I must ask. Does anything point to our planet (or the Universe for that matter) not being billions of years old? Don't say the Bible because that's
just plain retarded.
Evolution vs. Science, not Creationism!, page 2
privacy
reply posted on 8-3-2009 @ 08:47 PM by saturnine_sweet
reply to post by RuneSpider
There are other examples beyond what you gave. But in any case, that was only meant to make a point. The entire matter of if such dating is possible or not with such material is, in the scope of the larger discussion and original subject, quite immaterial.
There are other examples beyond what you gave. But in any case, that was only meant to make a point. The entire matter of if such dating is possible or not with such material is, in the scope of the larger discussion and original subject, quite immaterial.
reply posted on 8-3-2009 @ 09:00 PM by saturnine_sweet
reply to post by noobfun
Honestly, there is no way to discuss with you. You parrot facts, rather than apply knowledge. I do not mean that as an insult; rather, there is no means to debate when, rather than discuss how evolution could still be valid in the face of any point I bring up, you just dismiss those points with dogmatic statements and "correct answers" that are just the conclusions of "experts" based on their assumptions and initial bias. What you seem to fail to understand is that the very LANGUAGE of anything related to the theory of evolution has been adapted in such a way to lend a bias in favor of it.
A good example for you: You are aware that there are many digs where the dinosaur "fossils" are being recovered from "rock" that can be dug with a shovel? Yet it is termed as rock because to term it as the sand it is would make it seem questionable that it could be millions of years old.
How about one other? Coal is a nice one. Hurray for carbon. Millions of years old carbon...except, well...there's still C14 in that there carbon. quite often. What's more, sometimes there are things like trees in the middle of the coal. I think you'll see the problem there. My point being that there is strong evidence that many of the assumptions made about the geology involved in the enormous timelines purported are off-base.
what I am trying to do here actually opens the door for you to further your ideology, if you could actually discuss it. I have presented facts; you have presented me the denials of a believer. Just like say...a Christian often dismisses evolution on the basis of his ideological bias, and never learns the science for or against. Such an attitude is an intellectual dead end. And the prime example of what I was getting at in the OP. Disheartening indeed.
Honestly, there is no way to discuss with you. You parrot facts, rather than apply knowledge. I do not mean that as an insult; rather, there is no means to debate when, rather than discuss how evolution could still be valid in the face of any point I bring up, you just dismiss those points with dogmatic statements and "correct answers" that are just the conclusions of "experts" based on their assumptions and initial bias. What you seem to fail to understand is that the very LANGUAGE of anything related to the theory of evolution has been adapted in such a way to lend a bias in favor of it.
A good example for you: You are aware that there are many digs where the dinosaur "fossils" are being recovered from "rock" that can be dug with a shovel? Yet it is termed as rock because to term it as the sand it is would make it seem questionable that it could be millions of years old.
How about one other? Coal is a nice one. Hurray for carbon. Millions of years old carbon...except, well...there's still C14 in that there carbon. quite often. What's more, sometimes there are things like trees in the middle of the coal. I think you'll see the problem there. My point being that there is strong evidence that many of the assumptions made about the geology involved in the enormous timelines purported are off-base.
what I am trying to do here actually opens the door for you to further your ideology, if you could actually discuss it. I have presented facts; you have presented me the denials of a believer. Just like say...a Christian often dismisses evolution on the basis of his ideological bias, and never learns the science for or against. Such an attitude is an intellectual dead end. And the prime example of what I was getting at in the OP. Disheartening indeed.
reply posted on 9-3-2009 @ 05:50 AM by saturnine_sweet
reply to post by noobfun
I provided evidence. The face that it is simple and to the point rather than a complex web of theories says something. Sorry, no nice string of websites. You know why? I can find a website to say anything. I told you where to look, so you could find it for yourself, but you werent will to do so.
Perhaps I can take a different angle with you, since the points I tried to make about dating didn't stick. You mentioned all these wonderful ways that "evolution" is making the world better. Can I have a specific example? I sure can't think of one.
What do you define AS evolution? I mean, in the context I was referencing in the sense it was first proposed, as the "origin of species," if you will. Yet there is a distinct lack of any proof of that. Lots of assumptions, but no proof. Once, genetics were thought to be the answer; now evolutionary biologists are left with a disaster of a evolutionary tree in a lot of cases, where following a path based on similarities yields one results, while genetics would suggest another. And in most cases, both conclusions are patently absurd ones. But if physical similarities aren't a basis for evolution...wait, that IS the basis, or WAS. So then what? A new theory, of course...just like punctuated equilibrium had to be dreamed up when the fossil record just couldnt cut it.
