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.

 

It just doesn't happen

page: 20
23
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 31 2020 @ 08:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton


More word salad with no context.

SPECIATION means that when one species diverges it DOES NOT mate with the original species. Why? Because the genetic profile has changed. When the genetic profile changes and one species' alleles are inheritable and DIFFERENT than the original, that is the evolutionary process at work. The lines of demarcation are defined by the genes, not necessarily how they appear.
If you read that article thoroughly (which you would NEVER do), that's exactly what it describes.
Dinosaurs evolved into birds over millions of years. The evidence has been published and reviewed multiple times.
Does a dinosaur look like a bird? No. Is a dinosaur a bird? No. Is a bird a dinosaur? No.
Millions of generations diverged which ultimately led to birds.

It's the same old crap with you. Cut, paste, cut, paste, cut, paste the same garbage from Ken Ham and his ilk.

You lost the war a long time ago. You're dead but you can't lay down.





Another really good example of speciation action was between H, Sapiens and Neanderthal. It would seem that we were on the verge of a full on speciation where there would be no possibility of successful or fertile offspring.

The biggest clue is that all of the genetic data we've accumulated on Neanderthal comes entirely from Y DNA. There has been no Neanderthal MtDNA found in any of the specimens tested. The end result being that male Neanderthal males could successfully mate with and create fertile offspring.

The opposite however seems to be in direct contrast, in that male H. Sapiens could not produce fertile offspring with female Neanderthal. Our 2 sub species had been drifting apart for roughly 500 KA or so, at least as long ago as the remains found at Sima de los Huesos indicate.




posted on Sep, 1 2020 @ 01:13 AM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake




Where does God lay claim to Physics precisely in the book of Genesis? LoL



Physics is the natural science that studies matter, its motion, and behavior through space-time.


It's Precisely in the very first SEVEN words of Genesis Andy.

In the beginning God Created the Heavens and the Earth.
..........Time ......................... Space............matter



posted on Sep, 1 2020 @ 08:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton


More word salad with no context.

SPECIATION means that when one species diverges it DOES NOT mate with the original species. Why? Because the genetic profile has changed. When the genetic profile changes and one species' alleles are inheritable and DIFFERENT than the original, that is the evolutionary process at work. The lines of demarcation are defined by the genes, not necessarily how they appear.
If you read that article thoroughly (which you would NEVER do), that's exactly what it describes.
Dinosaurs evolved into birds over millions of years. The evidence has been published and reviewed multiple times.
Does a dinosaur look like a bird? No. Is a dinosaur a bird? No. Is a bird a dinosaur? No.
Millions of generations diverged which ultimately led to birds.

It's the same old crap with you. Cut, paste, cut, paste, cut, paste the same garbage from Ken Ham and his ilk.

You lost the war a long time ago. You're dead but you can't lay down.





Another really good example of speciation action was between H, Sapiens and Neanderthal. It would seem that we were on the verge of a full on speciation where there would be no possibility of successful or fertile offspring.

The biggest clue is that all of the genetic data we've accumulated on Neanderthal comes entirely from Y DNA. There has been no Neanderthal MtDNA found in any of the specimens tested. The end result being that male Neanderthal males could successfully mate with and create fertile offspring.

The opposite however seems to be in direct contrast, in that male H. Sapiens could not produce fertile offspring with female Neanderthal. Our 2 sub species had been drifting apart for roughly 500 KA or so, at least as long ago as the remains found at Sima de los Huesos indicate.


Very interesting. So that means that Neanderthals never had mitochondrial DNA? The Y DNA converted chemical energy i.e form ATP?



posted on Sep, 1 2020 @ 09:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423

SPECIATION means that when one species diverges it DOES NOT mate with the original species. Why? Because the genetic profile has changed. When the genetic profile changes and one species' alleles are inheritable and DIFFERENT than the original, that is the evolutionary process at work.


The example he showed specifically said it was the same species. Your non-sequitors are just your attempt to say biological vocab words to make your specious argument sound right. The fact is we have no lab data that shows that new genes can emerge through random chance. This is for multiple reasons:

1) the old gene that it once coded for will no longer function
2) the new gene would require a massive leap in nucleotide alterations to form a totally new gene.
3) Then, what are the odds this miraculous new gene serves the function that the organism needs?
4) this gene also cannot disrupt the homeostasis within the organism.
5) the new gene also must have proper modulation, otherwise it will be overexpressed or underexpressed leading to severe harm or death to the organism.



Dinosaurs evolved into birds over millions of years. The evidence has been published and reviewed multiple times.


Just because you keep saying something doesn't mean it is true. We have been fed this propaganda our whole life with nothing substantial to back it. They suppose birds came from theropods... yet there are no transitional examples of flightlessness to the ability to fly within this clade - they either have wings and can fly, or they can't fly and have no anatomical trace of a transition towards a flying anatomy. Do you realize how hard it would be for feathers to be formed from randomly mutating genes?


