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.

 

Evolution, It's only a theory

page: 47
65
<< 44  45  46    48  49  50 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 05:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by andre18
Again you miss the point, it's like you purposely don't want to listen. The theory of evolution will never, ever, ever, ever, ever be 100% completely proven. We will never find the fossils of every single animal that ever lived. So it's impossible to find ever single bit of evidence to prove evolution completely. But, the evidence there is supporting evolution is enough to conclude as a fact.
I haven't missed anthing. You are missing my point. You currently believe that the ET has an overwhelming percentage, that although is not 100% is significant enough to support your acceptance of the theory. I however do not, the questions I have are the most important fundamental keystones for our existence, all of our entire life, ET cannot explain them.


en.wikipedia.org...
Thanks for the link. But I'm doing fine through with my reading via Journals and Published works.


Fact is often used by scientists to refer to experimental data or objective verifiable observations. "Fact" is also used in a wider sense to mean any hypothesis for which there is overwhelming evidence.
The fact that Scientist involved in theorising ET of early phototrophs need to use Parsimony and Distance(which are subjective, based on assumptions and cherry picked to match the already observed taxa) relegates aspects of the key elements of the theories earliest evolutionary life out side the example you quote. Thanks. Most of the data is experimental given the methods used and the assumption of direct lineage in theoriseing trees of evolution within taxanomic populations. You really should look at methods of conclusion when accepting the theory promoted by anyone or anygroup.


The overwhelming evidence of evolution.

Umm no. What they have done is make a theory up to fit the observations. Of course when you do this, it appears that the evidenvce is overwhelming, as you have built you theory around it. The scientific method does not work this way. Never has. Never will.
Show me the overwhelming evolution of photosynthesis and RNA, DNA, the lineage splitting into two kingdoms, all presenting progression as per ET's random mutation and selection. Then I will be overwhelmed.
Please......THE FACTS, not those that you have accepted and labelled as such by theory alone, theory driven by observation.


Science does not admit to be anything more then tentative - it's a work in progress. Never completely resolved. And because of this underlying fact all science can do is form scientifc theories on the best amount evidence that we have at the time to make intelligent conclusions.
So why are you upset that I am not prepared to fully accept the theory. I have explained repeatedly why I have problems with the theory. They are valid unanswered questions. My attack is not on science, get that through and into you consciousness, my attack is on a theory that has not answered all my questions. Simple, get that into your head and stop taking it so personally that I have higher standards then you do concerning this theory.


When we say a thing is a fact, then, we only mean that its probability is an extremely high one: so high that we are not bothered by doubt about it and are ready to act accordingly. Now in this use of the term fact, the only proper one, evolution is a fact
So what they are saying is that evolution is highly probable, that the doubts of those formulating the theory do not bother them. And so then, everyone else expressing doubt need not worry and accept that theory as fact. Ok. Sure. Sorry. No can do.
If you actually read and apply this philosophy to ET you will find that it is actually argueing against the theory itself. As it is not highly probable that life self generates purely out of surrounding material in a planetary enviroment, then develops a highly sophiticated system and language that encodes records and proliferates itself, not only with the ability to reproduce but with a inbuilt system of redundancy to safe guard against a corruption of that code and language.
If this was in fact highly probable, life would be everywhere in the universe, as all the planets would somehow find a way to generate life by simply using the surrounding materials, establishing life, encoding it in a RNA/DNA sequence based on chemicals from that environ and then kicking of a process of evolutionary progression resulting in massive amounts of life that are also based on that environment. That this life would also come up with an extremely efficient and productive system that harvests energy and converts in chemically to drive all life.
We only hypothesis that the only likely way life can exist is if a Planet has all the characteristics that we have. Again we make this by observation, that we are currently the only life we can apply the theory to.


And so just because we can't find every little bit of evidence does not mean evolution is not a fact. Of course there are going to be questions yet to be answered because we will never have the complete answer.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND?
I am not talking about every little bit of evidence, and you know it. You can debase my questions to a trivial need for specifics, but Andre, you know my questions are esential to all life. ET cannot account for these. They are not even close. I understand this subject far better than you because I am not merely using the topic to bash creationist or religious people. So my acceptance of it as fact is not solely reliant on the flaws of alternative arguements but rather by its own merits, and flaws, flaws you are not willing to address but rather relegate to my nit picking.


