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.

 

Believing what you know ain't so

page: 10
10
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 05:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t


Of course it isn't. That diagram is from the 19th century. It has many flaws in it. For instance, it places humans as the most evolved species on the tree when today scientists know this isn't true.

So now you do admit to the evolution of evolution. Or stay in denial of that, whatever.




posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 05:48 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Nobody has ever stated that evolutionary theory has been static since Darwin published On Origin of Species in 1859. Hell, it changed in the 12 years between that and the publishing of Descent of Man where he touched on human evolution specifically so to play games like a 12 year old and keep dragging something out to attempt to make a point that doesn't actually exist is disingenuous at best within the context of things. I'm still waiting for you to provide any sort Of citation demonstrating that the origin of life was ever a part of the TOE. Can you do that or will you admit you may have misunderstood what you think you were taught?
edit on 7-4-2015 by peter vlar because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 05:53 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar


Nobody has ever stated that evolutionary theory has been static since Darwin published On Origin of Species in 1859.

Except when I suggest otherwise, got it.

ETA: Thats why I had to trap Krazyshot, he's been claiming Evolution is alway been the same forever… and now you have to state the same thing…lol


(insert loud farting noises)
edit on 7-4-2015 by intrptr because: ETA:



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 11:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: peter vlar


Nobody has ever stated that evolutionary theory has been static since Darwin published On Origin of Species in 1859.

Except when I suggest otherwise, got it.

ETA: Thats why I had to trap Krazyshot, he's been claiming Evolution is alway been the same forever… and now you have to state the same thing…lol


(insert loud farting noises)
Wait what? Krazyshot said "Evolution has always been a discussion about how species change over time". That is true. It didn't start as an owner's manual for a cotton gin.



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 11:52 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

so that's a "No, I don't have any sort of citation or proof of my persistent claims that evolutionary theory was about the origins of life" Got it.

Perhaps I missed it, can you provide the relevant quotation from krazyshot where he claims that TOE has never changed at all? Or was he simply stating that it never included the origins of life as you claim multiple times but have no source for? I don't know how long ago it was back "in your day" but is it not just possible that you misunderstood what you were taught or were taught something incorrect? There is no part of TOE that has ever addressed the origins of life and in fact it has purposely stayed away from it as evolution is a completely different field of study. Darwin CONSCIOUSLY avoided it. It is nowhere in his published works. Please provide a citation that demonstrates your claim or admit you made an error. As Alexander Pope said...To err is human; to forgive, divine.



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 12:43 AM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

Yet this seems to be what some creationists think. That Darwin's early ideas are still what we think. The only ones who seem to still think that way are social Darwinist's, Marxist Feminists, oh and our creationist colleges. Biologically speaking, yeah nah, not so much anymore.



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 12:44 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Krazyshot has never made such a statement. I am sure he has made the comment that evolution is occurring all the time. However the human understanding of it is constantly updating with new data. Its how science works.



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 01:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

Exactly. They just can't seem to grasp that while On the Origin of Species is one of the most important tomes in the history of science, it merely lays down the foundation on which we have built our knowledge for over a century and a half now. The first complete non Homo Sapiens post cranial remains had only been found 3 years before Darwin published and before that only 2 craniums had been found, all HN with the first only 30 years before OtOoS. Within 50 years we had found H. Erectus and the advent of radiometric dating had begun. In the interceding century we've identified the first fully bipedal hominid and developed a pretty comprehensive family tree/bush going back to when our lineage diverged from that of Chimpanzee with Sahelanthropus Tchadensis and Orrorin Tungenensis, mapped the genome of the Neanderthal, proven that we not could mate successful with them but also that we did so successfully enough to have part of their genetic code still lingering in ours, discovered Denisovans, proven Beringia and Doggerland to have been active and stable environments of long term habitation, located the likely entry point of humans into the Americas and then continued to have pushed back the date for first habitation of them, H. Floresiensis and that's just what I can think of off the top of my head.

What we know today compared to 1859 is nearly immeasurable. Add to that the many other misperceptions they seem to have about evolutionary theory such as the inclusion of abiogenesis and it comes off to me as willful ignorance based on confirmation bias. Not only that but a deep rooted desire to NOT understand what evolution actually is about and the sheer hostility demonstrated towards those who are proponents of it is staggering. The threat they view it as to their worldview is mind blowing sometimes and puts into perspective how fragile it truly is on a most basic level or else the hostility wouldn't be anywhere near the intensity it is which is completely contrary to Christian ethos which makes it even more confusing to me.



