Why Macro evolution theory is bad science

Any good scientific theory must . . .

1. Be based on an explanation that has a high probability of being true

2. Account for ALL evidence

3. Be based on evidence that is accurate and relevant

4. Be testable

5. Be comprehendable within a human mind

6. Be able to change or be falsified based on new evidence

 

These are some of the very few basic requirements of any good theory. Macro evolution theory and abiogenesis theory fail miserably on the first and second points in particular and in my next post I will prove it.

Atheistic theology

Atheistic theology – an extremely dedicated belief in atheism much like religious faith .. . often accompanied by a refusal to deeply question it and not requiring any evidence.

banned from blog simply for questioning evolution

It is very clear to me that some people cannot stand people who believe in creationism. It is truly clear that the motive has nothing to do with how much they love science but with how much they hate religion.

I have half a mind to just storm out of a room next time someone tells me evolution true because all they are really trying to do is indoctrinate me.

I made a very clear laymens case that evolution had been elevated above mere science. The result? I get banned from the blog. Its name is the sensous curmugeon and I don’t even care if I spelled that correctly.

banned from blog simply for questioning evolution

It is very clear to me that some people cannot stand people who believe in creationism. It is truly clear that the motive has nothing to do with how much they love science but with how much they hate religion.

I have half a mind to just storm out of a room next time someone tells me evolution true because all they are really trying to do is indoctrinate me.

I made a very clear laymens case that evolution had been elevated above mere science. The result? I get banned from the blog. Its name is the sensous curmugeon and I don’t even care if I spelled that correctly.

This video is so stupid

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svHQ4BQY__o&feature=related

First of all . .. every species has a limited range of change to work with. Secondly, a species will not make positive changes simply because it benefits them. There has to be a physical and chemical basis for the change to happen. Thirdly, the experiment mentioned NEVER GENERATED complete strands of working DNA. The more I study evolution . . . the more I realize that it is just as much a religion as Creationism. People believe in evolution because they WANT TO BELIEVE.

Deciding morality . . . . first considerations

We are often told in the modern world that we should choose our own morality. But how wise are we at choosing? What substance is there to morality except in the minds of those beings who enforce or follow it (be they man, God, or whatever)? That is precisely the problem. You can’t go about enforcing any moral law unless you know what else is being enforced and by what or by whom. Until you know that you can’t really be sure whether or not you will be successful at following your own morality. You could certainly follow it anyways just on principle . . . but the obstacles you may face to following it or getting others to follow it could be great or small. Suppose there is a God who is apposed to your morality. You may well try to follow it only to be stopped by this God. Thus your morality would remain only temporarily at best. So your first consideration really should be whether or not their is a God.

I have just been really shocked by something I read in the book of judges . . . . yikes

Read the first verse of judges 16!!!!   What one earth!!!!??? Samson did this??  This hero of faith?!!!!!!!! It sounds more like something from a sick greek myth. You simply must read this verse.

Key Hypotheses . . . new stage in my thinking on evolution and creation

It has come to my attention that creative skeptical thought allows for more possibilities to consider . . . which exposes the task of understanding intelligent design or being able to prove it as being a complex very difficult scientific issue. At the heart of the issue is still what I believe is the nature of matter itself. The problem is information. The creationist has a valid point . . . where does the information in DNA come from? Can such complex information arise from non-information ? (i.e. simple dead matter with no intelligence or memory).  Now this is really probably the most significant scientific aspect of creationism . .. . take it away and you have no real argument for intelligent design other than irreducible complexity. Several creation models are actually theoretically “possible” . . some of them may even be a cross between evolution and design . .. . . what if this designer had gradually increases, by intervention, the complexity of species over time?   The key . . .. the absolute key . . .  .regardless even of micro-evolution  . . . is what matter can and cannot do apart from intelligence and a PREVIOUS MEMORY.   Thus this issue is broader than merely creationism.

My hypothesis

I have realized that not all creationists have bothered to make a testable intelligent design hypothesis. There is a great deal of . . . religion . . . . in the whole thing. So lets get more scientific.  It is beneficial to create a design hypothesis that actually takes many possibilities into consideration . . .  forming a real testable hypothesis. I will be working on this. For now it is interesting to note that the directness of design is difficult to determine.  How do I know humanity wasn’t replicated by some star trek device? This would be a replicator rather than intelligent design. It is possible to imagine many indirect design situations like this. Obviously someone had to build the replicator. Or did we used to live on another planet as a race and then lost our knowledge of that previous existence? And how would you know? So . . . . creating a design hypothesis is actually a complex task. I must come up with some testable hypothesis that we are somehow designed by a higher more powerful intelligence and that this designer made life on earth.

As a scientific creationist, my hypothesis would be as follows

I am starting to realize an important truth that taps both science and creativity (which need each other). I am realizing that there are as many things that can be believed (by someone somewhere) as there are things that can be imagined (by someone somewhere). Even if the evidenced pointed to creationism I still end up having faith that it is my particular version. So lets be honest. I have some faith. I only continue to hold on to it because I think the evidence does not disturb it as much as materialists suppose. The evidence for evolution is undeniably weak. The evidence for creationism seems strong . . .so far as I can tell. I mean .. . my brain is a complex computational data system and so is dna. My veins are the most marvelous pipe system in the world. The architecture of our skeletons is really well done. Evolutions have failed to provide a good answer as to how all of this biological complexity could possibly be derived from some unintelligent source. But it would not seem scientific of me unless I put forward a hypothesis . . . one that matches the facts much better than MACRO evolution or ABIOGENESIS.   So here is my hypothesis in support of my religion or faith;

I propose that some highly intelligent being from beyond the visible dimension came into this visible dimension and created normal matter out of dark matter. After this, this highly intelligent being took the normal matter and by way of some amazing subatomic or quantum manipulation formed the matter into planets and stars with all of their present properties. During this process matter was shaped and even transformed into other substances as needed. Then . . this being proceeded to create the basic species of life from water and dirt . . . again manipulating and transforming matter when needed to create all of the complex biological chemistry. This being then proceeded to connect consciousness with the minds of all the creatures made thus “breathing” life into them. He gave, during this process, careful consideration to all the food chains and diets of the species and the needed habitats. He did all this work through the special and powerful manipulation of matter that he was able to perform. This manipulation most likely involved a great deal of special focused energy . .. . nothing “magical” about that.

 

Consider the above hypothesis. Star Trek inspires us to believe in replicators and hollodecks . . . so why not this? And why not a more intelligent being from another dimension doing this with similar powers? Perhaps this is where science fiction and materialism disagree?