Ask any scientist where life on our planet came from, and they'll usually give you a one-word answer: "Evolution."
Most scientist do not study or care about the origins of life, those who study it study Abiogenesis, the highly theoretical science of origins of life. Nobody who knows about evolution claims life began with evolution.
Immediately thereafter, they will usually give you a condescending look that also implies you're an idiot for not knowing this "scientific fact" that everyone else has accepted as true.
Or they look at you and think, Oh no, here we go, another fundamentalist wacko.
It turns out, however, that the scientist is suffering from a delusion. Evolution doesn't even encompass origins of life.
there are scientist who could not care less, and there are scientist who know about it and do not hold delusions.
Rather, evolution (i.e. "natural selection") explains a process by which species undergo a process of adaptation, fitness and reproduction in response to environmental, behavioral and sexual influences. No rational person can deny that natural selection is ever-present and happening right now across bacteria, plants, animals and even humans, yet natural selection can only function on pre-existing life forms.
I agree whole heartly
It does not give rise to non-existent life.
true true
true true
Darwin, in other words, did not study the "reproduction of rocks" because there is no such thing. He studied animals which were already alive.
You seem to be totally ignorant on the fine science of abiogenesis. It is mostly study of chemistry and molecular biology.
Thus, the "Theory of Evolution" utterly fails to address the ORIGIN of where the first life forms came from.
Thus, the "Theory of Evolution" utterly fails to address the ORIGIN of where the first life forms came from.
wrong, it is evolution when first RNA structures started replicating and EVOLVING.
so basically the theory of evolution that originally clearly stated it does not define the origins of life, actually applies there.
How did natural selection have anything to work on in the first place? You can't "evolve" life forms from dead rocks, after all... unless the evolutionists are now embracing the theory of spontaneous resurrection of dead objects into living organisms.
you are right that rocks could not have brought up life forms. Is that the best explanation you came up? luckily our scientist are not so rockheaded and they have come up with testable hypothesies and got some positive result, meaning, we have some evidence on how life started, but still not the whole picture.
So the question remains: Where did life ORIGINATE?
So the question remains: Where did life ORIGINATE?
Please let the expert figure that out, you are not helping, you are not qualified.
Google for news, new things are found out monthly.
Evolutionists prefer to skip over that all-important question. So let us pick up their slack and explore this subject with honest skepticism.
What the hell are you talking about, that is exactly what they are thinking about!! You blatantly claim things that are obviously wrong that I can fairly certainly say you never asked any scientist that question, you just made that up yourself!!
According to scientists, you can never argue with scientists because they uniquely have a monopoly on all knowledge.
Evolutionists prefer to skip over that all-important question. So let us pick up their slack and explore this subject with honest skepticism.
What the hell are you talking about, that is exactly what they are thinking about!! You blatantly claim things that are obviously wrong that I can fairly certainly say you never asked any scientist that question, you just made that up yourself!!
Evolution as a theory of the origin of life is a FAITH, not science
Can you backup that claim, you should show some evidence for that incredible claim. Do you even know the definition of science? is it sciecenism?
you just throw claims in the air.
Actually, scientist have to prove every single claim. You simply cannot argue with a scientist because they can prove every single claim and you just lose, because you cannot prove anything! And every single scientist know how little they know, and every ignorant person knows it all, without evidence.
Their beliefs can never be questioned because they are beyond any need to be validated.
by very definition, they would not be scientists then, everyting they say must be validated, that´s the whole point of science.
"Scientific truth" is true because they say it is, and the faith-based belief that evolution explains theorigins of life cannot be questioned either.
Should not be questioned because evolution does not try to prove origins of life, question abiogenesis, not evolution. And you just wait until they can give you something solid, we are not there yet!
Yet question it we will!
Yet question it we will!
Told you to wait! There are great documentaries in youtube if you cannot wait...
So let's see how this goes: The entire cosmos starts out as an unimaginably dense point that explodes in an event cosmologists call the Big Bang. All the physical matter we know today has its origins in that event, yet, importantly, there was no life in the Big Bang. No biological organism could have possibly survived Inflation, for starters. And before Inflation, the density of matter would have crushed anything resembling biological life.