In science, a current theory is a theory that has no equally acceptable or more acceptable alternative theory, and has survived attempts at falsification. That is, there have been no observations made which contradict it to this point and, indeed, every observation ever made either supports the current theory or at least does not falsify it by contradicting it completely.
I am not willing to accept a theory just because it is the only one going.
The observations made on d RNA/DNA contradict ET.
Observations made on many life forms contradict ET.
Observations of the universe contradict ET, with its abscence of life.(please....before you pull Drakes equation out, show me a fact or observation and not another theory).
Thanks.




posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 05:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Aermacchi
 


inarticulate???

Well, someone has been to the dictionary lately.

Oh, oh!!! 'diatribe'!!! Really good, that one!!!!

AERM, please look at my post on another thread, where I address you directly.

Thanks.....

WW



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 05:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Aermacchi
 


Look, Aermacchi....

I thought of doing this in Private, via U2U.....

BUT I thought it's better to air it out.

I would also invite all moderators to this.

There are certain aspects of members on You-T who use a disparaging term, "AstroNots".

I find this personally offensive.

Aermacchi, YOU have chosen to use, your term....which tends to be equally offensive.

So far, I have NOT notified, via channels, any Mods. THIS IS MY POST to suggest, to you, that you apologize.

Ball's in YOUR court!!



Consider it a term of endearment Weed, one of the nice things about having a quote miner is I can suck up every disparaging remark you have ever made on here and have used it many times to thwart threats by emotional tampons being offended by what you assume was a typo or was it a miss spelled word? I don't know and I don't care the fact that you are over fifty years of age saying "Nyaa nyaaa I'm telling on you" like some grade school tattletale is telling enough to make a MOD want to consider seriously asking you is YOU are a "Darwittism" and how this offends you?


What is it your religion?

In the mean time I will call attention to your calling creationists stupid in the last thread we were in. Darwitt? naaah but calling someone stupid?

Yeah that might be offensive yet it was like water off a ducks back



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 05:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Aermacchi
 


inarticulate???

Well, someone has been to the dictionary lately.

Oh, oh!!! 'diatribe'!!! Really good, that one!!!!

AERM, please look at my post on another thread, where I address you directly.

Thanks.....

WW



WTF WEED get on topic or shut up what the hell are you trolling me now? too H HA HA HA I'm flattered really I am. I didn't know I was that much a threat in this thread.

One more threat or attempt to bait me into a violation and you'll be ignored weedy



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 05:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aermacchi
Originally posted by jfj123

lemme guess.....you think NASA is covering up the moon landing????
Oh my god.
This is the mentality of the people we're having a discussion with.
It figures you refuse to look at scientific data as evidence

Just sad.





Another tactic Darwits do is ask a question then assume the answer for you. Then they ridicule the answer.

If you don't like the answer you get ,,

Consider your source!


[edit on 7-3-2009 by Aermacchi]

Fair enough.
So am I wrong? Was my assumed answer incorrect?
I noticed you ridiculed my assumed answer yet you never contradicted it




[edit on 7-3-2009 by jfj123]



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 05:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Aermacchi
 


I have NEVER typed the word 'stupid' in reference to religious believers!!!

Perhaps, in passing, you might have inferred....but that is YOUR problem.

Nonetheless....this is NOT about you, nor I....it is about the topic.

Again, I invite everyone to go back to page one....and re-read the OP's original point.....

because Abdre18 is going to abandon this thread, and begin a new one....and I, for one, welcome his endeavour!!!!!



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 06:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by andre18
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


I'm going to do something i don't normally do in this thread and debate with you your personal beleifs...maybe that way we can work something out.


I believe that since we were put on a planet ...... God made us


How do you know god made us?


I believe (creationism) to be a fact.


Why do you creationsim is fact?


you can't tell me with Science what the Origin of Life is


Too late!

en.wikipedia.org...


