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.

 

Evolutionists, how do you explain this?

page: 25
20
<< 22  23  24    26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 2 2017 @ 08:11 PM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic
That's why I also mentioned "bending the data to fit in with their biased beliefs". The evolutionary storyline comes first, then you cherry-pick data that you can twist to make it sound like it fits your storyline (or appear that way, especially to a conditioned audience). This is what I'm observing and also see confirmed by the acknowledgements of those teaching evolutionary philosophies or adhering to them (believing in them or otherwise arguing in favor of them, supporting them, remaining silent about the issues with them or bordering on hypocrisy in their acknowledgements while continuing the overarching storyline as if it's no big deal and as if the same acknowledgement cannot be made about all lines of supposed evidence and argumentation in favor of evolutionary philosophies and bedtime stories, etc.). It's the same with the topic of mutations in the DNA and so-called phylogenetic trees (evolutionary trees supposedly based on genetics but in reality based on the evolutionary bedtime storyline):


edit on 2-7-2017 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 2 2017 @ 08:31 PM
link   
This is almost as entertaining as watching an WNBA game. We have some people posting and using valid, science based arguments to support their positions. We have some people posting from a position of willful ignorance. Others posting from a position of outright naïveté. And almost as if it were in cue, we have our standard bearer for intellectual honesty. Or is that hypocritical propagandist? It gets confusing when the water becomes this muddied 2 dozen pages into a thread of the same tired, rehashed anti science garbage that these same posters elicit in every other thread dealing with anything resembling the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis where they rant and rave about it being all indoctrination based propaganda and then proceed to "support" (and I'm using that qualifier in the most loose sense possible) their position with links to their own extraordinarily biased Jehovah's Witness propaganda yet the sheer irony of that is completely lost on them.

The hilarity just grows from their while they continue to perpetrate every single charge that they levy against anyone who disagrees with them (which includes 97% of all other Christians, though a large number of Muslims actually support similar fallacies) including cherry picking data, massive inflatable strawmen and multiple ad hominem attacks. But no... THEY are somehow the ones presenting the truth and we are always dishonest liars! If it weren't the same, tired and lazy copy and paste job that were used in nearly every single thread this poster replies within or I were a new member, it would have some entertainment value. But it is and it doesn't. Mids, we need a yawning emoji for threads like this haha



posted on Jul, 3 2017 @ 03:19 PM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

Neighbour I think you are confusing the argument based on faith that you are using, with what you are accusing science of. IF you understood any of the history of evolution (as a scientific theory), or how scientific method works, you would not have made such statements. But you do not.

(a) There is no cherry picking of evidence. Go on, show that there is, and how it invalidates the scientific method that established the current theory of evolution.
(b) Which leads to the fact that you, and your cohorts seem to not understand that scientific theory encourages the theories to well evolve, with new evidence. You seem stuck on Darwin and his early theories, as opposed to modern ones, based on DNA data, coupled with observations of the physical characteristics of creatures.
(c) You clearly do not understand phylogeny. What the trees are showing (hint it is an inference, not an absolute fact, that is the providence of your religion
) .
(d) You need to obliquely discuss your problems with mutation. Otherwise you are making a non fact based argument. Again the providence of your faith not science. Science is based upon eídein not gnosis.

So the bedtime stories you are accusing science of, seem to actually be your own faith. I say this as a person who is religous, just not your revealed Abrahamic one. My faith (which is not my Science, that is my job), is one of a Mystery path, and requires me to think for myself. Not follow a book, written and edited to the stone age


Slan leat.



posted on Jul, 3 2017 @ 04:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: whereislogic

Neighbour I think you are confusing the argument based on faith that you are using, with what you are accusing science of. IF you understood any of the history of evolution (as a scientific theory), or how scientific method works, you would not have made such statements. But you do not.

(a) There is no cherry picking of evidence. Go on, show that there is, and how it invalidates the scientific method that established the current theory of evolution.
(b) Which leads to the fact that you, and your cohorts seem to not understand that scientific theory encourages the theories to well evolve, with new evidence. You seem stuck on Darwin and his early theories, as opposed to modern ones, based on DNA data, coupled with observations of the physical characteristics of creatures.
(c) You clearly do not understand phylogeny. What the trees are showing (hint it is an inference, not an absolute fact, that is the providence of your religion
) .
(d) You need to obliquely discuss your problems with mutation. Otherwise you are making a non fact based argument. Again the providence of your faith not science. Science is based upon eídein not gnosis.

