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.
Puddles form by random chance
Which you believe blindly. Can you explain in your own words the specific observable evidence that conclusively proves those assertions? They are bold assertions which require extensive evidence.
originally posted by: TzarChasm
Well obviously they are angels hiding in plain sight, much like pigeons and those pocket mints no one actually remembers picking up.
originally posted by: cooperton
originally posted by: TzarChasm
Well obviously they are angels hiding in plain sight, much like pigeons and those pocket mints no one actually remembers picking up.
Stop avoiding the question. What is the evidence to show any of those million-year-old dates? The burden of proof is on you.
Regardless, here's the evidence I compiled that proves otherwise, and shows, for example, that dinosaurs lived alongside humans, which disproves all of those million-year-old dates:
Evidence for co-existence of humans and dinosaurs
originally posted by: TzarChasm
"the burden of proof is on you"
is internet code for
"I cant actually find any concrete discrepancies in the data that I didn't bother to study before I challenged your submission"
originally posted by: cooperton
originally posted by: gosseyn
That's the weakest argument against evolution I have ever heard.
But you are like the puddle of water in the story of the puddle of water :
A puddle of water says to itself "this hole in the ground espouses my shapes so perfectly, it's as if this hole was made for me by an intelligent designer !", but what the puddle of water doesn't realize is that it is the puddle of water that espouses the shape of the hole in the ground, not the other way around. In other words, if you find that this world is too perfect to be true, it's just that we have evolved to be adapted to it after many trials and errors.
Puddles can form by random chance. Complex biological organs cannot.
The human heart can pump non-stop for over 100 years. No known human-made pump can compare. It is also self-repairing which can not be matched by even the best human engineering.
The lungs are an ideal gas-exchange medium that filters itself and can also last for over 100 years. It selectively intakes necessary molecules, while filtering out undesirable chemicals that will be coughed out or handled by the liver.
Veins and arteries are like a mega highway with over 60,000 miles of length. Each human's circulatory system could therefore wrap around the earth more than 2 times. These ensure that all parts of the body get proper sustenance. They are also self repairing. Much better than any highway work I have ever seen conducted by intelligent human beings.
So how exactly do you suppose the human vessel is equatable to a puddle?
I looked extensively. I once thought the same as you, but empirical evidence showed me those dates you show are totally wrong. Carbon dating data on dinosaurs shows they aren't that old and your dates are bogus. Soft tissue found in dinosaur bones also reinforces that same notion.
Do you admit you cant dig up any conclusive evidence for any of those dates you pulled off that sci-fi blog?
originally posted by: gosseyn
So basically, you compare what nature has accomplished to what humans can do today ? What if 4000 years ago, a guy said something like "We will never be able to fly like birds, it is obvious the gods never intended for us to fly like birds".
maybe we will never be able to build something as complex as the things you have cited, so what ?
And I am not even against the idea of an intelligent designer, but so far I haven't seen any element of proof or some strong evidence that there is an intelligent designer.
The problem is so many people have preconceived ideas about the things they are supposed to search for. They look for things that reinforce their preconceived ideas.
Again, I am open minded. I am just asking for something that makes sense.
originally posted by: Lysergic
How do I know which of these voices belongs to God?