As for the genetic side of it, there's a problem. Let's apply the mentality being used in genetics to construction. I take a sample of 100 buildings from across the world, and what do I find? No matter what the "species" of building, they almost all use lumber "skeletons," quite often with very similar structures!
Well I guess they must have all evolved randomly from a common source! Using the same components to construct similar
structures are more suggestive of conscious construction than random change, by far.
Its absurd. Living organisms are biological machines. Last I checked, even the best crafted machine ever made breaks down, not improves, and thats with thousands of hours of conscious direction to it's assembly. Last I checked, birth defects are hampering, crippling, and often fatal. Last I checked, information does not arise with work. I sure wish it did! I could get a LOT more done with my time if my book wrote itself.
I don't care how the machines got here; we can't ever prove that, or know that. There will never be enough information to do anything but guess and make assumptions, taking shots in the dark until you find something can't be disproved, because nothing can be proved, but can only hope to escape being invalidated. It's a waste of time that serves no purpose beyond furthering the Naturalist religion on one side, and the theist religion of your choice on the other, in the fairly rare case of theological science. It's ignorant, and it has nothing to do with science. It has nothing to do with truth. It has everything to do with stupendous arrogance.
We spend TRILLIONS on evolution research...but no one really even understands how the human mind works. You know, that tool being used to dream up this conjecture. Every year, we find that the very idea of reality as we think of it is ever more radically different than we expected. AND WE POUR TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS INTO PHILOSOPHICAL SPECULATION ABOUT THINGS SUCH AS TWO TINY FOOT BONES BEING THE "EARLIEST COMMON ANCESTOR!" How can that not disturb everyone? Is it intrinsic to the majority of humans to bow down to the priesthood of the day, no matter how absurd they are? Interesting, btw, that the priesthood is creeping yet again to a form of human sacrifice, as well, if well masked. A curious world we live in, isnt it?
And don't even get me started on the indoctrination of the children of the world into the new state religion of Naturalism. Want to talk about a crime against humanity? At least theology doesn't claim to be science. At least theology is honest about what it is. Im not a fan of religious fanatics, to say the least; but at least they can call a fish a fish when it's rotting in their faces.
I provided evidence. The face that it is simple and to the point rather than a complex web of theories says something. Sorry, no nice string of websites. You know why? I can find a website to say anything. I told you where to look, so you could find it for yourself, but you werent will to do so.
Perhaps I can take a different angle with you, since the points I tried to make about dating didn't stick. You mentioned all these wonderful ways that "evolution" is making the world better. Can I have a specific example? I sure can't think of one.
What do you define AS evolution? I mean, in the context I was referencing in the sense it was first proposed, as the "origin of species," if you will. Yet there is a distinct lack of any proof of that. Lots of assumptions, but no proof. Once, genetics were thought to be the answer; now evolutionary biologists are left with a disaster of a evolutionary tree in a lot of cases, where following a path based on similarities yields one results, while genetics would suggest another. And in most cases, both conclusions are patently absurd ones. But if physical similarities aren't a basis for evolution...wait, that IS the basis, or WAS. So then what? A new theory, of course...just like punctuated equilibrium had to be dreamed up when the fossil record just couldnt cut it.
As for the genetic side of it, there's a problem. Let's apply the mentality being used in genetics to construction. I take a sample of 100 buildings from across the world, and what do I find? No matter what the "species" of building, they almost all use lumber "skeletons," quite often with very similar structures!
Well I guess they must have all evolved randomly from a common source! Using the same components to construct similar
structures are more suggestive of conscious construction than random change, by far. Its absurd. Living organisms are biological machines. Last I checked, even the best crafted machine ever made breaks down, not improves, and thats with thousands of hours of conscious direction to it's assembly. Last I checked, birth defects are hampering, crippling, and often fatal. Last I checked, information does not arise with work. I sure wish it did! I could get a LOT more done with my time if my book wrote itself.
