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.

 

Evolution a Religion

page: 11
8
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 10:30 PM
link   
a reply to: OperationBlackRose


I don't even go to church.

One hundred percent self-selected, then. Congratulations!




posted on Nov, 19 2014 @ 12:37 AM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

Thanks. I don't want to start up another argument, but I do want to ask a question already asked, but got no answer


Can you offer me Scientific proof (Demonstrable, Observable and Repeatable)?



posted on Nov, 19 2014 @ 06:43 PM
link   
a reply to: IndependentAgent

Actually, some links to evidence for evolution and even a description of how it really is "demonstrable, observable, and repeatable" science was provided on the second page of the thread.



posted on Nov, 19 2014 @ 07:44 PM
link   
a reply to: iterationzero

Don't be silly, that would involve some effort on the part of readers


But seriously a group of us have posted a lot of evidence in favor of evolution, and it either gets ignored, misconstrued, or the goal posts get moved as we line a kick up.



posted on Nov, 22 2014 @ 05:55 AM
link   
a reply to: OperationBlackRose



So instead of inch I said foot, big deal. and if you want to say that an inch is 2.45, that is why I said "about".


Not sure what you are trying to prove here, but an inch is not 'about' 2.45cm; it is EXACTLY 2.54cm. By definition. Exactly.



posted on Nov, 22 2014 @ 06:19 AM
link   
a reply to: OperationBlackRose



Funny to see how no one understands that it is the same with a car. The engine and gearbox is two separate things, but they work together to enable you to turn on your car, and drive somewhere. The same with a computer. The computer box and the screen. They work together. Without the big bang, you have no formation of the universe. Without a universe, you have no earth. Without not earth, you have no 'first life form'. Without the first life form, evolution can not begin.


You are close to being correct - but your understanding of your analogies leaves much to be desired.

Your car has separate things that work together like engine and gearbox and tires and so forth. Your computer has separate things that work together like CPU and screen and keyboard and so forth. Our understanding of the universe has separate things that work together too; the big bang, the formation of stars, the formation of the Earth, the beginning of life, the evolution of life.

In a car, if the engine dies you can fix it without going near the tires or the gearbox - they all work together to meet the goal of being a 'car'; but the guy that changes your tire doesn't have to know how to rebuild a carburetor. If you find something that works better, like a fuel injector instead of a carburetor, you can swap it out without having to change the brakes.

In a computer, if the keyboard or mouse dies, you can replace them without having to reinstall the operating system or hard drive or screen or whatever.

Its the same with the theories that describe our understanding of existence. If the big bang proves to be inadequate, we can change it with out having to throw out evolution. If some idea of abiogenesis doesn't work, it just has no effect on our understanding of biological evolution.

Biological evolution is the study of how life changes, not how non-life becomes life. Just as whether a car is fitted with a carburetor or a fuel injector has no bearing on whether or not the fuel explodes in the piston cylinder in order to drive the pistons, what model is eventually (if ever) worked out for abiogenesis has no bearing on evolution. Fuel is going to explode in the cylinder, whether it got there via carburetor or fuel injector. Life is going to change from generation to generation (evolve) whether it started supernaturally or naturally.

Yes the 'parts' all fit together to form a 'chain' of our understanding of existence, but they are separate parts that can be substituted, refined, repaired, or replaced with other parts if new data shows our current understanding to be incorrect.



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 04:11 PM
link   
a reply to: rnaa

Good explaination. But does that not mean that is the big bang does not plan out, our understanding of the rest could change?


For example, lets say we found out the big bang did not happen, that can mean that our assumptions about how earth came to be, could also change with the new information. If that happens, could it not also mean that how we believe biological evolution happened, could change as well?

Is it possible that changing the big bang is like throwing a stone in water, creating waves that travel farther than just the stone?

I am just asking if that is a possibility.
edit on 23-11-2014 by IndependentAgent because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 08:14 PM
link   
a reply to: IndependentAgent

Theories in science change with the avaliable information. Its the honest way of doing things. However, the big bang, how the earth formed, and evolution are not lined theories, and thus one should not assume when one changes the others do.

But to your point. HOW we believe evolution happens has indeed changed. Darwin knew absolutely nothing about how information is passed between generations, he knew it happened, but not what the mechanism is. Untill DNA (and RNA) were identified as carriers of genetic information, it was assumed that proteins held that information. We know better know, and we know a lot more about evolution now that we can sequence genomes.

