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.