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 07:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Krazysh0t


Of course it isn't. That diagram is from the 19th century. It has many flaws in it. For instance, it places humans as the most evolved species on the tree when today scientists know this isn't true.

So now you do admit to the evolution of evolution. Or stay in denial of that, whatever.


Admit to it? I never denied that the theory of evolution has changed over time.



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 08:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Krazysh0t


Of course it isn't. That diagram is from the 19th century. It has many flaws in it. For instance, it places humans as the most evolved species on the tree when today scientists know this isn't true.

So now you do admit to the evolution of evolution. Or stay in denial of that, whatever.


Admit to it? I never denied that the theory of evolution has changed over time.

Beside the tree of life, you mean?

Theres the tree of life-- the one in the bible, the one in evolution and the real one. The tree of life proposed by early evolution was indeed intended to supplant the one in the bible.
And I disagree with both camps.

DNA, a seed, an egg, the womb and cell division are all the hall marks of intelligent design, imo. I don't really care whether you see that or not, why all the flurry of defensive posts?



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 09:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Krazysh0t


Of course it isn't. That diagram is from the 19th century. It has many flaws in it. For instance, it places humans as the most evolved species on the tree when today scientists know this isn't true.

So now you do admit to the evolution of evolution. Or stay in denial of that, whatever.


Admit to it? I never denied that the theory of evolution has changed over time.

Beside the tree of life, you mean?

Theres the tree of life-- the one in the bible, the one in evolution and the real one. The tree of life proposed by early evolution was indeed intended to supplant the one in the bible.
And I disagree with both camps.

DNA, a seed, an egg, the womb and cell division are all the hall marks of intelligent design, imo. I don't really care whether you see that or not, why all the flurry of defensive posts?
Because you're spouting nonsense with the caveat "imo" and claiming that you are correct. Your claims are no different to the claims of the rest of the religious; they have nothing to back them but your own speculation and desire for them to be true.



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 09:27 AM
link   
a reply to: AshOnMyTomatoes


they have nothing to back them but your own speculation and desire for them to be true.

Thank you, proponent of the theory of evolution. Your claims are just as wild and speculative. At least I admit I don't know with imo. You say your theory is supported by "science" (that can't prove origin either).

Now change the subject to adaptation (evolution you call it).

If evolution can't address origin what does it really know about the science of life?



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 09:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: AshOnMyTomatoes


they have nothing to back them but your own speculation and desire for them to be true.

Thank you, proponent of the theory of evolution.
Yep, we're done here.



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 09:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
Beside the tree of life, you mean?


That diagram from the 1900's? The reason I said it was wrong was because it is out of date.


Theres the tree of life-- the one in the bible, the one in evolution and the real one. The tree of life proposed by early evolution was indeed intended to supplant the one in the bible.
And I disagree with both camps.



I don't care about the one in the bible. That's a fake. The one that science describes is just an abstract concept used to conceptualize how evolution branches out. The tree actually looks more like a tree diagram in computer science than an actual tree in any case.


DNA, a seed, an egg, the womb and cell division are all the hall marks of intelligent design, imo.


IMO says it is your opinion. Opinions aren't facts. So you can believe that all you want, but that doesn't make it true.


I don't really care whether you see that or not, why all the flurry of defensive posts?


Correcting your inaccuracies is being defensive? News to me.



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 09:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
If evolution can't address origin what does it really know about the science of life?



This is a strawman.



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 09:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t


I don't care about the one in the bible. Thats a fake.

The one that science describes is just an abstract concept used to conceptualize how evolution branches out.

All that means "fake, too".



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 10:01 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

It certainly isn't a REAL thing that you can touch or see. No. It's just an image that we created to help better describe how evolution branches out. In other words, a model.



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 10:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Krazysh0t


Of course it isn't. That diagram is from the 19th century. It has many flaws in it. For instance, it places humans as the most evolved species on the tree when today scientists know this isn't true.

So now you do admit to the evolution of evolution. Or stay in denial of that, whatever.


Admit to it? I never denied that the theory of evolution has changed over time.

Beside the tree of life, you mean?