I don't care how the machines got here; we can't ever prove that, or know that. There will never be enough information to do anything but guess and make assumptions, taking shots in the dark until you find something can't be disproved, because nothing can be proved, but can only hope to escape being invalidated. It's a waste of time that serves no purpose beyond furthering the Naturalist religion on one side, and the theist religion of your choice on the other, in the fairly rare case of theological science. It's ignorant, and it has nothing to do with science. It has nothing to do with truth. It has everything to do with stupendous arrogance.
We spend TRILLIONS on evolution research...but no one really even understands how the human mind works. You know, that tool being used to dream up this conjecture. Every year, we find that the very idea of reality as we think of it is ever more radically different than we expected. AND WE POUR TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS INTO PHILOSOPHICAL SPECULATION ABOUT THINGS SUCH AS TWO TINY FOOT BONES BEING THE "EARLIEST COMMON ANCESTOR!" How can that not disturb everyone? Is it intrinsic to the majority of humans to bow down to the priesthood of the day, no matter how absurd they are? Interesting, btw, that the priesthood is creeping yet again to a form of human sacrifice, as well, if well masked. A curious world we live in, isnt it?
And don't even get me started on the indoctrination of the children of the world into the new state religion of Naturalism. Want to talk about a crime against humanity? At least theology doesn't claim to be science. At least theology is honest about what it is. Im not a fan of religious fanatics, to say the least; but at least they can call a fish a fish when it's rotting in their faces.
reply posted on 9-3-2009 @ 07:41 AM by noobfun
Originally posted by saturnine_sweetnot you told us to go find our own
I provided evidence.
I can find a website to say anything. I told you where to look, so you could find it for yourself, but you werent will to do so.well as i found several decribing how c14 dating is calibrated by more then just dendrocronology and that on just uing that one method gives us dates of 11,500 years not 7,000
i guess i obviously did go looking
Perhaps I can take a different angle with you, since the points I tried to make about dating didn't stick. You mentioned all these wonderful ways that "evolution" is making the world better. Can I have a specific example? I sure can't think of one.
only 1 .... here have a read its a 6 page article describing some of them
www.sciam.com...
hey whats a little debate on evo without a lil Dawkins thrown in for good measure
What do you define AS evolution? I mean, in the context I was referencing in the sense it was first proposed, as the "origin of species," if you will.so your trying to invalidate a 150 year old theory that is a fraction of what it has become?
an our understanding of the biological processes and how simple theya re but produce such breath taking results have allowed u to bring those imple proceses modify them slightly and the blind watch maker is making more then just watches
Yet there is a distinct lack of any proof of that. Lots of assumptions, but no proof.and now your using the wrong terminology again
proof only exists in mathamatics, sorry no proof in physical science only evidence and theres plenty of that too
Once, genetics were thought to be the answer; now evolutionary biologists are left with a disaster of a evolutionary tree in a lot of cases,
ummm like these ones?
www.pnas.org... .. well that worked out just dandy and backed up what cladistics and taxonomy had already told us
and here it is in video form, but this video only looks at 16 shared erv's between humans and chimps
we actually hare a little under 20,000
so it seems the genetics match the taxonomy and cladistic ...and dont ontradict each other ..let find mroe examples
heres one about the gulo gene
so not only does the taxonomy and cladistic works up from the bottom of the tree but genetics and atavisms work down ..thats why its called a dual nested heirachy
do the atavisms match the genetic going down? yes and the cladistics and taxonomy comming up ? yes
more genetics matching the taxonomy
ok lets try embryology this works top down like atavisms and genetics too ... does this agree with genetic atavisms taxonomy and cladistics? yes
Very important video!
this will give you just a glimpe of exactly how taxonomy works, if your going to refute it you may a well at least learn somthing about it
i need to go out for a while ill respond to the rest of your post later ...which i notice again is just your opinion and nothing to support it
[edit on 9/3/09 by noobfun]
[edit on 9/3/09 by noobfun]
[edit on 9/3/09 by noobfun]
reply posted on 9-3-2009 @ 09:45 AM by noobfun
ive decided im nto going to addres the rest of your post i really cant be bothered to going an d find resources to back up my claims of refuting every
last incorrect detail of it
and i will focus just on two sentances, two very fine sentance i do love so very much
two beautiful simple sentances that display for all to see the very nature of this topic ..... that the op is using words he doesnt understand the meaning of to try and show somthing about somthing he doesnt understand
i beleive the point of this fine statment is that religeon isnt science, and neither is naturalism .........
