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: 45
27
<< 42  43  44    46  47  48 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 10:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

Do you think Evolution could explain us having Supernatural powers?




posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 10:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Quadrivium

originally posted by: Grimpachi

originally posted by: Quadrivium
a reply to: Grimpachi
You can simply do this on your own.
FIRST- Apply the definition of science to each (the macro and the micro).
Second- Apply the Scientific Method to each.
If you don't see the line then rinse and repeat.



It has been done thousands of times already. But what does that have to do with what I asked you?

Seems to me you are trying to slither your way out of answering honestly. If you really want to slink off go ahead even though I made a simple request of you.

I guess it was too much to expect you to man up and admit you had nothing.

If it has been "shown a thousand times" perhaps you should look once for yourself.
I said earlier "we can make a case for the micro yet not scientifically for the macro".
Seriously, apply what you quoted in my last post and see it for yourself. It is the ONLY way you will learn anything.


Sorry you must have misunderstood. Thousands of times it has been sown there is nothing different between Micro and macro. There is no imaginary magical line.

You seem to disagree with that yet can't produce "anything" to corroborate that.

Seems to me you are the one lacking in education here.

So I will say again.

"Science makes no distinction (between micro and macro evolution or what drives it) if you disagree I challenge you to source where science does."

Perhaps you are using a creationist definition of theory as well I don't know but you are going wrong somewhere.



posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 10:58 PM
link   
a reply to: josehelps

Dude, what?



posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 11:03 PM
link   
a reply to: kennyb72







Here is something for you to ponder though. 99% of the species that have inhabited the earth have been extinct for a very long time


Wow, thats what I come to ATS for, who would have thunk.


That was from high school classes. I thought everyone knew that. Who would have thunk indeed.







I hope you are not a believer in the Ark tale because the mental gymnastics for that one have to hurt.


You apparently have read non of my posts or you would not have even said that.


I read the ones to me but to be honest I don't pay you much attention otherwise. I don't care much for broke logic.






You have a strange way about you. It is the way you "try" to be clever. It really is child like IMO


I accept your compliment, thank you.


HAHA. OK



posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 11:28 PM
link   
a reply to: kennyb72

Sorry to have let you down but this thread has been bereft of intellectual responses for several pages so I didn't realize you were actually asking anything in seriousness. For what its worth, I'm all to happy to apologize for my error and assumptions in that regard. As for your query regarding the seat of consciousness, from my perspective, as someone who's background is in Physical Anthropology, its not something that has been a large part of my studies or a focus of my research aside from a proposed hypothesis regarding potential spirituality of Neanderthal. From a personal perspective, I don't see us(humans) any better or any different than any other herd animal on this planet and I've seen more morality from a pack of hunting dogs than I expect to see from the vast majority of people I come in contact with no matter what their spiritual background is. No matter how you look at it, its seems to be a universal process irrespective of scale being the impetus at even the cellular level to reproduce. Again, while I may not be in agree acne with your perspective on this matter, I sincerely do apologize for my hypocritical a d childish outburst that took aim for you. My frustration had its origins elsewhere and I unfortunately happened to see your post and replied in haste.



posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 11:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi



That was from high school classes. I thought everyone knew that. Who would have thunk indeed.


Don't start that with me, I have a third dan in facepalm.



I read the ones to me but to be honest I don't pay you much attention otherwise. I don't care much for broke logic.



Is that the type of Logic that doesn't receive a lot of funding, happens a lot these days I'm afraid.



HAHA. OK


I kinda like ya OK, just joshing with you



posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 11:53 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

That was a very nice well measured reply, thank you. I must confess I have found the arguments rather puerile from both camps, my own perspective being the third alternative and I just started having a bit of fun while trying to maintain a thread of my own understanding of life.



I don't see us(humans) any better or any different than any other herd animal on this planet and I've seen more morality from a pack of hunting dogs than I expect to see from the vast majority of people I come in contact with no matter what their spiritual background is


There is no difference between us, other than the biological suit we inhabit and our slightly more expanded consciousness as humans. In fact within the natural kingdoms, we humans are the only ones that do not directly possess collective consciousness.This is to allow us to develop individuality, a crucial step in our evolution.



No matter how you look at it, its seems to be a universal process irrespective of scale being the impetus at even the cellular level to reproduce.


That certainly takes some explaining away doesn't it?

Thank you for your politeness, it is always a pleasure to break through the computer rage and speak sentient being to sentient being.



