3 ms·

Evolution theory is an (old) theory. Here is some newer one: http://www.evolution-is-degeneration.com/index.asp?PaginaID=1104 http://www.evolution-is-degenerat

by polos 17y ago

Evolution theory is an (old) theory. Here is some newer one: http://www.evolution-is-degeneration.com/index.asp?PaginaID=1104 http://www.evolution-is-degeneration.com/index.asp?PaginaID=...

rwolf 17y ago
He doesn't have a wiki in my native tongue, so I had to chuck google translate at http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Scheele http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Scheele . The results seem to indicate he is a nobody, but I could be wrong. Also, could anyone provide a better translation of the book title "I am Jesus-fan: but how you become one?"? Without context from sources I've seen before, it's not clear that it's worth my time to read the page you linked to. I ran into this same problem while trying to read a broad survey of Institutionalist economics papers--the amount of time I can spend reading is limited, and sometimes there's no way to tell if a heterodox work is worth the trouble. Sadly, my default is "no."
- polos 17y ago
  You don't need to read the whole book: Just look at all the things Darwin "didn't want to know", and the progress which science made since Darwin. IMO, Darwin is simply not to consider a good scientist, and in Darwins book there are some disgusting racist parts, and discriminating parts against the intelligence of women.
  - gjm11 17y ago
    Yeah, obviously if science has made progress since Darwin then that shows that the modern version of Darwin's theory (resulting from, y'know, all that scientific progress) must be wrong. The reason why scientists accept evolution is not because Darwin was a good scientist or a nice person (although, for the record, general consensus is that he was) but because the evidence for is vastly better than the evidence against. Even if it turned out that Darwin was crazy as a loon, that his belief in evolution came from voices in his head, and that he liked to eat babies for breakfast, it wouldn't change that.
    - baxter 17y ago
      I wish I could upvote this more than once :)
    - polos 17y ago
      the evidence for is vastly better than the evidence against This is simply not true. There are many scientific books against the evolution theory. I know that I'm not saying something popular when I claim that to me the evolution theory is simply silly. But I don't care to be popular -- instead I care to accept the most reasonable opinion.
      - Hipponax 17y ago
        Please give examples of the "many scientific books". Also what, in your opinion, is the most reasonable opinion?
      - loup-vaillant 17y ago
        Why do you insist on the word "theory"? It makes you sound like you dismiss the evolution theory because it is "just a theory". This word says nothing about the validity of the claim. Now, if the evolution theory is silly, what is not? Intelligent desing? If you think that, I'm out, except for a url: http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/pscindx.htm http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/pscindx.htm The section labeled "Anti-Evolutionism" may be of particular interest, here.
        polos 17y ago
        I insist in the correct term theory, because it is often presented as a fact (especially in school books here in Europe). I said 'silly' because basically it says: "less intelligent beings evolved into more intelligent beings". Now, this is simply impossible. If you want something less intelligent become more intelligent, you need someone from outside to bring the new intelligence. It's very interesting that Darwin himself admitted that he faked some of his experiments, just to "make the whole theory work". So, it's basically very simple: nobody can exclude a perfect Intelligence on the beginning of everything. Call it God, call it how you like, but denying it is not very intelligent...
- jurjenh 17y ago
  It seems google translate was right on with the translation. Doesn't make much sense in dutch either... He seems a fairly dedicated god-botherer / evangelist, with a few TV programmes, so maybe a semi-celebrity (?) (disclaimer: I was 11 when I left the Netherlands for New Zealand) As for the parent comment, the evolution=degeneration theory does not pass my common sense filter: are we that much more degenerate than our 5-million-years-ago ancestors? Seems more likely to be a reactive criticism against Darwin, but (not having read the book, only the intro) provided it makes VALID points that need to be considered, it will (hopefully) aid our understanding as to how we got here, and where we may end up going...
  - polos 17y ago
    You can't be serious: all of his theory is really scientific, at least at the same level as Darwin (but I would say much higher, because he has gone through many discussion/corrections by other scientists). This book is really hilarious, because it states the complete opposite of Darwin, and is even more convincing than Darwin. For the fun of it, go read it!!

