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.

 

The Top Ten Myths About Evolution

page: 3
2
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 09:24 PM
link   
Surely only the foolish, the gullible or those with bible-addled brains would deny that the basic principles of Evolution are correct.

On the one hand we have well over a hundred years of scientific study on a global basis that supports Evolution.

On the other we have a load of money-grasping reactionary 'men of god' (with big houses) who've made something up as the proven theory upsets the fairy-story they use to get more money & power from the weak and foolish.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster / Pastafarianism is, to me, at least as valid as this 'intelligent design' nonsense.




posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Surely only the foolish, the gullible or those with bible-addled brains would deny that the basic principles of Evolution are correct.

really, only someone who has a major beef with religion would make such a harsh and uninformed judgment. ToE has its holes as well. Maybe you would like to explain to me how life came into being. I would love to hear it.


On the one hand we have well over a hundred years of scientific study on a global basis that supports Evolution.

again, how did it start? How does something that is not alive become alive?


On the other we have a load of money-grasping reactionary 'men of god' (with big houses) who've made something up as the proven theory upsets the fairy-story they use to get more money & power from the weak and foolish.

Just because there are some whom wish to take advantage of someones faith does not translate into faith is false.


The Flying Spaghetti Monster / Pastafarianism is, to me, at least as valid as this 'intelligent design' nonsense.

I can only assume that you are joking, right? FSM was created as a parody to prevent religion from being thought in class rooms, something that I agree with, because religion is not science, it is a believe, FSM is neither it is a political statement.



posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 09:58 PM
link   
I hope more people read that, I'm getting darn sick of people using the "But if we evolved from monkeys than why are there still monkeys?!" excuse. Its very annoying.

Thank you for posting this.



posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 10:10 PM
link   
No I'm not joking, FSM has just as much validity as ID (but it's less profitable). Yes FSM is a political device but so is ID.

How did life start? With a bit of DNA blown in by a comet and via the evolution of millions of species over millions of years diversity of species occured. Quite simple really.

If it wasn't that way are you seriously suggesting that 'God' (or the FSM) created all these fossils and now-extinct species simply to provide a 'back story' to his creation? If there is a 'God' why would he bother going to all that trouble.

ID is just a comfortable theory perpetuated by those with a financial interest in hoodwinking the gullible, it has no basis in fact so it's just an opinion with financial and media resources behind it.

No-one has ever invaded a country, dropped bombs, or killed people because of their belief in evolution, on the other hand.......



posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Strangerous
No I'm not joking, FSM has just as much validity as ID (but it's less profitable). Yes FSM is a political device but so is ID.


Well, it took it a little longer this time, we managed to get almost three pages of semi-reasonable comments until this thread devolved to total shlock.

Perhaps we're not scraping the exact bottom of the barrel here in the O & C forum at ATS, but we're still pretty damn close. With comments like this it should just be a matter of time before the O & C forum is back at the bottom of the barrel. If we could get Produkt to post here, we'd be there for sure. Only a matter of time I'm sure.



posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by zenlover28


Rren..my point was regarding 'specified complexity' in general. It is a hogwash argument to me (whether or not you think I know anything about ID or not). It can not be proven as there is no way to prove it. ID supporters claim that this is the 'smoking gun' to debunk theory of evolution, however there is no way to prove the ID claim of 'specified complexity' being a product of design.


CSI is an issue for OOL not 'evolution' depending on where you draw your abiogenesis line...

Here's an essay from Dembski ('99) that should help you understand what's being discussed/argued over - Explaining Specified Complexity


There's only one known source for producing actual specified complexity, and that's intelligence. In every case where we know the causal history responsible for an instance of specified complexity, an intelligent agent was involved. Most human artifacts, from Shakespearean sonnets to Dürer woodcuts to Cray supercomputers, are specified and complex. For a signal from outer space to convince astronomers that extraterrestrial life is real, it too will have to be complex and specified, thus indicating that the extraterrestrial is not only alive but also intelligent (hence the search for extraterrestrial intelligence-SETI).


The idea of (scientifically) detecting Specified Complexity, or CSI, isn't without precedent. If your content calling these things an appearance or illusion then nothing I could say or argue would change that. You did say, " there is no way to prove [CSI is designed]" so apparently you've already figured it out. Hook a brotha' up... don't hold back, we've got aliens killing sheep with some sort of genetically engineered cotton plants for Pete's sake! If you've already debunked this, give it up, I got better things to do.