SO yeah its happened. But evolution is still a very viable theory, and the most logical one we have. We've seen it happen. Antibiotic resistance (for example) is evolution. We have traced lactose tolerance to the humans who most likely domesticate the cow (and thus drank the milk), and we can date that to coincide when we think that happened (and we can date cows being domesticated using genetics of cows too)



posted on Nov, 25 2014 @ 05:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: IndependentAgent

However, the big bang, how the earth formed, and evolution are not lined theories, and thus one should not assume when one changes the others do.



When doing some research on the subject at hand, I found one very important thing to note. If you change the Big Bang, meaning the force he put out when exploding, the amount matter that was formed, the speed of the explosion, and the speed at which everything was spinning before exploding, you change everything.

The Big Bang determined the size of our sun and moon, the size of our galaxy. When you change the size of our galaxy, you change the narrow habitable space of the galaxy.

The Big Bang also determined earth's location in the galaxy, and its position in that narrow habitable space. It also determined our distance form the sun. Too close, and it is too hot for anything to survive. Too far, and it is too cold for anything to survive. Also the amount of radiation is something to keep in mind when moving earth closer or farther from the son.

The Big Bang determined the size of earth, the force of our gravity, the strength of our magnetic field.
When the force of gravity is different form what it currently is, the results is drastic. Increase it just a little bit, and nothing bigger that an olive could survive. Decrease it just a little bit, and most of the minerals and gasses could not form. Either way, no life. Even changing the magnetic field will have drastic results.

Changing the Big Bang just a little bit, changes everything, for every theory.
So yes, it is a lined theory. Change one thing, and it changes everything.



posted on Nov, 25 2014 @ 07:51 PM
link   
a reply to: IndependentAgent

That would be speculative cosmology. Its a hypothesis not a theory. So its really a good idea to read to much into it



posted on Nov, 25 2014 @ 07:57 PM
link   
a reply to: IndependentAgent




When doing some research on the subject at hand, I found one very important thing to note. If you change the Big Bang, meaning the force he put out when exploding, the amount matter that was formed, the speed of the explosion, and the speed at which everything was spinning before exploding, you change everything.

The Big Bang determined the size of our sun and moon, the size of our galaxy. When you change the size of our galaxy, you change the narrow habitable space of the galaxy.


True.

But everything happened the way it happened. The Big Bang theory attempts to explain the observable facts of the existing universe. It is a well understood 'problem' that if this or that universal 'constant' was different by just a little bit we wouldn't be here to discuss that interesting fact.

Science doesn't exist to philosophize about what MIGHT have been; it exists to explain what IS. Yes I know, there is a Philosophy of Science, and Scientists, like any other human being like to, and are entitled to, philosophize - but that is not the purpose of Science itself.



Changing the Big Bang just a little bit, changes everything, for every theory. So yes, it is a lined theory. Change one thing, and it changes everything.


I get the idea that you are misapprehending the nature of a 'scientific theory'. A 'scientific theory' does NOT DEFINE facts, it EXPLAINS facts. What you are missing is that if in the unlikely event that another theory emerges to replace the Big Bang it is because that new theory EXPLAINS the OBSERVABLE FACTS better than the Big Bang.

It is not the case that you cannot replace the Big Bang because if you make a change to the Big Bang then the universe as we know it cannot exist - or the stars won't form or whatever; rather it is that the Big Bang explains the universe as we know it better than any competing hypothesis. A new theory must account for the formation of the stars too - if it doesn't explain the observable facts, it cannot replace a theory that does.

To draw on the car analogy once again, consider the fact that pistons are being 'driven by something'. There are many possible causes for this; there could be some kind of hydraulic fluid being pumped into the cylinders by some unknown force; or compressed air; or a mechanical push rod; or maybe some kind of controlled explosion. The evidence for a controlled explosion is tested and predictions made: does the temperature of the components rise as would be expected from an explosion; is there post-combustion residue and the exhaust gas, etc? What then can we determine from the residue and gases about the fuel? What then can we determine about how the fuel was forced to explode; was it sparked or dieseled? How was the fuel delivered; carburetor or injector?

As you can see, the 'theory' is built up from the observable facts - if it doesn't explain the facts it is pointless. You can exchange a properly configured fuel injector (that pushes fuel into the cylinder) for a carburetor (that allows the cylinder to suck the fuel into the cylinder) - they both satisfy the goal of delivering a properly metered mixture of fuel and air into the cylinder for an efficient explosion. But you cannot use a water pump or an air compressor for that task because it is not their purpose.

