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.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Proof that evolution is the only answer

page: 28
13
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 25 2016 @ 11:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

I see that you have no response... You realize that this shows a complete lack of ability to do anything other than regurgitate what others have told you right?

I mean I guess you could just regurgitate what has been said about the atomic clock experiments, but maybe you ARE smart enough to realize that if you do that, you will have immediately lost the argument. I really am just trying to see if you are capable of logically and rationally assessing the results of an experiment, but you keep deflecting.

Keep on thinking that you're winning, it's entertaining and funny to those of us who think for ourselves.

Jaden




posted on Oct, 25 2016 @ 11:27 AM
link   
Just thought I'd pop back briefly (I'm bored).

I see the usual people are asking for emperical evidence for science after being shown emperical evidence for science.

I guess they have just made up their own definitions. Shame they don't use the same standard on their religious fairytales.



posted on Oct, 25 2016 @ 11:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Masterjaden

Everything but address the so-called methodological flaws of the paper, huh?

Reminds me of this:


edit on 25-10-2016 by GetHyped because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2016 @ 12:01 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

you are so funny... No one is denying that you are showing empirical evidence for science but you keep purporting that evidence supporting a certain science is supporting something else entirely.

This is EXACTLY why I asked both of you what you thought can be concluded from the atomic clock experiments... It absolutely is applicable and salient to this specific point.

Because the fact that you THINK that you are showing empirical evidence for evolutionary theory when you aren't, shows me that you have difficulty rationally and logically making conclusions from evidence and it also is directly related to the point I'm trying to make regarding the unknowability of certain things.

Jaden
edit on 25-10-2016 by Masterjaden because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2016 @ 12:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Masterjaden

Yeah, you did. You denied half of the definition of emperical evidence. Then asked for emperical evidence.

I couldn't give to figs what you want. You haven't got any evidence to counter the current understanding of evolution, therefore you have nothing.



posted on Oct, 25 2016 @ 12:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Masterjaden

Post the experiment. Why are you so afraid to make your argument about the experiment or explain how it is a problem for evolution? I know why. It's because the argument comes directly from religious propaganda sites and has likely been debunked already. Surely you can actually MAKE the argument instead of posting rhetoric over and over and referencing an experiment that you refuse to even cite.

edit on 10 25 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2016 @ 12:25 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

You need evidence. End of story. Science can't be challenged by some random guy/gal on the internet. Where is the data that supports your claims? We're not talking about the origin of Uranium, we're talking about lead. Funny how quickly you change the subject.

edit on 10 25 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2016 @ 12:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: cooperton

You need evidence. End of story.


That's what I am saying. Where is the evidence that we can rely on the assertion that uranium-lead samples started at a 1-0 ratio? Don't send me go-fishing through resources that will not have the answer to that question. HiddenWaters was the only person to actually address my question, but zircon suffers from the same incapability of knowing initial/starting concentrations for the calculations.


originally posted by: Barcs
Science can't be challenged by some random guy


So only the priesthood is allowed in the temple?

edit on 25-10-2016 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2016 @ 09:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: cooperton

You need evidence. End of story.


That's what I am saying. Where is the evidence that we can rely on the assertion that uranium-lead samples started at a 1-0 ratio? Don't send me go-fishing through resources that will not have the answer to that question. HiddenWaters was the only person to actually address my question, but zircon suffers from the same incapability of knowing initial/starting concentrations for the calculations.


originally posted by: Barcs
Science can't be challenged by some random guy


So only the priesthood is allowed in the temple?


Did you read the books I recommended? What experience do you have in carbon dating techniques, besides what you have researched on Google? Can you outline in concise terms the carbon dating conspiracy?
edit on 25-10-2016 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 08:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm
Can you outline in concise terms the carbon dating conspiracy?


No , please don't. We've had enough of this for now



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 12:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: PhotonEffect

originally posted by: TzarChasm
Can you outline in concise terms the carbon dating conspiracy?


No , please don't. We've had enough of this for now


The proliferation of threads attempting to debunk evolution would seem to suggest that the forum is only temporarily satiated. Give it a couple weeks or so.



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 03:01 PM
link   
a reply to: AshFan

Well we can tell you put a lot of thought into this.




