But which human biological evolution!
The dominant culture has placed the theme of the biological evolution of the human species on the pedestal of a great scientific truth in total contrast with faith. Let's imagine an ancestor of ours with extraordinary longevity. Instead of our hundred years, suppose it is capable of living ten thousand years. This fantastic property would allow him to observe what has happened in the world for ten thousand years to date. He could therefore study the peculiar way in which his fellow men have transformed over the various centuries. Would find, this fantastic ancestor of ours, not a few difficulties to understand what happens. And indeed, over the past ten thousand years – from the dawn of civilization to the present day – the biological evolution of the human species has done very little. Rather, absolutely nothing. Man is exactly as he was ten thousand years ago. Evolutionists say: “But this is obvious. We have always said and repeated that the typical times of human evolution are millions, tens of millions of years”. Evolutionists speak as if a million or ten million years were the result of a theoretical prediction linked to an equation. If the theory of evolution had a serious scientific basis, it should be able to predict the exact value of the times that characterize human evolution.
Proponents of the evolutionary theory of mankind have no idea how to lay its mathematical foundations. The theory of human evolution is not even at the level of the worst mathematical formulation of any theory of fundamental phenomena. Let's take for example the Quantum chromodynamics: the theory that describes the forces between quarks. It has a very precise mathematical apparatus and is able to predict many effects. However, we do not consider it a theory Galileanly verified in all its aspects. Many properties of its mathematical formulation are still poorly understood and many experimental tests have to be carried out. A comparison between this theory and the Theory of Biological Evolution of the human species is not even conceivable. Reason: the Biological Theory of the human species has no mathematical basis. Yet many arrive at the incredible presumption of classify it as an exact scientific theory, corroborated by experimental tests. question: what are the equations of this theory? Answer: they do not exist.
To better clarify the basis on which the evolutionary theory of the human species rests, it is good now to review the experimental results on which these theoretical speculations are based..
Let's just say that the Theory of Biological Evolution of the human species is not Galilean science. It claims to go far beyond the established facts. The hominoid family begins with the primitive monkey Dryopithecus, and splits into a branch (Pongidoe), leading to chimpanzees, to the gorillas, to orangutans. And in the other branch (Hominidae), which should lead to us, through the Homo Habilis sequence (stone Age), Standing man (age of fire), Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Wisdom fine all'Homo, leading to us. However, this chain has many missing links and needs to resort to miraculous brain development. They arrived at Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis with a brain of a higher volume than ours, the Theory of Biological Evolution of the human species tells us that, about forty thousand years ago. Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis is inexplicably extinct. And finally appears, in an equally inexplicable way, about twenty thousand years ago, L'Homo sapiens sapiens. That is us. A theory with missing links, miraculous developments, unexplained extinctions, sudden disappearances is not Galilean science. It can, at most, be an interesting attempt to establish a direct temporal correlation between observations of obviously non-reproducible facts, objectively fragmentary and necessarily in need of further replicas…”.
Here are the three levels of scientific credibility, that will allow us to understand “to what level does the Theory of Biological Evolution of the human species belong.
The first level is that of reproducible tests: those who do not believe that the force is proportional to the acceleration could repeat Galilei's experiments. It would always find the same answer
The second level of credibility is when it is not possible to study reproducible events under direct control. Let's see it with an example. Different types of stars are observed in the cosmos. Introducing a theoretical model, those observations can be interpreted in such a way that a certain stellar phenomenon represents the example of how a star is born; another phenomenon, of how daughter-in-law. And so on. It is obvious that no one can tell: now I start all over again, to verify if it is really true that a star is born like this and evolves as expected. If any link is missing in stellar evolution, the only possibility is the search for something in the great cosmic laboratory on which man will never be able to intervene: the sky. But there is more. The models of stellar evolution could be with elements yet to be discovered. Just remember the discovery of the pulsating stars (pulsar). Before the discovery of pulsars, no one could have argued that this was a fundamental link in stellar evolution. In the sky there are several examples of stars being born and dying. Looking at identical examples of stellar evolution, it is as if the experiment were repeated. Without any possibility of direct intervention, as already mentioned.