I suppose you're an advocate of Infinite Monkey Theorem or something similar then eh? Giving a long enough timeline anything (read: everything) can (read: will) happen. Of course the universe is only about 14.5byo, but we'll just pretend it's infinte.

FYI recent experiments went, er, um poorly.


arn.org
A group of faculty and students in the university's media program left a computer in the monkey enclosure at Paignton Zoo in southwest England, home to six Sulawesi crested macaques. Then, they waited.

At first, said researcher Mike Phillips, “the lead male got a stone and started bashing the hell out of it.

“Another thing they were interested in was in defecating and urinating all over the keyboard,” added Phillips, who runs the university's Institute of Digital Arts and Technologies.

Eventually, monkeys Elmo, Gum, Heather, Holly, Mistletoe and Rowan produced five pages of text, composed primarily of the letter S. Later, the letters A, J, L and M crept in — not quite literature.


Guess monkeys are no better at writing Shakespeare that evolutionary algorithms are at creating life (OOL.) Unless evolution creates evolution, then I stand corrected.




Want to get more in depth or stop there?


You haven't got your toes wet yet (no assumptions wrt your knowledge of ID) why you holding back? Sock it to me.



posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rren
FYI recent experiments went, er, um poorly.


arn.org
A group of faculty and students in the university's media program left a computer in the monkey enclosure at Paignton Zoo in southwest England, home to six Sulawesi crested macaques. Then, they waited.

At first, said researcher Mike Phillips, “the lead male got a stone and started bashing the hell out of it.

“Another thing they were interested in was in defecating and urinating all over the keyboard,” added Phillips, who runs the university's Institute of Digital Arts and Technologies.

Eventually, monkeys Elmo, Gum, Heather, Holly, Mistletoe and Rowan produced five pages of text, composed primarily of the letter S. Later, the letters A, J, L and M crept in — not quite literature.


Guess monkeys are no better at writing Shakespeare that evolutionary algorithms are at creating life (OOL.) Unless evolution creates evolution, then I stand corrected.


Gosh, Rren, I am surprised that you don't see the methodological flaw in this experiment. The protocol clearly requires 10000 monkeys banging keyboards for 10000 years. This doesn't fufill that criteria... and since the absence of evidence isn't the evidence of absence, obviously monkeys can write Shakespeare.....

Shape up, man... or I'll have to find another ally here.


[edit on 9-6-2006 by mattison0922]



posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by mattison0922

Originally posted by Strangerous
No I'm not joking, FSM has just as much validity as ID (but it's less profitable). Yes FSM is a political device but so is ID.


Well, it took it a little longer this time, we managed to get almost three pages of semi-reasonable comments until this thread devolved to total shlock.

Perhaps we're not scraping the exact bottom of the barrel here in the O & C forum at ATS, but we're still pretty damn close. With comments like this it should just be a matter of time before the O & C forum is back at the bottom of the barrel. If we could get Produkt to post here, we'd be there for sure. Only a matter of time I'm sure.


I'm sorry? My opinions are 'schlock'? Why exactly? Because you don't agree with me?

If you don't want to hear opposing views then why come on here?

Surely there's a www.comfortableheoriesforthegullibeandstupid.com out there somewhere?



posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 10:31 PM
link   

No I'm not joking, FSM has just as much validity as ID (but it's less profitable). Yes FSM is a political device but so is ID.

Really I always thought that ID was a way that people with religious believes describe the beginning of the universe scientifically .


How did life start? With a bit of DNA blown in by a comet and via the evolution of millions of species over millions of years diversity of species occured. Quite simple really.

How did this DNA come into being with the assistance of God?


If it wasn't that way are you seriously suggesting that 'God' (or the FSM) created all these fossils and now-extinct species simply to provide a 'back story' to his creation? If there is a 'God' why would he bother going to all that trouble.

who said that I don't believe the fossil record? But now that you have broached this topic can you tell me a species can change from one to another. Where does the new information for the DNA come from? It's my believe that DNA copies and only mixes the information handed down to it.


No-one has ever invaded a country, dropped bombs, or killed people because of their belief in evolution, on the other hand.......

...ToE gave us the holocaust because Hitler believed that the German people were more evolved than others.



posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 10:32 PM
link   
Actually there is a huge gap of missing information in the evolutionary chain if we did come from monkey‘s, any one could tell you that, even a elementary science teacher.



posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProjectX1986
Actually there is a huge gap of missing information in the evolutionary chain if we did come from monkey‘s, any one could tell you that, even a elementary science teacher.