by polos 17y ago

Evolution theory is an (old) theory. Here is some newer one: http://www.evolution-is-degeneration.com/index.asp?PaginaID=1104 http://www.evolution-is-degeneration.com/index.asp?PaginaID=...

rwolf 17y ago

He doesn't have a wiki in my native tongue, so I had to chuck google translate at http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Scheele http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Scheele . The results seem to indicate he is a nobody, but I could be wrong. Also, could anyone provide a better translation of the book title "I am Jesus-fan: but how you become one?"? Without context from sources I've seen before, it's not clear that it's worth my time to read the page you linked to. I ran into this same problem while trying to read a broad survey of Institutionalist economics papers--the amount of time I can spend reading is limited, and sometimes there's no way to tell if a heterodox work is worth the trouble. Sadly, my default is "no."

polos 17y ago
You don't need to read the whole book: Just look at all the things Darwin "didn't want to know", and the progress which science made since Darwin. IMO, Darwin is simply not to consider a good scientist, and in Darwins book there are some disgusting racist parts, and discriminating parts against the intelligence of women.
- gjm11 17y ago
  Yeah, obviously if science has made progress since Darwin then that shows that the modern version of Darwin's theory (resulting from, y'know, all that scientific progress) must be wrong. The reason why scientists accept evolution is not because Darwin was a good scientist or a nice person (although, for the record, general consensus is that he was) but because the evidence for is vastly better than the evidence against. Even if it turned out that Darwin was crazy as a loon, that his belief in evolution came from voices in his head, and that he liked to eat babies for breakfast, it wouldn't change that.
  - baxter 17y ago
    I wish I could upvote this more than once :)
  - polos 17y ago
    the evidence for is vastly better than the evidence against This is simply not true. There are many scientific books against the evolution theory. I know that I'm not saying something popular when I claim that to me the evolution theory is simply silly. But I don't care to be popular -- instead I care to accept the most reasonable opinion.
    - Hipponax 17y ago
      Please give examples of the "many scientific books". Also what, in your opinion, is the most reasonable opinion?
    - loup-vaillant 17y ago
      Why do you insist on the word "theory"? It makes you sound like you dismiss the evolution theory because it is "just a theory". This word says nothing about the validity of the claim. Now, if the evolution theory is silly, what is not? Intelligent desing? If you think that, I'm out, except for a url: http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/pscindx.htm http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/pscindx.htm The section labeled "Anti-Evolutionism" may be of particular interest, here.
      - polos 17y ago
        I insist in the correct term theory, because it is often presented as a fact (especially in school books here in Europe). I said 'silly' because basically it says: "less intelligent beings evolved into more intelligent beings". Now, this is simply impossible. If you want something less intelligent become more intelligent, you need someone from outside to bring the new intelligence. It's very interesting that Darwin himself admitted that he faked some of his experiments, just to "make the whole theory work". So, it's basically very simple: nobody can exclude a perfect Intelligence on the beginning of everything. Call it God, call it how you like, but denying it is not very intelligent...
jurjenh 17y ago
It seems google translate was right on with the translation. Doesn't make much sense in dutch either... He seems a fairly dedicated god-botherer / evangelist, with a few TV programmes, so maybe a semi-celebrity (?) (disclaimer: I was 11 when I left the Netherlands for New Zealand) As for the parent comment, the evolution=degeneration theory does not pass my common sense filter: are we that much more degenerate than our 5-million-years-ago ancestors? Seems more likely to be a reactive criticism against Darwin, but (not having read the book, only the intro) provided it makes VALID points that need to be considered, it will (hopefully) aid our understanding as to how we got here, and where we may end up going...
- polos 17y ago
  You can't be serious: all of his theory is really scientific, at least at the same level as Darwin (but I would say much higher, because he has gone through many discussion/corrections by other scientists). This book is really hilarious, because it states the complete opposite of Darwin, and is even more convincing than Darwin. For the fun of it, go read it!!