Or, how Adams thinks he played “GOTCHA” with evolutionary biologists when he realized that evolution isn’t the same as abiogenesis.
First off, the article, “Huge Contradictions in ‘Scientific’ Thinking Reveled: Theory of Evolution in No Way Explains Origins of Life”.
First off, duh? The scientific community already knew this since, uh, after Darwin came up with what will become the theory of evolution via natural selection?
Seriously, the ONLY people who think that evolution = “explanation for all of life” are:
- People who didn’t pay attention in science class when the topic of evolutionary biology came up.
- Anti-science cranks.
These are categories not mutually exclusive.
With that, lets get mocking!
Ask any scientist where life on our planet came from, and they’ll usually give you a one-word answer: “Evolution.”
Ask any not-strawscientist where life on our planet comes from, and they’ll explain that it’s more complicated, but that much of the scientific consensus believes that abiogenesis is the where life came from and evolution is where we all specialized into becoming different kingdoms, phyla, families, genus, species, whatever.
Immediately thereafter, they will usually give you a condescending look that also implies you’re an idiot for not knowing this “scientific fact” that everyone else has accepted as true.
Yeah, because you are a dumbass if you think that you know more than evolutionary biologists on this subject. That’s as stupid as thinking that you can overturn special relativity with a thought experiment regarding a racecar and a train after learning about it one hour ago.
How idiotic Adams seems to be right now. Credit to xkcd.
It turns out, however, that the scientist is suffering from a delusion. Evolution doesn’t even encompass origins of life. Rather, evolution (i.e. “natural selection”) explains a process by which species undergo a process of adaptation, fitness and reproduction in response to environmental, behavioral and sexual influences. No rational person can deny that natural selection is ever-present and happening right now across bacteria, plants, animals and even humans, yet natural selection can only function on pre-existing life forms. It does not give rise to non-existent life.
Duh? I mean, it’s not like every reputable scientist under the sun doesn’t know this.
Adams, that straw looks mighty large. You sure you need it all?
Darwin, in other words, did not study the “reproduction of rocks” because there is no such thing. He studied animals which were already alive.
Yeah, we’re not stupid Adams. You might think that your readers are, but I have more respect for my own readers than that.
Also, abiogenesis =! “reproduction of rocks”.
Thus, the “Theory of Evolution” utterly fails to address the ORIGIN of where the first life forms came from.
You keep using the word theory. I don’t think it means what you think it means.
How did natural selection have anything to work on in the first place? You can’t “evolve” life forms from dead rocks, after all… unless the evolutionists are now embracing the theory of spontaneous resurrection of dead objects into living organisms.
So the question remains: Where did life ORIGINATE?
It’s call abiogenesis, Adams. Which is separate from the theory of evolution via natural selection, as you yourself have already noted.
I mean, it’s not like scientists have been asking this question for a long while.
And by the way, Adams, abiogenesis doesn’t mean life came from rocks. Just saying!
Evolutionists prefer to skip over that all-important question.
Correction: strawscientists prefer to skip over the origins of life. REAL scientists did ask, and have already begun to draw answers. Again, abiogenesis.
According to scientists, you can never argue with scientists because they uniquely have a monopoly on all knowledge.
LOLWUT. Monopoly on ALL KNOWLEDGE? Even the knowledge on what you do at night?
Yes, I know what you do at night. I’m a scientist-in-training, it’s one of my first homework assignments in science college.
Their beliefs can never be questioned because they are beyond any need to be validated.
Other than this archive of creationist claims regarding abiogenesis and numerous responses, with references, debunking them?
And other than the following links, which is only a small sampling of all of the evidence we have for evolution and the like?
“Scientific truth” is true because they say it is, […]
Because obviously saying that all scientists are incompetent quacks is true because you say it’s true, just like how your claims that you know more than an evolutionary biologist on the subject of abiogenesis/evolution is true because you say it’s true.