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 12:00 AM
link   
a reply to: kennyb72




Don't start that with me, I have a third dan in facepalm.


I was just curious so I typed in "third Dan facepalm" and this is one of the images that came up. lol





Is that the type of Logic that doesn't receive a lot of funding, happens a lot these days I'm afraid.


There is probably a good reason or two for that.



I kinda like ya OK, just joshing with you


lol



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 12:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: kennyb72
I would suggest that cosmology will seriously need to be revised in the near future given that the dirty snowball explanation for comets is just about dead. This will lead to a better understanding as to what exactly is happening and why. The electric universe is probably a closer representation of reality although I am not entirely convinced that it encompasses the entire picture.


Please explain where the current model is wrong and why. Electric universe? Electromagnetism is one of the fundamental forces. What are you trying to say here?


Newtons law of gravity and Einsteins theory of relativity fails to explain gravity beyond observation (one of those “and then magic happens” moments. A consequence of the curvature of spacetime !!! seriously! That is about as nebulous as a belief in a deity.

The effects of gravity are demonstrated and measured on a daily basis. God's effect is not. Attacking science because it's not yet complete is infantile and pointless. Science eventually gets us to the correct answer. If you don't keep experimenting and learning you'll never get anywhere. Once again, break the model down and show me why you disagree. Just saying, "the curvature of spacetime !!! seriously!" isn't going to cut it here if you wish to speak science rather than metaphors and catch phrases.


The theory of gravity is akin to asking how a car works and being told “well you just turn this key and it starts". We have empirical evidence because it does the same thing every time and we can even predict it.


You are confusing the law of gravity with the theory of gravity.


The model for spacetime is another example of groping in the dark with insufficient data to explain this cornerstone of cosmology.


How so?


The entire premise of the big bang theory has so many holes in it that science created dark matter, another TMH (then magic happens) to get around the fact that the theory doesn’t actually add up.

Your understanding of science is very simplistic. Where is magic necessary? Could you explain precisely in detail the holes you speak of?


I am serious when I state that just about every theory proposed by science, is little more that hypothesis. Every aspect of each theory viewed in isolation to the other, groping around in the dark until a loose representation is accepted. The synergy between different forces at work, some of which have not even been detected let alone explored, will one day provide science with a unified theory.


That is laughably absurd. You mentioned the phrase 'armchair scientist' earlier, yet you are sitting here criticizing science using nothing more than sweeping generalizations.


What irritates me most is when armchair scientists hit the boards with absolute confidence in their comprehensive knowledge of the universe, when in reality, all they have is a loose comprehension of a real scientists concepts, which in turn is little more than a nervous representation of what they think may be happening.

And I'm to believe that you know more than these scientists? If so, what are your credentials? Where did you study? What are your facts and how do they differ from theirs? You are speaking authoritatively but offer no substance, just nonstop badgering of science for no apparent reason.


Not one of you has applied even a fraction of the depth of thought that has arrived at these conclusions and yet you make such bold statement that you know how this or that works.

The scientific experiments are public knowledge. If you disagree with the results you can run them yourself.


The truth is you only comprehend what you have been told to believe( I am being generous) although there is a chasm between comprehension and knowing.

Yet you believe what you were told to believe about Pythagorus and try to act like it holds more weight than modern science. You know what they say about casting stones.


The scientific method forces scientists to be myopic, simply because they cannot see the engine that drives the laws, they cannot detect the legs beneath the duck.


Ludicrous. You are assuming that this engine exists. Science doesn't involve assuming. It follows the evidence. Metaphors and catch phrases don't trump actual science, which does work.


The key to the whole enigma is consciousness, and for those who think that my posts are not related to the topic of evolution then please prove it to me, using your own intellect rather than spouting half baked theories.

Abiogenesis is tripe in the sense that science understands it.

I knew it. We're dealing with a scientific illiterate. You guys just bash and attack science for no reason whatsoever. FIrst, abiogenesis is not part of evolution, so you are NOT talking about evolution. That's like the oldest creationist claim in the book, yet here you are using it.

You are very critical of multiple scientific models yet say:

"However it is fundamentally true from the perspective that all matter is conscious to some degree. Minerals are the first of the natural kingdoms and over the course of consciousness evolution the monad consciousness evolves and expands until it requires a new organic shell within the plant kingdom and then through the animal kingdom on to the human kingdom and beyond to the essential kingdom to eventually be free of the physical world to join the divine kingdoms. The process takes billions of years, which is no time at all put in the context of eternity."

