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: 48
27
<< 45  46  47    49  50  51 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 08:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Quadrivium

I think you just have a bad memory.

Perhaps you should go over your posts in Krazyshots thread about animals poofing into existence.

Maybe you remember that thread if not I will post a link to it.



BTW I liked your qualifiers Science based threads or asked.

You know sometimes people read threads without posting in them don't you? Well you do now.
edit on 2-12-2014 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 08:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax




There, there. Yes, of course they are.

How's your tensor calculus?


Excuse me! I hope you don't mind me asking, How do you get 2,234,060 stars from 9,933 posts as that averages out at nearly 225 stars for every post, Is that anything to do with tensor calculus?
edit on 2-12-2014 by kennyb72 because: forgot to quote



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 09:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Patriotsrevenge

I direct you to the previous 47 pages of this thread.



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 09:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Quadrivium

University papers as in papers one takes towards a degree. Enroll at your nearest University.



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 11:29 PM
link   
I live in a rural area and I see a lot of nature. On a consistent basis over many years I have observed a peculiar phenomena on land far away from rivers or streams.

When a farmer digs a dam for his stock or when a combination of natural springs and recesses in the ground create natural pools of water, after a year or so, the pond starts to come alive with aquatic insects, frogs, plants and fish and pretty soon becomes a perfect self sustaining eco-system.

Many of these small eco-system are too small to attract large birds such as ducks or water fowl and yet water lilly's, sedge grass, fish,frogs all miraculously appear and thrives.

There may be a perfectly scientific explanation for how life appears from nothing and so amazingly quickly. I have read how fish eggs can arrive via birds feet but what are the chances, particularly when there are always a number of fish.
edit on 3-12-2014 by kennyb72 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2014 @ 12:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Quadrivium
a reply to: Barcs
HELLO BARCS!!
It's nice to be back. I miss the "discussions"

I do not remember you posing those questions to me. I will take your word for it though as I have found you to be honest in the past.
The simplest answer that I can give to your query is that you have left science behind and entered the realm of faith. Science can not say that a monkey eventually evolved into a human.....but faith can.
As I have said before, I can not (nor will I try) to prove these have not happened. That actually is not the point. I can say they have not, you can say that they have. But both concepts are faith based.
I guess the "magical line" is the place where science ends and faith takes over. The "theory" is flawed for just this reason. Large parts of biological evolution are based on faith.
COULD IT OF HAPPENED? SURE. Did it actually happen though? No honest way to be sure. You have to take it on faith and faith alone.


It was exactly as I predicted. You didn't address my points. You merely denied them . Basic math shows that random gene mutations will eventually add up and effect a larger portion of the gene, the more generations you have. This is not taken on faith because we can measure a genome from one generation to the next. Not a single aspect is based on faith. If the earth revolves around the sun once per year, would you be taking it on faith that after 1000 years, it will have gone around 1000 times? Remember, YOU GUYS made up the barrier where mutations stop adding up. That is similar to saying that after 500 years the earth stops rotating around the sun and claiming we can't prove macro revolution because we can't witness it going around 1000 times, and that to go from 1 revolution around the sun to 1000 is impossible. It is an extremely illogical viewpoint and simply shows how stubborn you guys are in your position, where all logic gets thrown out the window in favor of a religion.

Over millions of years, cranial capacity can increase. Body hair can be reduced. A pelvis bone can alter the way a creature walks. Intellect can increase. Tails can change size and shape. If all of these genes change within the same several million year time period you have an ape like creature becoming more human like, slowly over time. All of the features didn't just suddenly show up at once. They went through micro evolution of these features at different times. Macro evolution is a misnomer. It's the same process, only with a larger amount of traits being changed. If you have reason or evidence to show that any of the traits I listed above cannot change, then be out with it. Why can't these genes change? That position makes zero sense.
edit on 3-12-2014 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2014 @ 01:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Barcs
Whoah, barcs, I only just noticed, you have an average star count of 772 stars for every post. You evolutionist chaps with your opinions seem to be very popular. Well done! you have 1 star so far so only 771 to go, exciting!

Ahh, mystery solved, a glitch, although I find it incredibly hard to believe that the data could be wrong!!!

I mean, that sort of thing couldn't possibly happen could it?, not with modern technology and science in the 21st century could it?
edit on 3-12-2014 by kennyb72 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2014 @ 04:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Patriotsrevenge

originally posted by: tavi45
a reply to: TechUnique

Except you obviously don't care about science. You are just hoping to use pseudoscience to validate beliefs you already have. The theory of evolution developed from observable evidence over hundreds of years by people who weren't trying to prove it wrong. They were merely observing.



