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.

 

Proof of ID the World is Looking For

page: 10
12
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 11 2008 @ 01:36 PM
link   
Edit.

NM. Just repeating myself again.





[edit on 5/12/2008 by AshleyD]




posted on May, 11 2008 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
I don't think astyanax would want the thread to go that way.


Yeah didn't think so... after all those steps are rigged. It was fun to watch the baiters get punked though.



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 


if by rigged you mean "holding things to the same standards that all other science has to go through instead of allowing it a pass because it's a personal religious belief of some"
yeah, it's rigged
as rigged as forcing an athlete to compete fairly in a foot race instead of allowing her/him to use a car and giving her/him a gold medal...



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
Yeah didn't think so... after all those steps are rigged. It was fun to watch the baiters get punked though.


Not at all. You could also easily apply the same steps to the big-bang theory and the evidence collected thus far - you know, the one you said was 'proof' of a magic-man in t'other thread.

It's just your double-think that makes you think it must be rigged. Try applying it to BB. It works easy enough.

If you watch the Ken Miller vids, you'll see him mention the exact prediction that stems from evolutionary theory in each case. And then how the evidence confirms the theory.

[edit on 11-5-2008 by melatonin]



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 05:03 PM
link   


5 If our hypothesis is true -- and only if it is true -- the following results may be expected from the experiment.
6 We ran the experiment. Here are the results. They tally well with our expectations (see #5 above).


There's never ever been an experiment that proves macro evolution.



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
There's never ever been an experiment that proves macro evolution.


Firstly, 'proves' is the wrong word. Secondly, There is a lot of evidence that confirms common descent. In fact, the videos I have repeatedly mentioned contain two strands of evidence that support it (and by extension, 'macroevolution') - one genetic, one fossil phylogeny.

Indeed, there is actually more evidence of common descent than there is of the big bang. Again, you just want to accept one, and deny t'other for ideological reasons. If you can find 30 repeatedly confirmed predictions derived from big-bang theory, I'll give you an ATS cookie.

[edit on 11-5-2008 by melatonin]



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


Talk about blind faith! Descent from what? To have common descent you have to first explain the existence of the first single cell life or you're dead in the water. You start out with a philosophical dedication to materialism that blinds you to the evidence of design. The complexity of the DNA in the single celled life which is required to get common descent off the ground screams design. Because of preconceived BIAS to materialism you theorize life arose from naturalistic chemical processes with ZERO evidence and ZERO observation. The DNA evidence screams design, the narrow materialistic constraints of natural science rule out honest evaluation the evidence before you ever start. It's a rigged process.

Neither evolutionists nor creationists were present to witness the origin of first life. You cannot use the standard scientific method - it is not capable of determining truth. The only way to explain an event in the past like this is through forensic principles like in a court of law - not naturalistic science. The central principle in forensic science is the principle of uniformity. Causes in the past are like the causes we observe today. So if a piece of information written in a code today requires an intelligent cause then an even more complex message written in a chemical code in the past also requires an intelligent cause as well. The Big Bang is the same way in that physics is incapable of explaining the cause of the Bang - because the bang created the laws of physics. In likeness to the DNA code, the anthropic principle is the evidence of the inteligent cause of the big bang.

Using naturalism to explain the origin of life is rigged so CONSEQUENTLY only naturalistic explanations will suffice. It is the logical fallacy of ASSUMING THE CONSEQUENT. It is just BAD SCIENCE.



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 06:34 PM
link   
Yadda, yadda, yadda.

Nice obfuscation, I really didn't expect anything less. I don't have to explain abiogenesis at all. I was talking about macroevolution/common descent and how it is even more well-established than big-bang theory.

You see, this is what I'm talking about, when shown to be blustering you go off on some vacuous and tedious tangent, completely ignoring the original points.

[edit on 11-5-2008 by melatonin]



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


NO the only point here is the entire scientific establishment is rigged toward materialism so the truth of ID never has a chance at evaluation. This thread has cleared that up in my mind once and for all. The scientific method assumes a blind naturalistic consequent thus it is not capable of determining the truth when all the intuitive evidence points toward ID.

[edit on 5/11/2008 by Bigwhammy]



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
NO the only point here is the entire scientific establishment is rigged toward materialism so the truth of ID never has a chance at evaluation. This thread has cleared that up in my mind once and for all. The scientific method assumes a blind naturalistic consequent thus it is not capable of determining the truth when all the intuitive evidence points toward ID.


