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.

 

Man didn't evolve from fish or monkeys

page: 16
13
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 10 2016 @ 07:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

Actually neighbour, the only person with a learning block appears to be you. I'm not deciding what you think, you are free to think what you want, free will etc etc. You don't get to define science, which is what you are trying to do. Oh and I am one of those "boffins". As I repeatedly have said, I am a professional scientist, I work in a scientific industry as a senior scientist.

As also has been repeatedly said to you: JUST because YOU think something is so, it does not make it thus. Therefore to go to a level you seem operate at. Abiogenesis/proteogenesis is not related to evolution. It is FIRST (proteo) life. Evolution is the change of one form, to another. Each generation tends to be a evolved form from the parent one, at least in sexual reproduction.

So in summary, as it appears you need cliff notes.

YOU don't get to define science
YOU don't get to define what is correct in science. Be that evidence, or thought.
YOU do get to think what ever you feel. But that does not make your thinking correct.

I know you are having a tough time with this. I would offer the blessings of my gods, but you'd not like that very much




posted on Mar, 10 2016 @ 07:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

Neighbour, given your lack of understanding of science (as evidenced by posts you make) you don't get to make these judgment calls, you can say these things, but they are worth less than a Drachma



posted on Mar, 10 2016 @ 08:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Raggedyman

Neighbour, given your lack of understanding of science (as evidenced by posts you make) you don't get to make these judgment calls, you can say these things, but they are worth less than a Drachma


Just a small yet ever so clear tip, you don't get to choose what science is either, neither do men in white coats

YOU don't get to define science
YOU don't get to define what is correct in science. Be that evidence, or thought.
YOU do get to think what ever you feel. But that does not make your thinking correct.


1.the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment:

I can break down all those words and explain why your opinion holds little to no value in relation to science
Your comments in context, a mite

You are so blinded by your own arrogance
You want me to worship your knowledge, you demand I conform


Now lets talk about our ancient non biological ancestor, DIRT and WATER from SPACE, what many atheists and evolutionist say we evolved from



posted on Mar, 10 2016 @ 08:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman




Now lets talk about our ancient non biological ancestor, DIRT and WATER from SPACE, what many atheists and evolutionist say we evolved from


I think it's neat how everyone mostly agrees that Adam was nothing more than the dust of the ground.

This said, I do believe he needed a hand, and not the "waiting a lot" kind of hand, especially when those pushing the "waiting a lot" theory add fish ancestry, some jargon, and call it science.

Oh and just because: evolution is a word pre dating Darwinism, it has a meaning and it is a real thing.
But thinking mud becomes amoebas by waiting, that amoebas become fish by waiting some more, and all creatures including complex cycled multi host parasites gradually evolve into one another by waiting yet again, although anyone is entitled to believing anything they see fit, is definitely not science, which is also a word referring to a real thing pre dating Darwinism.

Bravo for keeping the discussion R-man, when no one does they assume they're right with less arrogance but more confidence. I may of course not agree with my perception of your writing 100% but it's good to see that not everyone bought that selfish gene bull#. Selfishness and survival of the fittest are not what humanity is about, people.



posted on Mar, 10 2016 @ 08:39 PM
link   
I didn't want this to turn into a creation evolution battle as per usual

Just wanted people to reflect on their own ignorance

Some people think fish and monkeys are ancestors

Others think, as you say dirt and water and "waiting a lot" is the answer

I just don't see how some get to call others names when they are just as ignorant

Such is life



posted on Mar, 10 2016 @ 08:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

You think aliens did it?



posted on Mar, 10 2016 @ 09:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

No we don't (I'm a man in a white coat). But we understand what sort of evidence holds up to scientific methods and standards. You clearly do not. I know what correct science is, because I'm trained in it. I'm not imposing my own belief system on science, I am quoting facts. If I were to try and impose my belief system, it would be distinctly Gaelic and reconstructionist and pre-Christian in flavor. After all despite your assertions, not all Scientists are atheists. I've told you that just because you say it, it does not make it so.

Now quit with the Ad Hominem Argument neighbour. Its against the ToS here


Also once again, you confuse the term evolutionist as a philosophy. Evolution, like thermodynamics is part of science. The term is scientists. Anytime you use the term "evolutionist" you show that you do not understand how this works.

Again you don't get that no actual scientists say we evolved from dirt and water. You understand proteogenesis less than evolution.



posted on Mar, 10 2016 @ 09:25 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Wow you out "" around species? Are you implying that people of different "races" are not Homo sapiens? That is all I can assume that was about. Just as I put "" around "race". Why? Because on a genetic level (the only level which counts) there is no race within the species.

Quantum physics does NOT show any consciousness. Show this "evidence" to prove me wrong, but just citing something ,without actually showing your own commentary, implies you don't understand it.



posted on Mar, 10 2016 @ 09:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

What do you think it was going to be, when you started throwing in creationist dogma, sources, and a refusal to accept the scientific evidence? No seriously, this was going down one path, the moment you misrepresented what scientists think. I could say that creationists all think that God blew his nose, and life began, I'd be wrong, but I could.



posted on Mar, 10 2016 @ 09:57 PM
link   

You are responsible for your own posts.