Show one verifiable change in any animal turning into another animal. Evolution is complete BS and if you ask any scientist they will admit that it is all a guess based off fossil records, meaning they made it up to deny GOD. Also there is the Missing Link, By the way Monkeys are still Monkeys!! Neanderthals were shown to be another species all together and were killed off by Man.


(Facepalm)
All of the above has been answered before, in this thread and others. Why do creationists do this? Why do they ask the same questions, wait for answers, ignore or deride the answers and then ask the same questions, pretending that they haven't been answered??? Oh, wait a sec...



posted on Dec, 3 2014 @ 06:22 AM
link   
a reply to: AngryCymraeg



(Facepalm)
All of the above has been answered before, in this thread and others. Why do creationists do this? Why do they ask the same questions, wait for answers, ignore or deride the answers and then ask the same questions, pretending that they haven't been answered??? Oh, wait a sec...


That's because nothing has been answered satisfactorily.

But don't let that get in the way of a good facepalm.



posted on Dec, 3 2014 @ 06:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: kennyb72
a reply to: AngryCymraeg



(Facepalm)
All of the above has been answered before, in this thread and others. Why do creationists do this? Why do they ask the same questions, wait for answers, ignore or deride the answers and then ask the same questions, pretending that they haven't been answered??? Oh, wait a sec...


That's because nothing has been answered satisfactorily.

But don't let that get in the way of a good facepalm.


Ladies and gentlemen, an excellent example of the kind of thing that creationists do. They demand answers to their questions. They get answers based on science. They either don't understand the answers or they deny the validity of the research that the answers are based on, as they cannot bring themselves to admit that their own personal beliefs are flawed. Therefore they then announce that the answers are unsatisfactory and re-state the same questions. This happens again and again until everyone is blue in the face.



posted on Dec, 3 2014 @ 06:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Quadrivium

I see the point of that analogy flew right over your head. The point is that I don't HAVE to see how the process finishes to know what happens at the end. I know the processes that develop the smaller piles and the process to develop the mountain is the same, therefore it reasons that if you stack enough, you'll get a mountain. Deductive logic isn't faith.
edit on 3-12-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2014 @ 07:17 AM
link   
a reply to: AngryCymraeg




Ladies and gentlemen, an excellent example of the kind of thing that creationists do. They demand answers to their questions. They get answers based on science. They either don't understand the answers or they deny the validity of the research that the answers are based on, as they cannot bring themselves to admit that their own personal beliefs are flawed. Therefore they then announce that the answers are unsatisfactory and re-state the same questions. This happens again and again until everyone is blue in the face.



I am afraid that this will continue to happen while two diametrically opposed views are discussed and neither party is prepared to concede even slightly, and how can they in all honestly? I tried to explain in previous posts that that there are two levels of consciousness in play here. There are those who have access to a causal consciousness which is what some like to call a biological quantum computer where information is downloaded as intuition.

The truth is clear to see for these people and is lucid and vivid to those with this faculty. I have arrived at the conclusion that the hemispheric differences between left and right brained people i.e. the Logical pragmatic thinker and the intuitive dreamers(for want of a better word, as this is not a derogatory term) is the reason we can't see each others point of view.

Where most people utilise both hemispheres, some are developed more in one hemisphere than the other. Right brained people rely heavily on intuition which is very reliable, although science can not come close to understanding this until consciousness is fully explored.

Left brained people are trained to use the left hemisphere, particularly the scientific mind which has enormous capacity for logic but has an atrophied right brain. We really should get our heads together sometime and explore the big picture and try to arrive at solutions by listening to each other rather than battling.

I have pointed out that for this to be viable proposition, creative thought and discourse is the only way forward. To have other peoples work thrown up all the time does not meet that criteria.

edit on 3-12-2014 by kennyb72 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2014 @ 07:23 AM
link   
a reply to: kennyb72

Are you seriously saying that scientists cannot enjoy art, or that artists cannot have an interest in science? Scientists have an 'atrophied' right side of the brain??? What? Please cite evidence for this.



posted on Dec, 3 2014 @ 07:29 AM
link   
a reply to: kennyb72

Left Brain – Right Brain Myth


A 2013 study directly addressed this question with functional MRI scanning of different subjects.

"Lateralization of brain connections appears to be a local rather than global property of brain networks, and our data are not consistent with a whole-brain phenotype of greater “left-brained” or greater “right-brained” network strength across individuals. Small increases in lateralization with age were seen, but no differences in gender were observed."