The bottom line is that the Big Bang theory EXPLAINS the way the universe developed - it does NOT DEFINE the way the universe developed.
edit on 25/11/2014 by rnaa because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 26 2014 @ 05:56 AM
link   
a reply to: rnaa

I was just stating scientific facts that show the links between the Big Bang an Evolution. People said there is no link. I just showed that science proves there is.



posted on Nov, 26 2014 @ 12:07 PM
link   
a reply to: IndependentAgent



I was just stating scientific facts that show the links between the Big Bang an Evolution. People said there is no link. I just showed that science proves there is.


I understand what you are saying, but science does not prove the relationships you perceive. Science seeks only to EXPLAIN observable fact.

The relationship exists between Big Bang theory and cosmological development are related as child is related to adult. Science does not seek to prove that a child becomes an adult - that is trivial observable fact which needs no such 'proof'.

Science seeks to explain how a child becomes an adult - and there are many facets to that process; biological, psychological, and sociological.

Another example that may be more familiar to you as a study of changing ideas in science: science doesn't seek to prove that that night follows day. Science seeks to explain why night follows day. Does the Sun orbit the Earth, or does the Earth spin on its axis.

When the Earth as the center of the universe theory gave way to the Earth spinning theory, it did not change the physical nature of the universe, it only changed the way that we looked at the universe. So too with a hypothetical Big Bang replacement theory. If we decide something is better than the Big Bang, it only means we have changed our way of thinking about the origin of the universe; we haven't changed the universe itself.



posted on Nov, 26 2014 @ 03:54 PM
link   
a reply to: rnaa

I don't want to be rude. I just looked at the facts. Science is observable, testable and repeatable. That is how the found out that the earth is not the center of the universe, and that big rocks does not fall faster than small rocks. Any theory that does not have observable, testable and repeatable proof, is just a theory. It has only a possibility of being plausible.

1 - Science is looking at the evidence unbiasedly, see where it points, and create a hypotheses based on the facts.
2 - Science is not looking for evidence to support your preferred theory.


I see more people doing #2. That means that all that theories is not science, but sciencefiction.

I have not seen testable evidence that is 100% for, or against any theory. (Creation vs. Evolution)



posted on Nov, 26 2014 @ 08:21 PM
link   
a reply to: IndependentAgent



Any theory that does not have observable, testable and repeatable proof, is just a theory.


An idea that you describe is not 'just a theory' - it is NOT any kind of theory what-so-ever. It MAY be an hypothesis - but it can never become a theory. An hypothesis about something that is unobservable is philosophy. An hypothesis that is not testable is worthless for the advancement of human knowledge.

However, it is only in mathematics that a theory is 'proved'. In all other scientific disciplines, hypotheses are only demonstrated to usefully explain the observable facts or not, and can be replaced by more useful hypotheses at any time new data requires a more inclusive hypothesis ( e.g. Newtonian Physics -> Relativity ).



posted on Nov, 27 2014 @ 03:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: IndependentAgent



Any theory that does not have observable, testable and repeatable proof, is just a theory.


An hypothesis about something that is unobservable is philosophy. An hypothesis that is not testable is worthless for the advancement of human knowledge.




So by your own words, the Big Bang is a worthless philosophy?
edit on 27-11-2014 by IndependentAgent because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2014 @ 03:32 PM
link   
a reply to: IndependentAgent

One problem you have here is Creationism is untestable.



posted on Nov, 27 2014 @ 04:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

I take offense to you labeling me a "Creationist" without any basis for your claim.

To quote something I said earlier....


I have not seen testable evidence that is 100% for, or against any theory. (Creation vs. Evolution)



edit on 27-11-2014 by IndependentAgent because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2014 @ 07:36 PM
link   
a reply to: IndependentAgent



So by your own words, the Big Bang is a worthless philosophy?


No.

First, I did not say that philosophy is worthless.

Second, I did not say that the hypotheses that describe the big bang are untestable.

Hypotheses are tested by finding predictions that would be true IF the particular hypothesis is valid. Sometimes you can run an experiment, sometimes you have to look for other independent data to validate or invalidate.

For example, if our ideas about the big bang are correct, then there should be background radiation at a specific temperature that can be detected. (and lo and behold, there is). If there was no such background radiation, it would show that that hypothesis was wrong. The background radiation was predicted many years before it was actually discovered, and it was discovered by accident.

We don't have to recreate the big bang to test it, we only have to look for its signature. Not all hypotheses are found to be valid. Lots of hypotheses are thrown out, and this is in and of itself an advancement of human knowledge.



posted on Nov, 27 2014 @ 07:53 PM
link   
a reply to: IndependentAgent

Neighbour, I simply said creation (and intelligent design may as well be added here) is an untestable idea. YOU assumed I labeled you as such. It must hit very close to home.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join