Skip to content
December 6, 2011 / itsnobody

Free and Open Challenge to Atheists

Atheists often claim that atheism is some how more rational or logical than Theism.

In reality however there is no such thing as a logical atheistic argument. 100% of atheistic arguments are illogical.

I challenge any atheist to propose any argument they have here so I can explain how and why it’s illogical. Feel free to post any argument in the comments section here. Everything is free and open here.

This challenge is for atheists who believe either of these:
– God does not exist
– God is unlikely to exist

This is NOT a challenge for atheists who:
– Make no claims regarding the existence or non-existence of God

I’ll update this article with refutations as people post arguments.

[UPDATE 12.08.2011] – So far no atheist has proposed any argument (I don’t consider that ad hominem as an argument)

[UPDATE 12.17.2011] – Replied to Anon, I am looking forward to more and more arguments and criticisms for me to debunk. Hopefully if more and more people post arguments or questions I can eventually debunk virtually every atheistic argument that exists.

[UPDATE 02.15.2012] – I am short on time, but I updated this post with some new refutations. I will eventually refute all of the laughable arguments atheists have provided. Their arguments are so weak it’s just too easy. I get my arguments from my own independent mind, so how can atheists compete? All they can do is copy arguments from other atheists.

Responses to Arguments:

“Well I don’t believe in a Flying Spaghetti Monster, invisible dragon, celestial teapot, [insert something that lacks proof here]” – A common argument used by atheists. The problem with this argument is that it’s a non-sequitur. The existence or non-existence of God has nothing to do with the existence of a FSM, celestial teapot, etc…Contrary to what delusional atheists you can’t refute something by pointing out that you also don’t believe in something else that lacks proof.

Pointing out that you don’t believe in something else that lacks evidence does nothing to refute the existence of God or even indicate that existence of God is unlikely, so this argument is invalid.

Here’s an example applied to something else:
“The luminiferous aether does not exist or is unlikely to exist because I don’t believe in a FSM, invisible dragon, celestial teapot, etc…” – The atheist’s reasoning

Here’s a valid argument:
“The luminiferous aether does not exist or is unlikely to exist because X empirical observation indicates so”

Since this FSM argument does nothing refute the existence of God or indicate that the existence of God is unlikely it is an invalid, illogical reason given for believing that God does not exist or that God is unlikely to exist.

Argument from free-will – Another common argument used by atheists. The problem with this argument is that there’s more scientific evidence against free-will than God so it requires MORE faith to believe in free-will than it does to believe in God.

Since it takes more faith to believe in free-will than God any atheist who believes in free-will will have to admit that faith, evidence, and science has nothing to do with their disbelief in God. Believing in free-will would effectively ruin all the atheistic arguments connected to evidence and science.

Since this argument assumes that free-will exists the very act of arguing this requires MORE faith than believing in God (effectively ruining all evidence-based atheistic arguments).

God is something complex – This argument is simply a straw man. God has never been defined as complex except only by atheists. I don’t know why atheists constantly use this convenient straw man.

If God exists then why do bad things happen?/The Earth is full of suffering – Another common argument used by atheists, what a shame that it’s based off a straw man. The Earth has been defined as an evil place full of suffering and God had never been defined a being who if exists would mean that the Earth would be a place of enjoyment. Heavenly worlds had been defined as good, enjoyable places, not the Earth.

So evil existing on Earth is perfectly consistent with God existing.

God violates Ockham’s razor – This argument just arises from a misunderstanding of what Ockham’s razor is. Ockham’s razor tells that we can only assume the very least to be true, it does not (as atheists believe) tell us that extra assumptions are false. It only tells us that you cannot assume that extra assumptions are true.

For instance prior to General Relativity Ockham’s razor would’ve told us that “Newtonian physics is an extremely accurate model in certain conditions”, it would not have told us that “General Relativity is false or unlikely to be true”.

Through Ockham’s razor we would conclude that modern science tells us nothing about the existence or non-existence of God (just as with any empirically untestable hypothesis).

“Cannot be directly seen, heard, or felt equates to non-existence” – This argument can be easily be falsified with counterexamples.

Here are some counterexamples:
– Quarks prior to the late 1960s
– Newtonian gravity prior to Newton inventing the mathematics for Newtonian gravity
– General Relativity prior to the mathematics for General Relativity being developed
– A planet far far faraway that cannot be observed
– Atoms and electromagnetism prior to scientists finding ways to empirically test the existence of those things
– Everything in modern science proven to exist now during the time period that it was empirical un-testable

There are many many many things that human beings cannot directly perceive with their senses that really exist. Many things I mentioned on this list can only be indirectly detected, so they cannot be directly seen, felt, or heard even in modern times.

Here are somethings that may exist that human beings cannot directly or indirectly detect in modern times:
– 1-dimensional strings (quadrillions of times smaller than quarks)
– multiple universes
– gravitons

The simple fact is human beings can only scientifically know what’s within the realm of empirical testability, everything outside of that human beings cannot know (scientifically).

“I have never directly seen, heard, or felt the presence of any God” – You haven’t directly  seen, heard, or felt something that cannot be directly seen, heard, or felt? God has been defined as something that cannot be ordinarily seen, heard, or felt. This is simply a form of circular reasoning. Since God is an empirically untestable hypothesis then God cannot be directly seen, heard, or felt by definition. So this argument can be reduced to saying “I have never directly seen, heard, or felt something that cannot be directly seen, heard, or felt”.

Biblical inerrancy: It’s possible that the Bible contains errors and that God exists so this argument does nothing to show the non-existence or unlikelihood of God. Showing that the Bible contains errors isn’t the same as showing that God doesn’t exist. Arguing against Biblical inerrancy is different from arguing against the existence of God. Arguing that the Bible is full of errors is an argument against Biblical inerrancy, not an argument against the existence of God. The conclusion violates Ockham’s razor so this argument illogical.

What Created God?: God is defined as causeless and requires no Creator. If atheists are arguing that everything requires a cause and that God must have a cause this claim can easily be falsified in science. Energy has no creator, it just had always existed, yet atheists do not object to anyone claiming that energy is causeless, eternal, and all-existing. Many atheists believe that the universe is eternal and always existed…so how can someone argue that the reason why God cannot exist is because God must have a cause but then claim that everything besides God doesn’t require a cause? By what reasoning did atheists conclude that God requires a cause?

No compelling arguments for the existence of a God: Compelling arguments as in scientific evidence for something can only exist for an empirically testable hypothesis. So this again is circular reasoning, just the same as saying “There’s no scientific evidence for something that there cannot be scientific evidence for”. If no one finds a way to test the existence of God, multiple universes, the string theory or anything else empirically untestable then scientific evidence cannot exist for it. All hypotheses and theories in modern science that have scientific evidence today were unproven and lacked evidence during the time period that they were empirically untestable.

Knowing my beliefs to be true, flawless, faultless, and without error I encourage people to question, criticize, scrutinize things so that they can see that I am correct.

The main reason why atheists intentionally disallow free and open criticism of their arguments is specifically because they are anti-science fanatics and know that their arguments and beliefs are wrong and false, so they ban and block anyone from questioning, criticizing, or scrutinizing their arguments. If a statement is true then it will stand up to any amount of criticism, so why do atheists intentionally prevent criticism for?

Since I know my statements are true I intentionally encourage criticism.

Atheistic arguments are so laughable and weak, I don’t know how anyone can seriously take atheistic arguments seriously. If atheists really take their arguments seriously then they must be foolish, idiotic, senseless, or not understand anything about logic or science.

There simply is no such thing as a logical atheistic argument.

June 25, 2015 / itsnobody

Global warming, a hoax or a waste of time?

Global warming is a popular topic in the media, but after evaluating I’ve concluded that I’m not sure if it’s true or false, but I am sure that stopping man-made CO2 emissions is a waste of time.

Is global warming a hoax?

Based on the evidence I can’t be certain. The temperature increases are minimal (by 0.1 C) and there are many different factors influencing the weather.

Temperature charts do indicate a temperature increase, but the global temperature increase from 1880 to now still has been extremely small and unnoticeable (only 0.8 C).