its practically shakespearian in its ellegeance and beauty of all that personifies failure
no magic men, pixie dust, sky daddies, Fsb's or invisible pink unicorns allowed, only a natural explenation will do for natural happenings ... in short understanding the univere as if there is no supernatural only natural process that can be observed tested and understood by scientific methedology and the natural laws of the universe
the very nature of science its self!
naturalim int science ...becasue science is naturalistic, it will only accepot natural explenations for natural events becasue thats all that ha ever been needed that all that can be teted and oberved directly or indirectly
science is naturalistic, you cant have none naturalistic science,
that means its dealing with the none natural .. the supernatural ... is astrology science? vodoo? magic? is god science? pixie's a scientific hypotheis? curses? lucky charms (not the cereal) ?
saying naturalism isnt science is like saying maths isnt algebra
the difference between the two is where science says ..well if you can provide evidence or observations that the supernatural exits which would then make it natural we can start looking at ways to test it
the naturalist says well you cant provide evidence there is a supernatural thing or that one is even required so until you can pack up your fairy tales and go nock someone elses door
by the very nature of religeon, a religeon of naturalism is a religeon of science, only without the supernatural or anything to be worshipped meaning by its very nature it can not be a religeon
your religeon of naturalsim is a philosophy that science can tell us honest accurate things about our universe, and we will be happy to have an imaginary friend just as soon as someone provides evidence one exists or has to exist
and i will focus just on two sentances, two very fine sentance i do love so very much
two beautiful simple sentances that display for all to see the very nature of this topic ..... that the op is using words he doesnt understand the meaning of to try and show somthing about somthing he doesnt understand
Originally posted by saturnine_sweet
And don't even get me started on the indoctrination of the children of the world into the new state religion of Naturalism. Want to talk about a crime against humanity? At least theology doesn't claim to be science.
i beleive the point of this fine statment is that religeon isnt science, and neither is naturalism .........
its practically shakespearian in its ellegeance and beauty of all that personifies failure
a theory denying that an event or object has a supernatural significance ; specifically : the doctrine that scientific laws are adequate to account for all phenomenawww.merriam-webster.com...
no magic men, pixie dust, sky daddies, Fsb's or invisible pink unicorns allowed, only a natural explenation will do for natural happenings ... in short understanding the univere as if there is no supernatural only natural process that can be observed tested and understood by scientific methedology and the natural laws of the universe
the very nature of science its self!
naturalim int science ...becasue science is naturalistic, it will only accepot natural explenations for natural events becasue thats all that ha ever been needed that all that can be teted and oberved directly or indirectly
science is naturalistic, you cant have none naturalistic science,
that means its dealing with the none natural .. the supernatural ... is astrology science? vodoo? magic? is god science? pixie's a scientific hypotheis? curses? lucky charms (not the cereal) ?
saying naturalism isnt science is like saying maths isnt algebra
the difference between the two is where science says ..well if you can provide evidence or observations that the supernatural exits which would then make it natural we can start looking at ways to test it
the naturalist says well you cant provide evidence there is a supernatural thing or that one is even required so until you can pack up your fairy tales and go nock someone elses door
by the very nature of religeon, a religeon of naturalism is a religeon of science, only without the supernatural or anything to be worshipped meaning by its very nature it can not be a religeon
your religeon of naturalsim is a philosophy that science can tell us honest accurate things about our universe, and we will be happy to have an imaginary friend just as soon as someone provides evidence one exists or has to exist
reply posted on 9-3-2009 @ 09:59 AM by B.A.C.
reply to post by noobfun
Ok, your above post really doesn't make any good points, except to nitpick at Saturnine.
How about this? Quit teaching Kids in school that The Theory of Evolution is fact. How about they stick to the facts, no need to exclude the Theory either, just make it clear that it is a Theory and not a fact.
(Don't even try telling me they don't teach it as fact, my oldest son is taking it right now, and it is clearly presented as fact.)
That'd make me happy. (Not that the science world exists to make me happy)
[edit on 9-3-2009 by B.A.C.]
Ok, your above post really doesn't make any good points, except to nitpick at Saturnine.
How about this? Quit teaching Kids in school that The Theory of Evolution is fact. How about they stick to the facts, no need to exclude the Theory either, just make it clear that it is a Theory and not a fact.
(Don't even try telling me they don't teach it as fact, my oldest son is taking it right now, and it is clearly presented as fact.)
