Debunking of Modern Evolutionary and Cosmological Theories

[gomlbrobro]

Let me be clear... I was obviously not trying to sway any opinions on this forum, as most of you have done a lot of research - much more than me. I apologize if it seemed that way. I do agree with all of your criticism; I didn't really know anything much about evolution and cosmological science before a week ago. This was written for a senior class in high school English... Of course it would not be acceptable in any sort of university science class.

It would be absolutely laughable this was seen as "proof" of a higher power. This is a 7 page research paper - even 1000 pages would not be adequate for some.

Yes I was trying to say to much at once, which makes it probably boring and aside from the topic, but this was solely written to arouse some sort of curiosity. "I'll start taking OP seriously when can correctly explain what evolution is and how it works." Indeed, this would be a mistake if you did, lol.

And yes a realize that there are most likely many fallacies if you look at my reasoning to be absolute fact. I suppose I should have done a better job in writing the essay. My purpose was to introduce skepticism on the theory, not a disproval of it all together. Like I said, that would be preposterous.

Note that when I say, "...the scientific community is corrupt", I am not saying popularized science necessarily false, at all. What I was trying to say is that the main voices control the community. The voices happen to have the same opinion, as well. My point is that there are other theories, which you might be aware of, that aren't publicized because they contradict the existing ones. My target audience for the writing was for uneducated people; people who would not know that there are other theories. I'm assuming you guys have looked at various theories on both sides, and rightly so. I'm not offended at all; I am fully aware that you guys know more. It is my personal decision, regardless of my ignorant knowledge, to believe in a deity. I sure hope you guys don't disagree with that.

Oh, and all of you seem like scientists. What are your professions and degrees?

[abaris]

What I was trying to say is that the main voices control the community.  The voices happen to have the same opinion, as well.  My point is that there are other theories, which you might be aware of, that aren't publicized because they contradict the existing ones.

Yes, that would be because the main voices usually have the credentials. They have peer reviews and in some cases nobel prizes going for them as opposed to any apologetic in the whole wide world.

Science isn't a debating club. It's based on empiric evidence and if someone isn't published it's because their work is crap. Not because of some conspiracy.

[Angrboda]

Much as they are loathed, the essays at answersingenesis are generally slickly written. You might peruse a few examples to see how they approach writing on controversial topics in this bailiwick.

[downbeatplumb]

Note that when I say, "...the scientific community is corrupt", I am not saying popularized science necessarily false, at all.  What I was trying to say is that the main voices control the community.  The voices happen to have the same opinion, as well.  My point is that there are other theories, which you might be aware of, that aren't publicized because they contradict the existing ones.  My target audience for the writing was for uneducated people; people who would not know that there are other theories.  I'm assuming you guys have looked at various theories on both sides, and rightly so.  I'm not offended at all; I am fully aware that you guys know more.  It is my personal decision, regardless of my ignorant knowledge, to believe in a deity.  I sure hope you guys don't disagree with that.

You see this snippet shows that you don't understand the scientific community at all. It is the new theory that wins the Nobel.
What you are thinking of uniformity of thought and suppressing opposing views are religions.

Contradicting views that aren't supported are the ones without evidence, the kooky crackpot theories that don't stand up to scrutiny theories like intelligent design which are just ways to shoe horn their practitioners beliefs into science and do it badly.

[Chas]

Let me be clear...  I was obviously not trying to sway any opinions on this forum, as most of you have done a lot of research - much more than me.  I apologize if it seemed that way.  I do agree with all of your criticism; I didn't really know anything much about evolution and cosmological science before a week ago.  This was written for a senior class in high school English... Of course it would not be acceptable in any sort of university science class.

You still don't know much of anything about those subjects. 

It would be absolutely laughable this was seen as "proof" of a higher power.  This is a 7 page research paper - even 1000 pages would not be adequate for some.  

It was a research paper?  Why didn't you do any research before writing it?  

Oh, and all of you seem like scientists.  

What does that even mean?  I respect the methods of science and those who adhere to them.

What are your professions and degrees?

I have degrees in mathematics and computer science; I design and implement complex software/hardware system to solve real world problems.

[rexbeccarox]

OP, you should learn the difference between a scientific theory and a hypothesis.

[Esquilax]

Note that when I say, "...the scientific community is corrupt", I am not saying popularized science necessarily false, at all.  What I was trying to say is that the main voices control the community.