The IPCC has acknowledged that the temperature increase from 1998 to 2012 has been slower than the temperature increase since 1951 (http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf), but blames it on other factors that influence the temperature.

Some people believe that the slowdown is caused by the Sun.

Is attempting to prevent global warming a waste of time?

Definitely YES.

Climate scientists have said the effects of global warming are irreversible and that even if we stopped all man-made CO2 emissions tomorrow the effects of global warming would still occur.

Climate scientists estimate that with the best most stringent mitigation we might be able to limit the global warming to 2 C or lower by 2100, but with no mitigation the temperatures might increase by 2-4 C by 2100 (“Joint Science Academies’ Statement” (PDF). Retrieved 6 January 2014., Stocker et al., Technical Summary, in IPCC AR5 WG1 2013.)

This means that doing nothing might have the same effect as the most stringent mitigation!

So this means all this effort put into stopping man-made CO2 emissions is a waste of time.

What we should be doing is preparing for the effects of global warming and also other catastrophic events unrelated to human caused global warming that could occur.

If we stopped all man-made CO2 emissions tomorrow the effects of global warming would still occur, and other events unrelated to human caused global warming would occur.

So what people should be doing is preparing for the effects of global warming first, then maybe focusing on stopping people from generating man-made CO2 emissions afterwards.

Possible effects of global warming include flooding, droughts, weather disturbances, and natural disasters which may cause a food crisis in the future (but these things could also occur without human caused global warming).

I predict that a global food crisis is realistically likely in the 2030s-2040s (but because of the increase in the human population up to 9 billion, not global warming).

The world population by the year 2200 will probably be 500 million or less, if my predictions are correct!

So it’s best for humanity and mankind to prepare for the effects of catastrophic events (food crisis, natural disasters, wars, etc…) in general rather than focusing on preventing global warming from happening!

Hopefully the media’s attitude will change and shift towards getting people to prepare for catastrophic events in general rather than focusing on getting a few people to stop generating man-made CO2 emissions.

Summary:
– The most stringent mitigation might be indistinguishable from no mitigation
– Stopping all man-made CO2 emissions wouldn’t prevent global warming or other catastrophic events unrelated to human caused global warming
– The recent global warming slowdown has been blamed on the Sun
– It’s better to prepare for the effects of global warming and other catastrophic events rather than focusing on stopping a few people from generating man-made CO2 emissions

April 6, 2015 / itsnobody

Concrete Proof that Evolutionists DO NOT CARE ABOUT EVIDENCE

79% of evolutionary biologists believe in free-will, thereby proving that biologists do not care about evidence and that the reason why they believe in evolution has nothing to do with evidence.

Source: http://faculty.bennington.edu/~sherman/Evolution%20in%20America/evol%20religion%20free%20will.pdf

A fool (atheist) might think in their mind how could this be?

It’s simple: If you go strictly by evidence you would be more certain that free-will is non-existent than you would be that evolution is true.

Atheist biologists aren’t going by evidence, that’s why they have no issue with denying repeatable experiments and direct observations telling us there’s no free-will but have an issue with people denying assumptions in evolution that are impossible to experimentally verify as accurate, LOL!

If you’re willing to deny repeatable experiments and direct observations (the most concrete form of evidence in science) to believe in free-will then you should be willing to deny any type of evidence in science.

On the other hand if you’re willing to believe in evolution (relies on many assumptions that are impossible to experimentally verify as accurate) then you should be willing to believe in anything supported by repeatable experiments and direct observation.

But we see that this isn’t the case, thereby proving that evolutionary biologists do not really care about evidence.

The reason why evolutionary biologists believe in evolution is because they are strongly biased towards evolution, not because of evidence. If evidence was important to them they would be much more certain that free-will is non-existent than they would be that evolution is true.

There aren’t any evolutionary biologists that value evidence or go strictly by evidence.

You have to realize the truth that not one atheist evolutionist in all of the entire world actually cares about or values evidence, they are just biased towards evolution.

Most biologists who believe in free-will don’t even realize that non-determinism and disorder would falsify evolution, lol (most free-will believers attack determinism).

“The Problem of Free-Will” argument is usually used against religion so of course the atheist-controlled media won’t come out to attack free-will believers like how they’ve attacked Creationists.

Have you ever heard even one time a Professor getting fired for believing in free-will or teaching that free-will could exist? I haven’t.

On the other hand if a Professor merely questions or criticizes evolution they could get fired or heavily persecuted, why is this?

Michael Egnor, a neurosurgeon was heavily criticized for merely saying that studying evolution was useless (not even criticizing evolution or saying that it’s false). Of course Egnor is correct, evolution has very few real-world applications. When you’re studying neurosurgery and other things it doesn’t matter if humans evolved from an ape-like ancestor, or Neanderthals, or were genetically engineered by aliens, or Created, what matters is how the brain works here and how.

So indeed studying evolution would be useless…can you believe someone can get that much trouble for saying that but if they were to say something like studying ancient history is useless for electrical engineers nothing would happen would to them? It shows you how well-controlled the atheist-controlled media is.

I’ve read lots of unscientific junk in peer-reviewed journals, apparently you’re allowed to be unscientific if you’re not criticizing evolution. For instance people are allowed to criticize the evidence telling us there’s no free-will with all types of unscientific junk, and nothing happens to them, they don’t get attacked, they don’t get fired.

The media has no issue with free-will believers or people questioning the scientific evidence telling us that there’s no free-will but has an issue with people questioning the evidence on evolution, why is this? Because the media isn’t going by science or evidence, they’re going by what supports atheism.

The media is ATHEIST-CONTROLLED and can careless about evidence.

The media is atheist-controlled and biased that’s why they have no issue with people questioning the experiments telling us that there’s no free-will, General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, or anything else in science but have an issue with people questioning evolution – a crackpot perpetual motion machine idea, because evolution is protected like a religious belief and not treated as another theory open to criticism and scrutiny.

Why should evolution be protected like a religious belief rather than treated as just another scientific theory open to criticism and scrutiny?

It’s the because the media and society is biased and ATHEIST-CONTROLLED. That’s the only rational explanation.

Atheists are always trying to force and impose their ways and their beliefs onto society.

I’ve already proven in my other article that evolution is just nonsense, basically a crackpot theory nearly equivalent to believing in perpetual motion machines.

On anti-science/atheist blog sites like “https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com” they have to pre-approve comments and don’t allow people to question or criticize them, this is because they are anti-science and know that they are wrong.

One of the main principles in science use to be criticism and scrutiny prior to the fools (atheists) taking over science, this is because if a statement really is true it will stand up to any amount of criticism.

Since evolutionists know that they are wrong of course they will try everything in their power to prevent and stop any type of criticism of evolution, perhaps the very weakest theory in all of science history.

Evolutionists can’t handle that their science fiction story called “evolution” is obviously false.

From a strict empiricist point of view only conclusions drawn from repeatable experiments can be regarded as “true”.

We can objectively measure how weak or strong a theory is by how many assumptions it relies on that have been experimentally tested and verified as accurate.

By that measure, evolution has to be very weakest most fragile theory in all of science history!

Informal Proof that believing in free-will is more irrational than denying evolution:

Premise 1: Denying repeatable experiments and direct observations is more irrational than denying assumptions that cannot be experimentally verified as accurate

1. The scientific evidence telling us that free-will is non-existent is based upon direct observations, repeatable experiments, and also physics (which engineers have experimentally verified as accurate billions of times already)

2. The scientific evidence supporting evolution is based on inferences and conclusions that are impossible to experimentally verify as accurate, and is an anomaly in physics

3. From Premise 1, denying the evidence telling us that free-will is non-existent would be more irrational than denying the evidence supporting evolution

Thus believing in free-will is more irrational than denying evolution

 

Summary of the evidence telling us that free-will is non-existent (atheist biologists have no issue with people questioning this evidence yet they have an issue with people questioning the extraordinarily weak evidence supporting evolution which is impossible to experimentally verify as accurate showing their anti-science/atheist nature):
– Libet’s experiment
– Transcranial Magnetic Stimuli experiment
– Reaction Time experiment
– Evidence supporting the neural-correlate explanation (means that neurons make our decisions, no choosing involved)
– The empirical observation that drugs and chemical reactions alter consciousness
– The empirical observation that brain-related injuries can cause permanent changes in behavior and consciousness
– The empirical observation that the brain is a vital organ and must behave in a deterministic way for humans to survive
– The empirical observation that different species have different behaviors varying by their brain size and structure
– Accidental decisions
– Involuntary decisions
– Impossible decisions (eg…someone feels as if they can run 100 mph or reach something too far away)
– Psychology (tells us that human behavior is the result of conditioning, not choices)
– Neurology
– Biology
– Chemistry
– Physics (no model in physics allows for free-will to exist, neither determinism nor non-determinism)

So basically questioning the evidence on free-will is equivalent to questioning science in general.

