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.

 

Proof that evolution is the only answer

page: 2
13
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 4 2016 @ 01:54 PM
link   
a reply to: thinline

Do you have proof of this or it is what you feel? Because those are different things


Edit

ALSO

No one is making evolution a religion. Any more so than say Gravity, thermodynamics, kinetics, etc. They are theories in sciecne, and that means "there is evidence to support them". Speaking as a Polytheist, there is no proof of a single deity. Not once.
edit on 4-10-2016 by Noinden because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 4 2016 @ 01:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: ColeYounger
a reply to: flyingfish




Science is the exact opposite of religion.


It should be. No dogma. All facts and certitude.
Science should be about the scientific method, first and foremost. It should be totally honest.
Sadly, this is what is happening, more and more:

Science fraud

Lying scientists



Thats why confirmation by other parties is crucial. Yes, some lie, they get caught... their lie can be PROVEN.



posted on Oct, 4 2016 @ 01:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: AshFan

Good luck with this thread. I agree with what you are posting. However you are going to shake that tree and find a bunch of nuts falling on your head


I love nuts! Wait... I mean... forget it



posted on Oct, 4 2016 @ 01:59 PM
link   
a reply to: ColeYounger

That's why peer review exists. If a scientist lies (for whatever reason), it will be found out eventually.



posted on Oct, 4 2016 @ 02:51 PM
link   
a reply to: AshFan

Who am I to judge? Every one has predilections. Just don't do it around children mmm k?



posted on Oct, 4 2016 @ 03:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: AshFan

originally posted by: ColeYounger
a reply to: flyingfish




Science is the exact opposite of religion.


It should be. No dogma. All facts and certitude.
Science should be about the scientific method, first and foremost. It should be totally honest.
Sadly, this is what is happening, more and more:

Science fraud

Lying scientists



Thats why confirmation by other parties is crucial. Yes, some lie, they get caught... their lie can be PROVEN.


It's also important to note that overturning an excepted theory in science, is the holy grail of scientist.
But, evolution is one of the strongest theory's in science, contributing to many other fields of study, overturning it would be nearly impossible at this point due to the overwhelming evidence in support.



posted on Oct, 4 2016 @ 03:29 PM
link   
a reply to: flyingfish

Its a holy grail, but also a worry. Why a worry? Well because you have a bunch of troglodytes who want to point fingers and cast aspersions on science being "Wrong". It does not stop us from trying, but thanks to the foes of science out there, who think that being wrong is a bad thing, they we worry funding is going to be threatened. It has happened, too. If only people got the philosophy of science has the clause "if new evidence shows something is wrong, we change the theory. No foul, no bad".

Its why I went into industry. I don't have to play politics, I just do science.



posted on Oct, 4 2016 @ 03:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: thinline
Here's the rub, it depends on the universe.

if we live in a hologram, then the theory of evolution gets blown out of the water like a single cell organism in the theory of evolution

The issue is, people make evolution into a religion and that's not good science.


What ifs do not make a good argument, just saying. If we live on the back of a giant turtle, evolution gets blown out of the water. If we live in the mist of a giant fart, evolution gets blown out the water... Except it doesn't.

The problem with that line of thinking is that we observe evolution happening today, regardless of possible explanations for the unknown. Even in a holographic / simulated universe, we still observe things changing over time. I don't see how a holographic universe goes against evolution, unless you are arguing that evolution is a program, rather than data simply changing over time because of effects of the program. Of course that requires a whole boatload of assumptions and unanswered questions, so it really doesn't get us anywhere to say, "what if".
edit on 10 4 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2016 @ 04:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: ColeYounger
a reply to: flyingfish




Science is the exact opposite of religion.


It should be. No dogma. All facts and certitude.
Science should be about the scientific method, first and foremost. It should be totally honest.
Sadly, this is what is happening, more and more:

Science fraud

Lying scientists



Now I wonder if you compared all the religious frauds and see how many there are in comparison. People lie, plain and simple. Science is about the scientific method, first and foremost, which is why we have such strict peer review these days and why the fraudulent papers are exposed. That isn't a science problem. Science error corrects itself and the articles you posted prove that because science is what figured them out to be fraudulent.



posted on Oct, 4 2016 @ 04:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: ColeYounger
a reply to: flyingfish




Science is the exact opposite of religion.


It should be. No dogma. All facts and certitude.
Science should be about the scientific method, first and foremost. It should be totally honest.
Sadly, this is what is happening, more and more:

Science fraud

Lying scientists



The irony is that every instance listed in your citations was shown to be fraudulent under peer review when others attempted to recreate the results of the papers in question. The end result being that scientists proved the fraudulent nature of the papers in question. But hey, lets not mention that because it kind of takes away from that whole slanderous "scientists all lie" meme right?



posted on Oct, 4 2016 @ 04:56 PM
link   
I have one question if man evolved from apes then why are there still apes? Shouldn't have all the apes evolved into humans?



posted on Oct, 4 2016 @ 04:59 PM
link   
a reply to: BenGentry

No we are Great Apes Chimps, Gorillas, Orangutans etc are also we share a common ancestor with them.
edit on 4-10-2016 by TheKnightofDoom because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2016 @ 05:00 PM
link   
So what. Things mutate over time.

Doesent disprove creation one bit



posted on Oct, 4 2016 @ 05:11 PM
link   
a reply to: ssenerawa

Wow, someone who understands that logically there could be evolution, despite creation. Don't let the creationists hear this. Because they all insist that biogensis in one of its forms has to be part of evolution, and they hate the idea of abiogensis.

While your point is correct, its not necessarily correct either.



posted on Oct, 4 2016 @ 05:44 PM
link   
a reply to: AshFan

LOL... This thread is proof you don't understand logic in the least. You do understand that the very basis of science is that it is falsifiable right? I mean, because, you state that it has to fit within the existing framework..lol which kind of goes against the very tenets of scientific exploration and experimentation.

You don't work WITHIN the existing framework, and you don't make up particles to explain where modeling fails to explain experimentation. Instead, you observe, you postulate and you experiment. When that fails to explain, real scientists, start over at the beginning of that...

LOL...

Jaden



posted on Oct, 4 2016 @ 05:49 PM
link   
a reply to: TheKnightofDoom

The less one makes declarative statements, the less one will look a fool in retrospect.

You should rephrase that a bit, here, let me help you.

Within the evolutionary paradigm, we are Great Apes[sic], (There should be a period or comma here), Chimps, Gorillas, Orangutans etc are also[sic], (There should be a period or comma here), we share a common ancestor with them.

Jaden



posted on Oct, 4 2016 @ 05:52 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

When it becomes advantageous for other scientists to falsify results to fit within the paradigms (It absolutely is as we speak), it will be common place. The nature of the modern scientific paradigm is that you can't trust ANYTHING science puts out unless you test it yourself...

Jaden



posted on Oct, 4 2016 @ 05:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

We observe things changing over time...LOL... of course we do. In fact, aside from my consciousness existing for me and yours existing for you, I'd say that that little nugget right there is the only knowable fact of reality...

How on God's green earth that supports the theory of evolution is beyond me...LOL.

Jaden



posted on Oct, 4 2016 @ 05:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Masterjaden

But it's not commonplace. And that entire line of reasoning discounts the fact that the process as I noted above applies to every paper published.



posted on Oct, 4 2016 @ 06:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Masterjaden

Well young master for all your fine words, you do not understand science, logic, and most certainly evolution. Oh and which God is this green (less so) earth needing a theory to support?




top topics



 
13
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join