Something that is a complete guess and involves numerous assumptions to even begin to think about a model for it.

But yeah, keep bashing science with unsubstantiated catch phrases and one liners. So hopefully your next response will be you breaking down the precise problems with the scientific models you mentioned above with details and evidence rather than than a Jerry Seinfeld style rant minus the humor. Break it down for us ignorant folks that believe science. (No I'm not actually expecting it, but I'd be pleasantly surprised).


Oh well I guess if I have this mysterious desire to survive I had better come up with some way that I can adjust my DNA to make a better "whatever I am".


LMAO! If that is really how you really think evolution works, then what can I say? You obviously are no scientist, nor have you ever taken a single biology class. Guess another scientifically challenged creationist is out of the closet. They always pretend to sound rational at first, but then all fall back on the same fallacies.
edit on 2-12-2014 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 12:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: kennyb72




Don't start that with me, I have a third dan in facepalm.


I was just curious so I typed in "third Dan facepalm" and this is one of the images that came up. lol



Yes, that is close but this guy is only a first Dan.




posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 12:19 AM
link   
a reply to: BlackManINC

So are you going to address my post or not? I mean seriously, I explained exactly how mutations add up and did the calculations and you are still repeating the lie that nobody has shown the model. I want to know why there is a magical barrier that prevents changes from adding up. No creationist ever answers this without dodging the question or ignoring it. Come on, bro. Break the stereotype. Prove you aren't just another one of them. Prove that you know what you are talking about and can have a conversation without the fallacies and insult attempts. And please don't start talking about target food.
edit on 2-12-2014 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 12:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Barcs
Oh dear, I do hope you didn't spend too long composing this response, it does look rather intimidating doesn't it?

I did sort of explain that I wouldn't go though a comparison between conventional wisdom and Hylozoics. This is after all a thread discussing evolution.

Let me be clear! I have a very healthy respect for science and scientists. I have no difficulty in understanding the concepts presented at the theoretical level and I am quite skilful in conceptual, principle and system thinking.

My only objection is the arrogance I witness daily, not so much from scientists themselves, but more so the slightly knowledgable who didn't work up the knowledge from their own efforts, but borrowed it from papers being the results of someone else's hard work.

The world today is in great danger from a scientific community that gives the impression that they have God like knowledge, and are free to risk all of our lives in the name of scientific study. I give due credit to scientific achievements, but I am painfully aware that the motivation for innovation is commercial and military goals, not necessarily in that order. I am afraid that the "lets do it for humanity" aspect is long gone and technology is being implemented more and more to enslave us. If you don't agree with this then please wake the !@#@ up.

My dream is one day, there will be a melding between spirituality and science for the benefit of all mankind and that is the path I wish to follow. I stated earlier I would be happy to discuss my beliefs as they relate to each area of science because the knowledge of Hylozoics allows you to do that.

I am sorry If I come across as aggressive towards science but to be honest I feel very let down.
edit on 2-12-2014 by kennyb72 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 01:26 AM
link   
a reply to: BlackManINC

Actually I said we (you included neighbor) are primates
You use the terms as insults, I did not say they were insulting. Your fear is saddening however.



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 06:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: kennyb72
a reply to: Barcs
Oh dear, I do hope you didn't spend too long composing this response, it does look rather intimidating doesn't it?


Nope, I'm very proficient at typing. I don't try to intimidate. I try to be thorough and address all points. When I see somebody going off on some huge tirade nitpicking scientific models and theories without showing the reasons or even basic details it raises an immediate red flag to me. When I see somebody say that evolution is about a mysterious desire to survive that makes them come up with some way to adjust their DNA, my creationist alarm starts ringing because that's a gross misunderstanding of evolution. But you claim you have no problem understanding the concepts. I'm sorry if I misinterpreted you, but it sounds like exactly that to me.



I did sort of explain that I wouldn't go though a comparison between conventional wisdom and Hylozoics. This is after all a thread discussing evolution.

You don't have to compare your philosophy to others, but if you attack science or make critical claims about it you need to back it up with something other than wishful thinking.


My only objection is the arrogance I witness daily, not so much from scientists themselves, but more so the slightly knowledgable who didn't work up the knowledge from their own efforts, but borrowed it from papers being the results of someone else's hard work.


