Evolution is an ancient Creation dogma

[SkyWriting]

Briefly stated, this ancient dogma is the "alchemical" view of nature.... a thoroughly mystical belief that nature itself has the power to transform itself from an initial primitive state into all the diverse physical forms we see today.

That would explain the crickets chirping every time I ask for
scientific reasons for life to exist or evolution to be active.

 

[SkyWriting]

Quantum physics proves nothing just evolves just on it own. 80 yrs of experiments proven it. What does it state beyond all the jargon How a scientist thinks can control the very atoms in a experiment .The Big Bang theory is also been proven wrong cause scientists have discovered much to there surprise the universe is expanding at a accelerated rate.So where is that energy coming from after that initial explosion .A Catholic priest came up with the theory to try to explain the church doctrine that the Earth was created in 6 days it has no scientific basis .Put educational institutions keeping feeding to kids to deny how creation really works.

The heisenberg principal says that time and unpredictability
are tied in a inverse formula such that most of the time
we can be sure of an event but inversely we can't be confident
for short periods of time.

 

[lifepsyop]

It is not embarrassing that people were thinking about the evidence they saw in the world around them before someone came up with a robust explanation of it. Nobody is quite sure what your obsession with poetry is about. Erasmus Darwin wrote several scientific works, including Zoonomia, in which he put forth early ideas of evolution and the inheritance of acquired characteristics. It is by no means embarrassing that scientific thinkers were circling in on the correct explanation of the evidence around them.

Right, and he knew the solar system "evolved" via magic nature as well. Writing about how older planets gave birth to new ones, etc.

Just disinterested science, no ideological agenda at all.

 

[DogmaHunter]

What’s an anti-God theory?

My guess is, any scientific theory that
1. doesn't include supernatural assertions
and
2. contradicts the fundamentalist religious faith-based beliefs of the religion that the person in question happens to be brought up in, more then likely by geographic accident.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Interesting you say that evolution is an "anti-god theory", when most theists accept the theory.

But all those theists aren't true scottsmen... err, I mean true theists. They obviously follow the wrong religion or denomination. ONLY Aman's fundamentalist space-adam interpretation that nobody else believes is the true and correct religion, didn't you know?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Quantum physics proves nothing just evolves just on it own.

lol?

How a scientist thinks can control the very atoms in a experiment

Nukes explode and nuclear power stations delivery electricity.
Sounds pretty controlled to me...

The Big Bang theory is also been proven wrong cause scientists have discovered much to there surprise the universe is expanding at a accelerated rate.

lol!
Funny how you think that one of the phenomena that is actually addressed by big bang theory, is actually the phenomena that "proves it wrong".

Thank goodness we have you, random internet fundamentalist, to inform us all that all the expert physicists and cosmologists in the world, are incorrect.

A Catholic priest came up with the theory to try to explain the church doctrine that the Earth was created in 6 days it has no scientific basis

Georges LeMaitre is turning in his grave when you say things like that.
The Pope at the time tried to use LeMaitre's hypothesis to try and support the biblical idea of creation. When LeMaitre heared about that, he wrote the Pope a letter, kindly asking him to please stop abusing his scientific work to try and make a religious point.

Put educational institutions keeping feeding to kids to deny how creation really works.

Right, right.... those HORRIBLE educational institutions right? Teching them kids science... who DARE they?????????????

 

[DogmaHunter]

Origin of Life studies have struggled to produce convincing naturalistic explanations, , yet at no time has a natural cause been allowed to be questioned.

That is extremely dishonest formulation.

The honest formulation is, that science doesn't accept undemonstrable, undetectable, unsupportable agents as explanations of ANYTHING.

The problem with creationists is not that they "question" naturalistic explanations. The problem rather is that they insist on including an agent that they can't demonstrate to be real. They insist on including an agent which, actually by definition, has NO detectable manifestation, NO testability, NO observations, NO testable predictions, NO falsifiability,....

