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.

 

Which came first dinosaur or the egg

page: 7
5
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 26 2016 @ 07:06 PM
link   
a reply to: ssenerawa

So you are claiming that the first person to speak english, learnt english from someone else?

In the bible God says he is the Alpha and the Omega.

That is from the greek alphabet. The similar letters in that alphabet to english are...
A,B,E,F,H,I,K,M,N,O,Q,T,X.

From that we can clearly see that English evolved over time from Greek.

My point being that language is a perfect example of complicated things evolving over time slowly enough that from parent to child it is not noticed, however over a longer period of time you can see substantial changes.




posted on Jul, 26 2016 @ 09:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: ssenerawa

So you are claiming that the first person to speak english, learnt english from someone else?

In the bible God says he is the Alpha and the Omega.

That is from the greek alphabet. The similar letters in that alphabet to english are...
A,B,E,F,H,I,K,M,N,O,Q,T,X.

From that we can clearly see that English evolved over time from Greek.

My point being that language is a perfect example of complicated things evolving over time slowly enough that from parent to child it is not noticed, however over a longer period of time you can see substantial changes.



No they taught themselves a few gestures and utters to communicate and it grew more complex. Also taught to others I still don't see your point.

Also IMHO things do not evolve. they mutate

edit on 26-7-2016 by ssenerawa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2016 @ 10:19 PM
link   
a reply to: ssenerawa
So you are against the term "evolution" and you have made up your mind already. So much so that you cannot even accept that language evolved. You try to distort the facts to fit your worldview. If you were honest you would be changing your worldview to fit the facts.

Mutations cannot be used to explain non biological things.

But this is fruitless.

If you really want to look into the topic find a site without a "Donate" link and go from there.

Or keep deluding yourself, either way.

Enjoy.



posted on Jul, 28 2016 @ 08:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: ssenerawa
So you are against the term "evolution" and you have made up your mind already. So much so that you cannot even accept that language evolved. You try to distort the facts to fit your worldview. If you were honest you would be changing your worldview to fit the facts.

Mutations cannot be used to explain non biological things.

But this is fruitless.

If you really want to look into the topic find a site without a "Donate" link and go from there.

Or keep deluding yourself, either way.

Enjoy.
No it's cause I just don't get what you're . Just say it already



posted on Jul, 28 2016 @ 11:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: ssenerawa
No it's cause I just don't get what you're . Just say it already


You have already made your mind up and will ignore everything that disagrees with you.
Biological evolution may be difficult for you to grasp either because of timeframes or because of religious views.

By showing a different field such as language where you can clearly see the changes evolve over time I thought you could at least understand why your question shows that you don't understand biological evolution.

Had you been able to explain why English shares so many characters with Greek I may believe you were sincere however you ignored it completely.

Your rejection of evolution makes perfect sense considering your understanding of it.
The real question here is are you honestly looking to increase your understanding?



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 11:06 AM
link   
I'm gonna throw this thought out there.
Spawn bearers are the transition link to this debate.
Neither a hard shelled egg, or live young. Spawn contains up to 5000 eggs.
This ensures some of the eggs will become young amphibians.
Where is the change from spawn to hard shelled egg.
Reptiles. If reptiles are the updated amphibian. All land version.
Most reptiles lay eggs. (There are exceptions which lay live young). They too lay several eggs, and some bury them for extra safety. Although the number of eggs is much less than spawn. The chances of survival are far greater. So less eggs needed.
For me. Reptiles are the chicken in question.
Spawn the transition.
This is a theory only.
I might be way off.



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 12:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: ssenerawa

My point being that language is a perfect example of complicated things evolving over time slowly enough that from parent to child it is not noticed, however over a longer period of time you can see substantial changes.



The creation of language and its progression over time relies on intelligent decisions by intelligent entities. Are you saying evolution is a similar process?


originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: ssenerawa

Just go read your special book of fairy tales. I'm sure that's got all the answers you'll ever want.

As for science, leave that to the grown ups.


get off your pedestal. You realize they teach evolution to pre-teens? It's not a difficult theory to cram into someone's brain. Where the real "grown-up" science arises is when you realize the vast complexity of cells, organs, organ systems, and organisms, and the impossibility of a piece-wise generation (evolution) of these interconnected systems.

Spend more time reading and less time berating people and you will eventually come to truth.
edit on 1-8-2016 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 12:40 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

You mean the "truth" you bible thumpers try pushing at every possible opportunity because evolution, somehow, contradicts your special fairy tales?

I think I'll stick to real science. The ones that have given us the device you're using, the forum you're using, the Internet, medical care, cars, planes, ships and all the other things that science does.

If you want to believe in fairy tales, so be it. Just don't expect me to sit here and take your religious rubbish when there's proof of things like evolution. Deny it all you want. Use YouTube videos. Cite religious websites. Do anything you want. It will never change the fact that evolution has happened, still happens and will continue to happen.



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 01:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: cooperton

You mean the "truth" you bible thumpers try pushing at every possible opportunity because evolution, somehow, contradicts your special fairy tales?


The impossibility of evolution has nothing to with anything else besides its own illogical thesis - I don't know why you're bringing up the Bible for your defense.



I think I'll stick to real science. The ones that have given us the device you're using, the forum you're using, the Internet, medical care, cars, planes, ships and all the other things that science does.


No one here is denying science. The theory of evolution in regards to spawning the diversity of life is far from being scientific fact. If you believe theory to be fact, then that is your own opinion but it is not grounded in reality.


It will never change the fact that evolution has happened, still happens and will continue to happen.


