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: 50
27
<< 47  48  49    51  52  53 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 3 2014 @ 02:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: kennyb72
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?


Holy crap. I just noticed that. It looks to me like the count should be 2038 + 739. Looks like a glitch has been going around giving folks extra zeros. My ratio has been just over 1:1 for a while now. I'll contact a mod about fixing it. I get a lot of stars, but certainly not that much!

Funny how you use this as an excuse to attack science again. Nothing is perfect. This software was written by a programmer. Humans make mistakes, technology wears out. As a computer expert I understand how glitches like this can happen, and it has nothing to do with the reliability of science. Hard drives go bad, files change over time, fragments of data get lost during copies, etc. But lets pretend this means that science is unreliable. LOL!


My observation is that there is not one critical thinker amongst all of the pro evolutionists on this thread to date, and I am hanging around hoping one will show up. In the meantime I will continue to highlight your own absurdities and ridicule each of you when you pick on friendly people who actually have faith in something that is good.


So you insult the science supporters, yet you refuse to offer anything to counter the evidence they have posted or the science experiments that prove evolution. Where is your argument? When are you going to back up what you said about big bang theory and comets and the so called holes in those models?


At least I can hold my head up as a lone wolf, compared to the pack animal mentality that is prevalent here, where you just jump in with jibes and then star each other as if you have been clever.


Being part of the rare minority that denies science in favor of a belief system, doesn't make your opinion hold more weight. The science supporters post evidence and science experiments. You post nothing but personal opinion.


The only thing that can deter me is a valid argument of which I am still waiting.


Now that's hilarious! This is coming from the same guy who called gravity a flawed model because, "The curvature of space time?????? WHAT???" If you refuse to offer a valid argument for your position, it is hypocritical to demand that from others. Blindly believing your faith as fact does not make you a critical thinker. It makes you a follower, and even worse because there isn't anything to verify your position, which completely consists of insulting the opposing viewpoint and scientists that work in the field (some of whom post here).
edit on 3-12-2014 by Barcs because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 3 2014 @ 03:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Quadrivium
a reply to: Barcs
Barc, I did address your points. You just did not like the answers.
I never said those changes "could not have happened". They very well may have but if you think they did then you have to take that on faith. You BELIEVE they happened because , to you, it makes perfect sense. But it is only a belief. It is faith. It is not science my friend.


You did not answer my points. You repeated the original argument. How do you not see this? If you can't explain why certain traits cannot change or mutations cannot add up, you are not addressing my points. It makes sense to me because the math adds up and evolution has been measured in genomes. You have not yet demonstrated any reason whatsoever to suggest otherwise.

This is exactly why creationists are not taken seriously. They cling on to the same outdated lies as their primary argument, despite being corrected and showing sources that say you are wrong, then the evidence is ignored and the original point is repeated. I'd wager money that your next response will be exactly that, or you will disappear from the thread, only to return to the section in a few months rehashing the same false claims.

Again, do you take it on faith that in 1000 years the earth will have revolved around the sun 1000 times barring some epic natural disaster? Is that based on faith or fact? Stop saying you are addressing points, because you clearly are ignoring them. When I respond to folks I break down every single point they make and I do it thoroughly. Creationists simply don't have the same respect in general. They think everybody is wrong except the bible and refuse to see it any other way.
edit on 3-12-2014 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2014 @ 03:18 PM
link   
a reply to: flyingfish

Haha feel free, my friend!



posted on Dec, 3 2014 @ 03:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: kennyb72
You are right, our exchange ends here, and this, my last post really brings us to the crux of where our opinions clash. It is quite irritating to have self elected wikipedia enthusiasts who thoroughly enjoy preaching, babble on about what they have learned, when we have already made these enquiries ourselves.


It's not about opinions clashing. It's about you attacking science seemingly without justification, then when asked to back up your claims you changed the subject and focus of the conversation to me. Science isn't an opinion. Science is a method of learning facts. The experiments that have been referenced are public knowledge and have been scrutinized and peer reviewed by dozens of other scientists to ensure accuracy. Anybody who understands science can attempt to recreate them. Attacking it does not help anybody unless you do so with facts and contradictory data. THAT is how science keeps the knowledge flowing. I'd still like to see your data that conflicts with the theories you mentioned, or heck, I'd take ANYTHING from you at this point that isn't ramblings based on personal faith.


