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 is a farce: Evidence

page: 38
27
<< 35  36  37    39  40  41 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 12:56 AM
link   
a reply to: kennyb72




You cannot observe or measure the unobservable. We have not to date come even close to understanding the multidimensional reality of our existence and the life sustaining /life forming energies that are in play. I am not a religionist, I am an esotericist/exotericist more accurately as this knowledge is now in the public domain.



So basicly you are upset because science hasn't found anything to corroborate your beliefs.


Have you ever considered that the reason they can't find evidence to corroborate your beliefs is because there isn't any evidence and never will be.

You say you are not a religionist but you seem like one.

BTW you called yourself an exotericist which doesn't seem to be a word but I get it so FYI.



exotericism
religious doctrines or practices that are easily understood by the general public. — exoteric, n., adj.
See also: Religion




posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 01:14 AM
link   


So basicly you are upset because science hasn't found anything to corroborate your beliefs.
a reply to: Grimpachi

To be honest with you, I am not upset about anything, it's par for the course when you understand the truth of reality.

I feel that bullying by so called academics who are so quick to draw the support of other brainwashed academics to push home their beliefs supported by the high priests of the religion of science is unfair.

It's the only reason I responded actually.

definition, esoterics Hidden or secret knowledge, so therefore exoteric is freely available knowledge, if it's not a word, it should be.

Incidentally I have learned everything I know from Pythagorus, arguably the very first scientist.





Have you ever considered that the reason they can't find evidence to corroborate your beliefs is because there isn't any evidence and never will be.


That by the way is a very unscientific statement.

edit on 1-12-2014 by kennyb72 because: spelling



posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 01:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: kennyb72
A scientist is the last person that should be forming hypothesis and declaring theory as fact because the very nature and method of their enquiry excludes the evidence that provides the answers.


Yeah totally! The guy that spends his life studying and experimenting to learn how things work, should be the LAST guy to form hypothesis or theories about what they are studying. LMAO! And you wonder why nobody takes the science deniers seriously.

Surely you can list some of this objective evidence that is excluded? Let me guess, you are upset because science ignores the unproven bible?


edit on 1-12-2014 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 01:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

There is only so much you can learn when you spend your life in a sand box playing with sand castles.

Paying attention pays off sometimes. My whole premise is that objective proof is not available at our current level of consciousness.
edit on 1-12-2014 by kennyb72 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 01:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: kennyb72
a reply to: Barcs

There is only so much you can learn when you spend your life in a sand box playing with sand castles.

...


Oh, I get it: The sand castle is a metaphor for a church and it's fragile components. Quite similar to the well-known ivory-tower for scientists.



posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 02:11 AM
link   
a reply to: ManFromEurope
I try not to regurgitate metaphors and prefer to use my own, please forgive me for the confusion. If your comment suggests that I am religious then I must correct you.



posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 02:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: kennyb72
a reply to: Barcs

There is only so much you can learn when you spend your life in a sand box playing with sand castles.

Paying attention pays off sometimes. My whole premise is that objective proof is not available at our current level of consciousness.


Proper use of terminology pays off sometimes.

You said:


because the very nature and method of their enquiry excludes the evidence that provides the answers


What evidence is excluded? If you are referring to things that haven't been discovered yet, then "excluded" is the wrong term to use, because it sounded like you were trying to say scientists purposely ignore evidence. Science works by expanding our knowledge in a certain area. You start small but over decades of research your knowledge increases exponentially. You have to start somewhere, and not knowing the full answer right away, is no excuse not to research something. The knowledge gained in the future could save the human race one day. It's a good thing, whether we know everything yet or not.

And for the sand box analogy.. If the goal is to learn, then you learn way more playing with it, than ignoring it. You can't teach yourself how to build a mansion without first building that sand castle.

Academia isn't the problem here, the issue is people who attack science. Science isn't the enemy. It's a method of learning how things work so we can on day use the knowledge to improve our lives.
edit on 1-12-2014 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 02:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

I stand corrected, thank you. It would have been more accurate to say that our current understanding precludes our ability to arrive at correct understanding.



If the goal is to learn, then you learn way more playing with it, than ignoring it.


Agreed then.



posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 02:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: kayej1188
a reply to: borntowatch

What about fossil evidence of the intermediate animals that existed that bridge reptiles and mammals? According to the phylogenic tree, mammals and reptiles have a common ancestor. In other words, mammals evolved from reptiles. There's a lot of evidence for this, not just some theory somebody in an armchair made up. There are many many fossils that specifically show missing links between reptiles and mammals. Do you deny this? Do you think the fossils are fake? What would be your objection to that? If you'd like me to present the evidence, I will do so. But first I would like to see what your reply to this would be.


