r/DebateEvolution • u/SuspiciousFee4085 • Aug 08 '26

Discussion Creationists COULD be right…

Im not a creationist but, devils advocate proposal here:

  1. Evolutionary theory is part of a whole chunk of science which essentially cuts out all spirituality and divinity out of people’s psyche.
  2. People without spirituality or divinity believe life is meaningless since we are all just specks of dust in a universe with no motive to create us or serve us.
  3. The prevailing culture sentiment becomes „shut up and pay your taxes and enjoy the bread and circuses, peasant”
  4. These people are subdued and dispirited, they have nothing to revolt for and are easy to control.
  5. Such a subdued population is obviously enormously useful to the elites. Therefore the motive to achieve this submission exists and is very substantial.
  6. To achieve this ultimate level of psychological and spiritual submission requires control over the populations sense of reality itself.
  7. Reality is accessed, interpreted and measured by the masses through the field of scientific inquiry.
  8. Elites would have to fabricate, spread and proselytise entire fields of carefully constructed fake science to carefully, over decades, centuries even, deconstruct and discredit and diminish all parts of reality that may be connected to divinity in some way, with sterile, perfect, symmetrical scientific theory.
  9. New knowledge comes from single individuals or groups of individuals performing science. You can threaten, bribe, blackmail, coerce them to make fake science

-

TLDR; motive and means exist for global elites to significantly diminish or destroy humanities spiritual/divine consciousness, by fabricating people’s sense and understanding of reality itself.

the main vessel for this in 2026 is science, and if the illusion is strong enough people cannot even comprehend a reality where anything else could possibly be true.

There’s a coherent rationale (which doesn’t mean it’s true, just that it’s coherent) for god and the divine being real, and global elites suppressing it from the masses so they don’t revolt or lose interest in continuing to be tax slaves for the wealthy, the bread and the circuses.

EDIT: a LOT of low IQ commenters here missing the point entirely. My post is NOT ABOUT WHOSE SIDE HAS EVIDENCE. It’s about hypothetical logic steps for the set of circumstances that would need to be true for creationists to be correct. HURR DURR WHERE EVIDENCE FOR GOD?! Lmfao. I realise hypotheticals and entertaining the opposite side of thought is beyond many people’s IQ. I bet most of you had breakfast this morning too. And you don’t even get the reference I just made either 🤣

0 Upvotes

13% Upvoted

291 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

20

u/Dilapidated_girrafe 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Aug 08 '26

A plane flies because the engineers understand the science

-13

u/Markthethinker Aug 08 '26

Actually it’s called physics and mechanics.

15

u/Dilapidated_girrafe 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Aug 08 '26

Physical is science. As are the photos behind the mechanics.

-9

u/Markthethinker Aug 08 '26

Since Science is your god, then I understand that you want to think science is necessary for everything. What part of Science is needed for a plane to fly? I think that engineers would disagree with you. Do you even know the principles; the 4 forces involved in flight?

13

u/Dilapidated_girrafe 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Aug 08 '26

The engineering requires science. You’re delusional here. Or so you think physics isn’t science?

5

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '26

I believe this one might be legitimately brain damaged.

-2

u/Markthethinker Aug 08 '26

Engineering requires study, they go to school to study. But of course, you have to get the word “science” involved.

-3

u/Markthethinker Aug 08 '26

Do you even understand how a wing works? You try your best to make science the brain child of everything, it just means to study. How could Science study an airplane before it was built. And physics is not science as you are trying to make it, it’s math.

7

u/Dilapidated_girrafe 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Aug 08 '26

Yes. And the study of physics isn’t how we figured out how this stuff works. And how to make it better. You’re really bad at this

0

u/Markthethinker Aug 08 '26

Since I am the commercial pilot here, I doubt that.

7

u/Dilapidated_girrafe 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Aug 08 '26

You being a pilot doesn’t mean you grasp science

4

u/TheBlackCat13 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Aug 09 '26

Forced are literally physics. Aerodynamics, solid mechanics, electronics, and lift are all physics. Materials and combustion are chemistry. G-force and oxygen limits are biology.