It's just about belief and nothing else.

Looking for a natural explanation makes sense, because natural phenomena (like physics, chemistry, bio-chemistry) demonstrably exist. If you wish to propose a non-natural explanation, then you're going to have to provide a wee bit more besides some bronze age religious text (that even theists among themselves can't even agree on what it really is saying)!

The more honest scientists will freely state that they can only consider natural operations

Because supernatural claims can't be tested, verified, observed, demonstrated,... by definition.

The second you can demonstrate that supernatural forces actually exist in the real world, and not just in your head / beliefs, is the second that scientists will happily include them in their models if need be.

Until then, they might just as well include undetectable pink graviton fairies in the theory of gravity. It will have the exact same merrit: none.

The same goes for the origin of all other things at all different stages of the evolution creation story.

No, we actually have mountains of evidence of the natural process of biological evolution.

 

[DogmaHunter]

you are not even allowed to propose a LIMIT on the natural explanation, i.e. nature's supposed creative powers to explain the origin of things.

If you wish to suggest a limit, then again: demonstrate this limit.

You don't seem to understand that whenever you make such truth claims or assertions, in science you are actually required to SUPPORT them with EVIDENCE.

Your a priori religious beliefs, aren't evidence.

Again, it's simply outside of the scientific establishment's philosophical parameters. There's no shame in admitting your own dogmatic boundaries.

It's not dogmatic. It's intellectually honest. You can't test that which is defined as being untestable.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Right, and he knew the solar system "evolved" via magic nature as well. Writing about how older planets gave birth to new ones, etc.

Just disinterested science, no ideological agenda at all.

If he ever wrote such a thing in seriousness, it has rightly been discarded on the rubbish heap of bad ideas. Like all the other hypotheses that are unsupported by evidence. Even if we suppose that this is some symptom of 'ideology', clearly ideology and dogma do not survive in science when confronted with facts and evidence, contrary to your thesis.

Although scientists may be aware of certain prescientific hypotheses about nature, forging a scientific theory requires robust evidence for widespread acceptance.

 

[lifepsyop]

The honest formulation is, that science doesn't accept undemonstrable, undetectable, unsupportable agents as explanations of ANYTHING.

The problem with creationists is not that they "question" naturalistic explanations. The problem rather is that they insist on including an agent that they can't demonstrate to be real. They insist on including an agent which, actually by definition, has NO detectable manifestation, NO testability, NO observations, NO testable predictions, NO falsifiability,....

It's just about belief and nothing else.

Looking for a natural explanation makes sense, because natural phenomena (like physics, chemistry, bio-chemistry) demonstrably exist. If you wish to propose a non-natural explanation, then you're going to have to provide a wee bit more besides some bronze age religious text (that even theists among themselves can't even agree on what it really is saying)!



Because supernatural claims can't be tested, verified, observed, demonstrated,... by definition.

The second you can demonstrate that supernatural forces actually exist in the real world, and not just in your head / beliefs, is the second that scientists will happily include them in their models if need be.

Ah, right on cue with that supernatural strawman.

You know perfectly well that we can explore potential *limits* of nature's creative powers without having to invoke any supernatural agents.

Yet the mere suggestion that nature may be unable to account for the origin of something (e.g. life) is forbidden within "scientific" institutions because of the reigning nature-creator dogma.

 

[lifepsyop]

If you wish to suggest a limit, then again: demonstrate this limit.

lol, I love it when evolutionists pretend to be eager for a challenge when an opposing viewpoint isn't even allowed to be discussed.

Any time the question arises "Hey maybe blind natural processes couldn't have accounted for this...?" it's an immediate, all-hands-on-deck, hand-waving freak-out by your camp about those 'anti-science creationists' trying to sneak God's foot in the door.

Your camp is terrified of an open discourse about the potential limits of nature. It's simply ruled out as a possibility from the beginning, and that's that. The grand Nature-Creator orginated everything and now we just have to find out how. That is your creation story dogma.

