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.

 

Scientists: We've found creator's tracks

page: 5
17
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 08:01 AM
link   
yes, it does clearly display that "apes and monkeys" had smaller brains than us.. thats hardly disputable. you were meant to adopt some critical thinking (if possible) and come to the conclusion that there has been a progressive increase in time in "apes and monkeys" brain size up until us, the apes we call humans (great apes to be precise). it wasn't a leap from small brain to big brain, but progression.

the missing link argument is just another bit of mediated science. for every fossil you find that fits a gap, another two gap will be created


WHATS THE MISSING LINK?

species1-------------------gap------------------species2 (note 1 gaps)



MISSING LINK IS FOUND (species 1.5)

species1-----gap-----species1.5-----gaps-----species2 (note 2 gaps)



-as you can see, for every missing link you find, you create twice the amount of gaps and need another 2 missing links to fill these gaps, this will go on exponentially. its one of the most used, yet most ridiculous arguments in my opinion.
-humans love to organize everything into categories, species are no exception.. its a convenient way to organize/explain/present/sum-up organisms/"apes and monkeys". but it really gives a mis-representation to the layman trying to understand issues like "the missing link". to be honest there is probably 1000's and 1000's of intermediated forms that differ ever so slightly from each other that eventually leads from one species of "homo" to the next up until modern humans. its more of a flow, not sudden jumps that leads to distinct definitive species.

on top of this fossilization is a very very VERY rare process, it takes very special circumstances for it to happen. so those 1000's and 1000's of intermediated stages between species wont be recorded in the fossil record, lost forever.

people are put to jail even when the crime isn't seen first hand, but from a collection of little pieces of evidence and from this they know with relative certainty who's guilty. you can think of it like that if you want. i also appreciate that sometimes people are put in jail when they really didn't commit the crime, and science is wrong sometimes also.

wake up and smell the coffee.

[edit on 28/4/08 by cheeser]




posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 08:15 AM
link   
So if the odds of any one thing happening are 1/10,000,000,000, it's still going to happen somewhere. Considering that 10 billion is a lot closer to Zero than it is to infinity, I'd say those are good odds.

The odds of getting hit by lightening are astronomical, just because it's never happened to me doesn't mean that it never happens and of course for the people that have been hit by lightening, they may never be able to reproduce the occurrence.

For all of the billions of planets that we don't even know exist, we just happened to come about on this one. If this planet wasn't habitable, we wouldn't be here and we wouldn't know it.

If someone wins the lottery and can't repeat it, I suppose they should thank "God" for making them win.



posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 08:21 AM
link   
This goes to proof the foolishness of humans. This question creates other questions. If god created the first living cell, then who the hell created god?
If aliens created the first living cell, who created these aliens?

So who created god? If you believe in god? Who created aliens? If you believe in aliens. Aliens do not exist, as god does not exist as Santa Claus does not exist.

The Universe is a mathematical probability. No god, no aliens, no Santa.

Those who said aliens and/or god exist give me proof of their existance. If you can't then this excuse that god or alien created all the life in this universe is asinine.

You people are wasting your time. There is no truth. Only mathematical probability. There's no use of arguing over something that you don't know exist or not. Get back to your boring lives.

There's nothing to see here. Move along...



posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 08:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Macrotus


You people are wasting your time. There is no truth. Only mathematical probability.


Heh.

If only you would even glimpse into the implications of what you speak of.

Did it never occur to you that the 'truth' can exist within mathematical probability?

I would much rather waste my time, than have time to waste, good sir.




posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 08:27 AM
link   


yes, it does clearly display that "apes and monkeys" had smaller brains than us

Show me your missing link...if you can't do that you are in the same guessing boat as us!!!



posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 08:29 AM
link   
It always stuns me in this way when it comes to philosophical debate - those who abstein from the discussion unwittingly speak words that hold volume after volume after volume of information that would drive even the most sagely hermit to the peak of his wildest dreams.

It's ironic, after a fashion.




posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 08:34 AM
link   


The Universe is a mathematical probability


The universe exists with or without math and math doesn't solve all debates or problems...for instance, there is a 50-50 chance you are a bot.



posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 08:49 AM
link   
Booting....... Please Wait......Loading.......Does Not Compute..........ERROR......

if he isnt the I am by fancy mathematical talk.

any which way i agree, math is just something we stumbled apon that already exsisted in another form or as another subject matter.

Honestly the puzzling ideas an actuals in this universe would drive most NUTS! including myself. I like to think of this theory, Im sure this isnt the name but heres a guess.

Thought Seeding.- One thought can an will inspire other people to think the same thought, Thru a process of Energy, as of which would be easy to say I dunno as to try an dive into the twisted science an lack there for of this idea.

But thats a point. One of gigainfinitygoogleplex.

[edit on 28-4-2008 by Trance Optic] then again super crazy fast here

[edit on 28-4-2008 by Trance Optic]



posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 08:53 AM
link   
reply to post by St Udio
 





Basically, he said, his organization is skeptical of the idea that evolution has the power to create.


It has always been the valid scientific argument; that things don't create themselves. It is mathematically improbable, illogical, contrary to established scientific laws and never proved experimentally.
It is therefore a non-scientific idea.



posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 09:51 AM
link   
I don't know if you are ready to see what's really out there.