Millions of generations diverged which ultimately led to birds.


You say these absolutely absurd claims without substance to back it. "I read it in a science blog", or "I saw it on a kids show". You won't post the evidence for this because you may know by now how insufficient it actually is.



posted on Sep, 1 2020 @ 09:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423

SPECIATION means that when one species diverges it DOES NOT mate with the original species. Why? Because the genetic profile has changed. When the genetic profile changes and one species' alleles are inheritable and DIFFERENT than the original, that is the evolutionary process at work.


The example he showed specifically said it was the same species. Your non-sequitors are just your attempt to say biological vocab words to make your specious argument sound right. The fact is we have no lab data that shows that new genes can emerge through random chance. This is for multiple reasons:

1) the old gene that it once coded for will no longer function
2) the new gene would require a massive leap in nucleotide alterations to form a totally new gene.
3) Then, what are the odds this miraculous new gene serves the function that the organism needs?
4) this gene also cannot disrupt the homeostasis within the organism.
5) the new gene also must have proper modulation, otherwise it will be overexpressed or underexpressed leading to severe harm or death to the organism.



Dinosaurs evolved into birds over millions of years. The evidence has been published and reviewed multiple times.


Just because you keep saying something doesn't mean it is true. We have been fed this propaganda our whole life with nothing substantial to back it. They suppose birds came from theropods... yet there are no transitional examples of flightlessness to the ability to fly within this clade - they either have wings and can fly, or they can't fly and have no anatomical trace of a transition towards a flying anatomy. Do you realize how hard it would be for feathers to be formed from randomly mutating genes?


Millions of generations diverged which ultimately led to birds.


You say these absolutely absurd claims without substance to back it. "I read it in a science blog", or "I saw it on a kids show". You won't post the evidence for this because you may know by now how insufficient it actually is.


Write them a letter.



posted on Sep, 1 2020 @ 09:49 AM
link   
a reply to: carsforkids

No, it's not carsforkids, else it would state "In the beginning God Created Physics".

The Bible mentions water, it don't say anything about it being comprised of three atoms, two hydrogen atoms, and one oxygen atom.

Suppose that's more Chemistry but I'm sure it illustrates the point I'm trying to make.
edit on 1-9-2020 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2020 @ 11:17 AM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake




No, it's not carsforkids, else it would state "In the beginning God Created Physics"


Whether or not the very first passage of the Bible makes use of a word
according your petty preferences. God clearly expresses his power (Created)
is greater than physics (TIME SPACE AND MATTER). Did you really expect the
word physics to be in the Bible? Because if you did then why in the hell am
I talk'n to you? Just quit with the semantic denials. You asked you received
and now you know not to get played like that again.



posted on Sep, 1 2020 @ 12:00 PM
link   
a reply to: carsforkids
a reply to: andy06shake



Laws are subject to the Law-Maker. Physical laws perpetuate the creation in working order, but it is the Being that made those laws that deserves our wonderment.



posted on Sep, 1 2020 @ 12:15 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

That's where I'm at brother.
edit on 1-9-2020 by carsforkids because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2020 @ 12:15 PM
link   
a reply to: carsforkids

Nothing "semantic" about it.

God did not create physics, or the Bible, for that matter.

That's was us semi-intelligent monkeys.

And you cant even prove God created, space-time, or matter, nether.

God does not clearly express much or has anything to say whatsoever really.

Else some actual tangible proof might be nice and religious texts that are clearly the work of man simply does not cut the mustard I'm afraid.

We require more than blind leaps of faith these days.


edit on 1-9-2020 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2020 @ 12:28 PM
link   
a reply to: andy06shakesybject
All experience with God, and other supernatural entities, are almost always with in the spirit, and subjective experience.
There is no scientific mechanism to prove the existence of God. It is a foolish expectation.
To negate subjective experience as not real could easily negate your own existence.
Do you exists ?
If so, can you really prove it ?
The only thing we can be absolutely sure exists is our own mental processes, and subjective experience.
I am not alone in the deepest part of it.
God exists.


edit on 00000091230912America/Chicago01 by rom12345 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2020 @ 12:33 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Our physical laws in this verse are dictated by 26 fundamental dimensionless constants.

But they still don't answer all the questions we pose or explain everything in the totality.

Is there a being that made the laws, and that shaped/bind the constants is indeed the question.

The universe will always be wonderous, with or without a creator.
edit on 1-9-2020 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2020 @ 12:39 PM
link   
a reply to: rom12345

Perspective is after all a very personal experience.

"I think there for i im" put it that way, i tend to agree with Descartes there.

You were right the first time my friend, we can't prove or be sure that anything exists, not even our mental processes.

Nobody is alone, we are all part of the whole, and yet people can still experience loneliness.

Hell of a predicament the human condition really.

Further studies are most certainly required.

And that's where science or to be more specific, neuroscience, will play it part, and allow us to answer and address the conundrum of consciousness.
edit on 1-9-2020 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2020 @ 12:44 PM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake




Else some actual tangible proof might be nice and religious texts that are clearly the work of man simply does not cut the mustard I'm afraid.