There is nothing you have to contribute that we haven't read or spent time considering , we simply disagree with the scientific view. We try to explain why we disagree, to attempt to find common ground for discussion, and are then derided for not believing in your God.


I'm agnostic, but god has nothing to do with this conversation. I'm defending science from irrational attacks. I've been doing it for years. I don't care if god exists or not. But yeah, I'm just that armchair scientist that asks folks to back up their claims rather than blindly believing them. You act like you know quite a bit about science, but we all know that isn't true. Nobody that understands science says something like "The theory of gravity is like telling somebody how a car starts by turning a key" or talks about evolution rearranging DNA because a creature wants to.

OMG! What have you contributed to field of biology? What works have you had published. What contributions have you made to the music industry as a musician? If you haven't made any that means you have nothing to contribute and shouldn't be making music! Red herrings are funny.


We are most definitely at the disadvantage due to the fact that we can't provide evidence to people who walk about with their eyes closed,when the truth is right in front of them. I can only compare it with, pointing out a rainbow to a blind person, or asking a deaf person to enjoy a beautiful piece of music. You so want them to experience it because you know what a joy it is, but have to resign to the fact that they simply don't have the faculties to appreciate it.


More cryptic nonsense. WHAT EVIDENCE? You haven't posted anything aside from ramblings about Pythagoras and broad generalizations about scientific models! It's absolutely hilarious when scientific data is ignored in favor of faith and how the faith supporters ALWAYS talk down to anybody that disagrees. Sorry but there is no objective evidence for any god or any creation event. There is no scientific evidence that suggests electric universe is plausible, and there is no evidence that your world view is true. Stop acting condescending about it. Admit it's faith and move on. This is a science thread, not a personal philosophy one.


Just consider for one moment, how wonderful it must be, to have an original thought and then discuss it with other intellectuals. Not that this is likely to happen to any of you guys, but if it ever does, you may have to search around for a forum with open minded, thinking people, a rarity in this day and age of modern science I am sorry to say.


LOL! More insults to our intelligence. Am I to believe that applies to you!? LMAO! Yeah it's about open mindedness, right? Because your mind is open to the science, right? Stop being a hypocrite. You believe something based on personal faith alone and are acting like it's truth and there's something wrong with people who don't agree. It's like whining about how bad the color red is, when it's pure opinion. Sorry to say, but intellectuals do not talk down to others and make fun of anybody who has a different opinion. All you have done in this thread is attack science foolishly and not backed a single thing up. I'm still waiting for your explanation of how the theory of gravity is simply telling folks to turn a key like starting a car, or that creatures can influence genetic mutations because they think it's a good idea, or that the current model of comets is dying, etc etc etc. Back your stuff up, or go in a thread were people are discussing faith. This is about science, and you have offered absolutely nothing of substance to this thread.

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



posted on Dec, 3 2014 @ 04:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs
You really can't see it, can you Barcs?
I have already said that what you have described may have very well happened. The point I have been making is that you have to take it on faith. It may sound good, it may fit your criteria but you still have to take it on faith.
You are accusing me of things that I have not done in this thread or others. I have always tried to answer your questions and if I have had to leave then it has nothing to do with the questions I assure you.

Yes Barcs, as a matter of fact I do take it on faith that in 1000 years the earth would have traveled around the sun 1000 times. It is a faith based question. You have faith that the earth and/or the sun will be here in 1000 years. This is not a fact and neither is macroevolution.



posted on Dec, 3 2014 @ 06:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Quadrivium



It's not about "takeing it on faith" it is about looking at the evidence and seeing how ALL the evidence is explained by the theory. If you are still skeptical then it is up to you to show that the theory does not explain certain evidence or to provide a better explanation. Dismissal is just a cop-out response, not a real unbiased evaluation.

Explain in your own words what "macroevolution" is..