The problems and gaps in evolution are much much much bigger than the issues with the hypothesis that there is no free-will, humans merely feel as if they can choose when in reality they always uncontrollably act all the time (there’s no issue at all with this hypothesis, it matches into all the data perfectly).

Since 79% of evolutionary biologists believe in free-will we can be 100% certain that they don’t really care about evidence, science, logic, or reasoning.

They believe in evolution just in the same way that someone would believe in a religious idea. They really want to believe in evolution and have to blank out all the evidence telling us that evolution is impossible.

“Evolution” is only true in biologists’ imagination…just like if you show someone a perpetual motion machine diagram they might be able to imagine it working in their minds…but in reality it wouldn’t work, it’s just fantasy and imagination…it’s the same thing with evolution, biologists just imagine it working in their minds, it wouldn’t happen in reality.

Just imagine how much better things would be if people gave up on the “free-will delusion”, you wouldn’t be able to blame anyone, people would instead focus on the scientific causes of negative behavior, it would be really easy to forgive and forget, not hold grudges, let go of anger, and see the true innocence in all beings.

Right now because people really believe in free-will they can’t forgive or forget or not hold grudges…they think in their mind “this person chose to do this, they could’ve done this or that, but they chose not to”.

If instead they believed in science they would instead think in their mind “this person never chose to do this, it happened because of uncontrollable reactions in the person’s body and brain” and it would really really easy to forgive and forget and not hold grudges!

Based on modern science I’ve concluded that I was chosen for a special purpose, and that certain individuals are destined to achieve certain things.

In conclusion: Don’t trust what evolutionary biologists say or believe since they aren’t going by evidence and are basically anti-science clowns.

March 25, 2015 / itsnobody

Problems with Evolution – A Science Fiction Story

What do you call a theory that relies on too many experimentally unverifiable assumptions? A science fiction story. – itsnobody

If we are to be completely honest and objective with ourselves we can see with 100% certainty that evolution the theory is nothing more than a nonsensical pseudo-scientific science fiction story put out in the media and sold as true.

Initially believing in evolution because I was taught to and because of authority figures I’ve come out to oppose evolution. The atheist-controlled media can’t protect evolution forever.

Anyone who objectively evaluates the facts going only by evidence, empirical observations, and valid reasoning (rather than by authority, incredulity, and other things popular in anti-science/atheist circles) would see that evolution as we know it is a borderline impossibility!

It’s time that people stop believing lies in the atheist-controlled media and start calling out “evolution” the theory as a whole for what it really is – a nonsensical pseudo-scientific science fiction idea just the same as “X-Men” or other science fiction ideas.

The atheist-controlled media has an issue with people questioning or criticizing evolution, a borderline pseudo-scientific idea, but delusional atheists like Ayn Rand and Daniel Dennett can spread their propaganda on “free-will”, an idea thoroughly falsified in science by repeatable experiments.

Why can’t atheists and evolutionists realize that believing in free-will is more irrational than denying evolution the theory as a whole?

Obviously denying physics, every field in modern science, repeatable experiments and direct observation to believe in “free-will” is more irrational than denying assumptions in evolution which are impossible to experimentally verify as true.

The only way that you can disagree with me is if you’re not going by evidence but by your bias.

The scientific issues, problems, gaps, and unknowns in evolution are much much bigger than the scientific issues with saying there’s no free-will.

It’s pretty funny to talk to people who believe in evolution but then deny the evidence on free-will, it proves their bias and how they don’t really care about evidence at all.

Even worse, evolution requires determinism to be true, yet the fools (atheists) who believe in free-will usually attack determinism, so they are attacking evolution as well. Non-determinism would falsify evolution!

The atheist-controlled media and atheist/anti-science community has no issue with people questioning the repeatable experiments telling us that there’s no such thing as “free-will”, so why do they have an issue with people questioning assumptions in evolution that aren’t even based on anything experimentally verifiable?

The answer is because the media is CONTROLLED and BIASED towards evolution. That’s the only rational explanation.

Have you ever heard even one time anywhere any Professors getting fired for believing in free-will or even one time in the media a “free-will believer” being attacked? I haven’t.

On the other hand lots of Professors who are critical of evolution get fired, people who deny evolution are attacked in the media because the media and society is biased and doesn’t care about evidence, science, or proof.

“The Problem of Free-Will” argument is usually used against religion, so of course the atheist-controlled media won’t come out to force the non-existence free-will belief onto society like how they’ve tried to force the science fiction story called “evolution” onto society.

Otherwise we would predict that the media would be attacking free-will believers and saying you’re not allowed to say or teach that free-will exists, if the media actually cared about evidence, but this isn’t case.

So we can be around 100% certain that not even one atheist or evolutionist actually cares about evidence, science, or proof.

What a terrible thing the media has done.

Just imagine how much better society would be if people gave up on the “free-will delusion”, stopped blaming people, holding grudges, refusing to forgive and forget, saw the true innocence in all beings, and focused on the scientific causes of negative behavior.

One of the main principles in science is criticism and scrutiny, so why are evolutionists trying to stop people from questioning, criticizing, and scrutinizing evolution?

It’s simple, they know that if a theory really is true that it will stand up to any amount of criticism so they have to stop everyone from criticizing evolution because they know how weak of a theory it is and that it will be falsified.

Although I can’t be sure as to exactly how life started, I can be 100% certain that whatever happened isn’t modern day evolution as we know it.

We do not respect these anti-science atheist clowns intent on protecting their science fiction idea from criticism and scrutiny.

On my blog site full-fledged free speech is allowed, so anyone is free to refute any statement that I made (since I know that I’m right I encourage criticism).

Now onto my main arguments:

How is evolution equivalent a science fiction story that COULD be true?

It’s pretty simple, assumptions, hypotheses, or speculations that have never been experimentally verified as accurate but could be true are equivalent to stories. Almost everything in the theory of evolution is impossible to experimentally verify as accurate, so it’s basically the same as a science fiction story.

What if I made up a story about how a long time ago in the past there were giant humanoid insect-like creatures on Earth, but they went extinct, and all their fossils disappeared…wouldn’t that be nearly the same as the modern day theory of evolution?

Or what about the “X-Men” story…a story of humans that mutate and gain superhuman powers…it’s nearly the same as evolution as well.

Lots of science fiction stories are nearly equivalent in terms of how “scientific” they are to the theory of evolution.

The laws of physics should be modified to fit into clown evolutionists science fiction ideas?

The difference between physics and evolution is that engineers have experimentally verified the accuracy of physics literally BILLIONS of times already whereas so many assumptions in evolution are impossible to experimentally verify as accurate!

Since when did we change physics to match into assumptions that have never been experimentally verified as accurate?

But here we have the media and society saying that we should make an exception to evolution based off nothing. Apparently evolution is an exception to the second law of thermodynamics.

“But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.” – Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World (1915), chapter 4

“[Thermodynamics] is the only physical theory of universal content which I am convinced will never be overthrown, within the framework of applicability of its basic concepts.” – Albert Einstein

“The second law of thermodynamics is, without a doubt, one of the most perfect laws in physics. Any reproducible violation of it, however small, would bring the discoverer great riches as well as a trip to Stockholm. The world’s energy problems would be solved at one stroke.” – Ivan P. Bazarov, “Thermodynamics” (1964)

Evolutionist response: “The Earth is not an isolated system, therefore the law does not apply. The Sun’s energy could increase order on Earth.”

