It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Evolution Epiphany

page: 3
23
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 01:56 AM
link   
a reply to: ArtemisE

So, did the understanding of evolution come easily and naturally to you, then, as it did for Moresby?

No Eureka moment? How did you cope with all the questions the theory raises — scientific, ethical, philosophical? Did they simply never arise, or did you have to deal with them one at a time, slowly growing in understanding all the while? Was there never a moment when you suddenly thought, 'ah yes, that takes care of my last difficulty — I see it all now'?




posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 02:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

Nope, not for me personally.....however, I did have eureka moment with the Big Bang.

Ok so Big Bang theory is ginormous explosion of hydrogen, leading to the formation of stars. Which thru fusion create everything else.... Well the thing that made it hard to grasp for me was. Why hydrogen? Why not any of a multitude of different gases or matter?

Well coming to the conclusion that hydrogen is 1 proton and 1 electron did it. It wasn't an explosion of some mystery gas. It was an explosion of protons and electrons and some mixed to form, what us humans call hydrogen.

Simplest answer is always the real one, you just gotta know all the variables. (I really think I just made that up...... Sorry I'm stoned.:p)



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 10:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
I wasn't always one, though, because nobody is. The naive assumption, common to primitive humans and small children alike, is that the living things inhabiting this world were created by some powerful entity, probably the same one that created the world itself. I don't remember coming to this conclusion on my own — I think I was told — but I had no trouble believing it at the time, nor did I question it for many years. It made sense to me. It makes sense to most people, at least to begin with.



No-one is because they aren't born with any knowledge. Nobody has that naive assumption unless they're told so by other idiots.

It makes sense to the more intellectually challenged.



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 10:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
I am interested in how people who do understand evolution came by their understanding, and whether the experience was revelatory for them in the same way it was for me. I'm not really that interested in the opinions of those who don't understand evolution.

I feel very confident in asserting that someone who rejects evolution does not understand it, although it would be interesting to be proven wrong.



There's really only one way to understand evolution, or any aspect of science for that matter, and that is education. It's the failure of education that people don't understand how science works.

One of the reasons I engage on this particular board is because I'm participating in a project which is rewriting high school science textbooks. One of the new textbooks will be entitled: "Evidence-Based Scientific Discovery". The operative words here are EVIDENCE-BASED. Students tend to accept whatever they are taught at that age. They do lab experiments which help in understanding. But what is missing is what evidence really means, why it's so important and how to challenge that evidence if you have another idea. In other words, teach the art of THINKING along with scientific theory, not just rote memorization for a test.

If you read through some of the threads started by creationists and the like, they all have one thing in common - they don't understand what evidence is and what it means. Evidence is not doctrine. It's simply the latest confirmed data we have on a particular subject. I've challenged several here and elsewhere to produce evidence for their beliefs. To date, no one has. And that's not surprising because there is no evidence. There's a huge disconnect for these people between what objective science is and their own personal/religious beliefs. They have no ability to differentiate the two. I think this is a consequence of poor education and a failure to learn critical thinking.

If you want to learn to play golf, you take lessons from a golf pro. If you want to be a great chef, you go to a culinary school. If you want to learn about evolution or any other subject related to science, you learn from a scientist. Makes sense to me.

What do you all think?



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 11:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

I wonder why science has evolved into a meaningless, proof-free zone for the world on such things as EVOLUTION.

Ahh, could it be that both Creationism, and Evolutionism are the products of something entirely different, and are both a nice 1/4 truth in themselves.

Frankly, both ideas of how things have come to be, CANNOT be proven, and furthermore, MAKE SURE nothing can be proven.

Just like any political aisle, we know a 3rd, 4th and more realities should be considered, and these BIG TWO, need to be dropped like the waste they are.



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 04:06 PM
link   
a reply to: ParasuvO



I wonder why science has evolved into a meaningless, proof-free zone for the world on such things as EVOLUTION.


If it was 'proof-free' we wouldn't be using antibiotics. They kill bacteria before they can build up a resistance through natural selection. If you are thinking of making the point that some strains of bacteria are immune to antibiotics, it's still proof of evolution. The resistant bacteria are 'in the wild' of the human ecosystem and are adapting (through incomplete prescriptions etc) faster than we can develop new antibiotics.