Who cares about 'intuitive' evidence. If it makes you have a warm fuzzy feeling, then cool. But warm fuzzy feelings don't count as scientific evidence.

Science relies on methodological naturalism. We can assume 'intuitive' stuff like prayer-based magic and test its real-world effects.

Epic fail, of course.

Now we're even further off track than a few posts back. No surprises.



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


See mel sticking to strictly naturalist causes makes sense for something we can observe and experiment with. ID and evolution are not mutually exclusive in my mind so you could have evolution by design. Which is clearly the case within a species. But for the first life on earth - it's a one time event - even if you create life out of chemicals in the lab (good luck) it still had an intelligent cause - the scientist -- so for origins your materialism doesn't suffice. To determine truth you are going to have find another method that is not biased to materialism - something like forensic investigation. However that's only if the truth is important.



[edit on 5/11/2008 by Bigwhammy]



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
See mel sticking to strictly naturalist causes makes sense for something we can observe and experiment with. ID and evolution are not mutually exclusive in my mind so you can evolution by design. But for the first life on earth - it's a one time event - even if you create life out of chemicals in the lab (good luck) it still had an intelligent cause - the scientist -- so for origins your materialism doesn't suffice. To determine truth you are going to have find another method that is not biased to materialism like forensic investigation.


No, it would suffice. And can suffice. We are just providing reasonable logically coherent evidence-based explanations, not Truth (TM). We leave claims of such things to theology (rofl).

I agree that they need not be mutually exclusive for each individual. It's your perogative to make it work. Not mine. Keep your faith out of science, and we can all win.

You can have your fuzzy feelings, science can do its thing. But it doesn't work like that, for many people their faith becomes a seeping insidious virus that needs to contaminate every little thing it can, transmitting it through every channel it can.

Others are happy to just have personal faith. Like PZ said, when religion becomes a bit like knitting, things will be cool.



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


Your anti-theism blinds you.



Keep your faith out of science, and we can all win.


NO WE REFUSE.

Just suppose my faith is the truth (as billions think it is) then your blind faith that we are wrong just kept the truth out of science. You are choosing to perpetuate a lie by saying you search for truth. You don't want the truth. You presume the materialist consequent to satisfy your ideology. Its your religion. For you it creates warm fuzzy feelings of security that you will not be eternally judged for your sin.

Science as it stands today is incapable of finding truth. Thanks to brave souls like Ben Stein and his movie EXPELLED - The secret is out. Don't cry though, I'm sure evolution has a future in science. But the religion of Darwinisms days are numbered.



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
feelings of security that you will not be eternally judged for your sin.


And so we fall back to the last refuge of the faith-based scoundrel.


But the religion of Darwinisms days are numbered.


Waterloo!11!!eleventyone!!



So, any luck on those 30 repeatedly verified predictions derived from big-bang theory? Or do you just accept it because it fits your 'intuitive' wishful-thinking, rather than its scientific validity?

Amazing how the results of this 'materialist' endeavour suits you only when it fits your theological dogma.

*The confirmation bias is strong in this young padawan*

[edit on 11-5-2008 by melatonin]



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


Nice try at side stepping, last time I checked this was a thread about ID. Can't you see that even if macro evolution is true it doesn't solve your problem. You are still suffering from the blind watchmaker fallacy. Zoo keeper high priest Dawkins only strengthened Paley's case. A "blind" watch factory demands an intelligent source much more than a simple watch does. Your problem is actually exactly what you accuse creationists of - you can not separate your philosophy (basically your religion) from the science. Your materialist philosophy is assumed a priori and is not evidence based. You are ignoring the evidence in favor of your materialist philosophy i.e. blind faith.



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 08:41 PM
link   
Heh, that's quite funny, and rather sad at the same time. i like such ambivalent feelings. Thanks.

See ya later whammy.



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 09:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 



ID and evolution are not mutually exclusive in my mind so you could have evolution by design.


Finally, I can agree with something you've said Bigwhammy. Having been raised to believe in God, it wasn't until I was older and started thinking for myself that I came to question what I was taught. These questions have led to doubts and I've no doubt gone in circles during my life, wondering is it all just random or is the seemingly infinite nature of the universe obvious proof that this all didn't happen by accident. IMO, you could also say that the Genesis story and the BB Theory aren't mutually exclusive.