Sadly I dont see the fossil evidence, the shoebox theory is a testament to that issue.
Maybe go study the issues with the fossil evidence rather than suggesting i do.

www.truthinscience.org.uk...



posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 02:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: kennyb72
I stand corrected, thank you. It would have been more accurate to say that our current understanding precludes our ability to arrive at correct understanding.

Okay I see your point now, but how does it prelude our ability to get it right? I don't see it. You can start with our current understanding of things, and eventually arrive at the correct or complete understanding. That's kind of how it works, you build on the knowledge you have and continually learn more until we learn enough to apply it in life. If you don't start somewhere small, you'll never have a chance at learning the big picture. I don't see how our current understanding prevents us from arriving at the correct understanding. Perhaps you can explain that for me as numerous functional technology exists and works because science has helped us learn the correct understanding.
edit on 1-12-2014 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 02:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Barcs



However, you can start with our current understanding of things, and eventually arrive at the correct or complete understanding. That's kind of how it works, you build on the knowledge you have and continually learn more until we learn enough to apply it in life. If you don't start somewhere small, you'll never have a chance at learning the big picture.


Absolutely correct, it is just that our current understanding has a long way to go, it should definitely not be disseminated as the definitive, authoritative truth. The theory of evolution is just that, a theory and is probably the best guess so far, given our limited knowledge, but your guess is as good as mine.
damn! used a cliche.




I don't see how our current understanding prevents us from arriving at the correct understanding. Perhaps you can explain that for me.
edit on 1-12-2014 by Barcs because: Changed the whole paragraph



We only have objective knowledge of the dimension of reality that we inhabit, we live in a multidimensional universe. The answers to many of sciences conundrums exist in a place we have no access to, we haven't developed the instruments that will allow us to explore these other dimensions to gather data from. Until we expand our consciousness to allow us objective reality within that space we are blind to the way energies manifest themselves in this existence. Perhaps when science gets closer to dark matter, we may make some progress.
edit on 1-12-2014 by kennyb72 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 03:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: kennyb72
Absolutely correct, it is just that our current understanding has a long way to go, it should definitely not be disseminated as the definitive, authoritative truth. The theory of evolution is just that, a theory and is probably the best guess so far, given our limited knowledge, but your guess is as good as mine.
damn! used a cliche.


Science gets things right constantly, as proven by the numerous pieces of functional working technology in society. We have a LOT of current knowledge that is correct. Just because we don't know everything about everything, isn't a reason to attack science as many have in this thread, or dismiss the knowledge it has given us.

Scientific theories are based on verifiable facts. They may not be 100% complete, but they generally point us in the right direction and the scientific method has proven to be reliable. Sorry to say, but a theory in science isn't just a "best guess". It's an explanation of facts and how the phenomena in question works. It's not like a scientific discovery could pop up tomorrow disproving evolution. You might see a hypothesis get debunked every now and then, but a theory isn't a theory until it's verified first.



posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 03:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: kennyb72
We only have objective knowledge of the dimension of reality that we inhabit, we live in a multidimensional universe. The answers to many of sciences conundrums exist in a place we have no access to, we haven't developed the instruments that will allow us to explore these other dimensions to gather data from. Until we expand our consciousness to allow us objective reality within that space we are blind to the way energies manifest themselves in this existence. Perhaps when science gets closer to dark matter, we may make some progress.


Sorry about the edits, I have a habit of proofreading multiple times after the fact and often change my wording around. I wasn't expecting a response so quick. I will not edit from here on out.

You say we live in a multi dimensional universe, but that is your opinion. It hasn't been proven that there are any dimensions outside of the ones we live in and experience (3 planes, plus space and time). How do you know those other dimensions exist and that answers lie there? It sounds like wishful thinking to me. Right now this is the only reality that we even know exists, so to speculate about other dimensions giving us answers gets us nowhere. Evolution happens in THIS reality, so we study it. It's not like they're suddenly going to find evidence in another dimension that disproves evolution. Even if we find out that it is guided, that won't make it wrong, it will help us understand one of the causes behind genetic mutations.



posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 03:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Barcs



Scientific theories are based on verifiable facts. They may not be 100% complete, but they generally point us in the right direction and the scientific method has proven to be reliable. Sorry to say, but a theory in science isn't just a "best guess". It's an explanation of facts and how the phenomena in question works. It's not like a scientific discovery could pop up tomorrow disproving evolution. You might see a hypothesis get debunked every now and then, but a theory isn't a theory until it's verified first.



You are treading on very dangerous ground as far as scientific method is concerned. The fact that a theory is as good as the latest available information and when presented the theory is modified. I have to use another cliche and there are two readily available, so for efficiencies sake, "Science is barking up a blind alley". it wouldn't be the first time.

"It's not like a scientific discovery could pop up tomorrow disproving evolution" - Such a bold statement, I think my Karma just ran over your Dogma.



posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 03:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Barcs



You say we live in a multi dimensional universe, but that is your opinion


It is also the opinion of some of the brightest minds on the planet, Stephen Hawking, Michio Kaku to name just two of the more high profile scientists. Quantum physics is pretty much screaming out this fact but many main stream scientists don't have the internal fortitude to put their hands up, demoting it to pseudoscience.