You know just because you haven't found that evidence does not mean that it does not exist.



posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk

No I'm not joking, FSM has just as much validity as ID (but it's less profitable). Yes FSM is a political device but so is ID.

Really I always thought that ID was a way that people with religious believes describe the beginning of the universe scientifically .


How did life start? With a bit of DNA blown in by a comet and via the evolution of millions of species over millions of years diversity of species occured. Quite simple really.

How did this DNA come into being with the assistance of God?


If it wasn't that way are you seriously suggesting that 'God' (or the FSM) created all these fossils and now-extinct species simply to provide a 'back story' to his creation? If there is a 'God' why would he bother going to all that trouble.

who said that I don't believe the fossil record? But now that you have broached this topic can you tell me a species can change from one to another. Where does the new information for the DNA come from? It's my believe that DNA copies and only mixes the information handed down to it.


No-one has ever invaded a country, dropped bombs, or killed people because of their belief in evolution, on the other hand.......

...ToE gave us the holocaust because Hitler believed that the German people were more evolved than others.


Guy that is all so wrong.

ID is what SOME religious people believe, many thinking people are religious but don't subscribe to ID

Who says the DNA came from 'God'? Why not from another source completely unrelated to Earth-based fairy stories?

I never said a species changes from one to another - species evolve, mutate and cross-breed to create new ones. How does ID explain the vast array of dog species which have evolved from the wolf/dingo ancestor in realitvely recent times?

Hitler's beliefs were based on many things including a misapplication of evolutionary theory to fit his warped view, other elements (EG Teutonic myths, religion etc) were woven in to create his wierd & bizarre theories



posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 10:53 PM
link   

ID is what SOME religious people believe, many thinking people are religious but don't subscribe to ID
Yeah really do you have the numbers to back this up?


Who says the DNA came from 'God'? Why not from another source completely unrelated to Earth-based fairy stories?

cause and affect, you have your effect now what was the cause?


I never said a species changes from one to another - species evolve, mutate and cross-breed to create new ones. How does ID explain the vast array of dog species which have evolved from the wolf/dingo ancestor in realitvely recent times?
I never said that I don't believe in evolution, I've just come to the conclusion that it is not possible with out a God.
Doesn't evolve mean to change over time?
Do you know what happens when you cross bread two species? The off spring is often incapable of reproduction, hence this can not add to evolution.


Hitler's beliefs were based on many things including a misapplication of evolutionary theory to fit his warped view, other elements (EG Teutonic myths, religion etc) were woven in to create his wierd & bizarre theories
You are the one that implied that nothing bad came about from ToE., I showed you that something vary bad came from it.


[edit on 9-6-2006 by Mr Mxyztplk]



posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Strangerous
I'm sorry?

Okay... apology accepted.


My opinions are 'schlock'? Why exactly? Because you don't agree with me?

Nope, not because I don't agree with you. I disagree with lots of people around here on this topic... a list of a few: Byrd, Nygdan, Zipdot, SO, etc. But I wouldn't refer to their opinions as schlock. While I may wholeheartedly disagree with them about much of this topic, their opinions are reasonably well informed, critically thought out, and have some basis in actually trying to learn things and expand their knowledge.

As far as your opinions are concerned, I don't know most of them. I DO however think this is worse than schlock, but the censors prohibit me from stating how I really feel with respect to this opinion of yours. Why do I feel this way? Your opinion is obviously not informed, not well thought out, not critically considered, and is really just a statement to generate shock value, and is in reality ridiculous and absurd. Of course we can discuss this in detail if you'd like.


If you don't want to hear opposing views then why come on here?

I love opposing views from intelligent, well thought out individuals. I don't like people wasting bandwith with ridiculousness.


Surely there's a www.comfortableheoriesforthegullibeandstupid.com out there somewhere?

Hilarious, did you think of that on your own?

We're all impressed.

Now why don't you back your words up with some evidence? Why not compare how ID and FSM are equal, and me and hopefully Rren will 'discuss' it with you.

This should be loads of fun.

[edit on 9-6-2006 by mattison0922]



posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 11:14 PM
link   

and me and hopefully Rren will 'discuss' it with you.
Ouch not even a honorable mention? Mattison I'm hurt.



posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Strangerous
No I'm not joking, FSM has just as much validity as ID (but it's less profitable). Yes FSM is a political device but so is ID.