The DSM-II considered homosexuality as one form of paraphilia, but in the seventh printing of DSM-II homosexuality had shifted to another classification, which is sexual orientation disturbance. This major change had been preceded by increasing activities of the LGBT community in the 1960s, specifically the Stonewall riots in 1969. These activities continued in 1970 with the following predominant events:
As described by Ronald Bayer, a psychiatrist and gay rights activist, specific protests by gay rights activists against the APA began in 1970, when the organization held its convention in San Francisco. The activists disrupted the conference by interrupting speakers and shouting down and ridiculing psychiatrists who viewed homosexuality as a mental disorder. In 1971, gay rights activist Frank Kameny worked with the Gay Liberation Front collective to demonstrate against the APA's convention. At the 1971 conference, Kameny grabbed the microphone and yelled: "Psychiatry is the enemy incarnate. Psychiatry has waged a relentless war of extermination against us. You may take this as a declaration of war against you." This activism occurred in the context of a broader anti-psychiatry movement that had come to the fore in the 1960s and was challenging the legitimacy of psychiatric diagnosis. Anti-psychiatry activists protested at the same APA conventions, with some shared slogans and intellectual foundations. Presented with data from researchers such as Alfred Kinsey and Evelyn Hooker, the seventh printing of the DSM-II, in 1974, no longer listed homosexuality as a category of disorder. After a vote by the APA trustees in 1973, and confirmed by the wider APA membership in 1974, the diagnosis was replaced with the category of "sexual orientation disturbance".
1973 – On 15 October the Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatry Federal Council declares homosexuality not an illness – the first such body in the world to do so; in December the American Psychiatric Association removes homosexuality from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-II), based largely on the research and advocacy of Evelyn Hooker.
originally posted by: gosseyn
in reply to: cooperton
So basically, you compare what nature has accomplished to what humans can do today ?
Again, I am open minded. I am just asking for something that makes sense.
originally posted by: whereislogic
originally posted by: gosseyn
in reply to: cooperton
So basically, you compare what nature has accomplished to what humans can do today ?
Nature didn't do it, (the forces of) nature didn't accomplish what you are referring to (cause machinery like hearts and lungs to emerge).
It's a baseless nonsensical assumption of yours that flies in the face of everything we know about (the forces of) nature and cause and effect (involving inductive reasoning).
Again, I am open minded. I am just asking for something that makes sense.
A Creator creating the machinery and technology that makes up life makes a whole lot more sense than assuming and claiming that 'nature did it' (nature accomplished it), so why should anyone believe you that you are asking for something that makes sense if you're already so eager to roll with or accept something so nonsensical while rejecting the most sensible/reasonable conclusion by induction or argument of induction by telling yourself there is no "strong evidence" for it?
Your bias in favor of impossible fantasies is quite obvious, you don't sound very open minded regarding the evidence and applying inductive reasoning properly regarding these subjects.
“Rule I. We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.
...
Rule IV. In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions collected by general induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true, notwithstanding any contrary hypotheses that may be imagined, 'till such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions,
This rule we must follow, that the argument of induction may not be evaded by hypotheses.”
“As in Mathematicks, so in Natural Philosophy, the Investigation of difficult Things by the Method of Analysis, ought ever to precede the Method of Composition. This Analysis consists in making Experiments and Observations, and in drawing general Conclusions from them by Induction, and admitting of no Objections against the Conclusions, but such as are taken from Experiments, or other certain Truths. For Hypotheses are not to be regarded in experimental Philosophy.”
- Isaac Newton (from Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica)
The Encyclopaedia Britannica on inductive reasoning:
"When a person uses a number of established facts to draw a general conclusion, he uses inductive reasoning. THIS IS THE KIND OF LOGIC NORMALLY USED IN THE SCIENCES. ..."
originally posted by: Jay-morris
So, answer me this. How many religions are there out there?
All rubbish yes, but all claim to be the real religion. Why is your religion real? Do you have any proof that your religion is more real than any other?
Of course you do not! It's all belief. You will say your religion is the real one. A muslim will say theirs is the real one, a Mormon will says theirs is the real one and in and on and on!
That would be your belief/opinion (the bolded part). As is possibly the notion that all belief is automatically blind, or must be blind (conflating all forms of belief with credulity). I don't feel like I have to succeed in this regards in your eyes (your opinion) anyway. I already feel quite justified in my opinions regarding these subjects and know quite well on what evidence they are based on and how and why I have come to the conclusions I have come to. Don't need your approval, agreement, praise or recommendation to come to my conclusions and/or to be honest about them or my justifications.