 

[lifepsyop]

If he ever wrote such a thing in seriousness, it has rightly been discarded on the rubbish heap of bad ideas. Like all the other hypotheses that are unsupported by evidence. Even if we suppose that this is some symptom of 'ideology', clearly ideology and dogma do not survive in science when confronted with facts and evidence, contrary to your thesis.

And this highlights an important distinction. Yes, the specific routes the nature-creator took to originate things is always up for debate (and this is how evolutionists pretend to have a scientific openness to all evidence)

.....but while the specific hypotheses and theories can always be modified or discarded, you are never allowed to question the central dogma it is based on, (i.e. Nature did it.) If the evidence leads away from nature as a cause, you simply cannot follow it or even admit the evidence exists.

So there may have been hypotheses about how the solar system evolved that have been thoroughly discarded, but what you can not question under any circumstances is whether the solar system evolved at all. "It did. And we just have to figure out how."

 

[essentialsaltes]

lol, I love it when evolutionists pretend to be eager for a challenge when an opposing viewpoint isn't even allowed to be discussed.

Any time the question arises "Hey maybe blind natural processes couldn't have accounted for this...?" it's an immediate, all-hands-on-deck, hand-waving freak-out

No, it was a polite request for you to put up or shut up. Sadly, you will do neither.

 

[Jimmy D]

.....but while the specific hypotheses and theories can always be modified or discarded, you are never allowed to question the central dogma it is based on, (i.e. Nature did it.) If the evidence leads away from nature as a cause, you simply cannot follow it or even admit the evidence

Question whatever ‘Dogma’ you like.

The problem lies in the quality of your questions, as we’ve seen so far they are spurious to say the least.

You certainly haven’t presented any evidence of note.

 

[HitchSlap]

In 1803, before Charles Darwin was even born, his grandfather Erasmus Darwin published a lengthy poem celebrating the beauty of the evolutionary history of all life on earth...
Here's a small excerpt from "The Temple of Nature":
http://knarf.english.upenn.edu/Darwin/temple1.html

"ORGANIC LIFE beneath the shoreless waves
Was born and nursed in Ocean's pearly caves;
First forms minute, unseen by spheric glass,
Move on the mud, or pierce the watery mass;
These, as successive generations bloom
New powers acquire, and larger limbs assume;
Whence countless groups of vegetation spring,
And breathing realms of fin, and feet, and wing."

Hmmmm... I thought Evolution was all about objective science and reason prevailing over faith-based dogmas?
How did these guys already 'know' Evolution was true *before* the advent of scientific theories supposedly demonstrating it? A feeling, a hunch, an educated guess?

Actually the Darwins and other students of the Enlightenment were simply resurrecting an ancient dogma.

Briefly stated, this ancient dogma is the "alchemical" view of nature.... a thoroughly mystical belief that nature itself has the power to transform itself from an initial primitive state into all the diverse physical forms we see today.

"Proposals that one type of animal, even humans, could descend from other types of animals, are known to go back to the first pre-Socratic Greek philosophers. Anaximander of Miletus (c. 610 – 546 BC) proposed that the first animals lived in water, during a wet phase of the Earth's past, and that the first land-dwelling ancestors of mankind must have been born in water..."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought#Antiquity

Evolution is a hidden dogma, a mystical, quasi-religious creation narrative that was held to faithfully by the very progenitors of our modern scientific institutions. The 'learned societies' of the 17th-19th centuries, the students of the Enlightenment that propelled the ancient "nature as creator" dogma into the modern age. And for all the scientific progress these societies and institutions have made, the essential idea of Evolution (Nature as creator) was never and will never be up for debate within them.

The Evolutionary creation story - the unfolding of all of the diversity of nature by the intrinsic power of nature itself - will simply be revised and refined as knowledge increases. But that fundamental belief in Evolution is not allowed tobe questioned. It would be like Christian institutions questioning whether the Bible is inspired by God. The very question negates the assumption the institution is built on.

