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: 53
27
<< 50  51  52    54  55  56 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 4 2014 @ 02:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: kennyb72
a reply to: Astyanax

Oh Ok, Hello

point1
I am a confirmed believer(yes I said that word) in intelligent design, which if one where to read between the lines so was Charles Darwin in his later years. One does not throw away a life long reputation because you have changed your mind. Towards the end of his life he pondered on the complexity of the eye and how it could ever be possible for a process of mutating genes to arrive at such a complex biological mechanism.

point2
The second law of Thermodynamics dictates that order deteriorates to disorder without outside influence and yet we are told that evolution creates self organising systems that strive to create order without any assistance.
So which of these opposing views are correct?

Point3
The much vaunted fossil record does not support Macro evolution, yes, yes, I understand the reasoning of incremental changes but there is no evidence and you can argue until you are blue in the face, it does not change this fact.

Therfore it is a faith based theory.

I hope you are not just being nice to stab me in the back, I will be so disappointed! It is more than a MeerKat can bear.



Point 1: What does it matter what Darwin BELIEVED in in his later years?

Point 2: Ah the second Law of Thermodynamics trope.
Why do creationists always misunderstand that (or rather, twist it to fit...).
Why do you attempt to use something you don't understand to explain something else you don't understand?

That Law refers to a CLOSED system.
From a physics perspective, the evolution of living organisms is not closed system so that law cannot apply.

friendsofdarwin.com...

Point 3: There's plenty of evidence in the fossil record for macroevolution and it's there whether you accept it or not.
www.windows2universe.org...

So it's not a faith based theory, at best it can be called an hypothesis and a baseless one at that.



edit on 4/12/14 by Pardon? because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 4 2014 @ 03:50 AM
link   
I see that the thread has succumbed to the usual fate of such threads - creationists (or proponents of ID) denying the validity of scientific research, people who have studied evolution then bringing in new examples of proof or taking the time to explain past examples, only to be roundly ignored or dismissed by creationists who then repeat their points as if they had not been answered (when in fact they had). This happens again and again on this site, so some people can get understandably annoyed when creationists tell them that they lack intellectual rigor.
And I also see that two of the hoary old creationist tropes have emerged - the second law of thermodynamics and existence of the eye. Both have been fully answered elsewhere. And both have been fully answered in here as well. I note that said explanation have already been dismissed as 'insufficient'. What a surprise. Not.
What next - Darwin's work was so poor that he wasn't given a Nobel Prize?



posted on Dec, 4 2014 @ 04:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: BlackManINC
a reply to: WakeUpBeer

I`ve addressed almost every piece of so called evidence for common descent since I started pages ago and ripped them all to shreds. Quite frankly, I`ve grown tired of this eternal cycle of circular arguments coming from the ape men, I`m finished addressing this foolishness.



Again you lie.
You have done nothing of the sort.
Good please If you do come back to this thread actually practice what you preach instead of being a big fat liar.



posted on Dec, 4 2014 @ 04:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: kennyb72
a reply to: WakeUpBeer

It is a circular argument because I am using this example to suggest that if in fact evolution was responsible for creating the eye then why would it do so selectively. Why did evolution favour humans over dogs, or birds over humans for that matter.

Why are we not all super animals with every faculty at it's pinnacle of perfection, why don't humans live to be a thousand years of age, screw evolution, we got a raw deal. Unless something else decided the order of things of course.



Hi Kennyb72,

Just wanted to say that there is a process in Nature known as life history. Where life has two main routes.

One, where longevity of the organism is priority. The other where future offspring is the priority.

Life History

The organism through natural selection can either have prolonged longevity as its reproduction speed is reduced. While another organism would produce as much offspring as possible and the recurring factor is a relatively short life. Like Salmon for example.



Organisms have evolved a great variety of life histories, from Pacific salmon, which produce thousands of eggs at one time and then die, to human beings, who produce a few offspring over the course of decades


You make a good point about why are we not at perfect form on all levels and why are we the dominant force here.

Like all creatures, external forces can inhibit or benefit species. We as humans have had more of the good rather than the bad. Mainly IMO due to us spreading far and wide. The more offspring a species can produce the more can mix and so on and so on. Slowly perfecting to their environment. Just look at current races of humans. Depending on the environment they have specific features. Yes we are still all human but we are still new as a species compared to others. Yet we have physically changed far faster than other species. Give it another couple million years at this rate. Human Races could be considered different species.



posted on Dec, 4 2014 @ 04:39 AM
link   
a reply to: boymonkey74


boymonkey, I do wish you could resist the urge to aggressively attack people, it was because of this attitude that I jumped onto the thread in the first place, I just felt I needed to cover someones back to protect them from a pack of wild animals. Witnessing the behaviour on this thread alone is almost enough evidence to refute the cases for evolution.