GetHyped!!!
Check out my new signature!



posted on Dec, 3 2014 @ 06:30 PM
link   
a reply to: flyingfish

Currently the best sig I've seen on ATS yet!



posted on Dec, 3 2014 @ 06:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: flyingfish

GetHyped!!!
Check out my new signature!


Haha brilliant!!



posted on Dec, 3 2014 @ 06:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: flyingfish
a reply to: Quadrivium



It's not about "takeing it on faith" it is about looking at the evidence and seeing how ALL the evidence is explained by the theory. If you are still skeptical then it is up to you to show that the theory does not explain certain evidence or to provide a better explanation. Dismissal is just a cop-out response, not a real unbiased evaluation.

Explain in your own words what "macroevolution" is..

GetHyped!!!
Check out my new signature!


While he's at it, I'd like for him to also answer these questions. Great signature!



posted on Dec, 3 2014 @ 07:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

Oh Brics, Please read this again and tell me you don't feel a little tingle of embarrassment.



LOL! More insults to our intelligence. Am I to believe that applies to you!? LMAO! Yeah it's about open mindedness, right? Because your mind is open to the science, right? Stop being a hypocrite. You believe something based on personal faith alone and are acting like it's truth and there's something wrong with people who don't agree. It's like whining about how bad the color red is, when it's pure opinion. Sorry to say, but intellectuals do not talk down to others and make fun of anybody who has a different opinion. All you have done in this thread is attack science foolishly and not backed a single thing up. I'm still waiting for your explanation of how the theory of gravity is simply telling folks to turn a key like starting a car, or that creatures can influence genetic mutations because they think it's a good idea, or that the current model of comets is dying, etc etc etc. Back your stuff up, or go in a thread were people are discussing faith. This is about science, and you have offered absolutely nothing of substance to this thread.


Ok, I will discuss this further with you.

Anybody entering this thread, that has not supported the scientific view, has been subjected to outright aggression, hence MY tone. Out of all the ankle biting terrier on this thread, you come across as a more reasonable person although it is marginal.


I had read about Rupert Sheldrake's work in the 90's and felt that his explanation for natural phenomena, that has not been satisfactorily explained by science, was a reasonable hypothesis given that science had no explanation whatsoever.

His work hadn't come into my thoughts until yesterday when I used "Morphic Resonance" as part of my reasoning in another post.

When I was at the "Scientific America" website, I noticed an area of enquiry that will explain much of what I believe, which is Panpsychism

I will direct you to Google, to view my opinions on so called settled science, for many of the theories that are currently popular. Simply type "objection to"(name your theory) and you will see my standpoint, I simply can't be bothered going through it all with you.

Please don't call this lazy, because it is exactly what your pack of rabid terriers do including yourself. You all feel so safe, by pointing out a clever persons point of view, but only when you feel you are on a safe bet.

If any of you where scientists, which obviously non of you are! you would know that a theory is only as good as the latest data available and that assumptions have to be made throughout the entire process.

It is these assumptions that fall into the category of subjectivity, this subjectivity is usually settled by peer review to ascertain the general consensus. As we all know Peer review is a flawless system "NOT"

Any scientist who would deny, that the entire foundation of current knowledge could crumble tomorrow,in the face of overwhelming evidence, is not worth his salt. Even the experts are not so certain about their position, as most of the people here.

This brings me back to my comments regarding critical thinking. None of you actually do it!
Your version of this could be best described as critical listening. You contribute nothing to the debate other than regurgitated stalled science.

I sourced a lecture by Sheldrake so you can get a little closer in understanding our differences.

Firstly I must state unequivocally that I don't agree with his point of view beyond perhaps 20%, but he is on the right track. What I do agree with at least 90% is Pythagorean Hylozoics as explained by Henry T Laurency in The Philosophers Stone and several of his other works.

Laurency was a prolific writer and his work was transcribed from Swedish by a modern philosopher by the name of Lars Adelscogh, His book entitled "The Explanation" is a breakdown of some of Laurency's work in more laymens terms and can be accessed from the same site. All free of course as all knowledge should be.