[…] and the faith-based belief that evolution explains the origins of life cannot be questioned either.
Adams, did you buy your strawscientists in bulk from Costco?
The entire cosmos starts out as an unimaginably dense point that explodes in an event cosmologists call the Big Bang. All the physical matter we know today has its origins in that event, yet, importantly, there was no life in the Big Bang. No biological organism could have possibly survived Inflation, for starters. And before Inflation, the density of matter would have crushed anything resembling biological life.
According to physicists, the Big Bang itself followed no pre-existing laws of the cosmos. In fact, all physical laws that we know of — gravity, electromagnetism, etc. — came out of the Big Bang. Even the very fabric of reality was created by it (space and time).
The Big Bang is the faith-based miracle of modern science. “Give me one miracle,” they’re fond of saying, “and we can explain everything that follows.”
Except the miracle of the Big Bang itself goes entirely unexplained. How could everything suddenly come from nothing? How could an entire universe come into existence without a cause? These questions are routinely ignored. Instead, we are told that we should believe in the Big Bang as a matter of faith and trust that it is the only exception to the laws of the universe. This is, of course, a matter of faith, not fact.
Oh my gods, the stupid, it’s too much.
Right now, I need to establish that I am not a physicist and that while I can give a nuanced explanation on what the Big Bang is (thank you Wikipedia!), I can’t fully explain it, and that any questions should be directed to your nearest physicist.
The Big Bang Theory (not the TV show, the scientific theory) is basically the leading theory describing how the universe came to be and where matter comes from. It does not describe conditions pre-Big Bang, only how the universe came to be and how the universe evolved into its current form. As such, the question on what the universe was like pre-Big Bang is irrelevant to this theory, just as the Big Bang is irrelevant towards explaining abiogenesis, which is irrelevant towards explaining the theory of evolution via natural selection. That is to say, these theories stand on their own, and are independent of one another.
The nuanced, simplistic description is as follows: once upon a time, there was a singularity in the universe, and it was very dense and very hot. This expanded extremely fast, and led to rapidly cycling temperatures and pressures, which led to the birth of elementary particles (quarks, leptons, and bosons). This gradually became less and less dense, as the singularity expanded further and further, which led to lower temperatures, and as such, these elementary particles began to lose energy and slow down. Eventually, it cooled down enough to prevent the formation of additional elementary particles, which led to a mass destruction of quarks and bosons. These came together to form electrons, neutrons, and protons, which soon became atoms, which soon became matter. And such, matter was born!
This theory is supported by evidence, including cosmic microwave background radiation, various tests in particle accelerators, and the fact that galaxies are actually moving further and further away from one another.
What do you take away from this?
- Duh, of course the Big Bang Theory doesn’t explain life. It’s an independent theory that does not correlate with abiogenesis in ANY way. If we take away the Big Bang, abiogenesis will still work.
- The theory does not state that something came from nothing. That’s way too simplistic and not at all accurate.
- We have evidence that the Big Bang happened, so it’s not based on faith.
- Adams really needs to consider consulting a dictionary to learn what “faith” means and what science really is.
- Adam must have gotten a pretty good deal on those strawscientists.
Also, seriously, argument from credulity? King of Logical Fallacies, Adams is.
And what about the origins of life in all this? Today, supposedly 13.8 billion years later, we see life all around us. Logically, somewhere between the Big Bang — where no life existed — and today, life must have appeared.
Ultimately, the answer given by scientists is that life spontaneously sprang from lifelessness. Seriously, that’s their real answer. They have more technical-sounding names for it, and there are hundreds of books written on various theories that might explain it, but ultimately, scientists believe in magic. Because “magic” is the only way you can really explain life rising from lifelessness.
LOLOLOLOLOL YOU THINK THAT THE MILLER-UREY EXPERIMENT WAS MAGIC. LOLOLOLOLOL YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND ABIOGENESIS.
