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.

 

Scientists discover single gene mutation which led to multi-cellular animal life

page: 3
17
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 11:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton
Back in the 1926 The Copenhagen Interpretation concluded that matter is nothing without consciousness, and consciousness is the foundation of reality.


No it didn't.


Although the Copenhagen interpretation is often confused with the idea that consciousness causes collapse, it defines an "observer" merely as that which collapses the wave function.
.

en.wikipedia.org...




posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 11:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Dear Prezbo
many are treating it as an absolute, I can't understand why you would say they are not when many here in this thread have stated as much


Only creationists such as yourself have implied that absolutes are being claimed...


I have been roundly slammed for even questioning the theory and even shown the evidence by clearly much "learned" members, evidence based on assumption

You are not a jedi, you have no mind trick, your words hold no substance given the posts written in this thread that show the opposite fact


You don't want to sell me death sticks, you want to go home and re-think your life....



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 11:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

Researchers think


My thoughts are the same as the researchers, poor assumptions based on what fits with their beliefs

In a couple of months there will be many problems associated with this new thought, no doubt
Its not science when "thinks" are trumpeted as truths

Lets wait and see what happens in time.


How does such an uninformed post get that many stars? I swear all you have to do is post early in a topic and people just blindly give you star after star after star. Come on people... Deny ignorance. Don't condone it.
edit on 1 13 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 11:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Dear Prezbo


many are treating it as an absolute, I can't understand why you would say they are not when many here in this thread have stated as much

I have been roundly slammed for even questioning the theory and even shown the evidence by clearly much "learned" members, evidence based on assumption

You are not a jedi, you have no mind trick, your words hold no substance given the posts written in this thread that show the opposite fact


So where is your evidence that proves it wrong? Or are you just going to keep repeating over and over that it's assumption without even looking at the evidence. You don't even get what the terminology means. You have to do more than blind bashing to argue against science. Nobody in this entire thread has claimed that it is absolute. It is simply another thing to add on to the gargantuan pile of evidence in favor of evolution. It's simply insane that people STILL blindly deny the science. Religious faith is blind. Science experiments prove things. Sorry you don't like it, but that's the way it is.

Leave science alone. It absolutely baffles me how people can use products of science to argue against science. It's laughable. Where do you think the internet came from? Where do you think your computer or smart phone came from? Do you own a refrigerator? Gravity is only a theory as well. Why aren't you vehemently arguing against gravity as well? It must be all assumption right?
edit on 1 13 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 11:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: cooperton
Back in the 1926 The Copenhagen Interpretation concluded that matter is nothing without consciousness, and consciousness is the foundation of reality.


No it didn't.



I'd rather trust Max Planck than you and your wikipedia quote.

“I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.” -Max Planck



Although the Copenhagen interpretation is often confused with the idea that consciousness causes collapse, it defines an "observer" merely as that which collapses the wave function.


This worthless wikipedia quote contradicts itself. It says consciousness does not cause the collapse, and then goes on to say the observer collapses the wave function.

Seriously, read more on the topic, don't just try to prove Max Planck wrong with a quick google search.
edit on 13-1-2016 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 12:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton


If you want to know evolution's achilles heel, research C-14 being found in "billion year old" diamonds, "100 million year old" coal, and "100 million year old" dinosaur soft tissue. Spoiler: it's all less than 50,000 years old.

newgeology.us...


Spoiler... you can't date diamonds or coal with 14C. While there is 14C in varying degrees in coal, the amount is directly correlated to what other elements are present in the same seams as the coal in question. Uranium in particular has pronounced affects on beta decay thus directly affects the levels of 14C in coal. Diamonds on the other hand, can not be dated by any technique currently used or known. If I went into everything that is wrong with the page you linked I would be typing for the next week but, the claim that dinosaur remains are not permineralized is BS through and through. Yes, collagens and other soft tissues have been preserved deep inside large bones such as the T-Rex femur worked on by Dr. Schweitzer, but the bone itself was permineralized which protected the interior. It's not like they drew a blood sample from marrow.



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 12:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: cooperton
Back in the 1926 The Copenhagen Interpretation concluded that matter is nothing without consciousness, and consciousness is the foundation of reality.


No it didn't.



I'd rather trust Max Planck than you and your wikipedia quote.


So when you're shown to be talking bollocks, you then make a completely unrelated appeal to authority fallacy?