LOL! I guess everyone needs a good laugh at the clown science fiction evolutionist response.

There’s a big problem with this claim: Engineers know that entropy applies ON EARTH and in open systems.

Using the clown evolutionist reasoning engineers can give up on entropy and come up with “magical” devices since the “Earth is not an isolated system” or whatever, lol.

I guess this means that 100% efficient heat engines and perpetual motion machines that violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics are now possible ON EARTH because “the Earth is not an isolated system” LOL!

How can anyone be this stupid? I guess since the media has protected evolution like a religious belief rather than treating it as another scientific theory physicists are forced to remain silent about their doubts of this ridiculous science fiction idea called “evolution”.

“if an increase in order is extremely improbable when a system is closed, it is still extremely improbable when the system is open, unless something is entering which makes it not extremely improbable” – Granville Sewell, Mathematician

The physicists most biased towards evolution only admit that “it could still be theoretically possible, but it would still be a strange phenomena, if it’s true”.

The physicists biased towards evolution have come up with nonsensical calculations showing that there’s enough energy for an entropy decrease enough to allow evolution to occur.

This claim however is borderline nonsense, nearly the same as calculating that a “99.99% efficient solar panel is easily possible” or calculating that on other planets like Mars or Venus or Mercury “the Sun’s energy could decrease entropy enough for evolution” or calculating that “the Sun provides us with 63 MW of power per square meter”.

The main issue with their calculations is not factoring in reality (they just use elementary calculations that no engineer would rely on) and that the Sun’s energy would only decrease entropy if and only if there was a mechanism that used the Sun’s energy to do so.

In reality even if there’s theoretically enough energy from the Sun to cause the entropy decrease it would never happen realistically because the Sun’s energy increases entropy and only decreases entropy if and only if there’s a special specific mechanism that uses the Sun’s energy to decrease entropy!

Solar storms from the Sun release energy, but they may one day cause the Earth to end instantly being equivalent to more than 10 billion Hiroshima atomic bombs!

Why don’t solar storms and atomic bombs decrease entropy? Because an increase in energy would increase entropy and disorder, not decrease it. An entropy decrease only comes if there’s a specific mechanism that uses energy to decrease entropy, not magically.

They’re just calculating nonsense, fantasy imagination science fiction stuff not reality!

Using similar elementary calculations physicists have used to show that evolution is possible we can say that the Sun provides us with 63 MW of power per square meter!

However upon closer inspection we see that only around 1366 W of power per square meter is actually available because the intensity of the power drops with the squared distance from the Sun as the sphere of this emission is expanding (around 46,000 times).

If we assume that solar panels are around 25% efficient this comes to only around 340 watts per square meter!

However the actual amount is even lower since direct sunlight isn’t available 24/7.

But if we went by elementary calculations similar to the ones the physicists biased towards evolution use we would still believe that 63 MW/sq meter is provided by the Sun, so with a 25% efficient solar panel we would have 15.75 MW per square meter!

Using engineering and applying the calculations to reality shows you how ridiculous their claims are!

In other words if we go by reality-based calculations not theoretical calculations the entropy decrease from evolution would violate or almost violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

With engineering we can see the truth. Only a certain percentage of the Sun’s energy would be usable energy, and among that usable energy only a certain percentage could be used to cause an entropy decrease.

So the overall picture is that the entropy decrease required for evolution is impossible with the Sun’s energy alone!

The elementary calculations the physicists biased towards evolution use are merely theoretical and basically just fantasy and imagination.

Physicists don’t have an issue with claiming that evolution on every other planet in the universe is impossible but the physicists biased towards evolution make an exception for Earth, lol.

Can you believe that? Most physicists already have no issue with saying that on every single Earth-like planet in the entire universe evolution would be so extraordinarily unlikely that it’s basically impossible. It’s also impossible on Earth too, lol.

The media is trying to convince people to accept evolution based on the possibility that it could be true. But why should we assume that something is true because it COULD be true even if it’s extraordinarily unlikely to be true? Only because evolution is a belief protected by the media.

Using this reasoning I can assume that even if it’s extraordinarily unlikely that I would win the lottery 7 times in a row since it COULD happen it WILL happen….what backwards nonsensical reasoning.

The nonsensical science fiction response from evolutionists shows how weak of a theory evolution really is.

The main problem with their argument is that the Sun’s energy would only increase order if and only if there was a mechanism that used the Sun’s energy to increase order, not just magically!

The Sun’s energy would certainly increase entropy and not decrease entropy unless there was some specific mechanism that used the Sun’s energy to decrease entropy.

In the future the Sun may cause the world to end, as solar storms are one of the things that could instantly destroy the Earth at any moment at any time!

Engineers know this to be true…it doesn’t matter if someone calculates and estimates that a “99.9% efficient solar panel” is possible…they know that it’s not possible in reality because you need to come up with mechanisms that use the sun’s energy.

Engineers haven’t even come close to breaking the 2nd law of thermodynamics (it would be a miracle even if they came up with a 70% efficient solar panel, even in labs coming up with a 40% efficient solar panel has been a challenge).

But according to evolutionists with their calculations this should be easy, since it’s on Earth, and you can calculate and estimate it as possible without violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Using the evolutionist reasoning we can conclude that “if you stay out in the Sun you won’t ever die or grow old”….LOL.

Evolutionists often claim that this criticism should mean that “babies can’t grow into adults” but being foolish with their science fiction ideas they ignore that “adults grow old and die” (because of entropy), the decrease in entropy is only very temporary with the overall increase in entropy still prevailing!

They also ignore the fact that in the past (and still today in many developing countries) infant mortality was one of the leading killers (because of entropy) meaning many babies never grew into adults.

Evolutionists also come up with other examples to protect their crackpot science fiction ideas, ignoring the fact that the overall trend is still an increase in entropy!

A temporary decrease in entropy is possible, but the overall trend is always with entropy increasing!

The 2nd law of thermodynamics has been experimentally verified as accurate billions of times whereas almost everything in evolution has never been experimentally verified as accurate…yet we are supposed to deny experimentally verification to protect this science fiction story called “evolution”!?

“The Entropy Law says that evolution dissipates the overall available energy for life on this planet. Our concept of evolution is the exact opposite. We believe that evolution somehow magically creates greater overall value and order on earth.” – Jeremy Rifkin, Evolutionist/anti-science fan

Evolutionists claim that anyone critical of evolution misuse the 2nd law of thermodynamics when in reality it is the evolutionists who have come up with a near “magical” science fiction idea to escape the 2nd law of thermodynamics!

The entropy decrease required for evolution is definitely like “magic”!

Instead of physicists coming out to tell the public the unbiased objective truth on this matter they are forced to remain silent and protect the science fiction idea “evolution”.

If physicists had been unbiased they would’ve already falsified evolution, viewing it the same as other crackpot ideas like perpetual motion machines.

Evolutionists are trying to stop physicists from seriously looking at evolution because they know that physicists if they unbiasedly look at it will come to the conclusion that evolution is definitely impossible!

So to summarize the issues with evolution and physics:
– Engineers have experimentally verified the accuracy of physics billions of times whereas almost everything in evolution is impossible to experimentally verify as accurate
– The theoretical calculations used to support evolution contain errors and are unrealistic as the intensity of the power of the Sun’s energy decreases as it hits Earth
– The Sun’s energy would increase entropy and only decrease entropy if there was a specific mechanism that used the Sun’s energy to decrease entropy, not magically only decrease entropy as evolutionists believe
– Since the Sun’s energy would increase entropy it’s not realistically enough to explain the entropy decrease required for evolution
– No rational explanation to how such an entropy decrease is realistically possible (from a primitive form of bacteria to a human) is given, it’s basically equivalent to “magic”

 

So basically modern physics already has falsified evolution! It’s just because of the media and society that it’s given a free pass.
Evolution the theory is almost equivalent to a perpetual motion machine idea that has never been experimentally tested, basically the same as a crackpot idea that the media has protected.