So the bedtime stories you are accusing science of, seem to actually be your own faith. I say this as a person who is religous, just not your revealed Abrahamic one. My faith (which is not my Science, that is my job), is one of a Mystery path, and requires me to think for myself. Not follow a book, written and edited to the stone age


Slan leat.


Very well said and explained.

I see that a lot lately, especially in these evolution or religion-centric threads. There's always one or two people that post against the true scientific research with this strange sort of quasi-sane sounding argument with these quasi-scientific "sources", which can (for some) fool one into thinking they know what they're talking about. Though, upon further delving and evaluation, one can easily see that the thoughts in which they're attempting to convey do little to actually hold any true water.



Nice to see you posting again!



posted on Jul, 3 2017 @ 04:30 PM
link   
Modern "Sience" a "search for truth". Is nothing more than looking for a reason to disprove truth. We see this great "scientific" work effecting modern civilization/culture. According to todays "news"... they can't even identify the gender of a new born baby and can leave it blank on the B.C. I personally think we could use some "Doctors/Scientists" with some B*lls! Also, I'm thinkin... It is "evolution" at work! Just because they got a "title" from another idiot. Doesn't mean they know what they're talking about. An "educated guess", is still a guess. And they can't even do that right.



posted on Jul, 3 2017 @ 04:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: murphy22
Modern "Sience" a "search for truth". Is nothing more than looking for a reason to disprove truth. We see this great "scientific" work effecting modern civilization/culture. According to todays "news"... they can't even identify the gender of a new born baby and can leave it blank on the B.C. I personally think we could use some "Doctors/Scientists" with some B*lls! Also, I'm thinkin... It is "evolution" at work! Just because they got a "title" from another idiot. Doesn't mean they know what they're talking about. An "educated guess", is still a guess. And they can't even do that right.


Oh jeez, really? You're bringing the topic of another thread from the top at ATS into this one? This thread is about OP's question regarding evolution and the scientific evidence behind evolution. Don't bring the silly pronoun war into this thread, as it's off topic and more politically charged. If you want to talk gender identity, I'd suggest going to that corresponding thread.

Science is a way to disprove truth? What does that phrase even mean? I'd be willing to wager that the majority of people here arguing in favor of science would tell you it is actually the search for truth. And no, an educated guess is not just a guess. It's not black and white as you are indicating. I could guess that the sky is blue because a large child exists out of our view and decided to use a giant crayon to color it that way. THAT would be a guess (albeit an insane one). An educated guess is a lot different....it, go figure, is based off of material and research that has been gathered, studied and thus allows the person to become more "educated" based on the topic. It's not simply a shot in the dark.

And what on earth are you on about? Scientists and doctors with more balls? That comment serves no relevance aside to push your biased and agenda-geared attempts at talking about how you're clearly bothered by that silly B.C. gender identity story showing up on the ATS front page.

I'd simply move on if I were you.


edit on 3-7-2017 by ReyaPhemhurth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2017 @ 05:53 PM
link   
a reply to: murphy22

So do you have any proof of your statements? OR is this just another gnosis fest? Because I feel you do not understand what a Scientist is or does.

Edit

FFS
www.telegraph.co.uk...

That article (the gender assignment one you reference) has nothing to do with Science. Don't even imply it does.
edit on 3-7-2017 by Noinden because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2017 @ 06:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: murphy22
Modern "Sience" a "search for truth". Is nothing more than looking for a reason to disprove truth.


Except that science isn't in the business of providing evidence for a negative. I.E. the scientific method doesn't work disprove anything. It only provides evidence to be interpreted.

What "truth" do you feel that science is actually attempting to disprove?


We see this great "scientific" work effecting modern civilization/culture. According to todays "news"... they can't even identify the gender of a new born baby and can leave it blank on the B.C.


Sweet! We made it an entirety of 3 sentence fragments before re the strawman is revealed! Bringing a political idea in an attempting to use it to show that science as a methodology is dishonest, is in and of itself a rabidly, intellectually dishonest method of discourse.


I personally think we could use some "Doctors/Scientists" with some B*lls! Also, I'm thinkin... It is "evolution" at work! Just because they got a "title" from another idiot. Doesn't mean they know what they're talking about. An "educated guess", is still a guess. And they can't even do that right.


Could you translate that into a coherent statement in English please? There's no context and no sense to be made from the above statements and I would prefer not to make assumptions regarding your motivation so a modicum of clarity would be ideal here.



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 09:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: murphy22
Modern "Sience" a "search for truth". Is nothing more than looking for a reason to disprove truth. We see this great "scientific" work effecting modern civilization/culture. According to todays "news"... they can't even identify the gender of a new born baby and can leave it blank on the B.C. I personally think we could use some "Doctors/Scientists" with some B*lls! Also, I'm thinkin... It is "evolution" at work! Just because they got a "title" from another idiot. Doesn't mean they know what they're talking about. An "educated guess", is still a guess. And they can't even do that right.