Finally comes the third level: when a series of phenomena happens only once. This would be the case with the evolution of the human species, if there were no missing links and all the other difficulties listed above. The evolution of the human species has not yet reached the third level. If it were, it could rise to the second level of scientific credibility if, here on Earth, several times – as happens for stellar phenomena – it was possible to observe all those evolutionary phases that we summarized earlier. This is obviously impossible. The evolution of the human species therefore remains below the third level of scientific credibility. But that is not all. Indeed, in the evolutionary sequence we have already seen that there are missing links and not understood phenomena. The third level of scientific credibility belongs to those phenomena that have neither missing links nor mysterious points. This is why the theory that man is in the same family tree as the monkey is below the lowest level of scientific credibility.
in short, it is not Galilean science that claims to impose truths devoid of that rigor which it gave birth to, with Galilei, science... The man on the street is convinced that Charles R. Darwin proved our direct ancestry from the apes: for the dominant culture not to believe in the Evolutionary Theory of the human species is an act of grave obscurantism, comparable to stubbornly believing that it is the Sun that revolves around, with the Earth still at the center of the world. The exact opposite is true. The obscurantists are those who claim to make a theory without an elementary mathematical structure and without any Galilean-style experimental proof rise to the rank of scientific truth.. If the man of our times had a truly modern culture, he should know that evolutionary theory is not part of Galilean science. It is missing two pillars that allowed the great turning point of the sixteenth century: reproducibility and rigor.
in short, questioning the existence of God, on the basis of what evolutionists have discovered so far, it has nothing to do with science. With modern obscurantism, Yup.
Prof. Antonino Zichichi, internationally renowned nuclear physicist
The criticism that Prof. Antonino Zichichi e’ truly one of the best’ disinformate.
The mathematics of evolutionism has in fact been around for exactly a century, since it was found independently in 1908 da Godfrey Hardy e Wilhelm Weinberg, hence the name Hardy and Weinberg's law’ with which and’ (or should be) known .
With all due respect to Zichichi they find themselves like this’ mathematically the evolutionary conditions identified empirically by biologists, just as befits any good scientific theory
E' at least strange that Prof. Zichichi contests the theory of evolution by not recognizing its scientific validity according to Galileo's method. And on that I could, partly, essere d'accordo. But contrast by syllogism to this, the creationist doctrine, which by etymological definition, being precisely doctrine, it is of a fideistic nature and therefore free from any demonstrative element (it's like this because someone said so, even if a superior entity) it turns out exactly, in my opinion, singular.
I believe in God and science…. even if we were directly descended from apes, who created them? and first who created the Earth? the Big Beng? e l'Universo?Pechè l'universo si dà la pena di esistere? These are questions that science can't explain… science tells us HOW certain processes occurred, the Bible tells us WHO did them.
gli scienziati sbagliano a negare l'esistenza di Dio e le Chiesa sbaglia a negare le teorie della scienza. I also believe in other forms of life, regardless of their stage of development. Non dobbiamo chiuderci e dobbiamo accettare che qualcos'altro può esiste, and I'm not just referring to the classic gray alien, alto 1.30 m and big-headed from Steven Spilberg movies=). Why God must have created only us? there will be many theories about the WHY of our existence, the real one is only one and I don't think we will discover it in this life.
this is my reflection.
marcomolina, I agree with your clever thinking.
And you David, the evolutionist DOCTRINE (I'm talking about macroevolution) it is nothing more than a doctrine, why it is inculcated in the minds of people in modern society despite the fact that it is unproven and has so many "holes" to cap!
Gentile ChristianFaith,
lasciando da parte il fatto che l'evoluzionismo sia una dottrina come tu affermi o una teoria probabile (that can, that is, be proven or not), my reflection starts from the fact that they cannot be compared, how do you say, pears with apples (forgive the metaphor); if Prof. Zichichi, dispute the "theory" evolutionary as unscientific as it does not correspond to the characteristics of the scientific method (it must be objective, reliable, verifiable and shareable), of which a theory must be a part, least of all can a DOCTRINE like faith be, that being, just, fideistic, He can not, by definition itself, belong to the scientific method. By this I do not mean that doctrine has less dignity than the scientific method, is that the assumptions are different: mentre la dottrina è un fatto puramente personale che coinvolge l'anima e non la ragione (a religion "commands me" a dogma and I individual can only believe it or not), science needs demonstrable facts. Otherwise it happens, just, as to Galileo who for having said that it was the sun that revolved around the earth, was, dalla Chiesa dell'epoca, disavowed. Hence the fact that they exist right now, things inexplicable to us, does not necessarily mean that in the near future science cannot explain them. Sono quindi d'accordo con marcomolina. It is said that Darwin was not right and that God still exists and is the principle. Probably Adam and Eve did not exist, and I firmly believe it. I conclude my rant by saying that if the Church went beyond the slavish interpretation of the Bible and accepted the fact that it was written when men needed an "architecture" of the world that today seems to me frankly outdated, one could probably arrive at a truer and more sincerely followed faith.