Trusting science or defending it is not arrogant. It is the opposite. True arrogance is acting like you know more about a certain field or principle than somebody who has studied and worked in the field for decades. There's a reason you trust your mechanic to fix your car or your dentist to fix your teeth. They are trained professional in that line of work, just like scientists when it comes to science. There is nothing wrong with trusting the results of somebody else's work, especially when it's been peer reviewed and confirmed by dozens of other scientists and the experiments are public record that can be challenged by anybody who disagrees.


The world today is in great danger from a scientific community that gives the impression that they have God like knowledge, and are free to risk all of our lives in the name of scientific study. I give due credit to scientific achievements, but I am painfully aware that the motivation for innovation is commercial and military goals, not necessarily in that order. I am afraid that the "lets do it for humanity" aspect is long gone and technology is being implemented more and more to enslave us. If you don't agree with this then please wake the !@#@ up.


The scientific method is reliable for discovering facts and learning how things work. Just because certain individuals have vested interests in certain scientific studies over others and choose to fund them has nothing to do with the reliability of science. We are all slaves to the dollar bill. Money motivates greedy people. None of this is the fault of science or the scientific community, plus you seem to be forgetting all the good it has done for us as a species.

Where would the medical field be today without science? Thanks to science I can hold a device in my hand that can converse with almost anybody anywhere in the world at anytime. Thanks to science we have refrigerators, electricity, cars and countless GOOD things that make our lives better. Thanks to Nasa and their physicists we know more about the universe than we ever have, and may figure out a way to save the earth from impending natural disaster down the road. Science is inherently good, but like anything else, folks with financial interests can abuse it.


My dream is one day, there will be a melding between spirituality and science for the benefit of all mankind and that is the path I wish to follow. I stated earlier I would be happy to discuss my beliefs as they relate to each area of science because the knowledge of Hylozoics allows you to do that.


The scientific method is the scientific method, it should not be melded with anything. If one day we can experiment with spirituality, then it will be no different than it is now. Curious humans, trying to figure out how it works using objective evidence and repeated experiment. But again, it's wishful thinking because as things stand now, there is no objective evidence for the soul, spirit or Hylozoics.


I am sorry If I come across as aggressive towards science but to be honest I feel very let down.


Sorry to hear that. If you feel let down by science, then you must not live in a scientifically developed country, because where I live, it affects every faucet of my daily life and makes it exponentially more convenient. I live in a heated apartment with running water, high speed internet, air conditioning and an oven. I'm just saying that sure beats being outside in the winter huddled around a fire having to catch and cook your own food, sterilize your own water, grow your own vegetables, etc with no way to communicate with anybody outside your immediate region and no understanding whatsoever of the world around you. Yeah, it sure is a let down having electricity and cars, rather than horse and torches or vaccines and cures for diseases.

Maybe it will turn out some day that we discover that all matter is "alive" as you believe, and that the soul exists. Will you criticize the science behind it, the same way that you try to poke holes in scientific models today? I don't think you will. Science being incomplete is what strives us to learn more, and in all likelihood we'll never know everything there is to know about the universe.

Anyways, sorry about the long response, it's kind of what I do. My point is that science is reliable and attacking it is silly. I'd like to follow up with you on the holes you claimed were in those models and theories you listed above. If you have factual data that conflicts with any of them, I'd like to see it, but I don't want to see you list off your personal beliefs about Hylozoics as if they over ride scientific fact. Don't get me wrong, searching for a deeper meaning behind the science can be a good thing, just don't be fooled into thinking that discovering new things proves all the old stuff wrong. It doesn't. It adds to or upgrades our understanding. If we discover a new dimension it adds to what we already know. That wouldn't mean evolution would suddenly go bye bye.



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 07:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Quadrivium
a reply to: Grimpachi
You can simply do this on your own.
FIRST- Apply the definition of science to each (the macro and the micro).
Second- Apply the Scientific Method to each.
If you don't see the line then rinse and repeat.



For the sake of argument, what do you think the definition of science is? Also as a follow up, how does one apply the definition to something?
edit on 2-12-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 07:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Something tells me that the actual definition and implementation of "science", is much more broad and far less constraining than quadrivium likely believes to be the case. I look forward to being wrong on this but I'm pretty certain that their personal definition makes the ability to see the outcome of a chain of events fulfilled incumbent upon the end result.



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 07:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

I am rather tired of this discussion now but I wondered if you could really briefly outline what your particular contribution is to science, not your qualifications as such, just the contributions that you are proud of.