This may be too complex topic for you, but Lawrence has a great lecture about bigbang if you are interested:
Life on earth started way after big bag and is a chemical mystery. But it seems like unavoidable since amino acids have been found on outer space, it is just something molecules tend to do, no magic there.
According to physicists, the Big Bang itself followed no pre-existing laws of the cosmos. In fact, all physical laws that we know of -- gravity, electromagnetism, etc. -- came out of the Big Bang. Even the very fabric of reality was created by it (space and time).
They actually say that propably so happened, but they are not sure, he we have pure theories because those are had to test.
The Big Bang is the faith-based miracle of modern science. "Give me one miracle," they're fond of saying, "and we can explain everything that follows."
I do not think you call them Faith based, if they are mathematically backed, belief could be better term. But it is a scientific theory that gives testable predictions, and those big bang theories HAVE BEEN SCIENTIFICALLY TESTED so we call it a FACT because of that...
Except the miracle of the Big Bang itself goes entirely unexplained.
Except the miracle of the Big Bang itself goes entirely unexplained.
No, it has been totally explained, you just are ignorant about it because you are not interested on finding out about it.
How could everything suddenly come from nothing?
short answer, we do not know, but mathematically it is shown that NOTHINGNESS is unstable, by all propablities it has to explode. Follow the youtube link I gave before, it really does give answers.
How could an entire universe come into existence without a cause?
It did not, unstability of nothingness is the cause. It happened because if something is possible, it will eventually happen. Heisenberg princible.
If you do not understand it, it does not prove it wrong. Good rule of thumb.
These questions are routinely ignored.
totally false statement, they are routinelly EXPLAINED. the answers are routinely ignored to be precise.
Instead, we are told that we should believe in the Big Bang as a matter of faith and trust that it is the only exception to the laws of the universe. This is, of course, a matter of faith, not fact.
Not so, we are told to study and think for your self, find out, check the facts, thats what we are told, find out new studies, science is advancing every day, study, be active.
Not so, we are told to study and think for your self, find out, check the facts, thats what we are told, find out new studies, science is advancing every day, study, be active.
On religion people are told to trust faith blindly, not on science, science is polar opposite of your discription.
And what about the origins of life in all this? Today, supposedly 13.8 billion years later, we see life all around us. Logically, somewhere between the Big Bang -- where no life existed -- and today, life must have appeared.
But how?
That is the super interesting question, are you willing to go and find the answers or just sticking your head to the sand? I have studied and found marvelous world of science, I hope you follow me.
Scientists believe in magic
by definition, they do not. If you cannot test it, it is not science, if you can, it is science. Scientific beliefs are based on theories that are tested. it is philosophy if it is scientific but not testable.
Repeating, no. You are strawmanning here.
Ultimately, the answer given by scientists is that life spontaneously sprang from lifelessness.
Not at all, you claim something that nobody said. Perhaps you actually asked someone and did not understand, but I doubt it.
Take some chemistry 101. Chemicals are usually inorganic, and very active, I would not really call it lifelessness. Life is chemical reaction, that existed billion years before life on earth, so it actually is business as usual, we did not actuall appear from nothing but are a chemical reaction.
Seriously, that's their real answer.
Seriously, you just lie.
They have more technical-sounding names for it, and there are hundreds of books written on various theories that might explain it, but ultimately, scientists believe in magic.Because "magic" is the only way you can really explain life rising from lifelessness.
If you do not understand something, you call it magic. Belief in magic is common, most people believe in man in the sky who watches our sexlife and judges us after death, that is not science.
So evolution really doesn't explain the origins of life after all.
So evolution really doesn't explain the origins of life after all.
No it does not fully explain it, but it explains it to a point very well.
Magic does. Life arose from lifelessness in exactly the same way the Big Bang suddenly happened without cause: it's all done by magic! (I guess that makes two miracles, not one, but who's counting?)