What does physics predict?

Physics which has been experimentally verified as accurate billions and billions of times by engineers, predicts extinction, not evolution in almost every case.

Physics tells us that any entropy decrease would be temporary, with the overall trend of entropy increasing prevailing!

Physics predicts that species would gradually become weaker and eventually die off (become extinct), the idea that a species would instead “evolve” into something superior and more complex fundamentally goes against physics.

Evolution would only be remotely possible in these cases:
– Short term micro-evolution (and then extinction)
– Species with extraordinarily high reproduction rates

Everything that physics predicts matches into all of the data we have perfectly (physics has been experimentally verified as accurate by engineers whereas almost everything in evolution is impossible to experimentally verify as accurate).

This means the species that aren’t reproducing like quadrillions per day or week have a near ZERO chance of ever evolving into anything more complex and extremely high chance of either remaining the same, becoming weaker, or dying off.

So for a species like humans the chance that humans evolved is essentially zero. You have to assume that the common ancestor from which humans and chimpanzees came from somehow didn’t go extinct before it evolved, and also assume that all the ancestors of that species didn’t go extinct before it evolved, and so on all the way back to a primitive form of bacteria, which is so extraordinarily unlikely we know that it never happened!

Chance that the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees didn’t go extinct before it could evolve – extremely unlikely
|
Chance that the common ancestor of that species didn’t go extinct before it could evolve – extremely extremely unlikely
|
Chance that the common ancestor of the above species didn’t go extinct before it could evolve – extremely extremely extremely unlikely
|
All the way back to a primitive form of bacteria – chance is so extremely low we know it it’s impossible

Obviously if a species goes extinct it can’t evolve into anything else.

The fossil records and biology support what physics tells us, extinction, not evolution.

We also observe just what physics tells us about species gradually becoming weaker as well. Many ancient species were larger and stronger than their modern day versions. Instead of “evolving” into something more complex as evolution predicts they became weaker over time just like physics predicts.

Biologists estimate that 99.9% of species went extinct in the past, just what physics predicts (Newman, Mark. A model of mass extinction. 1997. Journal of Theoretical Biology 189: 235-252).

Biologists and evolutionists already agree with me, mostly

The overwhelming evidence in biology and physics supports extinction as opposed to evolution. Biologists already agree that extinction is far more likely for a species than evolution, they just claim that “somehow by some unknown means when there were mass extinctions in the past and nearly 100% of species died off life just started back later on” which of course is nonsense.

In modern times we observe extinctions going on everywhere.

Everything matches in perfectly with what physics tells us.

Problems with the evidence evolutionists and evolutionist fans provide:

Computer models aren’t evidence of anything

A lot of evolutionists use computer models to support their delusions…the problem with this is that you can use computer models to say that anything is true, they also ignore the computer models that match into physics (showing extinction rather than evolution).

With computer models and simulations you can say that perpetual motion machines are real.

Computer models aren’t equivalent to experimental verification of anything.

Fossil evidence is weak, not objective, not empirically testable as accurate

Fossil evidence is often used as the strongest evidence that evolution is true, but a closer look shows that it’s just junk and not real evidence of anything.

Problems with the fossil evidence:
– Different biologists interpret the same fossils differently
– No DNA for most fossils, meaning nothing objective
– Are we actually observing evolution or extinction?

Since you can interpret the same fossils in different ways what biologists do is interpret fossils to fit into their invented models. When however real DNA is discovered usually more questions are raised than answers. This is what has happened time and time again.

For instance recently, a 400,000 year old human fossil thought to have definitely been homo heidelbergensis by biologists has now been revealed to actually be Denisovan when mtDNA was obtained, a real HUGE shock to biologists:

“The story of human evolution is not as simple as we would have liked to think,” Meyer said. “This result is a big question mark. In some sense, we know less about the origins of Neanderthals and Denisovans than we knew before.” – http://www.livescience.com/41679-oldest-human-dna-reveals-mysterious-homnid.html

Most certainly biologists would still have thought of this fossil as “homo heidelbergensis” it’s only because of the mtDNA sample (something objective) that are they forced to reclassify it.

This recent find (from December 2013) forces biologists to rewrite the model of human evolution since the earliest Denisovans were supposed to have been from 40,000 years ago, not 400,000 years ago.

That is just one example of how fossil evidence is weak without an objective verification (actual DNA).

Without an objective verification of something you can just make up a story or model and say that it’s true.

This is exactly what biologists and paleontologists do with fossil research, they just make up a story or model and try to fit the fossils into the models. Since usually there’s no way to objectively verify or empirically test the accuracy of their models they can basically say that anything is true.

DNA evidence is the most objective way to empirically test the accuracy of transitional fossil models, so I predict that in the future if more DNA is gathered from fossils that we can falsify evolution.

I’m very confident that many fossils labeled as “transitional” are not in reality, they are just extinctions of different species or other things misidentified that may look somewhat similar and are classified to fit into an invented model.

“Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record.  By doing so, we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory.” – Ronald R. West, Evolutionist/anti-science fan

Hopefully in the future if more DNA or mtDNA can be obtained from fossils we can completely falsify evolution!

 

Tactics used by evolutionists and the atheist-controlled media whenever evolution is criticized:

Go by authority, incredulity, polls

Usually the media will say something like “most biologists believe in evolution therefore it must be accepted or is true”…the problem with this is just an appeal to authority.

Authority figures saying something is true isn’t equivalent to evidence that it’s true. What authority figures believe is only relevant if it’s accompanied with evidence.

Most biologists don’t understand anything about physics so who cares what they think? It’s just like someone making up a science fiction story about a perpetual motion machine.

I remember in middle school I had an idea for a perpetual motion machine, in my imagination it worked great, if I had no way to empirically test out if my machine worked I might still have believed that it worked. It’s only because we can experimentally test out machines like that that I know that my machine doesn’t work in reality.

In the same way biologists can imagine evolution working well in their minds, since they have no way to empirically test the accuracy of so many of their claims they can continue to remain in delusion.

If we go strictly by evidence, evolution the theory as a whole is so extremely unlikely that I KNOW that it never happened.

Label anyone who criticizes evolution as a Creationist / throw personal attacks

In order to prevent physicists, engineers, and others from criticizing evolution evolutionists have come up with a great anti-science strategy – just label anyone who criticizes evolution (something not experimentally verified as accurate) as a Creationist, crackpot, crazy, etc…these same people would have no issue with people criticizing General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Neuroscientists who say there’s no free-will, etc…even though these sciences have been experimentally verified as accurate whereas evolution has not!

Can you believe anyone could be that much of an anti-science fan?

One of the main principles in science is criticism and scrutiny, so why shouldn’t people be allowed to criticize evolution like how they are allowed to criticize anything else in science?

The reason why evolutionists discourage criticism and scrutiny of evolution is because they are anti-science (in opposition to science), know that their science fiction story WILL be proven wrong, and want evolution to be protected like a religious belief.

Suppress embarrassing finds for evolutionists

Did you know that soft tissue was found in dinosaur fossils dated to 68 million – 150 million years ago (Schweitzer, Mary H.; Wittmeyer, Jennifer L.; Horner, John R. (2007). “Soft tissue and cellular preservation in vertebrate skeletal elements from the Cretaceous to the present”. Proc Biol Sci 274 (1607): 183–97. doi:10.1098/rspb.2006.3705. PMC 1685849. PMID 17148248.)?

You probably don’t because the media has suppressed this embarrassing find for evolutionists.

I remember reading an article a long time ago where someone said something like “if they find soft tissue in a dinosaur fossil evolution would be falsified” as a joke…this actually showed up, is real, has been peer-reviewed, but where is it in the media?

But this doesn’t actually falsify the accuracy of the dating techniques…evolutionists have come up with another pseudo-scientific science fiction idea that “somehow by some unknown means iron can preserve soft tissue for 68 million years”…which is obviously another nonsensical crackpot science fiction idea.