One of the problems I have with Religion in general though is that everyone thinks their's is the only right way to go about it and they perpetuate it through children who are going to believe whatever their parents tell them. Along with God, they are also brought up to believe in the Tooth Fairy, Santa Clause, and the Easter Bunny. It isn't until they reach a certain point in life that they learn the truth. That's how I felt when I finally started to question things for myself.

You say it is intuitive that life was designed. That idea, in and of itself, is the reason why we ask ourselves why are we here? And that question has been asked since the moment we were able to think intelligently. The proof in that statement lies with the idea of religion itself. Every single civilization ever discovered has had their own ideas, their own beliefs, in the "gods". The ancient cultures are now considered to be myths and Christianity, along with the other major religions of today have taken their place. But the idea is the same. That idea probably started 60,000 years ago, as our ancestors walked out of Africa and spread across the globe. And as each area of the world evolved independently into the races we see today, their ideas of religion evolved with them. Ironically, it's been survival of the fittest as religions have evolved. Christianity in particular has gone from just another pagan religion being persecuted by the Roman Empire to one of the largest beliefs in the world. The other irony there being that Constantine eventually made that same empire Christian after 300 or so years of persecution. And after being persecuted for hundreds of years they eventually turned around and did it to the "pagans" living in the America's when they "discovered" them. Survival of the fittest again and Christianity came out on top.

This is why religion is a joke to me now. In my mind, it is a dichotomy. We were either created or we weren't. There is either an afterlife or there isn't. And IMO, either everyone goes, or no one does. When we die, we'll know for sure, unless there is nothing after this life ends, in which case, we'll never know.



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 09:15 PM
link   
Richard Dawkins Assuming the consequent
among other things



www.youtube.com...

(Spinning Head like a Cartoon) HuH!?!?!?

What did Richard Dawkins just say? Well what he always says whenever he speaks, a whole lot of Spinning BS See Below:



"misconception is we ought to be able to see the intermediates we ought to be able to see fish turning into reptiles and reptiles turning into mammals. Thats not the way it is at tall fish are are modern animals they are just as modern as we are. they're descended from ancestors which we are descended from way back three hundred million years ago there would have been an ancestor which was the ancestor of modern fish and the ancestor of modern humans"


sounds like he has just told us what "kinds" of Ancestors we come from, does it not? Here let me help you break it down.

what kind of ancestor did we come from Dick?

Modern humans and Modern fish

Richard goes on saying;



"If you could have been there back then you could have seen the fish coming onto land, becoming an amphibian but that was a long time ago you wouldn't expect to see that today. So quite a lot of the misunderstanding of evolution is that we have descended from modern animals but we're NOT.

We're not descended from modern monkeys were not descended from modern fish from modern apes. They are modern animals just as WE are they are our cousins, not our ancestors.


Ok HOLD that thought,

1) He has just given the reason (excuse) for why we don't see intermediates because modern fish do not have the same ancestor as modern man that modern man had descended from the modern man ancestor explaining away the no evidence in the fossil record.

2)if we could have been there back then? But Dick? How do YOU know what actually happened back then? HE DOESN'T, he assumes this.

How does HE know what we could have seen back then? intuitive reasoning?

You're Damn right, what else could it be.

Keep in mind he has not answered the question about the genome at all because this certainly doesn't. So far what we have got here is nothing but PURE unadulterated speculation, ipso facto which has been used as evidence certainly never observed in any way shape or form it is completely fabricated, a theory with no supporting evidence at "tall"

3 "so quite a lot of the misunderstanding of evolution is that we have descended from modern animals but we're NOT" No of course we're not Dick and thats why you call them modern animals so far so good right?

4 We're not descended from modern monkeys were not descended from modern fish from modern apes. They are modern animals just as WE are, they are our cousins, not our ancestors.

Ok so all of the species living today are modern we get that. Apparently they all kind of branched off at some time but who really knows. Now lets make this simple shall we, lets stick with one species and Ill say Humans.

What did modern Humans descend from again? Well we descended from our modern human ancestor which is what? Hell if I know BUT I would bet the farm it looks just like a human carrying the seed of its own kind. What kind? HUMAN kind that's why Dawkins calls it our human ancestor.

or is it? He uses these very scientific terms that us yahoo Christians are just so impressed by. Phrases like "something "like" an amphibian"

I love it when he knows what he is talking about.

Sounds good to me Dick, lets go with something like since you have no damn clue anyway.