No, that is your version of it. repeating, if you do not understand it, go study some more, do not claim it is magic just because you cannot understand it.
No, that is your version of it. repeating, if you do not understand it, go study some more, do not claim it is magic just because you cannot understand it.
Quantum theory actually does explain spontanious appearance of matter and energy, but quantum theory is HARD!
All of a sudden, the idea of a Creator who seeded the Big Bang or seeded the universe with life seems a lot less whacky than the "magical" explanations of many conventional scientists.
REALLY? the very idea of Creator, who presumably always existed to you does not need any logical explanation? quantum theory actually does give testable predictions of the first cause, but your man in the sky is just quick exit of logic. It does not explain anything, it by definition is MAGIC, but you just condemned magic, so what the hell are you arguing about. Do you or do you not believe in magic?
Creator by definition is magical creator.
It is far more feasible that our universe was created by an omniscient, highly-advanced consciousness than it somehow springing into existence for no reason whatsoever.
that is just most ridiculous fallacy I can imagine. You dismiss logic and explain things you cannot understand with things that are impossible. Gosh, that is just incredible!
that is just most ridiculous fallacy I can imagine. You dismiss logic and explain things you cannot understand with things that are impossible. Gosh, that is just incredible!
Where did that highly-advanced consciousness come from? He always was you say?
What about if I say that we are just a part of eternal multiverse where universes keep bubling up and dying? do you think your creator is more logical explanation?
Where do they sell logic these days???
Atheism, soullessness and permanent death
Conventional scientists, of course, will go through tremendous contortions to try to remove any idea of a designer, engineer or Creator from their worldview.
because it does not add to our understanding of universe a single bit. It does not cure the sick, it does not make computers better, it does not make life better.
science cares about things that can be explained, your creator is actually totally irrelevant to our life. So why waste time to it???
That's because nearly all of them are devout atheists who also disavow any belief in consciousness, free will, the soul, God or spirituality.
On many levels, no.
by definition, religousness neglets free will. the soul is not defined accuratelly or proven to exist. Talmud actually defined soul as living beings, so by jewish tradition, souls are us. Old testament is from talmud, so you sould believe the same, right?
Define god so it can be measured and tested, and it starts to have some relevance to our life. Spirituality, what does it mean?
The term spirituality lacks a definitive definition,[1][2] although social scientists have defined spirituality as the search for "the sacred," where "the sacred" is broadly defined as that which is set apart from the ordinary and worthy of veneration.[3]
The use of the term "spirituality" has changed throughout the ages.[4] In modern times spirituality is often separated from Abrahamic religions,[5] and connotes a blend ofhumanistic psychology with mystical and esoteric traditions and eastern religions aimed at personal well-being and personal development.[6] The notion of "spiritual experience" plays an important role in modern spirituality, but has a relatively recent origin.[7]
According to their own explanations, they themselves are mindless biological robots suffering from the mere delusion of mind created as a kind of artificial projection of mechanistic biological brain function.
You are not at all qualified to say that atheists and scientist think, because you do not care and obviously are not either. So please do not say what other think.
You are not at all qualified to say that atheists and scientist think, because you do not care and obviously are not either. So please do not say what other think.
Atheist think they are living and thinking organical beings, and opposed to devout fundamentalist, we think.
You are right on that accord that we are some what organic mechanism, but mindless, that is just by definition wrong. I think therefore I am. Nobody thinks we are mindless robots, you just throw words in the air.
See my mini-documentary "The God Within" for a more detailed exploration of this:
The twisted philosophy of many scientists also raises bizarre ethical lapses, such as their belief that killing a lab rat, or a dog, or even another human being is of no ethical consequence since all those creatures are not actually "alive" in any real way.
Again, do not make claims for scientist. Humanist is a person who thinks for the benefit of humans. I salute you if you are a vegetarian and avoid animal products.
But you are a hypocrite if you eat meat, use leather, or honey (causes suffering for the bees).
Scientist test products with animals to protect HUMAN CONSUMERS, so they are PRO HUMAN. what should they be, pro pigs? some people are...