Are you even reading what you're replying too? NOBODY has said that evolutionary theory has not progressed from infancy to the vast array of things currently known in the last 150+ years. Much like your other claims, YOU are the only one repeating this like a mantra. Go back and quote a post from Krazyshot or anyone else who has made this claim. Much like evolutionary theory including the origins of life, you are the only one making these statements.


Theres the tree of life-- the one in the bible, the one in evolution and the real one. The tree of life proposed by early evolution was indeed intended to supplant the one in the bible.


If by supplant the bible you mean to provide a scientific explanation for the diversity of life on Earth then sure, why not. If you're implying it was some atheistic, political conspiracy against Christians then not so much. And what exactly is the "real" tree of life? you must have a counter hypothesis to make a matter of fact statement of this nature.



DNA, a seed, an egg, the womb and cell division are all the hall marks of intelligent design, imo. I don't really care whether you see that or not, why all the flurry of defensive posts?


the 'IMO' qualifier is great and all but what is this opinion based on? Is it that this just makes more sense to you but you can't pinpoint why or is it actually based on something sound and tangible? Because quite honestly, it's a huge cop out to state that all of these processes are the hallmarks of intelligent design but not qualify WHY you believe this to be the case if you can't or won't support it with some quantifiable evidence.



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 10:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr

Thank you, proponent of the theory of evolution.


So you don't understand the actual difference between what Theory means in science compared to a laymans theory? And yet you want to talk down something you don't even grasp the fundamentals of. Interesting approach.


Your claims are just as wild and speculative. At least I admit I don't know with imo. You say your theory is supported by "science" (that can't prove origin either).


Why is it so difficult to grasp the concept that the study of the origins of life is a completely separate field of study done by scientists with a completely different and specialized skill set than Anthropologists, Paleontologists or Evolutionary Biologists? But if you're actually interested...
www.nature.com...


Now change the subject to adaptation (evolution you call it).


and a continued demonstration of your absolute lack of understanding of the science behind the theory. Evolution is about far more than adaptation. But why bother learning when its far easier to just talk down to people who are into observable, verifiable and repeatable evidence?



If evolution can't address origin what does it really know about the science of life?


As noted above, why the hostility when you don't want to understand the basics of what the theory entails? Not that you'll read it but as I posted above-
www.nature.com...

How life changes and how life began are two separate concepts. Anytime you want to provide a citation as I've repeatedly requested, that supports your contention that the origins of life were originally part of evolutionary theory then please do so. But you can't and you won't so I'm just wasting my time as the only alternative is to admit you are in error and that's definitely not going to happen. Evolutionary theory is focused on what has happened to life SINCE it began between 3.5 and 4 bn years ago. We don't need to know HOW it began to know it is here. We don't need to know how it began to decode a variety of genomes and chart changes in allele frequency, we don't need to know the how to uncover and date the fossil record. Your hangup on the origins of life being equitable with evolutionary theory being baseless is just infantile, ignorant and reeking of confirmation bias. You don't want to understand or learn what the theory entails as your mind is made up. Whereas in science, if reproducible and verifiable evidence came to light proving evolution false, then practitioners of science would follow the evidence and not continue to make baseless claims and qualify them with IMO. give it a try sometime.



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 01:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
DNA, a seed, an egg, the womb and cell division are all the hall marks of intelligent design, imo. I don't really care whether you see that or not, why all the flurry of defensive posts?


Those things are hallmarks of evolution. Sorry. Your arguments are terrible and you ignore the bulk of what everybody is saying to nitpick minor insignificant details that don't matter. It is a bit on the dishonest side, especially when you reference evolutionary models that are outdated by 100+ years. Basically the tree you referenced was written before we knew DNA existed. A ton has been discovered and learned about it since then, so if you wish to criticize evolution, you need to do it as it currently stands, not as it was 100 years ago. Evolution does indeed "evolve", just like all of science. We don't even have a reference point to prove design, so it is an impossible determination to make. If you wish to believe intelligent design out of faith, there is nothing wrong with that at all. But you are clearly insinuating that there is evidence, when there actually is not. It's your personal opinion based on confirmation bias, nothing more. Here's an idea. Learn about evolution and what it really means, because almost everything you have claimed about it has been wrong. Seriously, you come off like a young kid who just learned basic math attempting to disprove calculus. Give it a rest, learn about the opposition before attacking it. Evolution is compatible with ancient alien theory unless you are suggesting the aliens made life from scratch, rather than manipulation of the existing hominid DNA.

edit on 8-4-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
10
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join