In the natural sciences, abiogenesis, or origin of life, is the study of how life on Earth could have arisen from inanimate matter. It should not be confused with evolution, which is the study of how living things change over time. Amino acids, often called "the building blocks of life", occur naturally, due to chemical reactions unrelated to life. In all living things, these amino acids are organized into proteins, and the construction of these proteins is mediated by nucleic acids. Thus the question of how life on Earth originated is a question of how the first nucleic acids arose.



my belief in ID sounds more reasonable on this subject than Sciences


Ok, if you don't use science to prove ID then how do you?


See, that's the thing with believing in God. I can't explain it. I won't try to, don't have to, won't even go there. It requires faith. In a different way than having faith in facts.

I can't prove ID. Never, ever said I could. I do have some verifiable observations that I think proves it though.

The Divine Proportion for instance. Again Proof? Explain it with Science? Not yet. Verifiable and Observable? Yes.

You are arguing because of Creationists beliefs, instead of arguing the science.

No matter how much evidence you have of something in a theory you can't call it fact. That's forcing your belief, whether it's on other scientists, or whether it's on creationists, you are still FORCING a belief.

I respect your belief.

Respect mine.

That's all I ask.


[edit on 7-3-2009 by B.A.C.]



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 06:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

I noticed you ridiculed my assumed answer yet you never contradicted it




[edit on 7-3-2009 by jfj123]


Well what is there to contradict? You already answered for me.

You think I want to add to that sillyness.

NOPE



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 06:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aermacchi
Originally posted by jfj123

I noticed you ridiculed my assumed answer yet you never contradicted it




[edit on 7-3-2009 by jfj123]



Well what is there to contradict? You already answered for me.

You think I want to add to that sillyness.

NOPE

So to recap, you've taken the time to ridicule my correct assumption, as you've just verified as correct here.

What was the whole point of that?

Sure I might have been a little presumptuous but I was right as you just verified



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 06:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Aermacchi
 


I have NEVER typed the word 'stupid' in reference to religious believers!!!

Perhaps, in passing, you might have inferred....but that is YOUR problem.

Nonetheless....this is NOT about you, nor I....it is about the topic.

Again, I invite everyone to go back to page one....and re-read the OP's original point.....

because Abdre18 is going to abandon this thread, and begin a new one....and I, for one, welcome his endeavour!!!!!



Oh but you did and again it was because you took my discrediting Darwimp and you went ballistic over it and got all indignant as if I was insulting the Pope.

Then you tried to claim I called you a "weasel" when I was reffering to a tactic writers use and even posted the examples and you fit everyone of them.




What, was this nonsense shown at that stupid 'Creationism Museum'




ead on over to YouTube (a place I don't often cite) for a video titled 'Stupid Design'......enjoy!!!!


Then their was this one hehe

Now it seems to me weed that while you and yours went on and on ridiculing Christians and creationists while fundie and I were the only two debating, you went as you always do pom poms in hand and supporting your team. No problem, I took it in stride.

Like I said weed,, evolutionsist's can dish it but when you say anything about their hero Darwimp,, they just seem to wanna get all politically correct and all that. I won't compromise my posts inlieu of your whining sensitivites weed.

Welcome to my ignore list.



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 06:53 AM
link   

that's the thing with believing in God. I can't explain it.


So, you think your belief system is a fact but you won't explain why it's a fact and yet you expect me to explain my position which is a fact that's not even a belief system. What?


It requires faith. In a different way than having faith in facts.


So you accept your beleif system requires faith to believe in it, but when an existing theory contradicts your faith you think it's ok to pursue it with questions without having to apply that same questioning to your own faith. That's not logical.

.

I can't prove ID. Never, ever said I could. I do have some verifiable observations that I think proves it though.

You're contradicting yourself, either you can prove ID or you can't - which is it?


No matter how much evidence you have of something in a theory you can't call it fact. That's forcing your belief.