This is why drug companies, vaccine manufacturers and science in general feels no remorse for conducting deadly experiments on children, blacks, prisoners or minorities.
There are psychopats that feel no remourse. some of them are religous leaders on high places. But to claim all scientist are psychopats, that just makes you rasict, I am deeply troubled about you.
There are psychopats that feel no remourse. some of them are religous leaders on high places. But to claim all scientist are psychopats, that just makes you rasict, I am deeply troubled about you.
The worst trait of conventional scientists is not merely that they are wildly self-deluded into believing they have no real consciousness;
It is actually by definition delusional to say that. Have you ever witnessed this delusion? Have you made reliable studies on scientist delusions? I do not think so.
by definition, if a person thinks he has no real consciousness, he is not able to live a normal life and needs professional care. I can safely say that scientist are normal people, they can work and love their spouces, they are not in need of immediatelly care.
it's actually the fact that they are simultaneously wildly arrogant, even combative about forcing their twisted beliefs onto others.
This definition more likely fits you.
This definition more likely fits you.
Their faith-based beliefs are always described as "facts" while they proclaim other people's beliefs are "delusions." You cannot argue with any group of people who are wholly convinced their beliefs are facts because any critical thinking you might invoke is automatically and routinely rejected as a matter of irrational defense.
My experience of fundamentalists is exactly as you just described. You cannot have them prove anything, and still they call their claims as facts. When opponent really proves his points, they are delusions. Bible is not proof, it´s a book!
The vaccine faith test
As an example of this, ask any doctor or pharmacist this question: "Is there such thing as an unsafe vaccine?"
Have you ever asked? No you have not.
Here is some statistics, you propably would never believe them, since they are ... scientific.
http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2009/how-safe-is-the-hpv-vaccine/
The answer you will be told is a condescending "No!"
Here is some statistics, you propably would never believe them, since they are ... scientific.
http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2009/how-safe-is-the-hpv-vaccine/
The answer you will be told is a condescending "No!"
Hell no they would say that. It is required that they say the risks, there are always risks but they are small. the real risk comes when people do not take vacciness and serious diseases can spread again.
In the faith-based beliefs of the scientific status quo, no vaccine can ever be harmful by definition. Vaccines are beyond questioning in their belief system, and so the very question of asking if a vaccine could possibly be anything less than 100% safe doesn't compute. It contradicts their faith, in other words.
Are you talking about money hungry medical companies that tend to do anything to maximise profits? They are not run by scientist but by business men, just like churches in america.
It's like asking a devout Christian whether there might be no God. The question is so contradictory to their belief system that it cannot be processed.
I kind of believe that, but it is often so clear that they argue so loudly that it just shows that there is a loud doubt inside their mind that it has to be shot down with devout defense of the faith.
It's like asking a devout Christian whether there might be no God. The question is so contradictory to their belief system that it cannot be processed.
I kind of believe that, but it is often so clear that they argue so loudly that it just shows that there is a loud doubt inside their mind that it has to be shot down with devout defense of the faith.
You can test this further by asking a vaccine-pushing doctor, "Is there anything that could be added to a vaccine that would make it unsafe?"
After careful thought, an honest doctor might answer, "Well, sure, there are all sorts of toxins that could be added to a vaccine that would make it unsafe."
Ask them to name some examples. Sooner or later, they should stumble onto the self-evident answer of "mercury," a deadly neurotoxin which remains present in many modern vaccines.
all medicine are dangerous. You just have to balance the risks against benefits.
That is what doctors say. Do not strawman doctors, now, they actually save lives.
Ask the doctor, "Has any safe level of mercury ever been established for injection into a child?"
The answer, of course, is no. Logically, no vaccine containing mercury can be considered "safe" regardless of the level of mercury it contains. Thus, by merely asking a few direct questions, you can easily get an honest doctor to shatter their own false belief about vaccines -- a belief based on the faith-driven delusion that there is no such thing as an unsafe vaccine (no matter what it contains).
You are the first person with that delusion I have heard of.