This worthless wikipedia quote contradicts itself. It says consciousness does not cause the collapse, and then goes on to say the observer collapses the wave function.


No, this is you profound misunderstanding of physics coming into play. "Observer" does not mean "consciousness". Show me ONE academic source that says so.


Seriously, read more on the topic


Heed your own advice.



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 12:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: cooperton


If you want to know evolution's achilles heel, research C-14 being found in "billion year old" diamonds, "100 million year old" coal, and "100 million year old" dinosaur soft tissue. Spoiler: it's all less than 50,000 years old.

newgeology.us...


Spoiler... you can't date diamonds or coal with 14C.


Thats if you're assuming they're older than 100,000 years. They've been carbon dated, successfully... coal and dinosaur remains are consistently less than 50,000 years old.


originally posted by: GetHyped


So when you're shown to be talking bollocks, you then make a completely unrelated appeal to authority fallacy?


Its not unrelated, their quotes indicate their conclusions on quantum physics:

“Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real. In quantum mechanics hasn’t profoundly shocked you yet, you don’t understand it well enough.”
-Neils Bohr

“I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”
-Max Planck

“We compel the electron to assume a definite position. We ourselves produce the results of the measurement.” - Dr Dean Radin, in reference to the double slit experiment.
edit on 13-1-2016 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 12:35 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

You've obviously been reading some shoddy websites.

C-14 dating can only read reliably up to about 50,000 years (give or take). Anything past that and C-14 isn't used at all.



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 12:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: cooperton


If you want to know evolution's achilles heel, research C-14 being found in "billion year old" diamonds, "100 million year old" coal, and "100 million year old" dinosaur soft tissue. Spoiler: it's all less than 50,000 years old.

newgeology.us...


Spoiler... you can't date diamonds or coal with 14C.


Thats if you're assuming they're older than 100,000 years. They've been carbon dated, successfully... coal and dinosaur remains are consistently less than 50,000 years old.


It is not an assumption, there are no dinosaur bones found beyond 65 mya. We have the ability to date rock layers, and no, c14 is not the method used for this.



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 12:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

Its not unrelated, their quotes indicate their conclusions on quantum physics:

“Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real. In quantum mechanics hasn’t profoundly shocked you yet, you don’t understand it well enough.”

-Neils Bohr


Nothing to do with observer = consciousness.



“I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”
-Max Planck


Personal opinion of a near-100 year old physicist. Not in any way supported by evidence.


“We compel the electron to assume a definite position. We ourselves produce the results of the measurement.” - Dr Dean Radin, in reference to the double slit experiment.


Not a physicist.


So again, you're talking bollocks.



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 12:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: cooperton


If you want to know evolution's achilles heel, research C-14 being found in "billion year old" diamonds, "100 million year old" coal, and "100 million year old" dinosaur soft tissue. Spoiler: it's all less than 50,000 years old.

newgeology.us...


Spoiler... you can't date diamonds or coal with 14C.


Thats if you're assuming they're older than 100,000 years. They've been carbon dated, successfully... coal and dinosaur remains are consistently less than 50,000 years old.


Once again, yes, there is 14C present in coal. Once again, the readings are entirely unreliable due to other radioactive materials in the coal seams. Uranium is very common and it affects beta decay of everything near it. You can NOT date diamonds. Period. End Stop. Please link me a single peer reviewed paper detailing dinosaur remains that are less than 50KA. Your claim is that they are COMMONLY dated to this time frame but its completely ludicrous. There is not an ounce of science in the page you linked. Its nothing but apologetics at its finest. Furthermore, If dinosaurs were still thriving less than 50KA, why do I not see a single cave painting, petroglyph etc... depicting them? Lascaux for example has painted images of a multitude of Megafauna but no a single dinosaur. So if dinosaurs are so commonly dated to 50KA or less, please demonstrate this. You're citation certainly didn't make a compelling argument in favor of the proposition unless you choose to be willfully ignorant.



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 01:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar
Furthermore, If dinosaurs were still thriving less than 50KA, why do I not see a single cave painting, petroglyph etc... depicting them?



There are plenty, which fits the C-14 approximations:
Ancient Dinosaur Depictions


Nothing to do with observer = consciousness.


Observation is an appendage of our consciousness. Unconsciousness cannot observe. There is no observation without consciousness.



C-14 dating can only read reliably up to about 50,000 years (give or take). Anything past that and C-14 isn't used at all.