You are obviously very knowledgeable and feel you have a confident grasp of physics, perhaps you would like to take this opportunity to shine a light on how you personally have contributed to the vast knowledge that science has acquired over recent years. Particularly in the field of evolution.

What concerns me most, personally is my own spiritual growth and my struggle to become a "service to others" type of person and being given the opportunity to help others whenever the situation is presented to me. I only mention this because it would be unfair of me to ask you about your own contribution without reciprocating.

During our conversation you appear to come across as rather pragmatic and I thought, if you could tell me what it is that drives you, then I could understand you a little better. I quite understand if you decline and would rather not blow your own trumpet, It is my nature to try to find the good in everyone and I would really like to find a reason to respect you.



Sorry to hear that. If you feel let down by science, then you must not live in a scientifically developed country, because where I live, it affects every faucet of my daily life

I actually have to agree with you on this, all the taps in my house and in fact my entire country are of the low tech variety, however they still work and water flows very efficiently when we turn the knob on the top.
edit on 2-12-2014 by kennyb72 because: punctuation



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 07:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Something tells me that the actual definition and implementation of "science", is much more broad and far less constraining than quadrivium likely believes to be the case. I look forward to being wrong on this but I'm pretty certain that their personal definition makes the ability to see the outcome of a chain of events fulfilled incumbent upon the end result.


What gets me is that his steps include applying the definition of science THEN for step 2 apply the scientific method. I wasn't aware that there were more steps to science outside the scientific method, especially if by saying "apply the definition of science," he didn't mean "apply the scientific method."



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 07:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

Fellow ape man, I`m looking at some of the fossils, and I see nothing at all special about them. There are many creatures that have characteristics of many different kinds. The Seymouria, for example, has features similar to that of reptiles and amphibians, but it isn`t seen as a "transitional fossil " because it appeared too late on the evolutionary timescale. You have the duck billed Platypus, a mammal which has characteristics also seen on Reptiles and birds. There are many other examples seen in nature, like the Seal, that I can chalk up to variety in design.

Your only real "evidence" for these reptiles being "transitional" when it comes down to it is the evolutionary timescale, the age of the earth which I don`t buy into. You still haven`t provided a mechanism for this to occur, as usual you just show similarities and assert "common descent". To start with, for these homologous features to be a result of common ancestry, living fossil or not, the genes that code for these features would also be the same, since we all descended from a single genetic code as evolution demands. Well, it has been discovered that this is not true at all as the genes that code for these features in creatures with homologous features are in fact different. This all starts at the genetic level fellow ape man, so if common descent had any truth to it at all, then the genes would be the same, not different as we see in all homologous creatures.

edit on 2-12-2014 by BlackManINC because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-12-2014 by BlackManINC because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 08:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: BlackManINC
a reply to: Barcs

Fellow ape man, I`m looking at some of the fossils, and I see nothing at all special about them. There are many creatures that have characteristics of many different kinds. The Seymouria, for example, has features similar to that of reptiles and amphibians, but it isn`t seen as a "transitional fossil " because it appeared too late on the evolutionary timescale. You have the duck billed Platypus, a mammal which has characteristics also seen on Reptiles and birds. There are many other examples seen in nature, like the Seal, that I can chalk up to variety in design.


All fossils are transitional fossils. When you die and are buried in the ground. YOU will be a transitional fossil. So to say that the seymouria isn't a transitional fossil is false. It's lineage may have died out, but that doesn't make it not a transitional fossil.


Your only real "evidence" for these reptiles being "transitional" when it comes down to it is the evolutionary timescale, the age of the earth which I don`t buy into. You still haven`t provided a mechanism for this to occur, as usual you just show similarities and assert "common descent". To start with, for these homologous features to be a result of common ancestry, living fossil or not, the genes that code for these features would also be the same, since we all descended from a single genetic code as evolution demands. Well, it has been discovered that this is not true at all as the genes that code for these features in creatures with homologous features are in fact different. This all starts at the genetic level fellow ape man, so if common descent had any truth to it at all, then the genes would be thr same, not different as we see in all homologous creatures.


The genes wouldn't all be the same. If they were all the same, they would be the same animal (like literally, it would be a clone). Common ancestry means that we all had the same ancestor then all branched out down different evolutionary paths, creating a tree like structure (similar in design to a tree in computer science). It is all a very recursive process.



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 42  43  44    46  47  48 >>

log in

join