The lack of objectivity coming from you who claim to be so scientifically rigorous is astounding. You're a walking paradox. If you claim theory as fact you are not a scientist.
edit on 1-8-2016 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 01:50 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

I've read all your religious arguments against evolution in other threads. They're boring and old and the only reason they exist is to make the bible look better.

How very boring.



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 01:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: cooperton

and the only reason they exist...


Do you think there is any reason for any existence? Any sort of Universal Truth?



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 02:03 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

A reason for existence? None that I know of or that can be proven. That being said, my answer is I don't know.

All truths are subjective. Even objective science has a bit of subjectivity in it because it's being viewed by an individual/group who is/are human. Humans, by nature, are subjective.



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 02:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: cooperton

All truths are subjective.


So there is no unchanging universal truth? Then what about mathematics - Geometric truths, arithmetic truths, etc. These facts cannot be altered by human opinion.



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 02:25 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Actually, it all depends on what form of each you're looking at.

Does 1+1=2 or does it, in fact, equal 10 (binary), 2 flocks of sheep (1 flock of 10 and another at 15. That would then mean 1+1=25) and many, MANY more examples. Numbers are what we have defined them to be. Is 1 truely ever 1? Is 1 Apple ever 1 Apple or is it .999999 of an apple?



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 02:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: cooperton

Actually, it all depends on what form of each you're looking at.

Does 1+1=2 or does it, in fact, equal 10 (binary), 2 flocks of sheep (1 flock of 10 and another at 15. That would then mean 1+1=25) and many, MANY more examples. Numbers are what we have defined them to be. Is 1 truely ever 1? Is 1 Apple ever 1 Apple or is it .999999 of an apple?


When applied to subjective matters numbers begin to stray from their universal truth - When you involve apples, flocks, or any sort of subjective system, it acts as a fog on the universal truth of mathematics.

is 9 = 9 , without any obfuscation, ever not true?



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 02:55 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

There is a popular argument against 1 being 1, but actually being 0.9999999. That would make any equation (including 9+9) wrong. As 9 wouldn't be 9, but 8.99991. So it would actually be 8.99991+8.99991 which would equal 17.99982.



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 02:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: cooperton

There is a popular argument against 1 being 1, but actually being 0.9999999. That would make any equation (including 9+9) wrong. As 9 wouldn't be 9, but 8.99991. So it would actually be 8.99991+8.99991 which would equal 17.99982.


regardless, 8.99991 = 8.99991 remains true.



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 03:03 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

It's only remains true if it is correct.

People would say that q universal truth might be that snow is white. Well, what about when it's a shade of grey? Or a shade of brown?

"Universal truths" are only universal truths because we can't prove otherwise.

One example would be, we thought a universal truth was that people couldn't go faster than the speed of sound. That's now known to be untrue.



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 03:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton
The creation of language and its progression over time relies on intelligent decisions by intelligent entities. Are you saying evolution is a similar process?


Absolutely, the partners you choose will definitely have an impact on your evolutionary line.

But just like you cannot point to the "first" english speaker. You also cannot point to a "first" species.
There is no planned endgame or goal. No designer.

Just a long unbroken line of tiny changes that add up to massive differences the further you go.



posted on Aug, 2 2016 @ 02:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: cooperton

Actually, it all depends on what form of each you're looking at.

Does 1+1=2 or does it, in fact, equal 10 (binary), 2 flocks of sheep (1 flock of 10 and another at 15. That would then mean 1+1=25) and many, MANY more examples. Numbers are what we have defined them to be. Is 1 truely ever 1? Is 1 Apple ever 1 Apple or is it .999999 of an apple?

You're sounding like a sophisticated version of Baldrick 'again' (again as in others on ATS have sounded like Baldrick as well including those who they have quoted in support of their views and philosophies, no matter how elaborate their supposed 'justifications' for in essence denying the existence of facts/truths/certainties/realities and promoting Pontius Pilate's agnostic philosophy of vagueness are; sometimes just specific facts that are inconvenient; actually this latter version of this behaviour seemed to me to be more popular until I ran into a lot of commentary like yours on ATS, now I'm not sure which one is the most popular, I guess both versions can and sometimes are used by the same person depending on what's being discussed). I guess you can't hear it (see it) when you're typing things such as you did above (or when others use similar commentary and argumentation about the subject).

I give up as well. For now at least...(as in not going to try to convince anyone of the existence of facts/truths/certainties/realities or that 1+1=2 is a fact/truth/certainty and that it is factual/true/absolute/conclusive/correct, without error; and that none of the dodges that either you or Baldrick uses to avoid acknowledging a particular fact/certainty* by bringing up other facts are going to change that reality). * = or acknowledging a particular fact as a certainty; even though or ignoring the word is a synonym by appealing to an argument that capitalizes on the ambiguity of language, often without giving specific details as to why for example this specific word "certainty" should not be used in that context, but just a general reminder of that ambiguity, which means "uncertainty or inexactness of meaning in language"; quoting from the online google dictionary. At least that's what I've experienced on ATS with someone who thinks like you do about this subject, according to the same pattern and fondness of the agnostic philosophy of (sometimes selective, sometimes general) vagueness.

At least Baldrick didn't twist any of those other facts to justify incorrect (false) statements such as "1+1=25". Or the other incorrect (false, untrue) implication you made at the end in the form of a rhetorical question.

There is a reason IQ-tests have true or false questions and only 1 correct/right (true/conclusive) answer when it's multiple choice (and usually 3 wrong/false/untrue answers, sometimes more or less).

edit on 2-8-2016 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join