A central tenet of modern science is methodological naturalism--it seeks to explain the universe purely in terms of observed or testable natural mechanisms.



I am a Christian and I agree that you should approach science from a naturalistic perspective because Science is meant to describe in mechanistic terms how something works, but knowing how something works is never enough to say that God didn't have his hand in it.

Knowing how a watch works doesn't remove the need for a watchmaker.


This site you have put out is completely out dated as it is defending Neo-Darwinism. We don't currently know of a mechanism that is capable of causing body plan morphogenesis this is an assumption that gets harder and harder to accept as we learn more about genetics. In the paper below you will find Eric H. Davidson, who was a developmental biologist and atheist, calling for people to look for a new mechanism for the cause of body plan morphogenesis due the the nature of the development process. In this paper he will also speak about the canalization of the development process, which means that it will produce the same phenotype irrespective of genotype or environment.

Read and learn:



Neo-Darwinian evolution is uniformitarian in that it assumes that all process works the same way, so that evolution of enzymes or flower colors can be used as current proxies for study of evolution of the body plan. It erroneously assumes that change in protein coding sequence is the basic cause of change in developmental program; and it erroneously assumes that evolutionary change in body plan morphology occurs by a continuous process. All of these assumptions are basically counterfactual. This cannot be surprising, since the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis from which these ideas stem was a pre-molecular biology concoction focused on population genetics and adaptation natural history, neither of which have any direct mechanistic import for the genomic regulatory systems that drive embryonic development of the body plan.


Source: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 04:52 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb



I am a Christian and I agree that you should approach science from a naturalistic perspective because Science is meant to describe in mechanistic terms how something works, but knowing how something works is never enough to say that God didn't have his hand in it.


What's the point in adding an extra step to an already perfectly adequate and demonstrable explanation?


Knowing how a watch works doesn't remove the need for a watchmaker.


So who or what made god? Its incredible that the universe is too beautiful and complex to "just happen" but god "just is". Hmm...

Would you be kind enough to explain how Mr Davidson and his works demonstrates the inadequacy of modern evolutionary synthesis? And also how it points to a divine influence in biology and how this divine influence was measured?



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 09:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm

So who or what made god? Its incredible that the universe is too beautiful and complex to "just happen" but god "just is". Hmm...

Would you be kind enough to explain how Mr Davidson and his works demonstrates the inadequacy of modern evolutionary synthesis? And also how it points to a divine influence in biology and how this divine influence was measured?


Do you know what he means when refers to body plan morphogenesis?


originally posted by: TzarChasm

Did you read the books I recommended? What experience do you have in carbon dating techniques, besides what you have researched on Google? Can you outline in concise terms the carbon dating conspiracy?


There is no carbon dating conspiracy. In the past you have refuted carbon-dating dates on various dinosaur bones done by the university of Georgia and Arizona simply because they disagree with your dogma.
edit on 26-10-2016 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 09:24 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton


Do you know what he means when refers to body plan morphogenesis?


Yes. But I thought we were discussing modern evolutionary synthesis, not neo Darwinism. More specifically, I thought we were discussing compelling data that demands a revision of modern evolutionary synthesis. I see no such data.



There is no carbon dating conspiracy.


Then we can agree that it is a reliable method of dating. I don't know what to tell you about the Arizona and Georgia test results. Dinosaurs died over 50 millions years ago according to modern professional consensus and the vast majority of tests have verified this.

edit on 26-10-2016 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 09:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm

Then we can agree that it is a reliable method of dating.


(to certain degrees, the variability of atmospheric C-14 over time and varying rates of metabolic intake by animals of radioactive carbon is difficult to predict)

edit on 26-10-2016 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2016 @ 07:53 AM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm




What's the point in adding an extra step to an already perfectly adequate and demonstrable explanation?


Its not an extra step, because I am not trying to explain how something works, but why something works the way it works. There is nothing wrong with looking at how the world works and drawing the conclusion that this type of setup would require a creator. That is a philosophical position based on Science.