Nuanced explanation of abiogenesis covers: this basically describes how organic chemical compounds (e.g. amino acids) could be produced from inorganic chemicals, and how these organic chemical monomers eventually evolved into more and more complex organic chemical polymers which eventually led to primitive life.
Some of the stuff that we know from experimentation: that methane, ammonia, water, hydrogen sulfide, carbon monoxide/dioxide, and phosphate were present in large amounts in the atmosphere, that free oxygen (as in O2 or O3 gas) was rare or absent, that an energy source (e.g. electricity from thunderstorms, ultraviolet light, impact) allowed various reactions to occur that led to the formation of basic amino acids. and that polymers can spontaneously form under the conditions that were possible when Earth was still a young planet.
In other words, it does not mean “once upon there was a rock and somehow the rock gave rise to bacteria”.
Also, LOLOLOLOL ADAMS THINKS WE BELIEVE IN MAGIC, WHEN HE HIMSELF PROMOTES “MORPHIC RESONANCE” AS A REPLACEMENT FOR GENETICS.
All of a sudden, the idea of a Creator who seeded the Big Bang or seeded the universe with life seems a lot less whacky than the “magical” explanations of many conventional scientists. It is far more feasible that our universe was created by an omniscient, highly-advanced consciousness than it somehow springing into existence for no reason whatsoever.
You know, I was mocking how Adams called the field of genetics a lie, and one of the things I swore he was going to say was that “evolution is too hard, God done it”.
26 days later, he hath done it! Because the Big Bang, abiogenesis, and evolution is too hard, God done it! Even though there is absolutely no evidence of any supernatural deity, whereas we have a large body of evidence supporting the Big Bang, abiogenesis, AND evolution!
Screw evidence, I’M A SPECIAL SNOWFLAKE AND GOD DONE IT ‘CAUSE SCIENCE AND EVIDENCE IS TOO HARD.
Conventional scientists, of course, will go through tremendous contortions to try to remove any idea of a designer, engineer or Creator from their worldview. That’s because nearly all of them are devout atheists who also disavow any belief in consciousness, free will, the soul, God or spirituality.
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ADAMS THINKS THAT WE CAN TEST THE IDEA OF GOD. BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ADAMS THINKS THAT ALL SCIENTISTS ARE ATHEISTS. BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ADAMS THINKS THAT SCIENTISTS, WHO ARE ALL ATHEISTS, DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THERE IS SUCH A THING AS A CONSCIOUS OR FREE WILL.
According to their own explanations, they themselves are mindless biological robots suffering from the mere delusion of mind created as a kind of artificial projection of mechanistic biological brain function.
I seriously think that Adams has an addition to strawscientists. It’s the only thing that makes any sense right now.
The twisted philosophy of many scientists also raises bizarre ethical lapses, such as their belief that killing a lab rat, or a dog, or even another human being is of no ethical consequence since all those creatures are not actually “alive” in any real way. This is why drug companies, vaccine manufacturers and science in general feels no remorse for conducting deadly experiments on children, blacks, prisoners or minorities.
LOLOLOLOLWUT. ADAMS THINKS THAT SCIENTISTS BELIEVE THAT LIVING THINGS AREN’T REALLY ALIVE. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Also, we feel no remorse? So why do we have a field called bioethics, laws requiring that we get approval from Institutional Review Boards before we can conduct trials on human subjects, and something called “informed consent”?
Seriously, there’s a reason why we have Phase I, II, and III trials: you have to pass Phase I (Petri dishes) to get to Phase II (animal models) and you have to pass Phase II before we get to Phase III (human subjects). If you fail Phase II (e.g. if what you’re testing out doesn’t work as intended), you can’t just say “screw it, let’s mess with human subjects for funsies!”.
The worst trait of conventional scientists is not merely that they are wildly self-deluded into believing they have no real consciousness; it’s actually the fact that they are simultaneously wildly arrogant, even combative about forcing their twisted beliefs onto others.