I am sorry I was aggressive towards you earlier, I was busy licking my wounds when you showed up.

I think I will return to my default position of lurking, as this whole experience has left me feeling rather jaded.



posted on Dec, 4 2014 @ 04:46 AM
link   
a reply to: kennyb72

No problem.
I just wish people would look at the evidence people have shown.
The evidence is all in this thread kindly given by ATS members more intelligent than myself and they have the patience to continue the debate while repeating themselves while bashing their heads against a wall because some folk ignore or dismiss the evidence so easily.
Blackman is blinded by his religion, he sees nothing but that and has no hope of evolving into a better human being.
I just hope he has nothing to do with education or kids.
At least you ask decent questions.
edit on 4-12-2014 by boymonkey74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2014 @ 04:59 AM
link   
If anyone wants a great answer to the issue of how to address creationists then I would suggest that you look up the Lenski Affair, which remains my favourite example of creationist hubris.



posted on Dec, 4 2014 @ 05:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Maltese5Rhino

Thanks Maltese5Rhino, That clearly is a process that we can witness throughout the natural kingdom, I am a proponent of ID and so I really have no problem accepting micro evolution after some of the discussion on this thread and I have come to believe it to be a design feature.

In fact, If an intelligent entity could design a fully functioning life form of any complexity, it certainly would build in a degree of adaptability.

If you could imagine we where so powerful in manipulating energy (in other words everything) and our task was to Terraform a world,You would have to design a multitude of flora and fauna and you would build prototypes to test out suitability and multiple iterations to achieve a well balance system

In fact if you designed the system well enough, Its life forms could almost come up with a theory that the whole thing happened naturally. Except for the origin of life itself bit and that would completely stuff up the whole concept.

Thank you for your politeness.



posted on Dec, 4 2014 @ 05:13 AM
link   
a reply to: kennyb72

If we were created why did the creator do such a bad job?.
We can't eat and breath at the same time resulting in thousands of deaths a year, Chimps can do it.
Why can't God just have made the rules of evolution eh?.





edit on 4-12-2014 by boymonkey74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2014 @ 05:17 AM
link   
a reply to: boymonkey74

I know some people who can't walk and chew gum at the same time, that is very comical to watch when they get out of sync.



posted on Dec, 4 2014 @ 05:20 AM
link   
a reply to: kennyb72

Another video about the eye.




posted on Dec, 4 2014 @ 05:36 AM
link   
a reply to: boymonkey74

Someone once told me that we were made in God's image. I replied that in that case God must have a bad back, get chest complaints really easily and must stub his toe on a regular basis. Humanity is not perfect.



posted on Dec, 4 2014 @ 06:44 AM
link   
a reply to: kennyb72

Well to be perfectly honest with you. I have always humored the idea somewhat like a paradox.

Where we ourselves, are our own ID. We are already at the stage of cloning and manipulating cells and DNA strands.

A while back the human race cloned a horse. As far as I am aware this Horse has no clue that it is purely a creation by man. Mainly due to it's own limited intelligence compared to it's creator. Who knows? we could have gotten to a point where we recreated our own planet from head to toe based on the previous plan etc etc.

But alas for me, there isn't what I would like to call proof of ID. There is speculation. While evolution isn't perfect, it does surmise a lot for me. After all it is because of these discussions, the questions, the points addressed on both sides picking out the issues. It is all for the benefit of knowledge. If we all took an idea or theory as solid. No one questions it. We cant progress. Creator or not.



posted on Dec, 4 2014 @ 06:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: kennyb72

No problem.
I just wish people would look at the evidence people have shown.
The evidence is all in this thread kindly given by ATS members more intelligent than myself and they have the patience to continue the debate while repeating themselves while bashing their heads against a wall because some folk ignore or dismiss the evidence so easily.
Blackman is blinded by his religion, he sees nothing but that and has no hope of evolving into a better human being.
I just hope he has nothing to do with education or kids.

At least you ask decent questions.


So you are actually suggesting that I "evolve" into a better human being? I would take this statement seriously if it wasn't coming from an ape man, oh the irony. Kenny compares your kinds behavior to that of wild animals, and he`s not too far off on his assertion. I would sincerely hope that someone who call themselves wild animals would have absolutely nothing to do with education, but sadly they make up the lions share, so its no wonder why our society is in the toilet.


edit on 4-12-2014 by BlackManINC because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-12-2014 by BlackManINC because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2014 @ 07:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: BlackManINC
a reply to: kennyb72

In the minds of most evolutionists, the origin of life is a seperate issue. The few that still preach abiogenesis AKA chemical evolution are just throwing the problem into outer space about it all starting with aliens and floating rocks. The level of stupidity will reach its peak pretty soon.