In some cases, we'll actually see this dogma freely admitted. Take modern "Origin of Life" (abiogenesis) studies for example. Within our scientific institutions, it is simply taken for granted that IT HAPPENED. "Nature created life, we just need to figure out how.". Only the HOW is to be questioned, but never IF it happened. Here we have this ancient dogma exposed for all to see. And we see that the scientific institutions are not even equipped to question that central dogma that nature is the creator of all things.

It's not hard to see... this shouldn't even be controversial if we're being honest with ourselves... It's just a hard pill to swallow for people who were sold flimsy "science vs. religion" mythology all their lives by these same authorities.

ToE, much like your abysmal misunderstanding of science history, is a fact.

 

[lifepsyop]

No, it was a polite request for you to put up or shut up. Sadly, you will do neither.

People have been providing legitimate arguments for decades. But the evolutionists can't handle a debate so they rule any question of nature-creator's powers as an "anti-science" conspiracy.

For example, this is James Tour, one of the top chemists in academia, testifying that he does not see a pathway for a natural origin of life.

"Tour has over 650 research publications and over 120 patents, with an H-index = 133 and i10 index = 583 with total citations over 84,000 (Google Scholar). He was inducted into the National Academy of Inventors in 2015.Tour was named among “The 50 Most Influential Scientists in the World Today” by TheBestSchools.org in 2014; listed in “The World’s Most Influential Scientific Minds” by Thomson Reuters ScienceWatch.com in 2014; and recipient of the Trotter Prize in “Information, Complexity and Inference” in 2014; and was the Lady Davis Visiting Professor, Hebrew University, June, 2014. He was named Scientist of the Year” by R&D Magazine, 2013."

Now try and resist the desperate knee-jerk reaction to throw yourself upon a strawman ("but, but, he's not talking about ToE!!!!") ... and really let what he's saying sink in.

Let it be perfectly clear that there are highly qualified scientists in relevant fields that have real problems with the evolutionary creation story (i.e. that stardust can turn itself into people).... They simply do not see evidence that nature has the mystical organizing powers that you want it to have.

To evolutionists: please, do not pretend a challenge isn't firmly on the table. It's been there for a long time and you're unable to deal with it.

The solution? Ban any mention of IT (a potential limit to your almighty nature-creator) from the discourse.

How embarassing is it that your camp still can't handle a debate? You cannot allow any questioning of your sacrosanct nature-God, and laughably continue the charade that you're champions of science and empiricism, following the evidence wherever it leads.

I wonder how history will look back on the dogmatic reign of your philosophy-cult?

 

[Jimmy D]

People have been providing legitimate arguments for decades. But the evolutionists can't handle a debate so they rule any question of nature-creator's powers as an "anti-science" conspiracy.

For example, this is James Tour, one of the top chemists in academia, testifying that he does not see a pathway for a natural origin of life.

"Tour has over 650 research publications and over 120 patents, with an H-index = 133 and i10 index = 583 with total citations over 84,000 (Google Scholar). He was inducted into the National Academy of Inventors in 2015.Tour was named among “The 50 Most Influential Scientists in the World Today” by TheBestSchools.org in 2014; listed in “The World’s Most Influential Scientific Minds” by Thomson Reuters ScienceWatch.com in 2014; and recipient of the Trotter Prize in “Information, Complexity and Inference” in 2014; and was the Lady Davis Visiting Professor, Hebrew University, June, 2014. He was named Scientist of the Year” by R&D Magazine, 2013."

Now try and resist the desperate knee-jerk reaction to throw yourself upon a strawman ("but, but, he's not talking about ToE!!!!") ... and really let what he's saying sink in.