I need you to actually think a little about the history of science, for a bit; how many of the greats in science got their reputations through overturning previously established ideas? Seriously, how many? Turns out, it's rather a lot. This idea that there's this controlling overclass maintaining the status quo only exists to make you feel better that the best of the best won't take your ideas seriously, but quite simply, reality betrays the weakness of that. Careers in science have been made by taking the status quo and crumpling it up into a little ball.

The voices happen to have the same opinion, as well.

The one that just happens to be supported by all the evidence, but you conveniently skipped that part.

  My point is that there are other theories, which you might be aware of, that aren't publicized because they contradict the existing ones.

No, there aren't other theories. There are other hypotheses, hypotheses that aren't publicized because they have no evidence or support, and propagate themselves by doing what you did, poking holes in what we do have evidence for and making arguments from ignorance. Frankly, if your idea was to present these other ideas, you might have actually done that, instead of just poking holes in the established science; you didn't spend a single sentence detailing what these other ideas are, or discussing the evidence behind them. You just went negative, as if naysaying the work of other people is sufficient to establish some other idea that you wouldn't even name.

In fact, the one idea that you did go into any detail on is symptomatic of the whole problem; when you talked about irreducible complexity your presentation of it amounted to nothing more than "evolution doesn't know how these things evolved, therefore they couldn't have evolved!" That's all any of these tarted up creationist frauds can do, is stomp on the work of respected scientists so they can point at (what they perceive to be) the debris and say "look at all that rubble! Why would you want to believe in rubble over this shiny new idea I have... ignore the lack of evidence now..."

  My target audience for the writing was for uneducated people; people who would not know that there are other theories.  I'm assuming you guys have looked at various theories on both sides, and rightly so.  I'm not offended at all; I am fully aware that you guys know more.  It is my personal decision, regardless of my ignorant knowledge, to believe in a deity.  I sure hope you guys don't disagree with that.

Personal decisions are fine, whatever, but when you besmirch the good names of people who have dedicated their lives to improving yours, when you smear science after it has given you so much, when you impugn things that you literally owe your life to, in the name of keeping those ideas safe from the obvious criticisms, then you are acting downright villainous.

[Alex K]

Oh, and all of you seem like scientists. What are your professions and degrees?

I have a Masters and PhD in theoretical physics. My specialty is the physics of the Higgs boson. But let's concentrate on the writing. Unless you have concrete questions about cosmology, of which I have an okish working knowledge.

[gomlbrobro]

He's probably attending a private Christian school, so he'll get an A even though it's not well written, has numerous grammatical, spelling, and structural errors, not to mention the fact it falls flat on it's face as far as logic goes.

Lol.  That picture is funny and does represent the truth of most Christians.  And no... I am not attending a Christian school.  I only disregard the idea of Darwin and other creation theories because I have witnessed firsthand and done research on 'spirits'.  My findings also indicate that these are of demonic nature.  Hence this is why I believe the Christian God to be true, rather than any other.  The presence of a supernatural realm (with spirits), seen throughout history and even today, in my opinion, completely debunks any scientific theory attributed to our creation.

Believe me, I am a rational thinker as most of you are.  I don't arbitrarily believe in a higher power simply because other people do or a Book in history says so.  Evidence of a spiritual realm pretty much automatically lead me to break off from atheism into theism.  I can honestly say it is the best thing that's ever happened in my life. Seriously, if you have a mind like me that looks at the evidence presented by the Christian church as "big woop", look in to evidence of a spiritual realm.  Personally, I found the demonic spiritual realm to be much more convincing.  It compelled me, it might for you as well.

[Chas]

Lol.  That picture is funny and does represent the truth of most Christians.  And no... I am not attending a Christian school.  I only disregard the idea of Darwin and other creation theories because I have witnessed firsthand and done research on 'spirits'.  My findings also indicate that these are of demonic nature.  Hence this is why I believe the Christian God to be true, rather than any other.  The presence of a supernatural realm (with spirits), seen throughout history and even today, in my opinion, completely debunks any scientific theory attributed to our creation.

At best, you have fooled yourself; at worst, you are delusional.   

Believe me, I am a rational thinker as most of you are.  I don't arbitrarily believe in a higher power simply because other people do or a Book in history says so.  Evidence of a spiritual realm pretty much automatically lead me to break off from atheism into theism.  I can honestly say it is the best thing that's ever happened in my life. Seriously, if you have a mind like me that looks at the evidence presented by the Christian church as "big woop", look in to evidence of a spiritual realm.  Personally, I found the demonic spiritual realm to be much more convincing.  It compelled me, it might for you as well.

No, you do not appear to be a rational thinker - certainly not a critical thinker; you have swallowed some nonsense hook, line, and sinker.