It's not my personal beleif, science is not a belief system - the theory of evolution is not a beleif system. Evolution doesn't require faith because of the evidence - faith means to beleive without evidence. To say science is forcing itself onto you is illogical because the whole point of science is the evidence. If creation science is science (which it isn't) then it's still science just as evolution is science. There's no such thing as two different types of science. There's different fields but science is science.

I suppose you could say (if you beleive such a thing) that the evidence of evolution is not real evidence but just fake. But again that's illogical because you can see evolution -

German Shepherds are a fairly new breed of dog, with their origins only dating back to 1899.


en.wikipedia.org...

So we know evolution is real. It's impossible for science to force itslef onto you.

- think about this - evolution is a fact, it is scientifically proven because we can see the evidence of evolution eg: German Shepherds and so because the evidence for evolution is a scientific fact - evolution itself is a scientific fact. DO YOU GET THAT?

[edit on 7-3-2009 by andre18]



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 06:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

So to recap, you've taken the time to ridicule my correct assumption, as you've just verified as correct here.

What was the whole point of that?

Sure I might have been a little presumptuous but I was right as you just verified


I didn't ridicule anything unless I am not allowed to point out how you have asked me questions and answered them for me and now as it would seem, you are also making my conclusions too.

Just don't let the truth get in the way of your thinking



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 07:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Aermacchi
 


Then let him argue with himself? Seeing as to how he is so ready for a battle with his illusions of you after all.



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 07:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Aermacchi
 


Again, I invite everyone to go back to page one....and re-read the OP's original point.....

because Abdre18 is going to abandon this thread, and begin a new one....and I, for one, welcome his endeavour!!!!!


Yes, I think it is more appropriate that ANDRE abandon this thread as he has a poor understanding of the topic and I suspect his original motivation was to use the theory of Evolution as a vehicle to attack certain sections of the ATS population that believe in GOD and creationism or ID. It is increasingly obvious that Andre is using ET to support his own beliefs that are contrary to that of religion. But this is just a theory I have made from observations......are you going to question this method Andre, because it is similar in principle to ET.
Checkmate religion
Do we hve free will?
Bill created the universe

These are just a few of the observations that I have made, there are many more.
But to be fair, I too have started threads attacking religion. This religion I happen to have questioned is in fact One that Andre believes in and accepts, so in fairness I will link it.
Alien Abductees and Contactees: A new Religion?
Here is Andre's religious experience.
To abductees from a fellow abductee.


edit for incorrect linkage....



[edit on 7-3-2009 by atlasastro]



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 07:11 AM
link   
reply to post by atlasastro
 


LOL, i used to think aliens were real but don't any more. So we can clear that up ok. I was idiotic believing in aliens when i did - i got smarter and realized god and aliens are the same bs.



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 08:02 AM
link   
reply to post by andre18
 


Exterrestrial life is statistically speaking a given. Now, whether or not it is visiting here is another story. I don't think we are in a position to really be able to tell one way or another really if a race had the technology to get here they almost assuredly have the technology to keep us in the dark about it.
So, crazy? Hardly. We do not know everything there is to know.

[edit on 7-3-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 08:09 AM
link   


Exterrestrial life is statistically speaking a given.


We shoul really seperate extraterrestial life and extraterrestrial intelligent life.



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 08:10 AM
link   
reply to post by iWork4NWO
 


Life is life is life is life. Point is life is most likely elsewhere so why would such a being be obligated to protect Earth? Considering gazillions of creatures die everyday. Even the whole of Earth is most likely just a drop in the bucket of life.


[edit on 7-3-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 08:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by iWork4NWO
 


Life is life is life is life.


Let's put it this way. If life is likely to arise given certain conditions then there's lots and lots of life in the Universe. However there's no built in "make intelligence" rule in evolution and it's really just a coincidence that it came about here on Earth.



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 08:20 AM
link   
reply to post by iWork4NWO
 


Thank you for stating what I already knew.
But more to the point that does not rule out the possibility of a "higher power". Just means we're not as special as we like to pretend we are. Which is pitifully obvious to those who really look.

[edit on 7-3-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



new topics

top topics



 
65
<< 44  45  46    48  49  50 >>

log in

join