I challenge anybody here to read through Laurency and not be left with a profound sense of understanding, although I caution you that it will take a long time to read and digest and will challenge your beliefs. If you really want to understand this material, you must study his work. Skimming will leave you totally baffled as you have to fully understand one concept to understand the next. You may be surprised that Laurency's beliefs where much the same as many European Philosophers of the last century, and please don't tell me you don't believe in philosophy.

I would love to discuss this subject with any of you, and how it related to evolution, as I am now able to speak with some degree of confidence.

I will leave you with Sheldrakes video of one of his lectures, where he explains his theories but also highlights the dishonesty of science in relation to fluctuating constants. Cognitive dissonance indeed.

I sincerely hope that any of you can muster up an attention span long enough to spend an hour with Sheldrake or a year or so with Laurency (although I doubt it) to gain an understanding of the true meaning of reality. Laurency will challenge your intellectual capacity to it's limits, so if you have difficulty understanding deep concepts, just stick with Lars Adelskogh (or evolution theory) as he is a little more gentle on the grey matter.

The more you absorb and concretise the information presented, the more able you will be to hold an intelligent conversation on science in general, life in detail, but more importantly, form your own personal opinions.

I need to emphasise that none of this has anything to do with religion, but is the foundation that all religions have been built upon and you will quickly see why religion is absurd, and how some religions where created to become a power base for the elite few.



If you can't be bothered to pursue this line of reasoning, please understand why I now refuse to spend any more time paddling through your endless void of ignorance as any self respecting Meerkat would.



posted on Dec, 3 2014 @ 07:39 PM
link   
a reply to: kennyb72

I wouldn't attempt to try and call the scientists here in this thread none scientists.
I know many are and actually work in this subject.
Sorry bub but they make sense and you just don't understand science.
At least they link backed up facts....I have not seen any in your posts.


edit on 3-12-2014 by boymonkey74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2014 @ 07:40 PM
link   
a reply to: flyingfish




I dont think you would know sound science if it came up to you and waved its balls in your face- GetHyped


So you are saying Science is a load of balls!! or maybe acoustic science is a load of balls, I am not quite sure what you are getting at, but I don't think it is particularly well thought out.




posted on Dec, 3 2014 @ 07:40 PM
link   
a reply to: kennyb72

Well everyone else understood it do you want me to spell it out slowly?.



posted on Dec, 3 2014 @ 07:43 PM
link   
a reply to: boymonkey74
You are clearly mistaken and my name is not bub, get a brain, do some thinking and please try to evolve, you are lagging behind, Oh, the UK perhaps not then.

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



posted on Dec, 3 2014 @ 07:44 PM
link   
a reply to: kennyb72

Sorry bub but I think the name fits



posted on Dec, 3 2014 @ 07:46 PM
link   
a reply to: boymonkey74
It is just exasperating the level of stupidity you see on these boards sometimes. Get back to your populist, star attracting friends and leave the talking to the adults, there's a good chap.



posted on Dec, 3 2014 @ 07:48 PM
link   
a reply to: kennyb72

Says someone who has no idea of what a scientific theory actually is.
But hey you can redeem yourself by actually backing up your views with fact not just opinion.
Oh and good job guys putting up with the ignorant and blind....you have far more patience than I.


edit on 3-12-2014 by boymonkey74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2014 @ 07:49 PM
link   
a reply to: boymonkey74

Do you understand the word Puerile, Oh OK, that might be a bit hard, Do you understand the word "Understand", I realise it contains three syllables but it is a word more commonly used.



posted on Dec, 3 2014 @ 07:52 PM
link   
a reply to: boymonkey74

You have been so quick to post you missed my earlier post that lists my objections and why. As it is not my intention to fill this thread with wiki quotes, I am attempting to attract an intellectual discussion based on individual opinions, which apparently no one seems to have.



posted on Dec, 3 2014 @ 07:58 PM
link   
a reply to: boymonkey74

I won't be bullied off this thread the way you do with others with an opposing point of view. I shall patiently wait for somebody intelligent to come along who actually has manners.



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 47  48  49    51  52  53 >>

log in

join