Wow, this is news to me. ID makes money for people. Do you have an actual data to back this up? Who EXACTLY is getting rich off of ID?


How did life start? With a bit of DNA blown in by a comet

Gosh I must have missed this article. Got a ref? Sounds like one that possibly came from The Journal of Your Own Imagination, unfortunately my inst. doesn't subscribe.... as Rren would say could ya "hook a brotha up," and u2u me a .pdf?


and via the evolution of millions of species over millions of years diversity of species occured. Quite simple really.

Wow. Simple, huh? Well maybe you should contact Leslie Orgel, I'm sure he'd love to give you a job... he's been working on this for... well.... I'm willing to bet longer than you've been alive maybe twice as long, and he still describes the problem as 'unsolved.' You must be something.

It's an interesting theory though... life came from other species.... wait a minute, what are you trying to pull... someone already thought of that... it's called Cell Theory, and it doesn't explain abiogenesis.


If it wasn't that way are you seriously suggesting that 'God' (or the FSM) created all these fossils and now-extinct species simply to provide a 'back story' to his creation? If there is a 'God' why would he bother going to all that trouble.

And here it is... quite early in the game too actually. This is it; this statement proves you know nothing, zero, zilch, nada about ID. In fact, you'd probably have to learn something about ID to know zero about it. You definitely have an idea of what ID is in your head, but it's in no way coincident with what is collectively referred to as the Intelligent Design movement.

Here's a news flash for ya bud, that actually you could have picked up if you'd visited even a single, that is ONE ID website, read the introduction of an ID book, or hell, even an article in those comic books of yours about ID. The fossil record in no way stands in opposition to the idea of ID.

Perhaps I should repeat this: The fossil record in no way stands in opposition to the idea of ID.

In fact... this story you're talking about isn't even a mainstream YECist theory. Certainly nothing AiG or Walt Brown, or the ICR subscribes to.

Did you make this up too?

Okay... okay... I could be wrong you might have read something by Kent Hovind.



ID is just a comfortable theory perpetuated by those with a financial interest in hoodwinking the gullible, it has no basis in fact so it's just an opinion with financial and media resources behind it.

Hilarious. That's funny... because ID has pretty much ruined the scientific careers and stature of a number of people who would otherwise most probably be considered competent scientists.

Where did you get this one from, and do you have even a shred... a quantum string's worth of evidence to back this up?


No-one has ever invaded a country, dropped bombs, or killed people because of their belief in evolution, on the other hand.......

Wrong again bud. Here's a couple of famous one's. Ever heard of Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris? Doubtful, but you should google those names, along with the words "natural selection" and see what you come with.

There's a list of others, but I thought there'd be a remote chance that you might have heard of those two... and in any case, I don't want to waste too much bandwith on something you're not likely to reply to anyway.




posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 11:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk

and me and hopefully Rren will 'discuss' it with you.
Ouch not even a honorable mention? Mattison I'm hurt.


Sorry bro... I.... umm... feel like I fought wars with Rren. We have a history, and I know he's got my back... I also know he's extremely well informed about this topic.

So don't be offended, we just don't have a history, and in reality I've only starting reading your posts a day or so ago.

Sometimes I take a while to warm up to people...


BTW, can you say your screen name backwards?



posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 11:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Strangerous
How does ID explain the vast array of dog species which have evolved from the wolf/dingo ancestor in realitvely recent times?

Yes!!! Here it is the next statement that demonstrates everything that you don't know, everything you've never read, and everything you don't understand about ID.

Truly... you've got to love it when people dig their own graves dontcha?

It just makes this so much easier... though not unsurprisingly, less fulfilling.

Nygdan, PLEASE COME BACK!!!!!!!

ID explains dogs via selective breeding. How do you explain 'em?


Hitler's beliefs were based on many things including a misapplication of evolutionary theory to fit his warped view

Hmmm... does this in any way resemble your own misapplication, or perhaps misunderstanding is a better word, of ID. It kind of seems analogous, and honestly if you weren't making an analogy, I can't imagine why you'd bring this up.

Oh yes, and BTW, Welcome to ATS O & C F.