Microbiology (based on experimentation) tells us that soft tissue can only last a maximum of around 1 million years in the best conditions……microbiologists are told to remain silent about the doubts they have about the dating techniques because they know that the hypothesis that “the dating technique is inaccurate” will be ignored and thrown out because of the anti-science nature of evolutionists (the dating technique cannot be experimentally verified as accurate or even compared to other dating techniques for accuracy by the way).

From direct observation we absolutely know with 100% certainty that all soft tissue within human remains decomposes and disappears in just 50-100 years or less!

But here we have evolutionists claiming that soft tissue can survive for 68 MILLION years! How ridiculous!

The only reason that the hypothesis that “the dating technique is inaccurate” is thrown out is because with anything connected to evolution authority and incredulity matters more than hard evidence.

Dating techniques can’t be experimentally verified as accurate (we don’t have a time machine) but they can be compared to other dating techniques. The reasoning is that it’s extremely unlikely that different dating techniques would give the same date if the technique was inaccurate.

This reasoning works well for things dated to 1 millions years or more recent, you can compare the radiometric dating to other things like ice core dating or tree ring dating to check the accuracy.

But for anything dated as older than a few million years, like 68 millions years old, there’s no way to even compare it to other dating techniques to verify the accuracy of the dating!

So basically the radiometric calculated date of 68 million is essentially the same as a science fiction number, can’t be experimentally verified as accurate or even compared to other dating techniques for accuracy, and it also directly contradicts the physical evidence (soft tissue being found).

An analogy would be your watch telling you that it’s 2 AM but you look outside and it looks like it’s 2 PM, if you have other clocks available you can check to see if your watch is wrong or not, but if somehow every other clock or time-measuring device was unavailable, what would you think?

So will evolution be falsified in the future?

Of course it will. A theory as weak as evolution that doesn’t rely on many assumptions that are empirically tested as accurate will most certainly be overthrown in the future.

Now that’s what you call a weak theory.

The two weakest things in science are evolution and history since they rely on many assumptions that are impossible to experimentally verify as accurate.

If you are really pro-science or pro-empiricist you would know that you can only trust conclusions drawn from repeatable experiments and that assumptions that are impossible to experimentally verify or empirically test as accurate cannot be trusted.

I predict that by the 2100s-2200s or earlier evolution will either be completely falsified or be radically changed (maybe new mechanisms or something?).

This science fiction story called “evolution” can’t be protected forever.

Eventually scientists are going to have to look at the objective facts instead of protecting evolution like a religious belief.

Conclusion: What we have here is a story that fundamentally contradicts physics that cannot be experimentally verified as accurate basically the same as a perpetual motion machine idea!

Obviously the story isn’t true.

Biologists and evolutionists can keep imagining evolution as true in their minds just as someone can imagine a perpetual motion machine working great in their minds! It’s just fantasy and imagination.

Evolutionists can keep hiding away from their superstitious science fiction belief being falsified since it relies on so many assumptions that are impossible to experimentally verify as accurate, but it won’t last.

Based on the overwhelming evidence we have, evolution as we know it is so extraordinarily unlikely to have occurred we can be 100% certain that it never happened.

I’m 100% certain that this science fiction story called “evolution” is definitely wrong and false!

Hopefully one day physicists and engineers will call out evolution for what it really is – a crackpot theory the same as believing in perpetual motion machines.

November 11, 2014 / itsnobody

Reasons for viewing atheists as subhuman beings

Some fools (atheists) want to know why I consider atheists as subhuman beings as opposed to actual humans. It’s nothing really personal, just impersonal.

Reasons for viewing atheists as fully subhuman:

  • Atheists refuse to oppose racism and nationalism but voice up their position on things like gay rights and abortion rights
  • 100% of all modern day atheist countries are extremely racist/nationalist beyond imagination (Denmark, Sweden, Latvia, Estonia, New Zealand, and every other atheist country)
  • Atheists and the atheist-controlled media refuse to attack free-will believers like how they attack Creationists even though the scientific evidence telling us that free-will is non-existent is like a million times more concrete than the evidence supporting evolution(young Earth Creationists are more rational than free-will believers)
  • Atheists refuse to acknowledge the undeniable historical consensus that religion directly caused the scientific revolution and insist on telling lies thoroughly debunked by historians (there aren’t any modern day historians that believe in the “Dark Ages” lie portrayed in the atheist-controlled media)
  • Atheists refuse to acknowledge the undeniable historical fact that Faraday’s religion directly caused Maxwell’s Equations to come into existence, and instead lie and portray the opposite
  • Atheists are trying to redefine the definition of science so that all that matters is authority and incredulity instead of empirical observations and valid reasoning, turning science into pseudoscience
  • Atheists are trying to throw away a very important principle in science – criticism and scrutiny, and turn science into pseudoscience
  • Atheists don’t allow people to question, scrutinize, and criticize atheistic arguments, they just breakdown and cry and interpret any criticism as “trolling”
  • Atheists insist on telling many lies thoroughly debunked by historians and scientists (see my post “Common Lies Spread By Atheists”)

If atheists and the atheist community gave up on these things I would consider them as human or partially human.

If you go on YouTube you’ll see that the majority or at least half of the racist comments are from atheists even though there’s a low atheist population in the US. You have to realize that every atheist is in on this White Nationalism/racism thing together as one, that’s why they won’t come out to oppose racism and other racist atheists, they would only come out to try to stop people from criticizing racism thereby ensuring that the racism and nationalism thrives.

The dream of a Whites-only type of society is finally coming back. Back in 1988 no one in Sweden supported the Nazi party, it’s only 2010 that they gained support. Instead of calling it a “White Supremacy Organization” you just call it “Atheist Group” instead.

It’s just better to start viewing atheists as subhuman beings.

Although I can’t be 100% certain of everything, I can be 100% certain that – atheists block human progress, hold back science, and pose the greatest threat to mankind.

What atheists want to do is live backwards in the stone age with trees and grass, they hate science and technology.

Estonia (the most atheistic country) has 0 Nobel prizes.
Switzerland and Austria (the 1st and 2nd most religious Western countries) have the 1st and 2nd most Nobel prizes in science per capita.

After atheists took over science the late 1960s and early 1970s we immediately stopped finding cures, the life expectancy started growing slower, physics became stuck with empirically untestable hypotheses, science is turning into pseudoscience, and technology started growing slower.

Atheists hate technology and science and just believe in living in grass.

The only real solution to this issue is – the complete systematic extermination of atheism and atheistic beliefs.

Come come view atheists as subhuman, the enemy, the lowest!

I’m the King of argumentation logic, there’s nothing these fools (atheists) can do in response except for throw personal attacks when presented with undeniable historical and scientific facts.

In the beginning, middle, and end I win. They say humans like this only come around a few thousand years or so. Atheists are subhuman like animals they can be found anywhere.

Atheists should just give up, go home, and ignore the whole situation, they know that if they present their atheistic argument in front me I’ll break it up apart and make them look foolish (atheistic). They can go back to their agreeing-contest anti-science/atheist forums that don’t allow criticism, scrutiny, or free speech like how I do. They are always so afraid, weak, and useless.

There will never be any atheist-controlled forum or blog that allows free speech and free criticism and scrutiny like how I do, this is because the fools (atheists) know that if a statement really is true it will stand up to any amount of criticism, so they have to strongly discourage any type of criticism of atheistic arguments and beliefs knowing their ways to be false.

I know that my ways are true and will stand up to any amount of criticism, so I allow and encourage criticism, unlike the fools (atheists).

When I see an atheist crying in my mind I think “What a great joy, what a great joy it is that this low-life racist is now crying”.

When atheists throw personal attacks at me, it’s like nothing to me. It’s just like a dog, a cat, or some other domestic animal throwing personal attacks at me, I don’t feel anything. Since I view atheists as subhuman beings like domestic animals why should I become bothered?

The only way a non-white can get an atheist to support them is if they claim to be gay, then they would come out to support them then. The reason why the atheist community voices their position on gay rights but not racism is because they actually disagree with people who oppose gay rights, but they don’t disagree with people who support racism.

Come come view an atheist as subhuman!

In conclusion: Fuck atheists, fuck atheism, fuck the atheist community, and fuck anyone fuckin offended by any of my fuckin comments.