Modern "Religion," a so called "search for truth," is nothing more than a way to try to disprove truth. We see this great "Religious" work affecting modern civilization/culture. According to today's "scientifically illiterate"... they can't even identify scientific evidence from sensationalist news. I personally think we could use some "Zealots/Eager Beavers" with some Bra!ns! Also, I'm thinkin... It is "confirmation bias" at work! Just because they got "access to an internet connection" just like any other idiot doesn't mean they know what they're talking about. A "divine truth" is still a guess. And they can't even do that right.

See what I did there?



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 03:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Ineilio

Yeah you showed what looking at a problem from just one direction does to an argument



posted on Jul, 5 2017 @ 07:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ineilio

originally posted by: murphy22
Modern "Sience" a "search for truth". Is nothing more than looking for a reason to disprove truth. We see this great "scientific" work effecting modern civilization/culture. According to todays "news"... they can't even identify the gender of a new born baby and can leave it blank on the B.C. I personally think we could use some "Doctors/Scientists" with some B*lls! Also, I'm thinkin... It is "evolution" at work! Just because they got a "title" from another idiot. Doesn't mean they know what they're talking about. An "educated guess", is still a guess. And they can't even do that right.


Modern "Religion," a so called "search for truth," is nothing more than a way to try to disprove truth. We see this great "Religious" work affecting modern civilization/culture. According to today's "scientifically illiterate"... they can't even identify scientific evidence from sensationalist news. I personally think we could use some "Zealots/Eager Beavers" with some Bra!ns! Also, I'm thinkin... It is "confirmation bias" at work! Just because they got "access to an internet connection" just like any other idiot doesn't mean they know what they're talking about. A "divine truth" is still a guess. And they can't even do that right.

See what I did there?


Oh yes I see.


I see you're a genius.




posted on Jul, 5 2017 @ 02:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: firefromabove
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

I've wondered about insects too. (Was just reading about the bombardier beetle, what a fascinating creature!)

Evolutionists have many explanations about how they may have evolved but zero evidence


I've wondered about God too (I was just reading about zombie Jesus, what a fascinating creature).

Bible-Tards have many explanations about how he came to be but zero evidence.




posted on Jul, 5 2017 @ 03:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: ReyaPhemhurth

I see you're a genius.


You, my dear, are too kind. I'll take undue praise any day, thanks!


Just today I saw an interesting opinion piece on Bloomberg that hits right at this conversation. Apparently this Faye Flam and I are kindred spirits. Faye are you lurking here somewhere??


In Praise of Scientific Theory


Science can make life difficult for manipulators and demagogues...

Those who want to fight the conclusions of scientific research often strike at its points of vulnerability -- like scientists’ insistence on using the word “theory” to describe even well-established ideas. In popular language, a “theory” implies a hunch or guess –- something less than a fact. That wrongly suggests weakness...

For a theory to be scientific, the philosopher Karl Popper asserted, it must be testable in such a way that it could be proven false. “Creation science” and other ideas involving supernatural entities can’t be falsified by test (How do you prove God doesn’t exist?), and therefore aren’t scientific. Popper also argued that proper experiments can only be set up to falsify theories, not to confirm them. (Philosophers of science are still debating the merits and flaws of Popper’s ideas.)


FYI I'm intentionally steering clear of the climate change conversation in the piece to limit the number of climate change deniers to come out of the woodwork since it's not the point of this thread.



posted on Jul, 5 2017 @ 04:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Ineilio

You have yet to prove your assertions regarding science....



posted on Jul, 5 2017 @ 04:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ineilio

originally posted by: ReyaPhemhurth

I see you're a genius.


You, my dear, are too kind. I'll take undue praise any day, thanks!


Just today I saw an interesting opinion piece on Bloomberg that hits right at this conversation. Apparently this Faye Flam and I are kindred spirits. Faye are you lurking here somewhere??


In Praise of Scientific Theory


Science can make life difficult for manipulators and demagogues...

Those who want to fight the conclusions of scientific research often strike at its points of vulnerability -- like scientists’ insistence on using the word “theory” to describe even well-established ideas. In popular language, a “theory” implies a hunch or guess –- something less than a fact. That wrongly suggests weakness...