This is why it has taken so long for this knowledge to come to the surface, scientists usually did not try dating this stuff because they were under the presumption that it is millions of years old. The C-14 data on it is consistent; its in the thousand year range.

edit on 13-1-2016 by cooperton because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-1-2016 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 01:19 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

So some bad drawings and some pottery that could look like other things (lizards, chickens, emus and other known animals) are your proof?

My 11 year old can draw better dinosaurs. Does that mean they exist now?

On a side note. What EXACTLY has this got to do with the experiments done in the OP?
edit on 132113/1/1616 by TerryDon79 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 01:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: peter vlar
Furthermore, If dinosaurs were still thriving less than 50KA, why do I not see a single cave painting, petroglyph etc... depicting them?



There are plenty, which fits the C-14 approximations:
Ancient Dinosaur Depictions



LOL! You're citing a CREATIONIST website as evidence?? Thanks for the laugh!



Observation is an appendage of our consciousness. Unconsciousness cannot observe. There is no observation without consciousness.


More bollocks.



This is why it has taken so long for this knowledge to come to the surface, scientists usually did not try dating this stuff because they were under the presumption that it is millions of years old. The C-14 data on it is consistent; its in the thousand year range.


I see you're continuing your trend of making crap up as you go along.



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 01:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: cooperton

So some bad drawings and some pottery that could look like other things (lizards, chickens, emus and other known animals) are your proof?

My 11 year old can draw better dinosaurs. Does that mean they exist now?


Show your 11 year old those pictures and ask what he thinks: Name-that-ancient-creature-1, Name-that-ancient-creature-2

My main proof was that carbon dating demonstrates that these creatures are between 4,000-40,000 years old, the pictures were just supplemental proof that these creatures were living in relatively recent times. I understand this is a lot to digest, I suggest everyone do their own research.


originally posted by: TerryDon79

On a side note. What EXACTLY has this got to do with the experiments done in the OP?


If life is younger than 50,000 years old, evolution is impossible, making the OP erroneous and misleading.


originally posted by: GetHyped


LOL! You're citing a CREATIONIST website as evidence?? Thanks for the laugh!


Duh, what evolutionist website would be collecting all the ancient artistic representations of dinosaurs throughout history? No, evolutionists blindly mock this evidence, as you are currently doing.
edit on 13-1-2016 by cooperton because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-1-2016 by cooperton because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-1-2016 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 01:28 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Blindly mock isn't accurate.

We open-eyedly mock based on scientific proof.

Now, please show us your "proof" that isn't on a creationist website. Something scientific preferably.

EDIT. So this is your proof evolution is false? Guess you bette tell that to all the other sapiens that were around for us to evolve from.
edit on 133013/1/1616 by TerryDon79 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 01:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: cooperton

Blindly mock isn't accurate.


you're right, sorry for the presumption, GetHyped screaming into his keyboard sometimes catches reflex generalizations on my end



We open-eyedly mock based on scientific proof.

Now, please show us your "proof" that isn't on a creationist website. Something scientific preferably.


The following did not conclude younger earth, they just concluded the data is correct. I feel were on a revolutionary turn in geology, and a close mind is the worst thing we can have going into it:

Harvard: A comparison of Ten Cretaceous dinosaur bones



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 01:39 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

I can't access the page (possibly because I'm in the UK), but as has been explained before, C-14 dating isn't the only dating tool used. I could use C-14 and get a false positive. That's where SCIENCE uses all the tools at its disposal to determine an accurate age of something.



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 01:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: cooperton

I can't access the page (possibly because I'm in the UK), but as has been explained before, C-14 dating isn't the only dating tool used. I could use C-14 and get a false positive. That's where SCIENCE uses all the tools at its disposal to determine an accurate age of something.


google this: a Comparison of δ13C & pMC Values for Ten Cretaceous-Jurassic Dinosaur Bones from Texas to Alaska USA, China and Europe with that of Coal and Diamonds Presented in the 2003 Agu Meeting

C-14, behind dendrochronology, is the most accurate method we have for measuring how old organic life is(was). Dendochronology, measuring tree rings, measured the oldest tree to be around 5,000 years old. C-14 dating is reinforcing this notion as demonstrated by the Harvard Study. Might take a while for the mainstream to accept this, because it shatters a lot of people's life research.
edit on 13-1-2016 by cooperton because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
17
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join