You're 100% correct in saying Creationism 'CANNOT be proven.'



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 04:19 PM
link   
a reply to: ParasuvO

You can continue to conflate things of which we know with a high degree of confidence are proven. Or you can actually learn something.

The contributions of Evolutionary biology in medicine alone, destroy your pathetic argument.

Without the predictive power of modern Evolutionary syntheses we would not be able to understand positive selection to identify the pathogenic mechanisms of HIV in humans. Use phylogenies and positive selection to predict which currently circulating strains of influenza are most likely to be closely related to future flu epidemics. Or be able to track epidemics in human populations and identify new disease outbreaks.

Despite your ignorance and denial, understanding evolution has made a big difference in how we treat and cure disease.

Here are some resources that prove just how wrong you are.
How does evolution impact my life?
evolution.berkeley.edu...

Applying our knowledge of evolution

Evolutionary theory predicted that bacterial resistance would happen. Given time, heredity, and variation, any living organisms (including bacteria) will evolve when a selective pressure (like an antibiotic) is introduced.
But evolutionary theory also gives doctors and patients some specific strategies for delaying even more widespread evolution of antibiotic resistance.
Ultimately, recognizing bacteria as evolving entities and understanding their evolution should help us to control that evolution, allowing us to prolong the useful lifespan of antibiotics.

edit on fSunday142464f242404 by flyingfish because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 09:11 PM
link   
a reply to: ParasuvO

Hi there,

Thank you for taking the trouble to post in this thread.

However, you seem to be mistaken about the topic. We are not here to discuss whether the theory of evolution is correct or not. What you have said has been said a thousand times before in this forum; and whether you are right or wrong, saying it again is rather pointless. In this thread, people who do accept the truth of evolution are discussing how they came to discover and internalize that truth, and what it means to them.

I would be grateful if you would address the topic.

Other posters: please do not rise to ParasuvO's bait.

Thank you, all of you.



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 05:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: ParasuvO
a reply to: Phantom423

I wonder why science has evolved into a meaningless, proof-free zone for the world on such things as EVOLUTION.

Ahh, could it be that both Creationism, and Evolutionism are the products of something entirely different, and are both a nice 1/4 truth in themselves.

Frankly, both ideas of how things have come to be, CANNOT be proven, and furthermore, MAKE SURE nothing can be proven.

Just like any political aisle, we know a 3rd, 4th and more realities should be considered, and these BIG TWO, need to be dropped like the waste they are.



No. That's all the answer you get. Actually use some critical thinking and stop listening to ken hamm type hacks.



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 05:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: ParasuvO

Hi there,

Thank you for taking the trouble to post in this thread.

However, you seem to be mistaken about the topic. We are not here to discuss whether the theory of evolution is correct or not. What you have said has been said a thousand times before in this forum; and whether you are right or wrong, saying it again is rather pointless. In this thread, people who do accept the truth of evolution are discussing how they came to discover and internalize that truth, and what it means to them.

I would be grateful if you would address the topic.

Other posters: please do not rise to ParasuvO's bait.

Thank you, all of you.


Damn you and your good advice.....



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 07:05 AM
link   
I started out as a Catholic in my life, but as I grew up, I grew away from that awful religion. Once the pedo-scandal broke, I pretty much severed my ties with that religion. But even then, I always maintained that evolution was real. I would argue that the 7 days in genesis aren't defined as human days so they could in essence be a lot longer to god. Though I didn't truly understand evolution. Sure I had studied it in science class, but it wasn't explained clearly enough.

I think one of the biggest problems with how they teach evolution in science, is that they don't do it justice. They go over many of the important parts but gloss over some of the finer details that actually make it make sense. Because of this, I can understand why people can grow up to distrust it.

It wasn't until I came to ATS and started to argue in favor of evolution that I REALLY started to learn how it works. Looking up facts and information to disprove the Creationist drivel required me to learn more about evolution than I ever knew. And the more I learned, the more sure I because that it was correct. There was never really any epiphany or anything for me, just acceptance that it was true followed by me looking source checking that information later in life. To be honest, after all I've learned about evolution, it actually makes less sense that someone could believe that all of life POOFED completely whole on the earth just out of the blue. That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. At least the idea of life developing and growing more complex over the years makes sense in the grand scheme of things. A man in the sky magicing everything into existence, is just silly.