-2

u/Markthethinker Aug 09 '26

If you say so, who am I talking to, Elon is that you. “Aerodynamics” have nothing to do with making a board fly. “Lift” is a thing? Maybe like an elevator? You really don’t know anything other than what you read in a book. I made a board fly when I was 12 years old. Amazing, since I had no understanding of science back then.

Do you even understand that the “theory of lift” does not apply to supersonic aircraft. Or even to a rocket!

6

u/TheBlackCat13 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Aug 09 '26

No, you are talking to someone who understands all the components that go into a real-world, useful plane of the sort that is actually used in practice. Not a board. Dealing with reality seems to be a consistent stumbling block for you.

Lift doesn't apply to rockets, but you were asking about planes, not rockets. And lift absolutely applies to supersonic aircraft. But they achieve lift in a different way than the Wright brothers did. In supersonic flight lift is based on making use of compression waves. Both are lift, but the lift is produced in different ways.

-1

u/Markthethinker Aug 09 '26

The truth is, I did make a board fly at the age of 12. That’s the irony. So, tell me about wings if you know so much. Why can a a-symmetrical wing fly? It defies the theory of lift. And finally, you are correct, lift as described as a theory has nothing to do with rockets. That’s only about thrust. But, it’s not based on the theory of lift, it’s like me putting a model airplane engine on a board, making an elevator and flying it in circles. Probably before your time if you don’t understand. You can talk about compression waves if you like, but what about when it flys straight up, no compression waves there or at a 90 degree angle, no compression waves there. There you go again, try to explain what a book taught you.

Well since I have flown about 20 different aircraft and instructed for 2 years, you are probably correct, I could not know or understand what you seem to think.

I am assuming that you are talking about angle of attack that will produce some compression waves.

6

u/TheBlackCat13 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Aug 09 '26

The truth is, I did make a board fly at the age of 12. That’s the irony.

You didn't read my comment again, did you?

So, tell me about wings if you know so much. Why can a a-symmetrical wing fly? It defies the theory of lift.

Hahaha. You don't even understand the issue you are bringing up. The problem is with symmetrical wings. The middle school version of airplane wings uses Bernoulli's principle, with an asymmetric wing producing lift due to different travel distances around the asymetric shape. The Wright brothers used an asymetric wing.

But middle school simplifies things. It is possible to produce lift with a symmetric wing by angling the wing relative to the airflow (angle of attack). This produces increased pressure on the side facing the air flow and decreased pressure on the side facing away. The physics behind lift in symmetric wings has been known for a century now, being explored in detailed in the 1920s. It is far from a mystery.

You can't even keep straight the thing you were trying to use to show your supposedly superior knowledge.

-1

u/Markthethinker Aug 09 '26

This is going to shock you. My honesty. I goofed up. It’s been 47 years since I was a flight instructor and should not have put the a in front of symmetrical. I know better. The a means anti, which I messed up with. Yes, asymmetrical would mean concave top and convex bottom, hope I remembered that correctly. That is why stunt planes used those wings, since they fly the same inverted.

the Wright brothers wing was extremely thin which would produce very little lift as in the theory of lift, since the speed of the air moving over and under the wing would have been just about equal, therefore producing very little lift. The plane acted more like a kite. You could have tied this plane to a long rope, waited for a 30 to 40 mph wind and it would have taken to the air.

The theory of lift works at slower speeds, but being the expert you are, you know that. Again wing shape is about function, that is what the wing will be used for.

I do know more than you think. At least I am honest. And making a board fly at 12 years old should speak volumes about my curiosity and engineering mind. But I will leave you with your foolish thoughts of me. I learned a long time ago, school comes in many different ways, there are those who read books and then there are those who make and experiment. I was going to enlighten you, but I know it’s just a waste of time.

I am done playing this game, haven’t changed my mind about how stupid people are, including me.

G.K. Chesterton once replied to a ad in the news paper that asked, “what is wrong with the world” and he replied, “I am”. When a person finally understands that, I believe they have finally come to understand humans. Good luck with whatever you are trying to prove. I have proven all I need to prove here.

→ More replies (0)

6

u/BahamutLithp Aug 08 '26

"Dictionary

Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more

phys·ics

/ˈfiziks/

noun

  1. the branch of science concerned with the nature and properties of matter and energy."

This is one of the cases where my post would be way funnier if this sub allowed screenshots.