#Login Register

  • 2 Vote(s) - 3 Average

Theory of evolution in no way explains origins of life
10-22-2013, 09:06 PM #1
Posts:4,526 Threads:1,029 Joined:Jun 2012
(NaturalNews) Ask any scientist where life on our planet came from, and they'll usually give you a one-word answer: "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.

It turns out, however, that the scientist is suffering from a delusion. Evolution doesn't even encompass origins of life. 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. It does not give rise to non-existent life.

Darwin, in other words, did not study the "reproduction of rocks" because there is no such thing. He studied animals which were already alive.

Thus, the "Theory of Evolution" utterly fails to address the ORIGIN of where the first life forms came from. 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.

So the question remains: Where did life ORIGINATE?

Evolutionists prefer to skip over that all-important question. So let us pick up their slack and explore this subject with honest skepticism.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/042613_Theory...z2iTVlh3YM
Anonymous Kritter Show this Post
10-22-2013, 09:52 PM #2
Anonymous Kritter Incognito
Scientists are like that they ideas become Dogma and then truth without being questioned. Anything they can't find a reason for, they give vague theories such as "the big bang theory."


...Critical to an appreciation of Goethe's approach to science is a thoughtful understanding of the purpose of scientific investigation altogether. Without such an understanding we might well conclude by holding Goethe accountable to an artificial standard of what science is. In Goethe's time, and to some extent even in our own, the purpose of science was to provide an account of the universe in terms of the dynamics of simple material objects endowed with primary qualities only (extension, position . . .). Following Galileo, Descartes and Newton, one reasoned from experiment to the fundamental, if hypothetical, entities that made up the "real" world behind appearances. Goethe was cautious about this as the goal of science.

The investigator of nature should take heed not to reduce observation to mere notion, to substitute words for this notion, and to use and deal with these words as if they were things. 4

His objection was not to working hypotheses, but to the establishment of them as truths about the world. Time and again he saw hypotheses become dogmas that dominated thinking for centuries, holding back fresh observation and insight. He would write:

A false hypothesis is better than none at all. The fact that it is false does not matter so much. However, if it takes root, if it is generally assumed, if it becomes a kind of credo admitting no doubt or scrutiny-this is the real evil, one which has endured through the centuries. 5

When hypotheses become dogmas they are "the lullabies that the teacher uses to lull his pupil to sleep." 6 Rather we should treat hypotheses in a provisional, workmanlike way. They help us to understand the structure and relationships that exist within and among the phenomena, but they are not themselves the endpoint we seek. Rather,

Hypotheses are like the scaffolding erected in front of a building, to be dismantled when the building is completed. To the worker the scaffolding is indispensable, but he must not confuse it with the building itself.7

If the hypothetical model is not the endpoint of scientific understanding, but only a means to another end, then what is the goal of scientific inquiry; what is the building that is hidden behind the dense hedge of scaffolding? In the following quotation we gain a glimpse of that which Goethe saw at the heart of the inquiry.

Yet how difficult it is not to put the sign in the place of the thing; how difficult to keep the being (das Wesen) always livingly before one and not to slay it with the word. 8

Goethe sought always to maintain a living connection to experience, be it a color appearance or a plant. Through lived experiences one could maintain a relationship to das Wesen, or the building behind the scaffolding of hypotheses and models. As we will see, it is through the systematic development of this experiential relationship that Goethe sought scientific insight.

At this point one might worry that Goethe is slipping into a vague and mysterious Naturphilosophie, or veering onto obscure Heideggerian pathways. While aspects of Goethe's thinking are indeed related to these directions, Goethe developed his own distinct and grounded way of doing science. Thus while Goethe's metaphysics embraced a nonreductionistic conception of nature, he also shunned the speculations of "nature philosophers," so characteristic of his time. 9 Rather he sought a form of empiricism.

Goethe's value to us regarding consciousness studies rests precisely in his reluctance to follow the conventional route of replacing phenomena with mechanical models or "objective" physical process. By insisting on a phenomenological method, Goethe seeks a mode of inquiry that stays with the phenomena of consciousness at every stage. It now remains to explicate briefly this method, and to explore its implications for the "hard problem."

Goethe's "Delicate Empiricism"

Prompted by a question from his friend Schiller, Goethe wrote him a letter describing his method saying, "In my observation of nature and reflection on it, I have attempted to remain true to the following method as much as possible." 10 He then described three stages of his phenomenological method:

1. "empirical phenomena" are the ordinary observations any attentive observer might make,

2. "scientific phenomena" arise through systematic experimentation, including the variation of external conditions,

3."pure or archetypal phenomena" are the highest form of phenomena, and permit a perceptual encounter with the laws of nature (or consciousness).

At each stage Goethe sought to move deeper into nature, to understand her workings more thoroughly, not by abstracting from phenomena to models but by refining the phenomena themselves. The process culminates in the encounter with an archetypal phenomenon. When a scientist sees the archetypal phenomenon rightly, he or she sees through it to the pattern or intelligibility of nature....

We all need to recognize, The Universe is Electric the following link is to a project that is trying to spread this idea/research far and why http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/

More and more "conventional scientists,etc.. are getting on board, while organizations like NASA continue to ignore their work.
10-22-2013, 10:17 PM #3
JayRodney ⓐⓛⓘⓔⓝ
Posts:30,253 Threads:1,493 Joined:Feb 2011
Great thought provoking thread!
AK, I've been looking into this electric universe theory and IMO it definitely has merit and explains so many things.


10-23-2013, 04:16 PM #4
Ruby Wolf Member
Posts:10,078 Threads:719 Joined:Oct 2012
A long time ago highly evolved and super intelligent aliens discovered and terraformed this planet into a habitable world for their cosmic zoo this interstellar terrarium we call earth and then along the way they created and then destroyed most of the dinosaurs to pave the way for genetically manipulating the dna of apes and prehistoric humans who were transformed into the modern people we are today and those aliens are gods and the gods are most likely evil...
Anonymous Kritter Show this Post
10-24-2013, 02:53 AM #5
Anonymous Kritter Incognito
They were able to produce the building blocks of life (amino acids) in primordial soup experiments after simulating lighting strikes.

So while they couldn't produce life itself they were able to create the basic components. Given an extraordinary amount of time and variables with the right conditions random combinations eventually produced something that resembled a cell ...or at least that's the theory.


Copyright © 2011 - 2020 kritterbox.com