Throughout my life I stopped being a Catholic then became christian with no denomination. But even that faith started to wane. Then I came to this site, discovered the motto, "deny ignorance" and applied it to everything in my life. I realized that to truly do that, one most become a skeptic and only view the best evidence. This is when I realized that I had become an agnostic. Now I heavily maintain that if you want me to believe something, then show me the compelling evidence that makes it so. This is a feat that many Creationists cannot do. They resort to quote mining and misrepresenting my position to make themselves look correct. But let's get this out of the way, quotes are never a good source of evidence. They are almost always taken out of context and people change their minds all the time. So what may have held true for someone in their 20's may not hold true for them in their 50's or 60's. The only evidence that matters, is the hard evidence for or against the position.

tldr: Learning about denying ignorance was the closest I got to an epiphany.



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 09:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t


Learning about denying ignorance was the closest I got to an epiphany.

It sounds like ATS was your epiphany!

Was there a particular aspect of the subject that was the clincher for you? One fact or insight that made it all fall into place?



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 09:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

Not really. Ever since I was a child, evolution (even the poorly described version they give you in grade school science) made sense to me. I hadn't during any of my life seen any animals *poof* into existence completely whole, so I find that account of things to be rather dumb (it is kind of funny that YECers demand proof for macro evolution but fail to show proof of animals appearing wholly developed on earth).

Really, all ATS did for me was get me to research and understand evolution more throughly so I knew what I was talking about if I was refuting a creationist's straw man. It's not like I came here because of evolution. I came to this site because I wanted to see a counterpoint to the History Channel's Ancient Aliens show, which I found. It's just that the motto of Deny Ignorance is so profound and most people on this site don't realize it because they fail to apply it to everything in their life. They only want to apply it to things they disagree with, but the real truth of the motto is to apply it to things that you agree with as well. Being able to recognize the flaws in your argument is the first step to admitting that you may be wrong. Once you can admit you are wrong about an argument, it opens your mind to newer possibilities. Unfortunately I don't see many people utilizing the motto correctly and just use it so they can push their alternative viewpoint to mainstream ideology.

Maybe I should write a thread about it...
edit on 23-6-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 09:55 AM
link   
Well, since the OP claims to truly understand the theory of evolution, maybe they can help me out a bit...

I must not understand it properly because I can not figure out, and have yet to find somebody who can explain to me, how this theory holds while in direct contradiction to Shannon's laws of information, and the laws of thermodynamics.



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 10:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: UnderGetty
Well, since the OP claims to truly understand the theory of evolution, maybe they can help me out a bit...

I must not understand it properly because I can not figure out, and have yet to find somebody who can explain to me, how this theory holds while in direct contradiction to Shannon's laws of information, and the laws of thermodynamics.


First off, how do you think the Shannon-Hartley Theorem is violated by evolution? Because frankly I don't see it. Second, evolution doesn't violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics because the law applies to CLOSED systems. The earth is not a closed system. It receives almost all of its energy from the sun.
edit on 23-6-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 11:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I second this. What the hell does information theory have to do with evolution? it has nothing to do with the natural world. What next, Shannon-Nyquist theory refutes evolution because, er...?



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 11:30 AM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

They were replying to a question I asked. The law of information basically states that anything containing information must originate from an intelligence. DNA clearly is a structure containing information. Therefore it must have originated from some sort of intelligence. Spontaneous creation of information is impossible.



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 11:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: UnderGetty
a reply to: GetHyped

They were replying to a question I asked. The law of information basically states that anything containing information must originate from an intelligence. DNA clearly is a structure containing information. Therefore it must have originated from some sort of intelligence. Spontaneous creation of information is impossible.


Ok, let's assume that is a valid supposition. How does that refute evolution?



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 11:59 AM
link   
a reply to: UnderGetty

Our planet is not a isolated system. This is a tired old creationist trope that relies on the reader's ignorance of the laws of thermodynamics and evolution.



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 02:39 PM
link   
a reply to: UnderGetty

Since it was me you asked, allow me to recommend the book that triggered my epiphany: The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins.

As I often say to creationists, I dare you to read it.


edit on 23/6/14 by Astyanax because: recalcitrant virtual keyboard







 
23
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join