Evolutionists, conceited about being scientific, being un-scientific
Arrogant football teams lose games to humble ones. People who are convinced they are more scientific and logical than those they disagree with, end up being less scientific and logical than those they disagree with.
Where is the proof that the mutation rate in times past has been sufficient to produce the kind of evolution that the scientists assume to be a proven fact?
Where is the proof that the mutation rates combined with the rate of differential survival between the mutants and the general population, have together been a force effective enough to produce the kind of transformations in species that evolutions claim to have transpired?
Where is the proof that a divine being has not meddled in evolution so as to significantly change the outcome?
The evolutionary theories are based on fossils that represent an incredibly small fraction of the life that existed during the time the fossil was alive. Scientists do not interview one say American, and on that basis claim to know what all Americans think. It has to do with sampling. How can one fossil represent what all the life of say a millenium the fossil lived in?
In light of how the fossils represent such a small fraction of the life that existed at given time, what is scientific about assuming that the fossil found in the year 1.4 million BC, is descended from the fossil found in the year 1.6 million BC?
Given the huge number of life forms that have existed over the millenia, how can scientists on the basis of a dozen fossils, blythely assure us that the twelfth one evolved from the eleventh one which evolved from the tenth one? It is like saying, hey I found this hundred year old skull, I am sure the ten year old skull I also found, is the skull of the great great grandson of the man to whom the other skull I found belonged.
If evolution were true, the murderer is always superior to his victim. Yet this contradicts common sense.
It is well-known that there are forces in the world that destroy things of quality. For example, envy, jealousy, narcisism, narcisist-typicalism, selfishness, anger and conceit are human psychological destructive traits. How can the real impacts such negative traits have on society via the humans these negative traits infect, be considered admirable products of evolution?
Evolution assumes that the world is always getting better. To me this sounds like an irrational religious assumption. Why should it be assumed that the world is always getting better?
Evolutionists sound like nutty religious fanatics, because they blythely assume that evolution produces better and better organisms. Where is the proof that evolution produces better and better organisms?
Evolutionists, seem like religious fanatics in that: they simply assume on blind faith, that altruistic impulses in living things, have not played a role in producing the characteristics we admire in the organisms that are alive today; and, they simply assume on blind faith, that the characteristics found in the organisms they call the "fittest" are characteristics that when expressed in these organisms produce the most enjoyment or value for human beings.
Over time the fruit-flies have had many more offspring than us. Does that make them better than us?
Evolutionists ignore how times change, the person-organism in a group of person-organisms that survives the best in one era, could be ill suited for survival in a subsequent era.
If the cavemen who are supposed to be our ancestors, our ancestors who are relatively brutish compared to us, had become egotistical Darwinists, they might have just frozen their development so as to continually reproduce merely those whom they respected most amongst their own selves, with the result that the human race would have never advanced beyond the brutishness they are supposed to have via evolution advanced beyond.
@2005 David Virgil Hobbs
Where is the proof that the mutation rate in times past has been sufficient to produce the kind of evolution that the scientists assume to be a proven fact?
Where is the proof that the mutation rates combined with the rate of differential survival between the mutants and the general population, have together been a force effective enough to produce the kind of transformations in species that evolutions claim to have transpired?
Where is the proof that a divine being has not meddled in evolution so as to significantly change the outcome?
The evolutionary theories are based on fossils that represent an incredibly small fraction of the life that existed during the time the fossil was alive. Scientists do not interview one say American, and on that basis claim to know what all Americans think. It has to do with sampling. How can one fossil represent what all the life of say a millenium the fossil lived in?
In light of how the fossils represent such a small fraction of the life that existed at given time, what is scientific about assuming that the fossil found in the year 1.4 million BC, is descended from the fossil found in the year 1.6 million BC?
Given the huge number of life forms that have existed over the millenia, how can scientists on the basis of a dozen fossils, blythely assure us that the twelfth one evolved from the eleventh one which evolved from the tenth one? It is like saying, hey I found this hundred year old skull, I am sure the ten year old skull I also found, is the skull of the great great grandson of the man to whom the other skull I found belonged.
If evolution were true, the murderer is always superior to his victim. Yet this contradicts common sense.
It is well-known that there are forces in the world that destroy things of quality. For example, envy, jealousy, narcisism, narcisist-typicalism, selfishness, anger and conceit are human psychological destructive traits. How can the real impacts such negative traits have on society via the humans these negative traits infect, be considered admirable products of evolution?
Evolution assumes that the world is always getting better. To me this sounds like an irrational religious assumption. Why should it be assumed that the world is always getting better?
Evolutionists sound like nutty religious fanatics, because they blythely assume that evolution produces better and better organisms. Where is the proof that evolution produces better and better organisms?
Evolutionists, seem like religious fanatics in that: they simply assume on blind faith, that altruistic impulses in living things, have not played a role in producing the characteristics we admire in the organisms that are alive today; and, they simply assume on blind faith, that the characteristics found in the organisms they call the "fittest" are characteristics that when expressed in these organisms produce the most enjoyment or value for human beings.
Over time the fruit-flies have had many more offspring than us. Does that make them better than us?
Evolutionists ignore how times change, the person-organism in a group of person-organisms that survives the best in one era, could be ill suited for survival in a subsequent era.
If the cavemen who are supposed to be our ancestors, our ancestors who are relatively brutish compared to us, had become egotistical Darwinists, they might have just frozen their development so as to continually reproduce merely those whom they respected most amongst their own selves, with the result that the human race would have never advanced beyond the brutishness they are supposed to have via evolution advanced beyond.
@2005 David Virgil Hobbs
posted by David Virgil at 5:18 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home