My little Andy are you saying this entire universe isn't proof of anything?
If you are you're being disingenuous not to mention straight up lying to
yourself. Your replies are becoming spaghetti legged. But the truth of
the matter goes like this. The universe is proof of an intelligent
supreme being Creator force. Because that is the most credible
explanation for it's (the universe) existence. Even Occam's razor
would agree that Creation would be far more likely with over site.
As well as basic common sense and examples in life to infinity.

And you actually convince people the burden of proof is not on science.
That's the kind of crap men write pal.




God did not create physics, or the Bible, for that matter.


Do you think you know that? Or do you want me to think you know it
and believe it myself? When people make claims like this it's just as I said.
So prove it. Prove what did create the universe if wasn't a Creator.
Because as far as I've heard only one has claimed it.

edit on 1-9-2020 by carsforkids because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2020 @ 01:17 PM
link   
a reply to: carsforkids

I'm nobodys little anything these days. LoL

It's you are claiming the universe is proof of God.

I'm simply saying show him to me?

And you cant.

Truth eh?

Well one man truth is another man's lie, again thats generally all about perspective.

Occam's razor cant provide proof of God any more than the Bible does.

Science is all about proof, kind of how it works, organized religious practice, not so much.

But try not to get you knickers in a twist its simply debate and banter.

None of us are going to unequivocally prove the other to be wrong if that helps.
edit on 1-9-2020 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2020 @ 01:21 PM
link   
Those who seek will find,
it is as much about what lies within as it is about the universe.
You could roam the entire universe and not find God.
Or you could stumble upon Him by accident.
For most it take a crisis, to pray to Him.
For others, an ever present father.
To be not with God, is a terrible state for a human being to endure in life.
In death It can become permanent.
edit on 0000009012791America/Chicago01 by rom12345 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2020 @ 01:24 PM
link   
a reply to: carsforkids

"Do you think you know that? Or do you want me to think you know it
and believe it myself?"

Thats up to you, your perfectly free to choose to believe as you wish. LoL

What i want is neither here nor there.

I'm not quite sure what created the universe, or if it even had a beginning, in the classical sense of the word.

Might just have always been, that would be another claim.
edit on 1-9-2020 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2020 @ 01:28 PM
link   
a reply to: rom12345

It is apparently rather a large place.


Down the way as well as up, quantitatively speaking.

What if God or what ever amounts to a creator force is not in the universe anylonger, but off somewhere else creating another or something else?



posted on Sep, 1 2020 @ 01:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: carsforkids
Assigning any part of what we see in the human being to something
unintelligible. To me is an insult to my own meager intelligence.
So I have a question for all the greater intellects around these parts.
When you hear or read or are told or even taught. That any part of
our anatomy or even one of our systems like the immune system.

Is the result of anything less than a highly intelligent forward thinking
greater mind. How does that not insult a greater IQ than my own? To me
it just isn't possible that no thinking went in to something that boasts
intelligence like our immune system does? And that's only the immune
system. Everything about this existence boasts a tremendous amount
of intelligence.

I know what a lot of you think about this subject. I just don't know if
many of you think about or question what academia teaches you at
all. Our origins our existence are just absolutely the result of planning
and timing by clock work by a greater intelligence than our own. And
yet someone has taught you believe to something that actually is just
a lie.When given over to anything less all you get is a mess.

I think a lot of you paid to be taught lies that you strongly believe.
But just do not by any means make any sense at all. I do give you
credit tho because deep down I think you realize that this existence
didn't just fall together perfectly. For no reason at all. I don't even
see how a greater intelligence than ours is so hard to believe.

What evolution suggests would be the equivalent of throwing the
shards of a broken window in the air and getting a new window.
IT JUST DOESN'T HAPPEN.


Everything is intelligent.

Grass is intelligent.
Slugs are intelligent.
Mushrooms are intelligent.
Red blood cells are intelligent.
Gut bacteria is intelligent.

What's not intelligent is thinking intelligence is the product of the human mind, or an overmind, when intelligence is the very essense of nature.



posted on Sep, 1 2020 @ 01:33 PM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake

All religious philosophy, sooner or later, arrives at the concept of unified universe rule, of one God. Universe causes cannot be lower than universe effects. The source of the streams of universe life and of the cosmic mind must be above the levels of their manifestation. The human mind cannot be consistently explained in terms of the lower orders of existence. Man’s mind can be truly comprehended only by recognizing the reality of higher orders of thought and purposive will. Man as a moral being is inexplicable unless the reality of the Universal Father is acknowledged.

The mechanistic philosopher professes to reject the idea of a universal and sovereign will, the very sovereign will whose activity in the elaboration of universe laws he so deeply reverences. What unintended homage the mechanist pays the law-Creator when he conceives such laws to be self-acting and self-explanatory!




top topics



 
23
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join