Let it be perfectly clear that there are highly qualified scientists in relevant fields that have real problems with the evolutionary creation story (i.e. that stardust can turn itself into people).... They simply do not see evidence that nature has the mystical organizing powers that you want it to have.

To evolutionists: please, do not pretend a challenge isn't firmly on the table. It's been there for a long time and you're unable to deal with it.

The solution? Ban any mention of IT (a potential limit to your almighty nature-creator) from the discourse.

How embarassing is it that your camp still can't handle a debate? You cannot allow any questioning of your sacrosanct nature-God, and laughably continue the charade that you're champions of science and empiricism, following the evidence wherever it leads.

I wonder how history will look back on the dogmatic reign of your philosophy-cult?

You are conflating evolution with abiogenesis. Are you presenting an argument against abiogenesis or evolution?


I can't watch your video, I have no sound on my PC. Would you care to present the main thrust of the argument.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Now try and resist the desperate knee-jerk reaction to throw yourself upon a strawman

Speaking of strawmen, it would be helpful if you did not try to make up imaginary responses.

Let it be perfectly clear that there are highly qualified scientists in relevant fields that have real problems with the evolutionary creation story

No one has claimed otherwise.

To evolutionists: please, do not pretend a challenge isn't firmly on the table. It's been there for a long time and you're unable to deal with it.

On the table? For science, the appropriate 'table' on which to throw your challenge is in the scientific literature. Yet most of the doubters make their cases primarily in the popular media (or even YouTube!). But when they do make their arguments in a scientific forum, as Behe and Snoke did with their article in Protein Science, they get roundly spanked by the evidence.

The solution? Ban any mention of IT

Who's banning what, now?

You cannot allow any questioning of your sacrosanct nature-God

This is just loony.

 

[Jimmy D]

The solution? Ban any mention of IT (a potential limit to your almighty nature-creator) from the discourse.

How embarassing is it that your camp still can't handle a debate? You cannot allow any questioning of your sacrosanct nature-God, and laughably continue the charade that you're champions of science and empiricism, following the evidence wherever it leads.

He writes in a post that cites a scientist questioning our "sacrosant nature-God".

LOL.

You guys crack me up.

 

[lifepsyop]

On the table? For science, the appropriate 'table' on which to throw your challenge is in the scientific literature. Yet most of the doubters make their cases primarily in the popular media (or even YouTube!).

The astronomically abysmal chances of nature organizing life from non-life has been known or 'on the table' for quite awhile. Why are you still calling to have the elephant in the room drawn out for you?

Why do modern scientific institutions still pretend the evidence isn't leading away from a natural cause? Maybe it's impossible to follow that evidence beyond a certain point, but you could at least be honest enough to admit it's there instead of trying to deceive the public that nature is magical and can do anything.

Scientifically speaking, abiogenesis appears, at best, extremely unlikely. But within modern scientific institutions, the possibility that nature can't explain the origin of something is anathema. Your evolutionary creation story is "baked in", before any consideration of the evidence begins. The saddest part is you just can't admit it.

But when they do make their arguments in a scientific forum, as Behe and Snoke did with their article in Protein Science, they get roundly spanked by the evidence.

lol, the second a Darwin-skeptic is responded to at all, then he's been "spanked", I bet most evolutionists wouldn't even bother to read the exchange ... yet it looks like Behe addressed the criticism's in a follow-up.... and Behe is an evolutionist himself. What's so funny is that he is painted as such a radical for simply deviating from the cult of neo-Darwinism.

That's an interesting subject in itself. Many top-level evolutionary biologists are walking away from neo-Darwinism. But it's funny that students are still being taught what is essentially 19th century biology.

 

[essentialsaltes]

The astronomically abysmal chances of nature organizing life from non-life has been known or 'on the table' for quite awhile.

Lucky for us the universe is astronomically large.

lol, the second a Darwin-skeptic is responded to at all, then he's been "spanked",

I guess you missed the part that said "Numerous scientists have debunked the work".