A watch is blind and automatic just like the universe. Knowing how that watch works doesn't remove the need for an agent. Saying a watchmaker made a watch is not an extra step in explaining the mechanisms of a watch. I get that you may not come to the same conclusion, but in my own opinion the knowledge we gain from Science seems to necessitate the need for a Creator.




So who or what made god? Its incredible that the universe is too beautiful and complex to "just happen" but god "just is". Hmm...


I don't understand the question. Asking me who made God is like asking what or who began the beginning-less thing? The question is simply nonsensical from my perspective.





Would you be kind enough to explain how Mr Davidson and his works demonstrates the inadequacy of modern evolutionary synthesis? And also how it points to a divine influence in biology and how this divine influence was measured?


Read the paper or the excerpt I posted and you would have gotten your answer straight from the horse's mouth:

" It erroneously assumes that change in protein coding sequence is the basic cause of change in developmental program; and it erroneously assumes that evolutionary change in body plan morphology occurs by a continuous process. All of these assumptions are basically counterfactual. "

I never said that it pointed to divine influence in biology. I simply said it showed that his site was outdated as it is defending something we know to be counterfactual and that would be neo-darwinian evolution. There are other versions of evolution but so far as I know none of them have produced a mechanism capable of changing the higher levels of the development process.




In other words, while cis-regulatory sequence variation may have continuing adaptive significance at the dGRN periphery, at upper levels of the dGRN hierarchy it does not have the same significance because the system level output is very impervious to change, except for catastrophic loss of the body part or loss of viability altogether. As long realized and much discussed in a non-mechanistic way in advance of actual knowledge of dGRN structure and function (for review see Gibson and Wagner, 2000), this imperviousness has something to do with whatever processes generate canalization and/or “buffering” of the genetic control system.


The source is the same paper referenced earlier. The upper levels of the dGRN need to be changed for body plan morphogenesis to occur. This however causes catastrophic loss of body parts or loss of viability altogether according to Davidson's observations.



posted on Oct, 27 2016 @ 10:50 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb



Its not an extra step, because I am not trying to explain how something works, but why something works the way it works. There is nothing wrong with looking at how the world works and drawing the conclusion that this type of setup would require a creator. That is a philosophical position based on Science.


Wrong, no. You are welcome to your opinion after all. Science doesn't concern itself with philosophy in the way it deals with physics. There is a methodology for navigating human psychology and a methodology for studying gravity and biology. And there is a methodology for bridging the gap between the two. It is incomplete, but the investigation is on going. Its irresponsible to draw conclusions from incomplete data, unless the conclusion is that the data is incomplete.



I don't understand the question. Asking me who made God is like asking what or who began the beginning-less thing? The question is simply nonsensical from my perspective.


Beginning-less? Is this a measurable property? Or something you take on faith because you can't measure it? That's why its philosophical, or more accurately, hypothetical. Comparing hypotheticals to demonstrable principles of evolutionary biology, or attempting to wedge hypotheticals into an already serviceable tried and proven theory, is apples and oranges. When god comes down from his or her lofty throne and provides proof of claim, then its worth looking into. Until then, its "what if" all the way down. Sorry.

edit on 27-10-2016 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2016 @ 02:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm
Its irresponsible to draw conclusions from incomplete data, unless the conclusion is that the data is incomplete.





posted on Oct, 27 2016 @ 03:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
Its not an extra step, because I am not trying to explain how something works, but why something works the way it works. There is nothing wrong with looking at how the world works and drawing the conclusion that this type of setup would require a creator. That is a philosophical position based on Science.


You just contradicted yourself, bud. Philosophical position based on science? No. It is pure philosophy that requires numerous assumptions to even make sense.


A watch is blind and automatic just like the universe. Knowing how that watch works doesn't remove the need for an agent. Saying a watchmaker made a watch is not an extra step in explaining the mechanisms of a watch. I get that you may not come to the same conclusion, but in my own opinion the knowledge we gain from Science seems to necessitate the need for a Creator.


Same ol' watchmaker fallacy. We know watches are made by humans because we manufacture them, so to take something that is obviously created for a purpose and compare it with the universe is nonsensical and illogical. How can one empirically determine that something was created without evidence of a creator? With the watch we know who creates them. With the universe you need to blindly assume it.



edit on 10 27 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
13
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join