Title : Huge contradictions in 'scientific' thinking revealed: Theory of evolution in no way explains origins of life
link : Huge contradictions in 'scientific' thinking revealed: Theory of evolution in no way explains origins of life
Huge contradictions in 'scientific' thinking revealed: Theory of evolution in no way explains origins of life
Ask any scientist where life on our planet comes, and usually will give a one-word answer: "Evolution". Immediately after this, they usually give you a condescending look that also means you're an idiot for not knowing this "scientific fact" that everyone has accepted as true.turns out, however, that the scientist is suffering from a delusion. Evolution does not even cover origins of life. By contrast, the evolution (ie, the "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 always present and now passing through bacteria, plants, animals and even humans, however, natural selection can only work in lifestyle existing s. No results nonexistent life.
Darwin, in other words, not studied "playing the rocks" because no no such thing. He studied animals were already living.
Therefore, the "Theory of Evolution" absolutely not take into account the origin of where the first forms of life came from. How was the natural selection has nothing to work on in the first place? You can not "evolve" lifestyles of dead rocks, after all ... unless evolutionists are now adopting the theory of spontaneous resurrection of dead objects in living organisms.
So the question remains: Where did life originate
evolutionists prefer to overlook that the most important question?. So let's pick up his slack and explore this issue with honest skepticism.
Evolution as a theory of the origin of life is faith, not science
According to scientists, can never argue with scientists, as they have exclusive monopoly of all knowledge. Your beliefs can not be questioned, since they are beyond any need to be validated. "The scientific truth" is true because they say it is, and belief based on faith that evolution explains the origins of life can not be questioned.
However, the question that we will! So let's see how this goes: The entire cosmos begins as an unimaginably dense point that explodes in a cosmologists call the Big Bang event. All physical matter as we know it today has its origins in that case, however, most importantly, there was no life in the Big Bang . No biological organism could have survived inflation to begin with. And before inflation, the density of matter have crushed something like biological life.
According to physicists, the Big Bang followed no pre-existing laws of the cosmos. In fact, all physical laws we know - gravity, electromagnetism, etc. - They left the big bang. Even the very structure of reality was created by him (space and time).
The Big Bang is the faith-based miracle of modern science. "Give me a miracle" which are fond of saying, "and we can explain all that follows."
except the miracle of the Big Bang itself will entirely inexplicable. How could suddenly everything comes from nothing? How could an entire universe come into existence without a cause These questions are routinely ignored. Instead, we are told that we must believe in the Big Bang as a matter of faith and trust that is the only exception to the laws of the universe. This is, of course, a matter of faith, not fact.
And what about the origins of life in all this? Today, supposedly 13800000000000 years later, we see the life around us. Logically, somewhere between the Big Bang - where there was no life - and today, it must have appeared life
But how
Scientists believe in.? magic
again, if you ask most scientists about the origins of life, going blind and diligently respond to the "evolution" However, without life existing , there is nothing to evolve. So where life came?
Ultimately, the answer given by scientists is that life arose spontaneously from the deadness . Seriously, that's your real answer. Have more technical sounding names for it, and there are hundreds of writings on several theories that might explain her books, but ultimately scientists believe in magic . Because "magic" is the only way that can really explain life going from lifelessness.
So evolution really does not explain the origins of life, after all. Magic does. Life arose from the absence of life in exactly the same way the Big Bang happened suddenly and without cause: everything is done by magic! (I assume you have two miracles, not one, but that's counting?)
Suddenly, the idea of a Creator who sowed the Big Bang or seeded the universe with life seems much less crazy than "magic" explanations of many conventional scientists. It is far more likely that our universe was created by an omniscient consciousness, highly advanced that somehow springing into existence without any reason.
Atheism, lack of soul and permanent death
conventional scientists, of course, will go through tremendous contortions to try to remove any idea of a designer, engineer and creator of his worldview. That's because almost all of them are atheists devotees who also disavowal of any belief in consciousness, free will, the soul, God or spirituality. According to their own explanations themselves are biological robots senseless suffering from the illusion of mind created as a kind of artificial projection of mechanistic biological brain function.
See my mini-documentary " Interior God "for a more detailed description of this exploration:
the twisted philosophy of many scientists also poses strange, such ethical lapses as his belief to kill a lab rat, or dog, or even another human being has no ethical consequence since all these creatures are not really "live" in a real way. This is why pharmaceutical companies, vaccine manufacturers and science in general feels no remorse for conducting lethal experiments on children, blacks, prisoners or minorities .
the worst feature of conventional science is not simply that are tremendously deludes himself into believing that they have no real consciousness; it is actually the fact that they are at the same time extremely arrogant, even combative tries to force their beliefs bent toward others.