If, at any point in this questioning process, you get stonewalled by this person, recognize they are abandoning reason and reverting to their faith in "Scientism." Scientism is a system of belief in which all creations of pharmaceutical companies, biotech companies and chemical companies are automatically assumed to hold God-like status.
You invented a new word. I do not think there are even single people who believes in your "Scientism" all people are sceptic about pharmaceutical companies.
They are beyond questioning. They are supreme. They can never be questioned or even validated. In fact, no validated is required nor even desired. Who needs to validate "facts" anyway? Everyone already knows they are true, right?
You are right, they can sue your ass for anything, they got too much money!
All drugs are assumed to be safe and effective unless proven otherwise.
All drugs are assumed to be safe and effective unless proven otherwise.
Luckily doctors do not think so, so you can rest, because it is doctors job to make sure you do not die from using medicines. They are tested vigoriously. Goverment makes sure of that, not so well in states but...
This is why doctors warn patients that their dietary supplements are "interfering with their medications" and not the other way around. The drugs are assumed to have originated from a higher order, as if they emanate from a place of sacred, divine status: Big Pharma!
They are ? oh america, where are you going?
Many scientists, sadly, do not grasp the chasms in their own belief systems. They are incapable of realizing that many of their own beliefs are based in a system of faith rather than a system of rational thought.
They know you cannot trust your rational thought, that´s why they are scientist, that´s why they TEST THEIR THEORIES, BECAUSE YOU CANNOT TRUST YOUR FEELINGS!
They are ? oh america, where are you going?
Many scientists are incapable of recognizing their own logical fallacies
I do not think so, they are trained on critical thinking. Religous fundamentalist on the other hand, they revel on logical fallacies.
They know you cannot trust your rational thought, that´s why they are scientist, that´s why they TEST THEIR THEORIES, BECAUSE YOU CANNOT TRUST YOUR FEELINGS!
your logic fails you, your feelings fail you, you have to trust evidence!
Darwin wrote that his logic goes against evolution, but he had to give in because the evidence so overwhelmingly pointed towards evolution.
When scientists talk about evolution, they do so from an all-encompassing arrogance that assumes they are correct by default.
But they are, it is the most rigously tested scientific theory, it is the king of scientific theories, that´s why we can call it safely the "fact of evolution." You cannot debunk it, smarter people than you have tried and failed.
Anyone daring to debate with them must prove they are wrong, yet they themselves have no obligation to prove they are right. The faith of Scientism requires no proof, only faith. It is assumed correct as a key principle of the religion of Scientism.
but it is proven right all the time, every year lots of new evidence comes and proves it right, it´s no brainer, it is proven true by evidence all the time!
but it is proven right all the time, every year lots of new evidence comes and proves it right, it´s no brainer, it is proven true by evidence all the time!
This is not unusual in religions. Christianity, for example, assumes God exists and does not need to "prove" it. His existence is accepted as a matter of faith. This is neither right nor wrong; it is characteristic of a belief system that science claims to reject.
glad we agree. I assume that you accept the same standards for science?
You respect other people´s beliefs.
Yet science follows the exact same pattern.
By definition, it follows the OPPOSITE PATTERN.
By definition, it follows the OPPOSITE PATTERN.
If it does not need proof, it IS NOT SCIENCE!
Even the theory of natural selection based on purely mechanistic genetic inheritance contains enormous gaps in logic and is therefore a matter of faith.
It is one of the easiest theories to understand, it does not have any gaps in logic at all, and still you fail to understand it. That calls for faith. I have hard time to believe you.
For starters, there isn't enough data storage in the human genome to fully describe the physical and behavioral inheritance of a human being.
You do not have a single clue what you are talking about. genome holds many times the information needed to build the human, most of the genes are ancient history and are not active.
behavior is learned, very little is genetic.
The massive failure of the Human Genome Project also comes to mind: Here's a project that promised to solve the riddle of the origins of nearly all disease. Once the human genome was fully decoded, disease would be eliminated from humankind, we were all promised.
Massive success would be the correct term.
Massive success would be the correct term.