For a theory to be scientific, the philosopher Karl Popper asserted, it must be testable in such a way that it could be proven false. “Creation science” and other ideas involving supernatural entities can’t be falsified by test (How do you prove God doesn’t exist?), and therefore aren’t scientific. Popper also argued that proper experiments can only be set up to falsify theories, not to confirm them. (Philosophers of science are still debating the merits and flaws of Popper’s ideas.)


FYI I'm intentionally steering clear of the climate change conversation in the piece to limit the number of climate change deniers to come out of the woodwork since it's not the point of this thread.


That has, for a long time, been a favorite of mine from various religious people that I have known at one point or another.

They argue that the entire concept of the science world using the word 'theory' insinuates a lack of scientific importance. Theory to them means that it's all just as good as false from the get-go because there's not a simple sentence flashing before their eyes going "Such and such is proven to be true." They'd need some kind of flashing neon sign.

But even then, even if something is proven right before their very eyes, they still will challenge its validity if it even remotely threatens their world view or perspective.

P.S. The praise is definitely due.



posted on Jul, 5 2017 @ 04:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Smellthecoffee

originally posted by: firefromabove
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

I've wondered about insects too. (Was just reading about the bombardier beetle, what a fascinating creature!)

Evolutionists have many explanations about how they may have evolved but zero evidence


I've wondered about God too (I was just reading about zombie Jesus, what a fascinating creature).

Bible-Tards have many explanations about how he came to be but zero evidence.



Haha, this was brilliant. Made me laugh.



posted on Jul, 5 2017 @ 07:02 PM
link   
a reply to: ReyaPhemhurth

WEll its not our (Scientists) fault, that people do not know how words are used
Scientific theories are often picked on, and these individuals don't understand the difference between theories, hypotheses, and ideas.



posted on Jul, 6 2017 @ 08:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: ReyaPhemhurth

WEll its not our (Scientists) fault, that people do not know how words are used
Scientific theories are often picked on, and these individuals don't understand the difference between theories, hypotheses, and ideas.


Exactly. But you can bet that I've had my share of religious faithers screaming at me that it is the fault of the scientific community; just as well, I'v met plenty that could do very little in knowing the proper meanings and definitions of those words....let alone even know how to spell them correctly without looking it up.



posted on Jul, 6 2017 @ 09:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Smellthecoffee

originally posted by: firefromabove
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

I've wondered about insects too. (Was just reading about the bombardier beetle, what a fascinating creature!)

Evolutionists have many explanations about how they may have evolved but zero evidence


I've wondered about God too (I was just reading about zombie Jesus, what a fascinating creature).

Bible-Tards have many explanations about how he came to be but zero evidence.



To be fair, when disputing someone who is genuinely confused, even if the confusion stems from willful ignorance, as opposed to an outright troll (and sometimes the sines are frighteningly blurry here on ATS) it's best to just let them have the sandbox to themselves instead of stopping down to sneer at them. It's hard to get irritated with people who dispute a scientific discipline without knowing who actually studies what. When someone uses a blanket term like "evolutionist" when dismissing the inner working of a bombardier beetle without knowing that it is Entomologist's who study them and that there is no "evolutionist" course of study, they are usually a victim of circumstance. It's more a testament to the education system, primarily in the US followed closely by Australia for some reason. I'm not an evolutionist. My background is in Paleoanthropology. Noinden works in bioinformatics and can run circles around me in that area and I'm willing to bet I could do the same when dealing with Pleistocene Hominds. But there is no overarching evolutionist conspiracy as many seek to believe. People who actually study these topics end up in very specific and specialized fields and yes, I find it insulting when someone believes they know more about a topic I have devoted a couple of decades to because they read some Ken Ham screed on an AIG or ICR website and accuse me of cherry picking data when the information they are basing their own opinions on is far more cherry picked than anything g I would ever put out there and call scientific.

Now I know that I'm being mildly hypocritical as I have been known to launch into invictive rants now and again (and again and again...) but in some cases it's better to just give them access to recent papers or data, drop your mic and walk away because nothing is going to change their minds. A lot of us are posting rebuttals for the sake of the lurkers who are too off put by the debates to actually sign up and post.


www.sciencedaily.com...

ncse.com...



posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 05:00 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar
You might ask the question as to how anti-science beliefs are perpetuated, generation after generation. That would make a very interesting discussion, and possibly even lead to some insights on how to stop the negative effects those holding such beliefs have on society. It's easy in these short postings to just throw some slogans around, like 'not enough education' or whatever, but that does not lead to any deep insight on how to fix this problem.

Perhaps it would help to have a more open mind, and invite the more communicative of the anti-sciencers to describe how they came to their beliefs.



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 22  23  24    26 >>

log in

join