Debunking of Modern Evolutionary and Cosmological Theories

[Anomalocaris]

Christians say what makes them feel better about their own dependency on idiocy. They don't either bother to think it through or hold themselves to it.

[Cato]

'Cause we're in the spirit world asshole:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AduBW3iCNY

[AFTT47]

How long before we say, "This is stupid?" Are we going to engage someone who insists 1 + 1 = 3? Creationism is in the same category. It's done. Arguing about it is only encouraging them.

[Aroura]

The existence of a spiritual realm is evidence only of that, not of any specific creationist ideal, or the christian god. Are you saying that spirits could not exist without your specific god? How did you determine that? How did you determine any of what you just said?

It "indicates" that it would be related to a deity.  If that were true, it would also mean that science is not the creation of our universe.  It is "in my opinion" given that all of the theories of deities in our culture, that this would be a reasonable assumption.



If you had evidence of that stuff you could win a Nobel Prize and go down in history as one of the greatest people ever, responsible for saving countless souls. May I ask why you're not doing any of that stuff? Given the insanely high stakes for other people, it's downright selfish of you not to share your evidence, if you have it.

"In my opinion" and "my findings" imply that when I say "evidence", it means that I deem it as evidence for myself.  Do I have "evidence" by your terms, no...  But I deem it as true based on the countless testimonies (of athiests as well), cults, and historical accounts to name a few.  If you have not done sufficient research on this topic, you are the one that is fooled, not me.

That's not evidence, then. 

It sounds like you have not done much research into anything, actually.  If you are really interested in why there is a great deal of testimonies of spiritual encounters, then study a bit of neurobiology. Or just google sleep paralysis, as one example of how a naturally occurring human condition can lead a person to feel they are having a supernatural experience.  And if people can feel like they are having a supernatural experience when they aren't, then think it through. If the ONLY evidence we have is the testimony of people, then why would you accept a supernatural explanation when there exists a natural one?

Also, I beg you, please watch this video.



You seem like a nice enough kid, but people can be cruel when you are so extremely niave.  It will help if you actually spend some time educating yourself on issues, don't just believe something because someone said so.  Scientists don't, they test and retests other scientists ideas.  To be truly skeptical, as you claim, you need to actually apply your skepticism correctly.

Good luck in life kid, I mean that truly.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Lol, you're "rational", but you believe in "demonic spiritual realms"?

That turkey ain't flying.

[Angrboda]

Start a thread on the 'spirit' stuff, kid. I'm sure we'd all like to hear it.

[Mudhammam]

My prediction of the teacher's response:

[Hatshepsut]

"Professing Themselves to be Wise, They Became Fools": Flaws in Evolutionary and Cosmological Theories [Romans 1:22]

[1] First of all, it must be made clear that the modern scientific community is corrupt.
[2] One of the leading problems with evolution roots from the very start of the formation of life.

The cosmological and evolutionary theories we have today will almost certainly be overturned someday, at least in part. But not by bible thumpers. By future scientists.

A corrupt scientific establishment? Well, lets say there's lots of academic politics and enough dishonesty to keep things off lily white. But the county prosecutor's office in Salt Lake City is more corrupt than the science groups are. Science is free enough from malfeasance to produce reliable results.

The creation folks would get more mileage out of a run on abiogenesis than the crocoducks they've placed in the Cretaceous ever will. I think abiogenesis has serious problems, such as having absolutely no idea how life really happened, but that's far short of getting us to the six-day story. Involvement of a more generalized higher power, which I favor, lacks proof in its puddings to date as well. Science isn't going to tell us everything about the beginning, if indeed there was one. Still it's the lead horse, with provisional results better than anything we've ever had.

[Esquilax]

It "indicates" that it would be related to a deity.  If that were true, it would also mean that science is not the creation of our universe.  It is "in my opinion" given that all of the theories of deities in our culture, that this would be a reasonable assumption.

How would it indicate that? Again, supernatural does not necessarily mean divine; cut out the assumptions and what you'd like to be true, and look at what you're actually saying. There's a connection you've made that doesn't exist.

"In my opinion" and "my findings" imply that when I say "evidence", it means that I deem it as evidence for myself.  Do I have "evidence" by your terms, no...  But I deem it as true based on the countless testimonies (of athiests as well), cults, and historical accounts to name a few.  If you have not done sufficient research on this topic, you are the one that is fooled, not me.

Personal testimony is spurious evidence at best, for a number of reasons. But if you're willing to fall back on the same old "I have my evidence, but it's not real enough to convince you," routine that every other theist uses, including ones who believe in a different god to yours... well, then you are the one that is fooled, not me.

[Mudhammam]

Gomlbrobro, you seem to have a deeply, and I mean fundamentally, flawed understanding of how science works. Bullshit religious propaganda will do that to a person's mind. Science works with the data that is available to anyone who wants to study it. It doesn't stand or fall on account of some individual's claim to authority or "personal experience." Behe's book, Darwin's Black Box, was an enjoyable read but if you don't already have a grasp of the scientific method you won't realize when he (or anyone else who attempts a similar demonstration) is deviating from the style of scientific thought and advocating his own speculation in the guise of valid and sound reasoning. I don't think there is anything wrong with speculating about an alien species in white lab coats or a divine creature that spawns universe's from its incorporeal voice box as causes for existence, but you can't expect anyone to take you seriously without providing some evidence that your pet theory is at all useful as an explanation, by which I mean, it provides, even if just in principle, a means to test hypotheticals. Intelligent design offers no such test. It amounts to a god of the gaps. Even if chemists prior to the 20th century believed the origin of life would prove simpler the further we reduced biological structures, claiming that molecular machinery is very complex is not any indication that something supernatural causes atoms to group and change into the bodies that replicate themselves, thus spawning an arms race fueled by fluctuating environments and a competition where the fit survive. We ascribe laws to discoveries of that sort. If you want to reduce God to a law of physics, or the first principle of metaphysics, you ought to offer some utility in a way that Darwin's natural selection did and actually both explain and predict the phenomena you and your peers confront.