[edit on 9-6-2006 by mattison0922]



posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 11:56 PM
link   
No prob, I was just having fun schooling Stranerous in our debate (at least I'd like to think I was) when you came along and totally decemated him/her. I'm young yet and have much to learn so I though me Vs. strangerous was a fair fight. You coming in is like hunting rabbits with nuclear weapons.



posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 12:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rren


CSI is an issue for OOL not 'evolution' depending on where you draw your abiogenesis line...


Oh really. It's just an issue for how life occurred, eh? Not so. It would be an issue for evolution as a whole as it attempts to discredit biological evolution period. If you don't understand that, then I suggest you get out of 1999 and get into 2006.


Here's an essay from Dembski ('99) that should help you understand what's being discussed/argued over - Explaining Specified Complexity


Oh thanks for the 1999 article. LOLOLOL I'm sorry to laugh Rren, but you set yourself up for it. Please Rren put me into my place. I realize I am a stupid nobody, but I really need you to reinforce that for me some more please.


If your content calling these things an appearance or illusion then nothing I could say or argue would change that. You did say, " there is no way to prove [CSI is designed]" so apparently you've already figured it out.


Ummmm, there isn't any way to prove it, Rren. Fancy words and skillful arguments don't intimidate me Rren and neither does attempting to mask ID as a legitimate science. You can't prove it and you will never be able to prove it as it begins and ends with a creator. Say it doesn't and I will debunk you there as well. Just because something has the appearance of being designed does not mean that it was in fact designed. You believe something has been designed because of your current knowledge of it. If you had no knowledge of it then how the heck would you know if it had the appearance of being designed? Do you want to have the human eye and flagellum argument? Again, what is your basis of comparison to know that we were in fact designed? And, if aliens were the designer of Earth and all that inhabits it then something also had to create the aliens....was it intelligent? Was it evolution? Was it divine? Where did this intelligent energy (if it is intelligent) originate from? This only leads back once again to creationism/evolutionist arguments. Unless of course you want to limit this discussion to human life as we know it and our basic molecular structure, which of course we shouldn't do because the definition ID theory uses for 'CSI' lumps it all into one category anyhow.


Hook a brotha' up... don't hold back, we've got with some sort of genetically engineered cotton plants for Pete's sake! If you've already debunked this, give it up, I got better things to do.


Ummmm....point being?


I suppose you're an advocate of Infinite Monkey Theorem or something similar then eh? Giving a long enough timeline anything (read: everything) can (read: will) happen. Of course the universe is only about 14.5byo, but we'll just pretend it's infinte.


I suppose that you supposed wrong. I'm not an advocate of an 'infinite monkey theorem'. I do however rely on factual information to attempt to base my beliefs on. I don't know where the origins of life came from, nor do I claim to know. But, I am claiming to know that you cannot prove that 'specified complexity' cannot originate by natural means. Nor am I saying that it can be proven that it has originated by natural means. Just so ya know, i'm not hard core anything. I'm open minded and I attempt to be objective on both sides of the argument. I see it as sly on the end of the ID argument, because it isn't an ignorant argument on the surface at all for a change. However, it really becomes silly when you really start thinking about it in the broader sense. Because it doesn't explain anything anymore than anything else does, however you all act as if it does and it attempts to underscore a legitimate science that can be observed, witnessed and tested. But, hey...you'll always have your mathematical formula to back you up, eh?


Guess monkeys are no better at writing Shakespeare that evolutionary algorithms are at creating life (OOL.) Unless evolution creates evolution, then I stand corrected.


Ahhhh evolutionary algorithms? Typical ID argument. You're reaching, Rren. Really, really reaching.


You haven't got your toes wet yet (no assumptions wrt your knowledge of ID) why you holding back? Sock it to me.


Hmmm....sock it to you? Well, since I don't claim to be all knowing in any topic, i'm sure you understand your science of ID better than myself, Rren. However, I have researched it quite a bit, and with the risk of sounding rhetorical, ummmmm I see it as a sad attempt to underscore evolution in all aspects even though evolution is something that has been observed and does have factual information to back it up.

I try to lay it all out in lay man's terms, Rren. I don't claim to be an all-knowing subject matter expert on any topic, but that doesn't mean I still can't pick flaws out in arguments now does it? Sometimes I have to be abrupt and sound like an all-knowing subject matter expert though to actually get in one of these conversations...otherwise i'll probably be ignored. Sad but true. I can eat crow. It doesn't bother me. And if further information presents itself to prove that i'm wrong i'll gladly stand up and face that fact. Doesn't bother me in the slightest.

Nighty Night!



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join