It’s the free market, free speech, free society!

Support socialism, support a Whites-only type of society!

October 28, 2014 / itsnobody

Free-will vs. Evolution

Related Post: It takes more faith to believe in free-will than to believe in God

We have not heard the atheist-controlled media come out to attack free-will believers like how they have attacked Creationists even though the gaps Creationists point out are much much bigger and more objective than the gaps that free-will believers point out, but why is this?

It’s because the atheist-controlled media doesn’t really care about evidence, science, or proof, they care about ridiculing religion. I’m sure if people had attacked evolution for non-religious reasons they wouldn’t have that much of an issue with it.

– Physics tells us that free-will MUST be non-existent, that free-will is a scientific impossibility, it’s impossible

– Physics doesn’t tell us that evolution MUST be true (or even anything close)….

The neuroscientific consensus is that free-will is non-existent.

I haven’t heard even the tiniest peep from the atheist-controlled media attacking free-will believers, have you? People can freely talk about and discuss free-will at Universities without much issue, but they cannot do the same with evolution, why? If you go to a University and say “I believe in free-will” or “that free-will could exist” nothing would happen, but if you don’t believe in evolution you could get fired.

If you visit anti-science/atheist forums they allow discussions of free-will with  no issue, but not discussions of evolution, even though the scientific evidence telling us that free-will is non-existent is about a thousand times more objective and concrete than the evidence telling us that evolution occurred only through the known mechanisms, lol, what a joke the anti-science atheist clowns are.

The Scientific Evidence telling us that free-will is non-existent:

  • Repeatable experiments (Libet’s experiment, RT experiments, Trans-cranial Magnetic Stimuli, etc..)
  • Repeatable observations (drugs and chemical reactions altering consciousness)
  • EVERYTHING in every single field of modern science (physics, chemistry, psychology, neuroscience, biology, medicine, etc…)

So the only way that free-will can exist is if somehow all of modern science is wrong.

Believing in free-will would require much more faith than believing that evolution is somehow false, but because of the atheist-controlled media most people wouldn’t know. I haven’t seen any documentaries in the media attacking free-will believers like how they attack Creationists, have you?

A Proof By Contradiction that free-will believers must not believe in science or care about evidence, or proof:

  • If it’s true that you believe in science and care about evidence and proof then you would be around 100% certain that free-will is non-existent
  • Believing in free-will contradicts this claim, proving that a free-will believer must NOT believe in science or care about evidence or proof

Now onto why the gaps free-will believers point out are insignificant and much smaller than the gaps Creationists point out.

Debunking the two main “gaps” free-will believers use:

  1. Circular reasoning: Quite common in free-will believing circles…they’ll say something like “free-will exists because I can choose to do [some action here]”…the only problem with this argument is that it’s circular reasoning.

    You can’t conclude that you can choose unless you already assume that free-will exists. So this is just the same as saying “free-will exists because I assume that I have free-will and can choose”…which is basically equivalent to saying nothing.

    If free-will was 100% non-existent we would conclude that “you feel inside that you can choose when in reality you always uncontrollably act”…this hypothesis of course matches every single piece of data perfectly. You don’t need to invoke the existence of free-will to explain anything.

    Circular reasoning (concluding something by first assuming it) isn’t evidence of anything…

  2. Non-determinism: There’s three main issues with the infamous non-determinism argument from free-will believers:
    1. Neurons aren’t quantum particles or even close – Why would anyone believe that non-deterministic effects would apply to something as large as neurons (at least 18,000 times larger than most atoms)?
    2. Unpredictable will isn’t free-will – If we did somehow apply non-determinism to the brain it would be equivalent to saying that “someone who always has an uncontrollable spontaneous brain disorder has free-will”…how is that free-will?
    3. Challenging all conclusions drawn from determinism – If you believe that non-determinism can apply to the brain and neurons then you’re challenging basically all conclusions drawn from deterministic physics, like heliocentricism, General Relativity, radiocarbon dating, and every other conclusion drawn from deterministic physics. So do you free-will believers believe that we can throwout all the evidence telling us that heliocentricism is true (since it uses deterministic physics)? If you don’t, then why would you believe that we can throwout all the evidence telling us that free-will is non-existent?

There can’t be any free-will. When you keep questioning why you did something you’ll see that it’s ALWAYS traced back to an uncontrollable reaction, not a choice or any choosing.

Most free-will believers/atheists would ridicule young Earth Creationists who attack radiometric dating, but we can see that free-will is more of an outlandish claim!:

  • Radiometric dating pre-assumes that determinism is true, that “a collection of atoms of a radioactive nuclide decays exponentially at a [PREDICTABLE] rate described by a parameter known as the half-life”
  • A carbon atom is around 0.22 nm in diameter, compared to 0.004 mm – 0.1 mm for a neuron, so neurons are around 18,000 – 450,000 times larger than carbon atoms!
  • If the fools (atheists) believe that non-determinism can apply to something as large as a neuron, they must certainly believe that it would apply to something as small as a collection of carbon atoms, meaning that radiometric dating would be invalid if they are correct!
  • Believing that non-determinism would apply to things as large as neurons would completely negate the accuracy of radiometric dating (meaning the decay time is unpredictable)

Just a simple example of how the gaps Creationists point out are actually more rational and much bigger than the gaps that free-will believers point out. Is it more irrational to believe that non-deterministic effects would apply to something as small as a collection of atoms or to something as large as neurons?

Questions for free-will believers:

  1. If the scientific evidence supporting evolution is enough to convince you then the scientific evidence indicating that free-will is non-existent should be MORE than enough to convince you, so do you believe in evolution or not?
  2. If the scientific evidence indicating that free-will is non-existent isn’t enough to convince you then the scientific evidence supporting evolution shouldn’t be even close to close to enough to convince you, so do you believe in evolution or not?
  3. Do you believe that all of modern science in general is wrong (since if free-will exists it would mean so)?
  4. Do you have any other reason for believing in free-will besides the two main gaps I pointed out?

The gaps Creationists point out when attacking evolution are much bigger and more objective than the gaps that free-will believers point out. This is because physics doesn’t tell us that evolution must be true like how it tells us that free-will must be non-existent.

The story of how free-will is non-existent has remained consistent throughout scientific history (since the scientific revolution began!).

The story of how humans evolved keeps changing over and over again. This is because the scientific evidence supporting evolution is very weak in comparison to the evidence telling us that free-will is non-existent. If you read books on how humans evolved from the 1990s it’s very different from modern day books (2010s+) on how humans evolved, and that’s the change that occurred only in around 20 years. It’s only been since 2008 that Denisovans have even been discovered!

For instance, recently (December 2013) a 400,000 year-old Denisovan human fossil has been discovered in Europe distorting the previously accepted picture of human evolution. The mtDNA analysis shows the fossil to be Denisovan, which is real shock and hard to swallow, so hard that most biologists still insist that it must be homo heidelbergensis regardless of the mtDNA analysis.

 “The story of human evolution is not as simple as we would have liked to think,” Meyer said. “This result is a big question mark. In some sense, we know less about the origins of Neanderthals and Denisovans than we knew before.” – http://www.livescience.com/41679-oldest-human-dna-reveals-mysterious-homnid.html

The reason why the story hasn’t been consistent for evolution is because the scientific evidence supporting evolution isn’t nearly as objective as the evidence telling us that free-will is non-existent (based on direct observations, experiments, and really everything in modern science).

Physics doesn’t tell us that evolution must have occurred just as  modern day biologists believe, that’s why evolution is so much weaker than the non-existence of free-will.

  • If you say you do believe in free-will, then this is basically equivalent to saying that you don’t believe in science or care about evidence or proof
  • If you say you don’t believe in free-will, then you must already believe in some type of God
  • If you say that you aren’t certain or sure if free-will exists, then you shouldn’t be certain of anything in science

So it’s just a lose/lose/lose situation for the atheists.