Because Adams isn’t arrogant at all. I mean, claiming that he knows better than every single scientist in the world and proclaiming that only he knows DA TRUTH is just him being humble. And of course, it’s not like Adams doesn’t lie and imply that scientists are really amoral and cruel and unfeeling, in order to smear scientific concepts that he doesn’t understand, just to “win”, right?
I mean, this is the guy who approved and published on his website an article telling people that they should bleach away their cancer by drinking hydrogen peroxide. But of course, that is TRU COMPASSION, you guys! TRU COMPASSION.
Their faith-based beliefs are always described as “facts” while they proclaim other people’s beliefs are “delusions.”
Because Adams doesn’t outright claim that science is a total lie, and describes himself as the Health Ranger and the one who knows DA REAL TRUTH.
You cannot argue with any group of people who are wholly convinced their beliefs are facts because any critical thinking you might invoke is automatically and routinely rejected as a matter of irrational defense.
Because obviously critical thinking = “adhom science in order to make it sound stupid, and assert that only you know DA TRUTH”.
As an example of this, ask any doctor or pharmacist this question: “Is there such thing as an unsafe vaccine?”
I’m well aware that vaccines do carry some risks (duh) and that some people should never be vaccinated, ever. However, if a vaccine has FDA approval, and so long as you’re not allergic to any of a vaccine’s ingredients, it’s usually perfectly safe.
In the faith-based beliefs of the scientific status quo, no vaccine can ever be harmful by definition. Vaccines are beyond questioning in their belief system, and so the very question of asking if a vaccine could possibly be anything less than 100% safe doesn’t compute. It contradicts their faith, in other words.
Strawscientists and now strawdoctors? Huh. Because I’ve never met any doctor who claimed that the vaccine was 100% without risk.
You can test this further by asking a vaccine-pushing doctor, “Is there anything that could be added to a vaccine that would make it unsafe?”
After careful thought, an honest doctor might answer, “Well, sure, there are all sorts of toxins that could be added to a vaccine that would make it unsafe.”
Ask them to name some examples. Sooner or later, they should stumble onto the self-evident answer of “mercury,” a deadly neurotoxin which remains present in many modern vaccines.
Because the question “could you add anything in a vaccine to make it unsafe” can be asked in good faith and doesn’t signal that you have an agenda.
Also, Adams, you realize that mercury and thiomersal are not the same thing, right? One of them is an elemental compound, and the other is a preservative that happens to have mercury atoms in it. I mean, if you’re breathing in large amounts of the stuff or touching it, it’ll hurt you, but the amount you get in a vaccine is so little, you actually get more mercury containing compounds from consuming fish than you can by getting your shots.
This is not to mention that the only vaccine to have thiomersal in it is the flu vaccine, and only for multidose vials.
Ask the doctor, “Has any safe level of mercury ever been established for injection into a child?”
The answer, of course, is no. Logically, no vaccine containing mercury can be considered “safe” regardless of the level of mercury it contains.
Mercury =! thiomersal, Adams.
Also, we did do tests to see if thiomersal was safe. It is.
In addition, if even a small number of mercury compounds is enough to say “nope, not safe, buh buh”, you should probably throw out your CFL bulbs and the fish you were going to consume tonight. But be careful to not break the bulbs, unless you want to actually get mercury on the floor.
If, at any point in this questioning process, you get stonewalled by this person, recognize they are abandoning reason and reverting to their faith in “Scientism.” Scientism is a system of belief in which all creations of pharmaceutical companies, biotech companies and chemical companies are automatically assumed to hold God-like status. They are beyond questioning. They are supreme. They can never be questioned or even validated. In fact, no validated is required nor even desired. Who needs to validate “facts” anyway? Everyone already knows they are true, right?
So, all scientists are atheists, but scientists treat pharmaceutical companies, biotech companies, and chemical companies as like God?