Their beliefs based on faith always described as " facts ", while proclaiming the beliefs of others are" delusions ". You can not argue with any group of people who are completely convinced that their beliefs are facts because any critical thinking can be invoked automatically and routinely was rejected as a matter of irrational defense.
the test of faith vaccine
as an example of this, ask any doctor or pharmacist about this question: "is there such a thing as a vaccine against unsafe?"
The answer will tell you is a condescending "No!" In faith-based beliefs of the scientific status quo, there is no vaccine can never be harmful by definition. Vaccines are beyond questioning in their belief system, so the same issue of the question whether a vaccine could be nothing less than 100% sure does not compute. Contradicts their faith, in other words.
It's like asking a devout Christian if he can exist without God. The question is so contradictory to their belief system that can not be processed.
This is evidenced further by asking a doctor for the vaccine pushing, "Is there anything that could be added to a vaccine that make unsafe "
After careful thought, an honest doctor might respond:". Well, of course, there are all kinds of toxins that could be added to a vaccine that would make it unsafe "
Ask them to name some examples. Sooner or later, they will encounter the obvious answer itself of "mercury", a deadly neurotoxin , which is still present in many modern vaccines
Ask the doctor. "Has any safe level of mercury has never set for injection in a child? "
the answer, of course, is no. Logically, there is no vaccine containing mercury can be considered "safe" regardless of the level of mercury it contains. Therefore, with only a few direct questions, you can easily get an honest doctor to shatter his own false beliefs about vaccines - a belief based on the illusion driven by the faith that there is no such thing as an unsafe vaccine ( no matter what it contains).
If, at any point in this process of questioning, Stonewalled is obtained by this person, you recognize that they are abandoning reason and return to his faith in "scientism". Scientism is a belief system in which all creations of pharmaceutical companies, biotechnology companies and chemical companies are automatically assumed to maintain such a state God. They are beyond questioning. They are supreme. They can never be questioned or even validated. In fact, not validated required or even desired. Who needs to validate the "facts" anyway? Everyone already knows to be true, right?
All drugs are supposed to be safe and effective unless proven otherwise. For this reason, doctors warn their patients dietary supplements are "interfering with their medicines" and not vice versa. Drugs are supposed to have originated from a higher order, as if they come from a place of sacredness, divine: Big Pharma
Many scientists are unable to recognize their own logical errors
Many scientists, unfortunately, they do not capture the gaps in their own belief systems. They are unable to realize that many of their own beliefs are based on a belief system rather than a system of rational thought.
When scientists speak of evolution, do so from a global arrogance that assumes they are correct default. Anyone dares to discuss with them to prove them wrong, but they themselves are not required to prove that they are right. The faith of scientism requires no evidence, only faith. It is believed to be correct as a fundamental principle of the religion of scientism.
This is not unusual in religion. Christianity, for example, assumes that God exists and does not have to "prove" it. Their existence is accepted as a matter of faith. This is neither good nor bad; It is characteristic of a belief system that science claims to reject. However, science follows the exact same pattern.
Even the theory of natural selection based on genetic inheritance purely mechanistic contains huge gaps in logic and therefore is a matter of faith. To begin with, there is not enough data storage in the human genome to fully describe the physical and behavioral characteristics of a human heritage. The great failure of the human genome project also comes to mind: Here's a project that promised to solve the riddle of the origins of almost all diseases. Once the human genome was completely decoded, the disease would be eliminated from humanity, we were promised.
These promises are now little more than ridiculous examples of delusional thinking of a failed project scientism that mostly occurred biotechnology companies bankrupt instead of miracle cures.
most scientists believe that all people are robots with no brain
Another obvious contradiction between many scientists it is his belief that comedy everyone else is a biological robot meaningless except themselves! Yes, they are the only ones smart thinking based on free will, inspiration and creativity. We should read his books alone, since his books came from original thoughts that feed by unique minds.
However, this same belief contradicts all his vision of everyone else. All "minds" are illusions, they say, and there is no such thing as consciousness. If you believe what they say, then all the books written by Dawkins, Hawking and other lovers of scientism devotees are, according to their own statements, nonsense worthless produced through a process of "automatic writing" driven by chemical reactions senseless soulless, mechanistic located in a floating mass of neurons in a skull. His books, therefore, devoid of all meaning and serve no purpose. The words they contain are merely "reflexive writing" humanoid robots.
How can consciousness have evolved if not useless?
And there is another great contradiction in the scientific community. Most mainstream scientists say that consciousness is an illusion that somehow emerged from the natural selection for individual members of a species can operate under the illusion of free will. However, at the same time, claim this "mind" false has no real impact in the real world as it is, by definition, an illusion.
So how you can drive an illusory phenomenon selection natural evolution if it has no impact on the real world?
This is a contradiction sting prove false beliefs of materialistic (ie, mainstream scientists). With enough time and effort, I could name a hundred more obvious contradictions that promote unabashedly as "facts."