Sincerely.
P.s. You don't believe that, as you say, Christian DOCTRINE as well, is "instilled in the minds of people in modern society despite the fact that it is unproven and has many "holes" to cap"?
not david, TRUE faith cannot be inculcated. And mine is true and conscious! In fact, I'm not Catholic, this applies to Catholicism which is imposed in our country and they teach nothing but ecclesial doctrines and dogmas instead of the Bible. I am faithful by choice and "inner calling" and this does not depend on me or on the people who taught me this, but by God himself, whom I thank infinitely for being an elect, and this happens to all the faithful who cover it in the course of their lives. You are not born faithful, but you become. This is something that anyone who does not believe, therefore untouched by God, as the Bible says, can't understand:
For the preaching of the cross is madness for those who perish, but for us, that we are saved, it is the power of God; indeed it is written:
“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise
e annienterò l'intelligenza degli intelligenti».
Dov'è il sapiente? Dov'è lo scriba? Dov'è il contestatore di questo secolo? Has not God made mad the wisdom of this world?
For the world has not come to know God by its own wisdom, it pleased God, in his wisdom, to save believers with the foolishness of preaching. (1Corinthians 1:18-21)
I was raised Catholic, then I became an avid atheist studying and growing up (a scuola in ambienti universitari dove TI INCULCANO l'evoluzionismo). One day I decided to delve deeper into the Bible driven by I don't know what, which I believed to be a bunch of nonsense and I discovered faith thanks to God who through it spoke to me and enlightened me on all the points which seem absurd to the people of this world, such as about Adam and Eve that I could not believe. Now he firmly believes it by logical and scientific deduction. Life starts from a single point, from a common stock, and science also says this. Then life was born in the fertile half moon, as science also says. Guarda possiamo discuterne all'infinito ma parliamo due lingue differenti.
You say to me " it's not because we don't know things now science can't come someday" and I tell you "It's not that now because we don't understand things we can exclude creation by God!". Capisci il punto qual'è?
I do not deny the established science, empirical and proven, how could i ever? But I do not deny God in which I firmly believe! E sono convinta che non avremo mai tempo di scoprire scientificamente l'esistenza di Dio perchè altrimenti non sarebbe Dio, He wanted it that way. God is understood by faith, what faith it would be if it were proven?
So far science and the Bible go hand in hand, the archaeological discoveries, the historical sources, etc. Un giorno arriverà la fine perchè ci sarà il secondpo ritorno di Cristo a giudicare l'umanità incredula e chi non avrà accettato Lui perirà spiritualmente.
Indeed, brothers, look at your vocation; there are not many wise men among you according to the flesh, nor many powerful, nor many nobles; but God chose the foolish things of the world TO SHAME THE WISE; God chose the weak things in the world to shame the strong ones; God chose the vile things of the world and the things despised, indeed the things that are not, to reduce to nothing the things that are, so that no one may boast before God. (1Corinthians 1:26-29)
Ciao
And look, I'm no different from you, each of us is a firm believer in something: you believe in fallible human science which for you is infallible (in quanto dici che l'uomo prima o poi scoprira il mistero della vita), but one need only look at history to see how many times scientific discoveries have been retracted. Credi nelle capacità intellettuali dell'uomo che si paragona a Dio e crede di poter scoprire prima o poi l'origine della vita. And this makes me smile because it fits perfectly the biblical verse above. Ovviamente l'essere umano rimane essere umano. While I believe in God, which for you is nonsense, but for me it is the right explanation. Nessuno ha mai potuto smentire l'esistenza di Dio, and no one ever will (that is why macroevolution can never be proven, because it's actually fake) e nessuno potrà mai affermare l'esistenza di Dio, because he is GOD. And no one has ever been able to deny the historical validity of the Bible, to say that it narrates false events and scientifically false things. Rather! Do not bring back the historical errors of the Maccabees or other obviously uninspired apocryphal books, who accept Catholics, I am Protestant.