And Adams thinks that science is really just a circlejerk of people saying “nope, nope, nope, nope”, even though one of the main tenets of science is to ask questions and look for evidence to support one’s claims? And he also somehow thinks that we don’t question ourselves and repeat experiments and tests and review our own work to make sure that it makes sense?
Adams does not know how to logic.
All drugs are assumed to be safe and effective unless proven otherwise.
LOLOLOLOLOL ADAMS DOESN’T THINK THAT NEW DRUGS HAVE TO BE APPROVED FOR SAFETY AND EFFECTIVENESS BY THE FDA BEFORE IT’S SOLD.
This is why doctors warn patients that their dietary supplements are “interfering with their medications” and not the other way around.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL ADAMS THINKS THAT DOCTORS DON’T DO DRUG INTERACTIONS CORRECTLY AND THAT SUPPLEMENTS ARE ALWAYS 100% SAFE, EVEN THOUGH THE FDA CAN’T ACTUALLY REGULATE THEM AND GET THE SUPPLEMENT MANUFACTURERS TO PROVE THAT THEIR PRODUCTS WORK AND ARE SAFE BEFORE SALE.
Many scientists, sadly, do not grasp the chasms in their own belief systems. They are incapable of realizing that many of their own beliefs are based in a system of faith rather than a system of rational thought.
Replace “many scientists” with Adams and his ilk, and you have a perfect description on what CAM actually is.
Anyone daring to debate with them must prove they are wrong, yet they themselves have no obligation to prove they are right.
Which is why when I do debunking posts in the name of SCIENCE, I never directly link to sources to prove my point.
Even the theory of natural selection based on purely mechanistic genetic inheritance contains enormous gaps in logic and is therefore a matter of faith. For starters, there isn’t enough data storage in the human genome to fully describe the physical and behavioral inheritance of a human being. The massive failure of the Human Genome Project also comes to mind: Here’s a project that promised to solve the riddle of the origins of nearly all disease. Once the human genome was fully decoded, disease would be eliminated from humankind, we were all promised.
The Human Genome Project never promised to be the cure for all diseases ever. Its only goal was to figure out the human genome code; whatever was done with said code is up to anyone who wants to use it to do research.
I already debunked much of the rest in a previous post on this particular subject.
Another glaring contradiction among many scientists is their comedic belief that everyone else is a mindless biological robot except themselves! Yes, they alone have intelligent thought based on free will, inspiration and creativity. We should read their books alone, as their books came from original thoughts powered by unique minds.
How many strawscientists did Adams ask before making that profound statement?
Most conventional scientists claim that consciousness is an illusion which somehow arose out of natural selection so that individual members of a species could operate under the illusion of free will. Yet, at the same time, they claim this false “mind” has no actual impact on the real world because it is, by definition, an illusion.
Which is why psychology is totally not a science and why psychiatrists and mental health therapists aren’t real medical providers.
So how can an illusory phenomenon drive natural selection and evolution if it has no impact on the real world?
Adams, I’m sorry to inform you, but just wishing for a larger brain isn’t going to magically give you and your descendants larger brains. Not even if you wish for it very, very, very hard.
Any system of thought which cannot tolerate questions or challenges to its beliefs is no science at all.
Which is why CAM isn’t science at all, unless the study reinforces their own confirmation biases.
Oh yeah, and we have a group of questions at the bottom! As a true believer of “Scientism”, I should be totally qualified to answer these questions!
Is there such thing as an unsafe vaccine? Or are all vaccines automatically safe by definition?
A vaccine is a drug. And there is no such thing as a drug that is 100% safe.
The answer lies in the risk-benefit analysis: do the benefits outweigh the risks? You will find that the benefits of vaccines (herd immunity from some really terrible diseases, such as measles, and possibly full eradication of diseases like smallpox and hopefully polio) outweigh the risks of vaccines.