Indeed, many scientific "facts" all boil down to "beliefs".
twisted "science" today is just another kind of religion
Why am covering this here Natural News Because if we are to move forward as a civilization, we must transcend the belief that anything silly pursued under the banner of "science" today is automatic and objectively superior (maybe even divine) to all other forms of knowledge.
Any system of thought that can not tolerate questions or challenges their beliefs is not a science at all.
for fun and exploration, some useful questions you can ask scientism followers quickly exposed their false beliefs include:
• Is there such a thing as a vaccine against unsafe? Or are all vaccines automatically saved by definition?
• Does your dog is stuck? If animals have no soul and no conscience, then you agree that it has no ethical consequence to the dolphins and elephants torture? What about primates? Cats? Neighbors?
• If there is no free will, then no one can be held responsible for their actions. All actions are, by definition, "Automatic" and no fault of person, because there can be no "choice" in an unconscious brain. If you believe this, then it is what also supports the release of all murderers and rapists from prison because they are not responsible for their actions? What is the punishment if violent criminals have "no choice" because they have free will?
• If the human genome does not contain enough information to describe a complete human form, then how is the heritage purely mechanical?
• If consciousness is an illusion, why does the brain mechanism to create this illusion? And for what purpose? What evolutionary advantage could serve this case the "illusion of consciousness" can not have any "real" impact on behavior? By definition, natural selection should emphasize useless brain functions. So how does consciousness survive for so long?
• If natural selection can only work on pre-existing forms of life, where did the first life come from? How did it come about? (Magic?)
• What caused the Big Bang? If nothing caused it, how a State governed by "laws" which, in turn, came into existence for not following the law?
universe explained • If the laws of the universe came into existence during the Big Bang, and if other parallel universes could have different constants governing the variations of the physical laws we know and understand, how our universe "remember" their selected laws? Can they change the physical constants? You can change the speed of light? Does it vary in a repeatable pattern?
... and so on. With questions like these, it is a simple matter of exposing conventional scientism believers as incompetent thinkers.
It's time to dethrone the high priests of scientism
If we to advance as a civilization we must dethrone the high priests of scientism and return to a process of real science, where they are greeted questions, humility is restored, and discovery, not arrogance, the queen.
This it is the embrace process here in Natural News, and is why millions of readers around the world now turns to Natural News instead of the arrogant scientific publications like scientific American is scientism magazine based on faith that now functions as little more than a corporate sellout propaganda "Bible" for believers. Any publication that says that people should not know what is in their food (labeling of GMOs) is, of course, is not engaged in real science, because true science is the pursuit of knowledge, not the burial of the facts of corporate interests. Without legitimate science that the public would be denied the knowledge.
In short? Today "science" is fraught with enormous contradictions and gaps in knowledge. The most devoted followers of this "science" are defined as biological robots senseless, meaningless living out life without purpose. They believe the murder, rape and child abuse, even without the ethical considerations of any kind because no one is responsible for their own actions because of the free will to be "an illusion", as explained. Jerry Sandusky is ethically equivalent to Mother Teresa, according to the beliefs soulless science today.
These followers scientism will not recognize the gaps in their own knowledge as they think they are the only endowed with a divine truth, irrefutable that can not be questioned and never needs to be validated. no evidence is required to support their basic beliefs such as "mercury in dental fillings is safe" or "chemotherapy saves lives." All pronouncements of pharmaceutical companies, biotech companies and chemical companies are automatically accepted as the Word of God in which they are omniscient, omnipotent and never to be questioned.
To succeed as a civilization, we must collectively recognize the fallibility of the system based on the faith of false belief and return to a genuine process of discovery that goes beyond the failures of science today.
and I do not even mean the rise murderers robots and artificial intelligence. This is another case where arrogance and delusional thinking of science today can literally lead to the apocalyptic and permanent human destruction.
For further reading for those who dare to question the false beliefs of scientism
essential knowledge for all Science Freeplay: 10 New paths for discovery by Rupert Sheldrake
[ Supernormal: Science, Yoga, and evidence of extraordinary psychic abilities by Dean Radin
Our final invention. artificial intelligence and the end of the human era by James . Barrat
Source: NaturalNews
"Huge contradictions in 'scientific' thinking revealed: Theory of evolution in no way explains origins of life", article source: riseearth.com
Thanks for Reading Huge contradictions in 'scientific' thinking revealed: Theory of evolution in no way explains origins of life
Thank you for reading this Huge contradictions in 'scientific' thinking revealed: Theory of evolution in no way explains origins of life, hopefully can give benefits to all of you. well, see you in posting other articles.
You are now reading the article Huge contradictions in 'scientific' thinking revealed: Theory of evolution in no way explains origins of life Url Address https://healthnbeautyarticles.blogspot.com/2013/10/huge-contradictions-in-thinking.html
0 Response to "Huge contradictions in 'scientific' thinking revealed: Theory of evolution in no way explains origins of life"
Post a Comment