These promises are now little more than laughable examples of delusional thinking from a failed Scientism project that mostly yielded bankrupt biotech companies rather than miracle cures.
You have different expectations than scientist, huge profits are already reaped.
Most scientists believe all people are mindless robots
Came again? you reprint that mindless claim. Can you show a spesific quote?
Not even one scientist in the world thinks that, because by definition, person who thinks that is delusional and mentally ill, incapable of being a scientist.
Schitzofrenia could cause that.
This is actually your belief. You cannot quote a scientist saying that, ergo sum, you cannot prove that claim.
Yes, they alone have intelligent thought based on free will, inspiration and creativity. We should read their books alone, as their books came from original thoughts powered by unique minds.
Again, you cannot give factual examples to this laughable claim.
Again, you cannot give factual examples to this laughable claim.
Yes, some scientist are egoists, but most are not, they are confident on what they know, and what they are not sure, they shut up about. Unlike you.
Yet this very belief contradicts their entire view of everyone else. All "minds" are illusions, they claim,
Some philosopher claimed that the world is an illusion, and modern science confirms that at some level, reality is an illusion, matter is mostly empty, we are hold together by energy fields. but this is getting too scientific for you.
and there is no such thing as consciousness.
This is invention by you, presented by you.Hello strawman!
If you believe what they say, then all the books written by Dawkins, Hawking or other devout Scientism worshippers are, according to their own claims, worthless drivel produced via an "automatic writing" process powered by mindless, soulless chemical reactions housed in a mechanistic mass of neurons floating in a skull. Their books, therefore, utterly lack all meaning and serve no purpose. The words they contain are merely "knee-jerk writings" from humanoid automatons.
By your definition and by your definition alone. By their definition, they are based on research, and hard EVIDENCE. and they are written by smartest people alive.
By your definition and by your definition alone. By their definition, they are based on research, and hard EVIDENCE. and they are written by smartest people alive.
UNLIKE THIS ARTICLE YOU WROTE.
And there's another huge contradiction in the scientific community. Most conventional scientists claim that consciousness is an illusion which somehow arose out of natural selection so that individual members of a species could operate under the illusion of free will.
How can consciousness have evolved if it serves no purpose?
GOOD QUESTION. I can give you a purpose, consciousness increases the changes of survival enormously! THUS it became commonplace.
Naturally they do not because you just made that claim yourself.
Yet, at the same time, they claim this false "mind" has no actual impact on the real world because it is, by definition, an illusion.
no, by definition, it is A STRAWMAN.
no, by definition, it is A STRAWMAN.
So how can an illusory phenomenon drive natural selection and evolution if it has no impact on the real world?
IT DOES NOT.
This is a stinging contradiction demonstrating the false beliefs of the materialists (i.e. mainstream scientists). Given enough time and effort, I could name a hundred more obvious contradictions they shamelessly promote as "facts."
NO, you could invent a hundred contradictions, but you cannot show them because you just make them up.
In truth, many scientific "facts" all boil down to "beliefs."
I have belief in mathematically because I have been taught the rules of mathematic and I can test the integral mathematic algorithms myself, thus my belief in mathematic is based on evidence.
I can see proof of evolution with my own eyes when looking at the dogs, they are everyday proof of evolution. But if I want to know more, I can research around the world and no matter what country, the articles about evolution agree on the facts, therefore my belief that there was a cambrian era is based on checked factual things.
polar opposite of FAITH.
Why am I covering all this here on Natural News? Because if we are to move forward as a civilization, we must transcend the silly belief that anything pursued under the flag of modern-day "science" is automatically and factually superior (perhaps even divine) to all other forms of understanding.
You are nearly quoting Richard Dawkins, who said to move forward as a civilization, whe have to let go of childish notions of religion..
Today's twisted "science" is just another kind of religion
By your definition, religion is based on testable and demonstrable evidence??
I do not think other people agree on you on that one...
You are nearly quoting Richard Dawkins, who said to move forward as a civilization, whe have to let go of childish notions of religion..
