nihil architecture blogs

What I mostly encounter on the vast new world of unlimited uppertunities under God that is the internet in the debate about evolution is this:

• People who believe in God and believe that in science, ‘theory’ means ‘not yet proven’
• People who are atheist and consider the nonexistence of any ‘god’ to be proven, also evolution.

Both sides are redundantly stupid and the latter one often LOL biologists LOL. Let there be no mistake about it, the occurence of evolution is scientifically proven beyond all resonable doubt, the evidene is overwhelming and if you cannot see this you simply don’t want evolution to be there. We have fosiles, we have documentation in fosiles of life slowly changing from how it was 40 000 000 years back to how it  is now. We have fosiles documenting man evolving. We have fosiles of dinosaurs evolving into Birds, and please, do not say there aren’t any ‘missing links’. That’s bullshit, evolution is continious, it continious evolving, every species found is a link between the former and the next, we are a link between the homo ergaster and what may come after us. We have observer bacteria evolving in the lab into new species so don’t come with that ‘micro-evolution’ versus ‘macro-evolution’ crap.

However, atheist biologists. still. fucking. suck.

Arguments thereto are so enourmously simple. Their inability at coherent logic is saddeningly vast. Atheism for instance, they have argued thereto with the same amount of absurdity we often see from Young Earth Creationism against the age of the earth. Some simple arguments I have seen:

I have no reason to believe a god exists, therefore I don’t believe a god exists.

Logically fallacy, reduced to the absurd by: ‘I have no reason to believe all the specific people I’ve never met exist, therefore I don’t believe they exist.’ next:

Russell’s teapot shows no god exists and it’s random to assume it does.

False, Russell’s teapot says this: ‘If I were to point at a specific place in space and tell you there is a teapot there with no way for you to check that place, would you say there was a teapot there? If no, why say the same about God, it goes against occam’s razor.’, the difference being is that this shows the unlikeliness of the Abrahamic monotheistic God to exist, quite true, however for it to show that no god exists we would need a formulation of: ‘If I were to point at a all random places in space and tell you there is ‘any-thing’ there with no way for you to check those places, would you say there was ‘no-thing’ at any of those places where ‘any-thing’ is for your imagination to decide. If no, why say the same about any gods?’, this makes it a tad more complicated to overrule I hope.

Creationism is proven false in science.

Nonsense, Young Earth Creationism is contradictory to modern scientific consensus, creationism isn’t, in fact, creationism is currently independent of the modern physical framework. For fucks sake, I have to continue explaining to theists that Creationism and science aren’t contradictory, but Young Earth Creationism and science are. In fact, Creationism solves a great deal of puzzles, but those can also be solved of course by the multiverse hypothesis, and neither can we prove false or true at the moment. How could we, we can’t look before the big bang of course, we can’t say if the big bang was ’started’ by some intelligent force who devised all almost perfect laws of physics for complex structures to occur. Or it’s just so that this universe by sheer chance allows it because there are countless more in which they don’t occur combined with the anthropic principle. Biologists oft.. always think that the multiverse combined with the anthropic principle is more ’scientific’ as it has an ‘aurora of scientificness’ around it, this is is complete nonsense.

It’s important to realize though that we can’t speak of ‘before the big bang’, this is what a lot of people get wrong about the concept, that there used to be a certain long time of silence in a large void and then, BAM. Not quite, there was no time before the big bang, that’s the zeropoint of time. The universe started with a bang. It isn’t that ’some-thing came from no-thing’, ‘every-thing’ simply started in one point and then banged.

Obviously Young Earth Creationists are blind, but the same can often be said about biologists in the vein of Dawkins, they aren’t ’scientific’ in the sense that they also true to prove right a certain thing, they’re not trying to investigate what’s true, they have their minds made up and then try to prove it right. However what they try to prove right has an ‘aurora of scientificness’ around it, making Dawkins appear attractively British-the end.

Theorem: Biology is a pseudoscience
Proof: Biology does not offer proofs or if it does does as stupidly as this little ‘proof’ here.

One of the most dire things wrong with this ‘proof’ is that it lacks a definition of ‘pseudoscience’. In order to define pseuoscience, let me first give an informal definition of the scientific method as used in this article:

Any form of deduction which is:

1. Objective, any scientist at any time and any place and from any culture most come to the exact same results from the same set of data.
2. Not contradictory to classical logic, the propositions derived in science may not be proven false in logic, however they do not necessarily have to be proven true, as in experimental results.
3. Investigative, scientific deduction is to investigate what is true, not trying to prove certain things true.

With the occasional slips, biology remains largely innocent of malperformance on point 1 and 2. However on point 3 they fail graciously. Let’s examine some of their slips:

Species

Biology postulates the existence of the concept of ’species’, which is commonly explained as ‘Two individual forms of life who can produce fertile offspring together if and only if in the same species.’ this isn’t even a definition of the concept of species and what is an ‘individual form of life’ isn’t even defined. Is an ant-hill one invidual or not, that is the question? But we need no more to quite simply show the concept of species cannot exist. Using the argument of clines.

A cline in biology is simply a group of related organismes diverge continually over a large area. Its inhabitants can most likely produce fertile offspring with its neighbours, and the whole street. But not much further than that, and this applies for every inhabitant of the cline. Assume members x,y,z in a random cline X. It occurs that x can produce fertile offspring with y, and y with z, but x not with z. x is then of the same species as y and y likewise with z, since in biology. An individual can only belong to one species. We may conclude that x is of the same species with z. But x cannot procreate with z we first established, so it’s also not of the same species. A contradiction to with what we started. Q.E.D. the concept of ’species’ cannot exist. And of course, given with that biology has shown continuous evolution of species and common ancestors, we may also conclude that the Mushrooms I have on my Pizza are in fact of the same species as I. Cannibalism is tr00 kids.

Diseases

Biology seems to postulate the existence of ‘diseases’, what are they? I’ve yet to read a good definition thereof, some common once we encounter. ‘Every-thing that is substantially different from normal’. Assuming we can take averages in some-thing as complex as ‘life’. How much is ’substantially’ then? Are extremely intelligent people born with a disease? Extremely pretty people? Furthermore. It’s probably extremely rare for all people to be in the room you read this in right now, it’s a disease to be in your room…

So let’s sharpen that definition to ‘Every-thing that is substantially different from normal which causes a disadvantage to the organism’. Like being on a deserted Island, that’s disease now.. and still being exceptionally intelligent. Or being homosexual in Iran, or wait was a disease.. or wait, it’s not.. or is it? Yeah… we haven’t even been able to define what we mean with ‘disadvantage’ by the way.

On that homosexuality issue, DSM used to consider a disease.. not any more, and now people get offended if you call it a disease… what the hell, first get a good working definition of disease, then prove them wrong and get angry at them. It’s like getting angry at some-one for not liking the Mona Lisa… also, calling people with Autism, Depression or whatelse mentally ill is still politically correct to do it seems. Psychiatry seems to fail at point 1 here, not objective, clearly they are influenced by culture.

Life itself..?

The entire fundament of biology, the existence of the elusive concept of ‘Life’, the very start. And they still can’t show there exists such a thing in the first place. Namely, they can’t define it. Every definition they try ends up with unwanted stuff like mules not being life, or fire being life. Give up, admit it, there is no distinction between lifeless and dead matter. It’s such a naïve distinction you cannot make into a scientific one. Seriously, biologists are amateurs, never have they made a valid logical step and a complete idiot like myself can use valid informal logic to prove them wrong. Oh boy.

[further reading]