There are so many mixtures and different beings it would stun you to say the least.

The Creator's also have created animals that talk.

As the Grey communicated to me: Humans are a stupid species, they use little of there brain, they do not know how to use it.... but they do have intelligence and this makes for a good study.



posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 10:20 AM
link   
Like all of you I have no proof of anything, if I did I wouldn't be on this forum searching for possible answers.
Will I accept the proof if shown undeniable evidence, sure wouldn't you? Until that time we just have to keep on guessing.



posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by alienib

Scientists: We've found creator's tracks


"For 50 years, the best scientific minds on the planet have tried to show where the first cells came from and we failed miserably to demonstrate that. … If you try hard for 50 years and fail to show something, that's pretty strong evidence - the old theory of a prebiotic soup now appears to be kaput."


Very weak argumentation for a scientist, and light-years away from beeing evidence. I've expected something ground breaking after reading the topic title, but this is rediculous, sorry.



posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by alienib
 


For the last 150 years science has tried to find proof that the world, universe and life; didn't need a creator.
For thousands of years, it has been considered to be self evident, by enlightened people, that their is a creator behind it all!
Science has failed miserably to present good arguments against a
creator. Without such arguments, the default assumption remains the only and best argument .. "There is a Creator behind it all".

Let the theological arguments concerning God's nature, begin!



posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Macrotus
 


How does mathematics explain to you how everything is held in check perfectly every second of every day on this Planet? It can't explain it. Every day we wake up to the perfect mixture of gases in the atmosphere to be able to breathe. We wake up the perfect distance from the sun and moon in order to survive. Everything falls into place perfectly every day. Not by mathematics.
By God!



posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Christian Voice
 


That's not mathematics, that's science. If those things didn't happen, we wouldn't exist. Darwin's survival of the fittest does make sense in those ways.

Why can't math, science, and religion just go hand in hand? Science and math aren't supposed to completely explain everything, but more to help give a better understanding.

Capiche?



posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by alienib

Scientists: We've found creator's tracks


www.avpress.com

If you try hard for 50 years and fail to show something, that's pretty strong evidence "
(visit the link for the full news article)



I want to comment on this sentence. I guess we can't fly according to this man?


Humanity's desire to fly possibly first found expression in China, where human flight tied to kites is recorded (as a punishment) from the sixth century AD. Subsequently, the first controlled hang glider flight was demonstrated by Abbas Ibn Firnas in al-Andalus in the 9th century AD. Leonardo da Vinci's (15th c.) dream of flight found expression in several designs, but he did not attempt to demonstrate flight. It was in post-industrial Europe from the late 18th century that serious attempts at flight took place, with progression from lighter-than-air (hot-air balloons, 1783), unpowered heavier-than-air (Otto Lilienthal, 1891), and finally, powered, sustained, flight (Wright brothers, 1903).


It took us 1300 years to fly. But, I guess 50 is enough?



posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Christian Voice
reply to post by Macrotus
 


How does mathematics explain to you how everything is held in check perfectly every second of every day on this Planet? It can't explain it. Every day we wake up to the perfect mixture of gases in the atmosphere to be able to breathe. We wake up the perfect distance from the sun and moon in order to survive. Everything falls into place perfectly every day. Not by mathematics.
By God!


Could it be that we actually evolved to breath these perfect gasses? That we evolved to tolerate these perfect temperatures? That we evolved to what we are because of these things? Not because God created us and then decided that we needed these things?

Circular logic.

Although, I don't expect anything more.

[edit on 4/28/2008 by Griff]



posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


If your trying to invent something that isn't part of reality. Like an airplane. Then you keep trying to matter how long it takes.
When your trying to discover proof for a theory, which trys to explain something that is already in existence. But no proof can be found after 50 years.
It is past time to switch to a different theory.



posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Howie47
When your trying to discover proof for a theory, which trys to explain something that is already in existence. But no proof can be found after 50 years.
It is past time to switch to a different theory.


OK. Fair enough. How about the discovery that mathematically, bumble bees can fly?


"The rumor probably started in the 1930s with students of the noted aerodynamicist Ludwig Prandtl at Gottingen," she said. "That was a time when we were just beginning to think we understood aerodynamic principles, as applied to fixed-wing aircraft, but scientists recognized their limitations in applying the principles to the birds and insects and other creatures in the natural world.



Bumblebees finally cleared for takeoff:
Insect flight obeys aerodynamic rules, Cornell physicist proves

HOLD FOR EMBARGO: MONDAY, MARCH 20, 2000, 3 P.M. CENTRAL


www.news.cornell.edu...

So in the 1980's we should have just given up trying to figure out mathematically that bumble bees could indeed fly? And just said "God allows them to"?

But, looky, looky, 20 years later they proved it. Imagine that.



[edit on 4/28/2008 by Griff]

[edit on 4/28/2008 by Griff]

[edit on 4/28/2008 by Griff]



posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


They knew bumble bees could fly. It is (observable)!
Life spontaneously generating. (not-Observable)!
Life evolving from a common ancestor. (not-observable)!
Can you see the difference?



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join