage, or no advantage. All we can base this on is whether their genetic code is proliferated by whatever means.

Having been raised from the dead proves that Jesus was a survivor.

A poor comparison, to say the least.

Finally in evolution the member of a species are not like this new individual becomes “extinct”.

I don't know which part of this to correct first.

This too follows the Christianity in that those who do not accept Jesus are lost. Please note that none of these ideas are self evident in the natural world. They are read into it by Darwin’s preconceived Christian ideas.

Darwinism is nothing like you have presented. You have butchered it to superficially resemble Christianity, most notably by using similar words. That's strawmen, equivocation, and appeal to ridicule. Any other fallacies you'd like to throw in?

Evolution, whether you like it or not, is about the survival of the fittest. You can deny this but still it is true and more importantly it is what the vast majority of people believe. Christianity is about the redemption of the unfit, even if many Christians have not lived up to this ideal. From these two starting blocks there will be different outcomes and Evolutionist are responsible for the outcomes of their core ideals. Many social evils follow naturally from the theory of evolution core ideas. This is not the case with Christianity whose core ideals are against social evil

So the crusades and the Holocaust just didn't happen, right?

 

[Mallon]

No, it is more that the Theory of Evolution doesn’t fit the profile of theories that really do represent the world “out there”. These theories are very challenging often don’t seem plausible. Evolution is like a plausible lie that keeps changing as more information comes in.

I can come up with all the implausible theories I want, but that doesn't mean they represent what goes on in the real world. Your reasoning is without reason here. Some, if not many, theories are both perfectly plausible AND perfectly in tune with reality. Evolution is one of them. The theory that the Earth revolves about the sun is another.

What I am trying to point out is that it is really a heretical offshoot of Christianity that has tried to disguise it true origin.

Can you please provide evidence of this beyond hearsay? Maybe a long-lost diary of Darwin's where he kept his darkest secrets?

Evolution, whether you like it or not, is about the survival of the fittest.

Chance events like natural disasters play an important role in evolution. How do they fit in to your charicature of the survival of the fittest? If you were perfectly adapted to your environment and I was not, and a lightning bolt just happened to strike you, does that really make me the fittest?
I just love it when people completely unfamiliar with evolutionary theory tell us what it's all about, "whether we like it or not."