No more bickering, my opinion is better than yours or derailing comments.
Go After the Ball, Not the Player!


and, as always:

Do NOT reply to this post!!


edit on Thu Mar 10 2016 by DontTreadOnMe because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2016 @ 10:04 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 11 2016 @ 02:39 AM
link   
The funny thing is
I can be a Christian and believe in evolution. I don't have to need to believe in creation
There are many Christians who believe in evolution, I can contentedly accept evolution

Atheists need to believe in evolution, they need it



posted on Mar, 11 2016 @ 05:09 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 11 2016 @ 06:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: cooperton

I am sorry Cooperton
Your argument is based on logic and valid evidence
It won't cut it with this crowd

Try theory and blind faith in scientific dogma, you might get a few more stars

Cheers, I enjoy and learn



You call three unsourced quotes to be "valid evidence"? That looks like confirmation bias to me. It's right because you agree with it not because it is truthful in any way.


KS are you any different

Really
The only thing different is the money grabbing scholars who embellish their term papers to get more funding.
Christian peers review each others work just like secularists

We don't believe we came from space dirt and space water


Well the difference between you and I is that -I- can readily define my standards of evidence at the drop of a hat. It's rather easy. I only accept objective evidence for validity. Subjective evidence isn't allowed, which includes all books like the bible. Peer review is just the cherry on top that makes it a lock. Meanwhile, you STILL haven't defined what you consider to be valid evidence.



posted on Mar, 11 2016 @ 08:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

Wow you out "" around species? Are you implying that people of different "races" are not Homo sapiens? That is all I can assume that was about. Just as I put "" around "race".


I put quotes around species because it would be more simple to call us humankind. Most of these genus homo skulls that were discovered, such as the "species" neanderthal, were likely part of humankind. We can go into a semantic hurricane but we'll only come out more confused. For example, Homo Alienis is part of humankind. Animals cannot change their kind through descent with modification (evolution).


Quantum physics does NOT show any consciousness. Show this "evidence" to prove me wrong, but just citing something ,without actually showing your own commentary, implies you don't understand it.


The double slit experiment demonstrated that the conscious observer causes a particle that normally would behave like a wave (light) into behaving like a particle. Without the observer consciously analyzing the quantum moment, light continues to behave like a wave. Schroedinger simplified this observation with his cat analogy. If a cat is in a box with radioactive poison, is it dead or alive? Quantum physics tells us that the case is neither, but rather, the cat exists in a probabilistic wave-state until the conscious observer makes an observation inside the box.


originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: cooperton

Well you fixed the "unsourced" part. Awesome, that still doesn't make it valid evidence though.


What makes it invalid? These are nobel prize winners. Is it invalid because it doesnt fit with your material reductionist worldview?
edit on 11-3-2016 by cooperton because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-3-2016 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2016 @ 09:28 AM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

The paracas skulls are not alien bones. And your double slit experiment is at best an example of activating a preset condition. Although its curious to note that you claim our consciousness or observation creates the event...see those twinkly things in the sky? They are dead. They burned out long before the last of their rays reached our planet. Do we influence those stars by watching them? Interesting hypothesis.



posted on Mar, 11 2016 @ 10:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman


YOU don't get to define what is correct in science, neither do men in white coats.

Fine. Who does?



posted on Mar, 11 2016 @ 11:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

Science is observing, finding facts and reporting those facts, it's not assumption or belief.

Nobody defines what science is, science is reporting and understanding the natural order of things

You can compartmentalise parts, though we know that the sun effects the moon, it effects the oceans, the oceans effect the weather, the weather effects the animals and plants, their genes are effected by weather
It's all one big system, it's all involved, it's all connected
It's an open system, there are links in each study of science

Denying abiogenesis is denying a cause and effect and the link to establish life and then evolution

I know wasted words, we disagree, climb that hill

I don't let men in white coats dictate at me what I should think, I come to my own conclusions right or wrong

If I am to believe in evolution, I need a key part of life establishing itself answered

I understand you don't agree, you can believe what you like, so will I

It can't be compartmentalised, it's an open system



posted on Mar, 11 2016 @ 01:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

Proof rather than statements an argument make! Why are you making this about religion now? That is thread drift 😀



posted on Mar, 11 2016 @ 01:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: cooperton

Well you fixed the "unsourced" part. Awesome, that still doesn't make it valid evidence though.


What makes it invalid? These are nobel prize winners. Is it invalid because it doesnt fit with your material reductionist worldview?


It's invalid because it is subjective evidence and not objective evidence. Just because you can find a smart guy or three to agree with you doesn't make you necessarily correct.
edit on 11-3-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
13
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join