The whole Higgs Boson or Higgs field study provides the question "What is the field that holds matter together". Matter is formed in this dimension because it exists on the outermost layer of a multidimensional onion. The movement of atoms are slowed down to the extent that their aggregates appear to be solid. Our five physical senses are the only real tools we have to make sense of it all and are pretty inadequate in terms of understanding the big picture. It won't always be that way.
edit on 1-12-2014 by kennyb72 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 06:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: kennyb72
It is also the opinion of some of the brightest minds on the planet, Stephen Hawking, Michio Kaku to name just two of the more high profile scientists. Quantum physics is pretty much screaming out this fact but many main stream scientists don't have the internal fortitude to put their hands up, demoting it to pseudoscience.


Isn't it weird when the people you don't agree with are brainwashed but the people you do agree with are those with the brightest minds....?


Our five physical senses are the only real tools we have to make sense of it all and are pretty inadequate in terms of understanding the big picture. It won't always be that way.


We have around 23 'pysical' senses, but we can also deploy many instruments that allow us to detect things on a much wider and accurate scale.

But I have to ask, what do you mean when you say 'it won't always be that way'?



posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 06:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: kayej1188
a reply to: borntowatch

What about fossil evidence of the intermediate animals that existed that bridge reptiles and mammals? According to the phylogenic tree, mammals and reptiles have a common ancestor. In other words, mammals evolved from reptiles. There's a lot of evidence for this, not just some theory somebody in an armchair made up. There are many many fossils that specifically show missing links between reptiles and mammals. Do you deny this? Do you think the fossils are fake? What would be your objection to that? If you'd like me to present the evidence, I will do so. But first I would like to see what your reply to this would be.


Sadly I dont see the fossil evidence, the shoebox theory is a testament to that issue.
Maybe go study the issues with the fossil evidence rather than suggesting i do.

www.truthinscience.org.uk...


Your link is to yet another creationist website and therefore is somewhat suspect.



posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 06:42 AM
link   


Isn't it weird when the people you don't agree with are brainwashed but the people you do agree with are those with the brightest minds....?
a reply to: Prezbo369

Seems pretty unambiguous to me, clearly there is an old school and new school of physics. The brightest minds are starting to make the connection between objective and subjective realities and hopefully this will herald the dawn of a renaissance in physics, capable of a deeper understanding of our physical and non physical existence.




But I have to ask, what do you mean when you say 'it won't always be that way'?


My esoteric studies have led me to understand that the true evolution that mankind is experiencing is the evolution of consciousness. Some Individuals are ahead of the pack and will be able to objectively witness other dimensions along with this dimension.

There will come a time when all of humanity will also evolve once a critical mass is achieved, much along the lines of Sheldrakes anamorphic fields. When this occurs our understanding of physics will be complete, however consciousness evolution takes a very long time.

At best our current understanding of physics is amazing considering what little there is to go on, at worst in many instances our understanding is completely flawed and is taking us know where.


edit on 1-12-2014 by kennyb72 because: punctuation



posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 06:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: kennyb72
a reply to: Barcs



You say we live in a multi dimensional universe, but that is your opinion


It is also the opinion of some of the brightest minds on the planet, Stephen Hawking, Michio Kaku to name just two of the more high profile scientists. Quantum physics is pretty much screaming out this fact but many main stream scientists don't have the internal fortitude to put their hands up, demoting it to pseudoscience.


Just because some of the brightest minds say it is so doesn't make it so though. They still don't have the evidence to prove even questionably, let alone definitively, that there are more dimensions out there than the ones we know and can experience. I'm not trying to say that they are wrong here, but don't make the mistake of claiming highly theoretical science is true while at the same time saying that evolution, a theory with much evidence supporting it, isn't entirely correct.


The whole Higgs Boson or Higgs field study provides the question "What is the field that holds matter together". Matter is formed in this dimension because it exists on the outermost layer of a multidimensional onion. The movement of atoms are slowed down to the extent that their aggregates appear to be solid. Our five physical senses are the only real tools we have to make sense of it all and are pretty inadequate in terms of understanding the big picture. It won't always be that way.


"Five physical senses" is an outdated model of our senses. We have much more than five senses.

Quantum Physics is a very interesting topic, but again it is highly theoretical. There is a much more likely chance that major parts of Quantum Physical theory is wrong versus evolution being wrong.



posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 07:08 AM
link   
a reply to: kennyb72

So let me see if I can summarise. Your 'esoteric' studies have led you to the conclusion that humanity is evolving mentally but not physically and that all studies on evolution are wrong, because somehow you know that evolution is a farce. Would that be a correct summary of your position?



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 35  36  37    39  40  41 >>

log in

join