That in itself tells you it's just belief. Yes, you try and justify that belief, but fail horribly at every turn.
originally posted by: cooperton
originally posted by: gosseyn
So basically, you compare what nature has accomplished to what humans can do today ? What if 4000 years ago, a guy said something like "We will never be able to fly like birds, it is obvious the gods never intended for us to fly like birds".
Intelligent humans can make machines that can take off from the ground and fly. Random chance can not.
maybe we will never be able to build something as complex as the things you have cited, so what ?
The point is that if humans cant recreate it, what makes us think random chance would be able to create it?
And I am not even against the idea of an intelligent designer, but so far I haven't seen any element of proof or some strong evidence that there is an intelligent designer.
All physical laws are examples of intelligent design upholding the universe as we know it.
The problem is so many people have preconceived ideas about the things they are supposed to search for. They look for things that reinforce their preconceived ideas.
I have searched for the truth without bias and have made it the main purpose of my life. Evolution is not possible. I once thought otherwise but that's because I blindly trusted the 'experts', but you have to address the empirical evidence on your own. Notice how I ask Tzarchasm for observable evidence for his evolutionary timeline and he totally avoids the burden of proof, it's because there is no conclusive data that supports it.
Again, I am open minded. I am just asking for something that makes sense.
what do you suppose came first - consciousness or matter?
...
Which View Fits All the Facts?
With regard to the origin of the complex molecules that make up living organisms, some evolutionists believe the following:
1. Key elements somehow combined to form basic molecules.
2. Those molecules then linked together in the exact sequences required to form DNA, RNA, or protein with the capacity to store the information needed to carry out tasks essential to life.
3. The molecules somehow formed the specific sequences required to replicate themselves. Without replication, there can be neither evolutionary development nor, indeed, life itself.
How did the molecules of life form and acquire their amazing abilities without an intelligent designer? Evolutionary research fails to provide adequate explanations or satisfying answers to questions about the origin of life. In effect, those who deny the purposeful intervention of a Creator attribute godlike powers to mindless molecules and natural forces. [whereislogic: i.e. 'nature did it']
What, though, do the facts indicate? The available evidence shows that instead of molecules developing into complex life-forms, the opposite is true: Physical laws dictate that complex things—machines, houses, and even living cells—in time break down.* Yet, evolutionists say the opposite can happen. For example, the book Evolution for Dummies says that evolution occurred because the earth “gets loads of energy from the sun, and that energy is what powers the increase in complexity.”
To be sure, energy is needed to turn disorder into order—for example, to assemble bricks, wood, and nails into a house. That energy, however, has to be carefully controlled and precisely directed because uncontrolled energy is more likely to speed up decay, just as the energy from the sun and the weather can hasten the deterioration of a building.* Those who believe in evolution cannot satisfactorily explain how energy is creatively directed.
On the other hand, when we view life and the universe as the work of a wise Creator who possesses an “abundance of dynamic energy,” we can explain not only the complexity of life’s information systems but also the finely tuned forces that govern matter itself, from vast galaxies to tiny atoms.*—Isaiah 40:26.
Belief in a Creator also harmonizes with the now generally accepted view that the physical universe had a beginning. “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” says Genesis 1:1.
Invariably, new discoveries tend to make the philosophy of materialism increasingly hard to defend, a fact that has moved some atheists to revise their views.* Yes, some former atheists have come to the conclusion that the wonders of the universe are visible evidence of the “invisible qualities” and “eternal power” of our Creator, Jehovah God. (Romans 1:20) Would you consider giving the matter further thought? No subject could be more important or of greater consequence.*
[Footnotes]
...
Such decay is a result of what scientists call the second law of thermodynamics. Put simply, this law states that the natural tendency is for order to degenerate into disorder.
DNA can be altered by mutations, which can be caused by such things as radiation and certain chemicals. But these do not lead to new species.—See the article “Is Evolution a Fact?” in the September 2006 issue of Awake!
...