As you can see we are in the same boat: tu hai fede nell'essere umano io in Dio. L'importante è credere in qualcosa.
Aridaje…
I do not dispute your faith and the fact that you have finally seen the Light, I'm actually happy for you! But if you just quote scripture to me, without answering on the merits of my reflection (I remember you: “evolutionary theory/doctrine” versus “creationist doctrine/theory”, that was the point of contention) you make me think you are trying to divert attention away from the main node: Faith is a demonstrable thing and therefore scientific or not?
No! It is not demonstrable, It is fideistic.
At this point, other than quoting scripture (I don't feel like it, since I had an opposite path to yours experiencing a profound spiritual crisis that led me to evaluate with a different eye what was "imposed" on me by Christian DOCTRINE, and therefore, of Holy Scriptures, a bit', i mean), you should give me more than a few passages from the Bible (then translated). You who studied Languages & Foreign literature, you should most of all know that when translating, concepts are often lost and misrepresented, and we are, Moreover, evaluating in Italian! (for those who don't know: and receive 39 books of the Bible were written in Hebrew and Aramaic. The others 27 books were written in Greek, common language in the days of Jesus and his early followers. These two major divisions of the Bible are rightly called the Hebrew Scriptures and the Greek Scriptures.).
I appreciate your "verve", but I am of the opinion that taking and slavishly applying a packaged product like the Bible for other times, when the needs were different (silly example: differentiation between clean and unclean animals – pork, warm, it hurts (Leviticus 11). By the way you eat it?), is very limiting to the development of thought and its evolution, and drive us away, think a little, by God who created us free and scientific.
To sum up: I strongly dispute that the Bible and Science go hand in hand, they are things that pertain to completely different spheres of the human psyche, Soul and Reason. One cannot and must not replace the other and when someone uses one instrumentally to override the other, I think it does not do humanity a good service.
I quote Spinoza (yes I know, he was excommunicated, like Galileo after all):
“Siamo giunti così ad una dimostrazione dell'esistenza di Dio che è l'unica veramente valida, from a certain point of view, throughout the history of philosophy. One can say with Spinoza that one believes in God not by faith or even by reason but by intuition.
Ma quando diciamo che con l'intuizione noi riusciamo a capire la soluzione di un problema di matematica ciò non significa che l'intuizione ci porti con certezza al giusto risultato del problema. To have this certainty we will have to perform all the steps to demonstrate the truth of the solution. Only through rational demonstration , mediated, for successive passages it is possible to arrive at the certainty of the solution of the problem.
L'intuizione non ci dà la garanzia della verità; ci vorrà sempre l'uso della ragione per arrivare ad esser certi della soluzione intuitiva.” (Wikipedia source for convenience and I agree)
I conclude: They are not (scientifically) CERTAIN of the existence of God. I can only guess and eventually, Comets, have faith. Therefore I continue to look for it certainly not in the reason of scientific confirmations but in the intuition of my soul.
Given that (always Spinoza):
“L'uomo ha lo strumento della ragione per capire ma questo è un strumento di mediazione, i.e. the reason works for successive steps. Se noi usassimo la ragione per arrivare a quella cima della piramide che si perde all'infinito, dovendo attenerci a un gradino dopo l'altro, we would never reach the goal since God, the divine substance, it is infinite.“
And this, Bible or not, it doesn't fold...
Always cordial greetings.
I posted my answer after your last comment. I think mine answers this too.
It seems to me that you are on the wrong target. Io non credo nell'uomo e tu in Dio. That's not the point. The point, I repeat, is that if you decide to take at face value what is written in the Bible you cannot justify it with science, which is , in my opinion, un'altra cosa.
Yes I understood you, but we think differently. Non c'è da discutere sui nostri pensieri perchè partiamo da due concetti del tutto differenti. So I respect your point of view and you mine 🙂
Best regards to you too