If all the priests would have studied medicine, perhaps millions would have avoided death. But they desided to study mythology without critical mind... :(
Any system of thought which cannot tolerate questions or challenges to its beliefs is no science at all.
finally I agree with you totally!
For your amusement and explorations, some useful questions you can ask Scientism followers to quickly exposed their false beliefs include:
• Is there such thing as an unsafe vaccine? Or are all vaccines automatically safe by definition?
• Do you beat your dog? If animals have no souls and no consciousness, then do you agree it is of no ethical consequence to torture dolphins and elephants? What about primates? Cats? Neighbors?
What does this really imply? It implies that you value life based on the possession of soul? Does that mean that people who do not think like you, still value life according it having a soul?
Can you possibly fanthom that if a person does not think like you, he actually DOES NOT THINK LIKE YOU??!!
If a doctor does not think his dog has an immortal soul, he might think that this dog has only one life and value it a whole lot more than a person who can kill it just like that because afterwards it goes into dogs heaven.
Your question not only make sense, it is INSANE. Clinicly insane.
• If free will does not exist, then no one can be held responsible for their actions. All actions are, by definition, "automatic" and of no fault of the person because there cannot be any "choice" in an unconscious brain. If you believe this, then do you also support freeing all murderers and rapists from prison because they are not responsible for their actions? What purpose does punishment serve if violent criminals have no "choice" because they have no free will?
Doctor or scientist would answer "Your insane."
Doctor believes in free will, but understands that hormones do direct it alot.
All actions by your definition alone are automatic, it is not what other people think, please, if you want to know what other people think ASK THEM!
• If the human genome doesn't contain enough information to describe a complete human form, then how is inheritance purely mechanistic?
Doctor would say "WTF?" any schoolkid can tell you human genome does describe complete human, you are so ignorant that I do not believe you graduated grade school.
• If consciousness is an illusion, by what mechanism does the brain create this illusion? And for what purpose? What evolutionary advantage could this serve if the "illusion of consciousness" cannot have any "real" impact on behavior? By definition, natural selection should de-emphasize useless brain functions. So how did consciousness survive for so long?
Good luck on finding a person who thinks conscusionsness is an illusion, I recommend India, there you can find interesting philosophies.
By definition, natural selection is nothing you think it is.
• If natural selection can only function on pre-existing life forms, where did the first life come from? How did it arise? (Magic?)
Abiogenesis studies that, it is interesting and actually it provides new insights all the time. I am sure we get foolproof answer within my lifetime.
• What caused the Big Bang? If nothing caused it, how do you explain a universe governed by "laws" which, itself, sprang into existence by not following laws?
I already gave you the link so useless to repeat it here.
I believe the universe rose from those laws, but it is possible that the laws were created on big bang, I just do not know. propably scientist find out.
• If the laws of the universe came into existence during the Big Bang, and if other parallel universes might have different constants governing variations of the physical laws we know and understand, how does our universe "remember" its selected laws? Can physical constants change? Can the speed of light change? Does it vary in a repeatable pattern?
• If the laws of the universe came into existence during the Big Bang, and if other parallel universes might have different constants governing variations of the physical laws we know and understand, how does our universe "remember" its selected laws? Can physical constants change? Can the speed of light change? Does it vary in a repeatable pattern?
these questions are too demanding for your intellect, just forget them. you will never understand the answers.
... and so on. With questions like these, it is a simple matter to expose conventional Scientism believers as incompetent thinkers.
Actually, no, you expose your ignorance, I have seen an answer to... all of them, well, nearly all of them. Some of them have still a good guess, but a good and logical one.
If we are to move forward as a civilization we must dethrone the high priests of Scientism and get back to a process of real science where questions are welcomed, humility is restored, and discovery, not arrogance, reigns supreme.
This is the process I embrace here at Natural News, and it is why millions of readers across the world now turn to Natural News instead of arrogant science publications like Scientific American, a faith-based Scientism magazine that now functions as little more than a corporate sellout propaganda "Bible" for believers.
... and so on. With questions like these, it is a simple matter to expose conventional Scientism believers as incompetent thinkers.