What they found when they looked at thousands of regions in the brain is that there were localized hubs of activity associated with specific tasks, but no global pattern of hemisphere dominance. Despite Morton’s claims and popular belief that people sort into a binary system of left- or right-brained, looking at brain activity did not support this claim.


Left Brain vs. Right: It's a Myth, Research Finds


There is a misconception that everything to do with being analytical is confined to one side of the brain, and everything to do with being creative is confined to the opposite side, Anderson said. In fact, it is the connections among all brain regions that enable humans to engage in both creativity and analytical thinking.

"It is not the case that the left hemisphere is associated with logic or reasoning more than the right," Anderson told LiveScience. "Also, creativity is no more processed in the right hemisphere than the left."

Anderson's team examined brain scans of participants ages 7 to 29 while they were resting. They looked at activity in 7,000 brain regions, and examined neural connections within and between these regions. Although they saw pockets of heavy neural traffic in certain key regions, on average, both sides of the brain were essentially equal in their neural networks and connectivity.


Sorry but you are trying to push urban legend science here. The right brain left brain paradigm is a myth.



posted on Dec, 3 2014 @ 07:32 AM
link   
a reply to: AngryCymraeg
Wow, you gave that a lot of thought didn't you.

I can offer an example which I can testify for as a musician, I have worked with and performed with many classically trained musicians who are quite brilliant with their instruments. I have also worked with many people who learned their art through self tuition, usually non readers. Out of all of them the most creative and innovative where the non readers who really couldn't be bothered with the mathematical aspect of music and concentrated on making music. This has been a common experience throughout my life.

I am certainly not suggesting that a scientist can't enjoy music but I do hold that they are less likely to be creative in the arts.



posted on Dec, 3 2014 @ 07:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: kennyb72
a reply to: AngryCymraeg
Wow, you gave that a lot of thought didn't you.

I can offer an example which I can testify for as a musician, I have worked with and performed with many classically trained musicians who are quite brilliant with their instruments. I have also worked with many people who learned their art through self tuition, usually non readers. Out of all of them the most creative and innovative where the non readers who really couldn't be bothered with the mathematical aspect of music and concentrated on making music. This has been a common experience throughout my life.

I am certainly not suggesting that a scientist can't enjoy music but I do hold that they are less likely to be creative in the arts.


I see, you have no actual proof for this theory of yours, just some anecdotes about musical people. Well, here are some anecdotes from me that have equal validity because they're, well, anecdotes. I work in the financial journalism industry. I know some extremely talented amateur musicians who also happen to be underwriters and analysts in Lloyd's of London, where they deal with highly technical aspects of insurance. A friend of my wife has a PhD in chemistry and yet is somehow also a talented self-taught violinist. I have a degree in history and yet I love writing fiction and I'm teaching myself to play the guitar.



posted on Dec, 3 2014 @ 07:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t



Sorry but you are trying to push urban legend science here. The right brain left brain paradigm is a myth.



How a scientists could ever suggest, that the primitive equipment used to measure electromagnetic energy on the surface of the brain believe that it is any indication for the workings of the mind, really need to spend more time using his right hemisphere but of course that's not possible because it doesn't work particularly well.



posted on Dec, 3 2014 @ 07:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: kennyb72
a reply to: AngryCymraeg
Wow, you gave that a lot of thought didn't you.

I can offer an example which I can testify for as a musician, I have worked with and performed with many classically trained musicians who are quite brilliant with their instruments. I have also worked with many people who learned their art through self tuition, usually non readers. Out of all of them the most creative and innovative where the non readers who really couldn't be bothered with the mathematical aspect of music and concentrated on making music. This has been a common experience throughout my life.

I am certainly not suggesting that a scientist can't enjoy music but I do hold that they are less likely to be creative in the arts.


Well as we've seen in your own posts; the average, self taught, laymen, making stuff up at home isn't equivalent to trained and experienced scientists using the scientific method in the field. Not even close.


edit on 3-12-2014 by Prezbo369 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2014 @ 07:51 AM
link   
a reply to: AngryCymraeg



I have a degree in history and yet I love writing fiction and I'm teaching myself to play the guitar.



You missed the point entirely, I didn't say a left brained person couldn't be a brilliant musician I am saying that they are less equipped to be creative in writing their own compositions. I am in no position to judge how well you right fiction but it is not a hard rule but certainly a strong trend in my objective experience.



edit on 3-12-2014 by kennyb72 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2014 @ 07:59 AM
link   
a reply to: kennyb72

Yes that is the par for the course with you. Scientific information is provided that says you are wrong and you just hand wave it away in favor of your confirmation bias. This is why I stopped talking to you originally.



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 45  46  47    49  50  51 >>

log in

join