Well we descended from human ancestors which again at some point three hundred million years ago had we been there we would have seen a fish becoming an amphibian which I suppose becomes a reptile which I suppose becomes a mammal which is just what Richard called the misconception about evolution in the first place and why we don't see these intermediates.

Mmmmmm

Since that didn't happen as he says, is why we should not expect to see the intermediates we mistakenly think we should see but says "If you could have been there back then, you could have seen the fish coming onto land, becoming an amphibian but that was a long time ago you wouldn't expect to see that today." Which is again explaining away why we don't but proves NOT a damn thing about evolution and why we see so many people saying the fossil record has not "disproven" evolution in anyway. The fossil record being examined in the same context doesn't disprove the flying spaghetti monster either. Isn't Science Grand!

One should ask why we should expect to see it the intermediates all! Oh yeah Richard already explained that didn't he.

Richard hasn't explained why we should expect to see it back then but just assumes the consequent happened regardless of the total lack of evidence he just admitted causes the confusion in the first place in addition to the reason we don't see the intermediates because we don't come from modern animals we come from human ancestors who were what?

We have no clue because this is as confusing as obfuscated and incoherent as this leading world famous Zoo Keeper has made it.

After copy pasting his statement to my Science writer program I get grade level 19 which is lower than the usual 21 I get from richards writing 80 for superfluous word usage which is usually indicative of those using circular logic and deception and a 2 for readability which is pathetic. This is one smart verbal gymnast but one complete failure as teacher. Intelligent Scientists should be able to make the complex simple even for average intelligence to grasp but what we see Richard doing is quite the opposite.

All of this is ONE HUGE contradiction.

All of this is one HUGE bit of Circular logic and

All of this does NOT answer the question first asked

All Richard has done here, was side step the question answering one that was never asked but raises another.

That one being, does this imbecile even know what the hell he is talking about?

If you defend this post by showing evidence of speciation than you are arguing against what Richard just said.

If you attempt to make a connection to any other kind of animal than you have just contradicted what Richard just said.

If you try to say we have an ancestor that is not that of a human ancestor than you have just contradicted what richard just said because we are not ancestors were "cousins" and need to show observable evidence of just what that ancestor is that he says we are a cousin to.

The ironic thing is all my cousins look like humans too, so what is meant by "cousins" is this word cousin to fall victim to the same obfuscation the word "species" has? Don't give me any of the "I just don't understand species" when the word has been troubling Science for a very long time.

So anyone that can make sense where Richard cannot please share with us why you are smarter than Richard without contradicting what he already said. The moment you do that IF you can do that we are no longer cousins so have fun spinning boys and Girls because I have a quote from this same man I am saving just for the right time.

Good luck with all that

- Con







[edit on 12-5-2008 by Conspiriology]



posted on May, 12 2008 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Conspiriology
 


Thanks for that latest installment of "I don't understand Evolution, so let me try to make a professor look like an idiot".

Seriously, Con - get a basic understanding of evolution, and you won't wind up spilling your confused mind on this forum. It's embarassing for you and your cause. You have such venom towards evolution, yet you clearly don't understand it.

You have my sympathy.



posted on May, 12 2008 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by dave420
Seriously, Con - get a basic understanding of evolution, and you won't wind up spilling your confused mind on this forum.



Originally posted by dave420
You have such venom towards evolution, yet you clearly don't understand it.



Originally posted by dave420
I'm not being rude when I say this, but clearly you don't understand the scientific method.



Originally posted by dave420
Again, please try to study evolution before trying to destroy it, for your sake - as you're just wasting your own time.



Originally posted by dave420
Clearly you don't understand how evolution works, so you lay the credit on your ol' buddy, God.



Originally posted by dave420
Don't bang on at us for not understanding when you haven't got a clue about evolution



Originally posted by dave420
You really need to understand evolution before you can criticise it.



Originally posted by dave420
Please try to understand that which you mock. Keep on embracin' that ignorance! You're doing a fine job.



Originally posted by dave420
It's fascinating how people can ignore independently-verified research without the slightest clue as to what's actually being discussed.



Originally posted by dave420
Which shows just how much you know about evolution. Hint: not a great deal.



Originally posted by dave420
A layperson, clearly without knowledge of evolution, has managed to point out in a post, a 3-paragraph post at that, how evolution is all nonsense.



Originally posted by dave420
Clearly if you feel the need to write your second paragraph, you don't understand the scientific method.



Originally posted by dave420
You single-handedly failed to demonstrate anything in that thread apart from your on-going ignorance of the theory of evolution.






new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join