Do you beat your dog? If animals have no souls and no consciousness, then do you agree it is of no ethical consequence to torture dolphins and elephants? What about primates? Cats? Neighbors?
You’re begging the question, Adams. For someone who claims that we don’t know how to spot logical fallacies, you really suck at this.
To answer the question: no, I do not condone animal abuse. And I do not condone torture in all forms.
If free will does not exist, then no one can be held responsible for their actions. All actions are, by definition, “automatic” and of no fault of the person because there cannot be any “choice” in an unconscious brain. If you believe this, then do you also support freeing all murderers and rapists from prison because they are not responsible for their actions? What purpose does punishment serve if violent criminals have no “choice” because they have no free will?
You’re begging the question again, Adams.
Personal answer: I believe that we do have the power to make choices. A rapist chooses to rape someone, and a murderer chose to kill someone.
The thing is, you can only control a few things. You can’t, for example, wish that you can have a larger brain. And you can’t wish for the laws of science to not work.
If the human genome doesn’t contain enough information to describe a complete human form, then how is inheritance purely mechanistic?
You’re begging the question again. The answer is that the human genome has more than enough information to create the entire human form, and that genetics is much more complicated than you think it is.
If consciousness is an illusion, by what mechanism does the brain create this illusion? And for what purpose? What evolutionary advantage could this serve if the “illusion of consciousness” cannot have any “real” impact on behavior? By definition, natural selection should de-emphasize useless brain functions. So how did consciousness survive for so long?
Scientists do not think that consciousness is an illusion. If we did, then psychiatry would not be a legit medical field and cognitive therapy would not work.
The latter part of that question is idiotic and makes absolutely no sense.
If natural selection can only function on pre-existing life forms, where did the first life come from? How did it arise? (Magic?)
Abiogenesis. Go look it up.
What caused the Big Bang? If nothing caused it, how do you explain a universe governed by “laws” which, itself, sprang into existence by not following laws?
Singularities, also you realize vacuums aren’t actually stable, right?
If the laws of the universe came into existence during the Big Bang, and if other parallel universes might have different constants governing variations of the physical laws we know and understand, how does our universe “remember” its selected laws? Can physical constants change? Can the speed of light change? Does it vary in a repeatable pattern?
LOLOLOLOL, ADAMS THINKS THAT WE CAN CHANGE THE SPEED OF LIGHT.
Any publication that says people should not know what’s in their food (GMO labeling) is, of course, not engaged in real science because real science is the pursuit of knowledge, not the burying of facts for corporate interests. No legitimate science would want the public to be denied knowledge.
Besides the “no true Scotsman” fallacy that is being employed here, I’m going to come out and say it: I believe that GMOs should be labeled.
HOWEVER, I also believe that campaigning for GMO labeling should be based on good science, not “studies” such as this.
(Oh yeah, Adams! You claim that scientists have no qualms with killing/torturing animals! How do you explain the fact that that anti-GMO study—which is based on really, really, REALLY bad science—allowed the rats’ tumors to become 25% of their own body mass and took pictures of them in pain? Do you consider this ethical, and why?)
They all believe that murder, rape and even child molestation have no ethical considerations whatsoever because no one is responsible for their own actions due to free will being “an illusion” as they explain it. Jerry Sandusky is ethically equivalent to Mother Theresa, according to the soulless beliefs of modern-day science.
ADHOM ALERT, ADHOM ALERT, ADHOM ALERT.
No evidence is required to support their core faiths such as “mercury in dental fillings is harmless” or “chemotherapy saves lives.”
Except for the fact that there is evidence that silver amalgam is perfectly safe and that chemotherapy actually saves lives.
And don’t even get me started on the rise of killer robots and artificial intelligence. That’s another case where the arrogance and delusional thinking of modern-day science may quite literally result in the apocalyptic, permanent destruction of humankind.
Because we actually have killer robots and AIs smart enough to kill people.
I’m sorry to say, Adams, but GLaDOS isn’t real.