You just confused the Panspermia and Abiogenesis hypotheses. Which is odd because you correctly described Abiogenesis as a chemical process...



posted on Dec, 4 2014 @ 07:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Maltese5Rhino

That is close to my beliefs actually, I am convinced that we have an eternal soul that returns many times in human form through reincarnation. The goal is to expand our consciousness through our own experiences of many lifetimes. When our consciousness reaches a certain level we advance onto the 5th Natural Kingdom and exist on a different plane as a group consciousness while maintaining our individual identity. You would identify with who you are now, but also have memories, skills and attributes of millions of live of experience at your disposal.

Because the Kingdoms are hierarchical, there are many collective consciousness, beyond that on higher planes who's task it is to facilitate the conscious evolution of we on the physical plane. Including re-terraforming from time to time and organism creation suitable for the environment.

All higher planes encompass the lower planes and through the manipulation of energy are able to manifest in our dimension at will. They are us and we shall one day be them, as they in turn combine with even larger collectives ultimately becoming melding into the universal consciousness with hard earned individuality.

I can imagine it getting a little messy at the very top though. "I'm am God", "oh no your not, I'm God" and all these voices from everywhere shouting "oi what you talking about, i'm God". And then the war in heaven starts. Every body destroys each other and the process starts all over again.

Apart from the silly bit at the end I think once we can accept the continuation of life then a hierarchical flow of consciousness is a natural conclusion. This is the conclusion of Pythagorean Hylozoics anyway (again without the daft bit) that I am studying.



posted on Dec, 4 2014 @ 07:26 AM
link   
a reply to: BlackManINC

I guess you guys like each other after all and it's all just playful banter. That's what I would like to believe anyway.



posted on Dec, 4 2014 @ 07:41 AM
link   
a reply to: kennyb72

Are you Xlukkari?


Sorry random question but in Malta there is (was) an ancient belief system based on 5 universes in a very similar way to how you describe. They place them like Past, Future, Heaven, Hell and our current Universe. Each time someone passes away, depending on their 'power' (somewhat like Chi) they will cross over and be born again in one of these Universes. Only the strongest with the most enlightened soul can go full circle and be reincarnated into the same body they had died in. Keeping all the memories and skills of before. Its a nice belief system tbh. I rather enjoyed being taught about it when I was young. But like most, grow older and start to question.

Back on topic, we cant compare evolution to ID stories. Cause like what I wrote above was even harder for me to ever truly believe as there isn't one piece of scripture. All could have been made up any time before I was 5 or tens of thousands of years ago. It's all word of mouth. While Evolution is a constant process of finding and gathering more and more data to see the bigger picture.



posted on Dec, 4 2014 @ 07:43 AM
link   

Krazysh0t

You just confused the Panspermia and Abiogenesis hypotheses. Which is odd because you correctly described Abiogenesis as a chemical process...


I meant abiogenesis by means of panspermia. They can't prove it occurred on earth but for some reason they expect someone like me with his head screwed on straight to believe that throwing the problem into outer space will magically solve the problem. Evolution has no legs to stand on, so this anti-scientific rubbish just shows how desperate they are to produce something as the foundation for their belief in common descent.



posted on Dec, 4 2014 @ 07:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: BlackManINC

Krazysh0t

You just confused the Panspermia and Abiogenesis hypotheses. Which is odd because you correctly described Abiogenesis as a chemical process...


I meant abiogenesis by means of panspermia. They can't prove it occurred on earth but for some reason they expect someone like me with his head screwed on straight to believe that throwing the problem into outer space will magically solve the problem. Evolution has no legs to stand on, so this anti-scientific rubbish just shows how desperate they are to produce something as the foundation for their belief in common descent.


I think your understanding of those hypotheses is off (no surprise there). Abiogenesis could have happened here on Earth. There is no proof saying it didn't. Panspermia suggests that life is seeded on earth. Well that life still had to come from somewhere, answer Abiogenesis (the chemical reactions to produce life happened off world). In other words Abiogenesis doesn't need Panspermia to work, but Panspermia does need Abiogenesis to work.

Evolution has nothing to do with either of those hypotheses though. Either of those hypotheses could be correct or even neither of them and evolution is still a valid theory.
edit on 4-12-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 50  51  52    54  55  56 >>

log in

join