If we as a society gave up on the free-will delusion then:

  • No one could blame anyone, knowing their actions to be uncontrollable
  • It would be very easy to forgive and forget, not hold grudges, etc…
  • We could look at the scientific causes of negative behavior and try to eliminate negative behavior rather than merely blaming people
  • People could see the true innocence of all beings

The delusional belief in free-will causes so many issues in society, mainly causing people to unnecessarily blame each other.

Conclusion:

  • There can’t be any such thing as “free-will” (based on everything in modern science)
  • The reason why the media has attacked Creationists has absolutely nothing to do with science, evidence, or proof, but with ridiculing religion
  • The media hasn’t come out to attack free-will believers and is directly responsible for allowing the delusional belief in free-will to continue
  • If you believe that free-will is debatable then you should believe that evolution and everything else in science is debatable
  • The media and free-will believing atheists in general do not care about evidence, science, or proof, it was just a LIE
  • Atheists in general are disgusting people, the nastiest people, the lowest form of life, animals, manimals, savages, subhuman beings
  • The main block to human progress has always been atheists
August 17, 2014 / itsnobody

Top 10 Questions for Atheists – Part II

I have some more questions for the fools (atheists), they are always so foolish (atheistic).

Here are my questions:

#10 –  Why can’t atheists accept the historical consensus on Nazism and religion (that Nazism is either unrelated to or opposed to Christianity) instead of spreading lies debunked by historians?

#9 – Since there’s more scientific evidence contradicting the existence of free-will than there is contradicting the existence of God or supporting evolution, do you have an issue with people who believe in free-will?

#8 – Since abiogenesis lacks evidence and is unfalsifiable, do you have an issue with people who believe in abiogenesis?

#7 – Why can’t atheists accept the historical consensus that Faraday’s Sandemanian religion directly caused him to believe that magnetism, electricity, and light were linked as one which in turn caused James Clerk Maxwell to formulate Maxwell’s Equations (so religion is responsible for modern day electrical technology)?

#6 – Why after more than 6.5 years of this blog post ( http://www.atheistrev.com/2007/11/atheism-and-white-power.html ) being up hasn’t there not been even one anti-racist comment from an atheist there (100% of the comments from atheists support racism or White Nationalism) since it’s a NORMAL atheist blog site?

#5 – Why are 100% of all modern day atheist countries (like Denmark, Sweden, New Zealand, Latvia, Estonia, etc…) extremely racist and nationalist beyond imagination according to the studies done there?

#4 – Why can’t atheists accept that I falsified their popular claim that “atheist nations are peaceful” with examples of violent atheist countries like Estonia and North Korea?

#3 – Why does the atheist community remain silent in opposition towards racism and White Nationalism yet voice their position and speak up on things like gay rights and abortion rights?

#2 – Why aren’t there any atheist blog sites or forums that allow free and open criticism like how I do but instead interpret any type of criticism as “trolling” or something like that (an anti-science stance), since criticism and scrutiny is an extremely important principle in science?

#1 – Why can’t atheists accept the historical consensus that religion directly caused the scientific revolution and that there were no “Dark Ages” as portrayed in the delusional anti-historian atheist media?

The reason why criticism and scrutiny use to be an important principle in science prior to the fools (atheists) taking over is because if a statement really is true it will stand up to any amount of criticism. So the more people question, criticize, and scrutinize things the closer we come towards the truth.

But now that the fools (atheists) are taking over they’re trying to make everything about authority and incredulity, and eliminate criticism all together by interpreting any type of criticism as “trolling” thereby turning science into a pseudo-scientific popularity contest.

Overall, I hope to achieve my goal of getting society to view atheists as subhuman beings as opposed to actual human beings, not partially human, but fully subhuman.

It’s the free market free speech free society, it’s a terrible thing for a Whites-only type of society.

Support socialism, support a Whites-only type of society!

August 3, 2014 / itsnobody

What’s with evidence?

It looks like the value of evidence and what evidence means has become obscured now that the fools (atheists) have taken over science.

The fools (atheists) have tried to trick people into believing such lies as:
– “Lack of evidence indicates that a claim is false”
– “Absence of evidence is evidence of absence”
– “Assuming that things are false until proven true is valid”
– “You can’t prove a negative”
– “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”

Now to debunk these claims:

Claim: “Lack of evidence indicates that a claim is false”
Correct Claim: “Contradictory evidence indicates that a claim is false”
Claim: “Absence of evidence is evidence of absence”
Correct Claim: “Contradictory evidence is evidence of absence”
Claim: “Assuming that things are false until proven true is valid”
Correct Claim: “Assuming that things are false because of contradictory evidence is valid”
In order to falsify these statements we can just point out counterexamples:
– Everything proven to exist or be true in modern science now lacked evidence in the past
– Unproven mathematical theorems of the past

If a mere lack of evidence indicates that a claim is false then we should expect everything in modern science to be false since everything in modern science lacked evidence during the time-period that it lacked empirical testability.

There was no shred of evidence for everything in modern science now from the heliocentric theory, atoms, quarks, black holes, electromagnetism, General Relativity, Newtonian gravity, and so on during the time-period that these things lacked empirical testability.

So this completely falsifies the reasoning that a “lack of evidence” indicates that a claim is false.

Many theories and hypotheses have been falsified in science with contradictory evidence, not a mere ‘lack of evidence’.

So what’s contradictory evidence? It’s just evidence that contradicts a claim.

Contradictory evidence can only exist if a hypothesis is empirically testable, so evidence is only relevant if a hypothesis is empirically testable.

Claim: “You can’t prove a negative”
Correct Claim: “You can prove a negative”

In mathematics and logic it’s easy to prove a negative, just use a proof by contradiction or counterexamples. There are lots of negative proofs that exist.

Here’s an example, a negative statement: “There is no such thing as the greatest odd integer” can easily be proven by using a proof by contradiction.

You can prove a negative by falsifying a positive, like if someone claims “Every odd integer is prime” then using a counterexample like the integer 9 you would prove the statement “Not every odd integer is prime” true.

In science it’s easy to prove a negative or positive statement as long as it’s an empirically testable statement, just use a proof by contradiction, counterexamples, or rephrase the negative statement into a positive statement.

Here’s an example:
– To prove that acupuncture does not work use a proof by contradiction (assume the hypothesis that “acupuncture does work” then arrive at contradictory data for that hypothesis)
– To prove that acupuncture does not work rephrase the negative statement into a positive statement then prove it (prove that “acupuncture is indistinguishable from a placebo effect” or that “acupuncture is useless in treating anything”)

So we can easily see that you can prove negative mathematically and scientifically (as long as the hypothesis is empirically testable).

Of course it’s important to remember that it’s impossible to prove or disprove any empirically untestable claim.

Claim: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”
Correct Claim: “Extraordinary claims require the regular standards of evidence”

This statement is very common in the media and elsewhere, but it’s merely an argument from personal incredulity.

Basically what this statement is saying is if a claim pushes your incredulity you would somehow need different standards of evidence to believe. But history and science tells us that using your incredulity to determine whether or not a hypothesis is true or false is an invalid methodology that would give highly inaccurate data. Basically everything in modern science might push anyone’s incredulity!

In science things require the same standards of evidence and proof regardless of how much they might or might not push someone’s subjective incredulity.

Requiring different standards of evidence because of incredulity is invalid because incredulity is something subjective (and not objectively measurable) and what tells us what reality is like isn’t incredulity but empirical observation.

Reality behaves the way it does regardless of human incredulity.

If anyone disagrees with anything I’ve said feel free to criticize, scrutinize, or question me. Unlike the fools (atheists) who strongly strongly discourage criticism and scrutiny of any claim they personally agree with by subjectively interpreting any type of criticism as “trolling” I encourage and invite criticism, this is because if a statement really is true then it would stand up to any amount of criticism. So the more people criticize, scrutinize, and question things the closer we come towards the truth.

In Conclusion:
– A mere lack of evidence by itself tells us nothing about if a hypothesis is true or false
– Contradictory evidence indicates that a claim is false
– Supporting evidence indicates that a claim is true
– Supporting and contradictory evidence can only exist if a hypothesis is empirically testable
Evidence can only be relevant if a hypothesis is empirically testable

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 58 other followers

%d bloggers like this: