Posted on 08/15/2019 9:30:57 AM PDT by Kalamata
Leading Science Magazine Questions Reality
by Jerry Bergman, PhD
The New Scientist cover story from August 3-9, 2019, reads, “Reality: The Greatest Illusion of All.” It is subtitled, “How Evolution has Blinded us to the Truth About the World.” I have often come across this theme in my reading. It usually goes like this: ‘The world, especially all forms of life, look very much like they were designed, but this is an illusion because we know that all life and the universe itself evolved.’[1] The author of the New Scientist article, University of California Professor Donald Hoffman, extends this logic further, writing that Darwinism inevitably fools us, because “evolution ruthlessly selects against truth strategies.” As a result, “An organism that sees objective reality is always less fit than an organism of equal complexity that sees fitness pay-offs. Seeing objective reality will make you extinct.”[2]
Yes, this quote is accurate! (I have yet to figure out, however, exactly what it means.)
(Excerpt) Read more at crev.info ...
I don’t know about Darwinism, but I accept wholeheartedly the idea that gene frequencies change from one generation to the next.
It’s pretty easy to imagine a one celled organism evolving and developing into a elephant with a HUGE increase of DNA expanding for no reason whatsoever if one does large amounts of drugs . . . otherwise not so much. Explaining how life itself sprang forth from the right mixture of chemicals is similar to finding a fully functional computer on Mars and saying these elements are common to Mars and they accidentally assembled themselves.
>>I don’t know about Darwinism, but I accept wholeheartedly the idea that gene frequencies change from one generation to the next.
Adaptation and speciation using existing genetic code are well-known; but evolution — a gain in genetic information — has never been observed, except during creation week.
Mr. Kalamata
It takes a lot of faith to rely on carbon dating to date something one hundred million years ago.
It takes a lot of Faith to create a “scientific fact” derived on 0.00005% observation.
Here’s all you need to know - free online book and videos.
Center for Scientific Creation
https://www.creationscience.com/
Evolution takes more faith than creationism. Evolution breaks virtually all the laws of science.
>>Here’s all you need to know - free online book and videos.
>>Center for Scientific Creation
>>https://www.creationscience.com/
This is a playlist on Walt Brown’s remarkable theory:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sD9ZGt9UA-U&list=PLrCQerz2L0Ifnl1pVZdjFQNzU4XSiRCC3
Mr. Kalamata
No more than creation does. Saying that something can't come from nothing applies even more to creationism than to evolution.
And the idea that "knowing reality" makes one less fit for survival is an old one. To survive creatures had to be focused on survival. If they cultivated philosophical detachment, they would perish. An animal can't be seeing all the aspects of reality if it wants to survive: it has to only see the aspects of reality that it needs to see to survive.
A tip: People will generally defend creationists against the attacks of evolutionists, if the creationists don't make pests of themselves.
>>For Catholics who find theistic evolution absurd:
>>http://kolbecenter.org/
Check out this article on sedimentology from that site:
http://kolbecenter.org/ariadnes-thread/
Mr. Kalamata
>>Saying that something can’t come from nothing applies even more to creationism than to evolution.
That is a bizarre statement. When all is said and done, there are only 2 choices:
1) God created everything
2) Everything magically appeared
Take your pick.
Mr. Kalamata
When all is said and done, there are only 2 choices:
1) God created everything
2) Everything magically appeared
________________
That is a bizarre statement.
From a scientific point of view, the two are the same.
>>From a scientific point of view, the two are the same.
That is true, if you believe in magic. I don’t believe in magic, nor do I believe in fairy tales, such as frogs turning into princes, like this fellow:
“Our tendency to develop hiccups is another influence of our past. There are two issues to think about. The first is what causes the spasm of nerves that initiates the hiccup. The second is what controls that distinctive hic, the abrupt inhalation-glottis closure. The nerve spasm is a product of our fish history, while the hic is an outcome of the history we share with animals such as tadpoles… It turns out that the pattern generator responsible for hiccups is virtually identical to one in amphibians. And not in just any amphibians—in tadpoles, which use both lungs and gills to breathe. Tadpoles use this pattern generator when they breathe with gills… The parallels between our hiccups and gill breathing in tad poles are so extensive that many have proposed that the two phenomena are one and the same.” [Shubin, Neil, “Your Inner Fish.” Pantheon Books, 2008, Chap.11, p.190, 192]
Mr. Kalamata
Bob, methinks I need better quality drugs in my life if I ever expect to understand the pabulum spewed by Darwinists. BTW, rain and wind erosion did a marvelous job carving Mt. Rushmore!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.