Actually, no, you expose your ignorance, I have seen an answer to... all of them, well, nearly all of them. Some of them have still a good guess, but a good and logical one.
It's time to dethrone the High Priests of Scientism
Science does not have priests, that´s why it is advancing and giving results.
This is the process I embrace here at Natural News, and it is why millions of readers across the world now turn to Natural News instead of arrogant science publications like Scientific American, a faith-based Scientism magazine that now functions as little more than a corporate sellout propaganda "Bible" for believers.
This is something very alarming. it is quite possible that a civil war in america comes in decades when bible belt and advanced east coast really start to argue.
Any publication that says people should not know what's in their food (GMO labeling) is, of course, not engaged in real science because real science is the pursuit of knowledge, not the burying of facts for corporate interests. No legitimate science would want the public to be denied knowledge.
I totally agree on you on this, but science is not hiding knownledge, but psychopathic businessmen who could care less about other people, they care about profits.
I totally agree on you on this, but science is not hiding knownledge, but psychopathic businessmen who could care less about other people, they care about profits.
Bottom line? Modern-day "science" is riddled with enormous contradictions and knowledge gaps.
No they have not. It is impossible to know everything, but scientific knownledge is quite thorough and it is increasing accuracy every day.
Contradictions you showed were examples of your ignorance.
The most devout followers of this "science" define themselves as meaningless, mindless biological robots living out purposeless lives. They all believe that murder, rape and even child molestation have no ethical considerations whatsoever because no one is responsible for their own actions due to free will being "an illusion" as they explain it. Jerry Sandusky is ethically equivalent to Mother Theresa, according to the soulless beliefs of modern-day science.No, you define them as meaningless. You throw dirt to people who make YOUR LIFE BETTER.
You invented that illusion bit, you claim they do not have ethics, that is just rude.
These Scientism followers will never acknowledge any gaps in their own knowledge,
By definition, they would not be very good scientist then. Some people get arrogant and think they are always right, even scientist, but it is quite rare on science because those guys actually know alot!
as they believe they are uniquely gifted with a divine, irrefutable truth which cannot be questioned and need never be validated.
a thorough and accurate description of a NORMAL PSYCHOPATH.
Do you think it is fair to call people who benefit humanity as psychopaths?
Are you acting ethically here?
In my opinion, you seriously lack any ethical values. I hope you have them, but this article says alot, and it says you do not.
No evidence is required to support their core faiths such as "mercury in dental fillings is harmless" or "chemotherapy saves lives." All pronouncements of drug companies, biotech firms and chemical companies are automatically accepted as The Word of God in that they are all-knowing, all-powerful and never to be questioned.
By whom?? they are heavily critized all the time, what the F are you talking about. This simple thing is simple to check and you are just plainly wrong. Period.
By whom?? they are heavily critized all the time, what the F are you talking about. This simple thing is simple to check and you are just plainly wrong. Period.
To succeed as a civilization, we must collectively recognize the fallibility of this faith-based system of false belief and return to a process of true discovery that transcends the failures of modern-day science.
almost right. we must give up the fallacies and first we must give up religion.
And don't even get me started on the rise of killer robots and artificial intelligence. That's another case where the arrogance and delusional thinking of modern-day science may quite literally result in the apocalyptic, permanent destruction of humankind.
| you have seen the Terminators! great, you propably enjoyed the Matrix also... |
The answer you will be told is a condescending "No!" In the faith-based beliefs of the scientific status quo, no vaccine can ever be harmful by definition. Vaccines are beyond questioning in their belief system, and so the very question of asking if a vaccine could possibly be anything less than 100% safe doesn't compute. It contradicts their faith, in other words.
Because evangelists like you, some serious diseases are coming back, people die, children die. There are risks and doctors tell you so.
Because evangelists like you, some serious diseases are coming back, people die, children die. There are risks and doctors tell you so.
I hope that people awake and think for themselves, look up the facts and see the bullshit evangelist fundamentalists are trying to feed them.
Statistics show that freethinking, critical thinking peaked after emergence of Internet, so internet may just save the whole planet.!