That'd make me happy. (Not that the science world exists to make me happy)
[edit on 9-3-2009 by B.A.C.]
reply posted on 9-3-2009 @ 10:01 AM by branty
reply to post by B.A.C.
why should anything be done to "make you happy " How about you live your live and not other peoples lives
why should anything be done to "make you happy " How about you live your live and not other peoples lives
reply posted on 9-3-2009 @ 10:09 AM by noobfun
reply to post by B.A.C.
yes it does nit pick but for very good reason
he is using terminology to argue his case without clear understanding of the terminology
when your talking about stratification and c14 testing
and arguing naturalism pretend to be science and is completely unrelated when one is clearly a philosophy based on the other that both use the exact same principle of natural solution to natural events
and then mud singing and name calling anyone who diagrees, its a well earned nitpick B.A.C
as to your sons teacher teaching the theory of evolution is a fact, not teaching that evolution can be used for both the fact OR theory depending on context as we both agreed in the other thread shows a lack of understanding for the meaning of either words in a scienctific usage
you should introduce them to ATS and your thread and if they need correcting on it im happy to lend a hand
but remeber now i like to see evidence they are teaching the thoery as fact and not differenciating between both contexts
[edit on 9/3/09 by noobfun]
yes it does nit pick but for very good reason
he is using terminology to argue his case without clear understanding of the terminology
when your talking about stratification and c14 testing
and arguing naturalism pretend to be science and is completely unrelated when one is clearly a philosophy based on the other that both use the exact same principle of natural solution to natural events
and then mud singing and name calling anyone who diagrees, its a well earned nitpick B.A.C
as to your sons teacher teaching the theory of evolution is a fact, not teaching that evolution can be used for both the fact OR theory depending on context as we both agreed in the other thread shows a lack of understanding for the meaning of either words in a scienctific usage
you should introduce them to ATS and your thread and if they need correcting on it im happy to lend a hand
but remeber now i like to see evidence they are teaching the thoery as fact and not differenciating between both contexts
[edit on 9/3/09 by noobfun]
reply posted on 9-3-2009 @ 10:26 AM by B.A.C.
Originally posted by branty
reply to post by B.A.C.
why should anything be done to "make you happy " How about you live your live and not other peoples lives
I don't understand what you mean at all, sorry.
I stated very clearly that it ISN'T Science's job to make me happy. I do live my own life. It's my kids I want to protect.
Can it be 1 OR 2? yes Can it be 1 AND 2 at the same time? No.
Newest topics, updated in real-time:
Bringing Anonimity To ATS In A Whole New Way! The "You Cant Prove It Was Me" Thread.
Philosophy and Metaphysics: 5 minutes ago
Philosophy and Metaphysics: 5 minutes ago
Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:
Naked Man Eating Victim's Face Shot And Killed By Miami Police: Report
Social Issues and Civil Unrest: 13 hours ago, 25 flags
Social Issues and Civil Unrest: 13 hours ago, 25 flags
Naked man killed by Police near MacArthur Causeway was 'eating' face off victim
Breaking Alternative News: 10 hours ago, 14 flags
Breaking Alternative News: 10 hours ago, 14 flags
Oakland City Council Cowers In The Face Of Brutal Truth
Social Issues and Civil Unrest: 15 hours ago, 13 flags
Social Issues and Civil Unrest: 15 hours ago, 13 flags
Drones to the rescue ~ Repairing local economies in Ohio, coming to your State soon!
Aircraft Projects: 13 hours ago, 11 flags
Aircraft Projects: 13 hours ago, 11 flags
Pole Shift Survival MotherLoad (14GB) of SURVIVAL information (PDFs)
Survival: 8 hours ago, 11 flags
Survival: 8 hours ago, 11 flags
House to examine plan for United Nations to regulate the Internet
Breaking Alternative News: 15 hours ago, 10 flags
Breaking Alternative News: 15 hours ago, 10 flags
Amazing video of 747 lifting in place in extreme wind conditions
Aircraft Projects: 16 hours ago, 9 flags
Aircraft Projects: 16 hours ago, 9 flags
Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:
Naked Man Eating Victim's Face Shot And Killed By Miami Police: Report
Social Issues and Civil Unrest: 13 hours ago, 79 replies
Social Issues and Civil Unrest: 13 hours ago, 79 replies
Syria massacre in Houla condemned as outrage grows
Breaking Alternative News: 10 hours ago, 43 replies
Breaking Alternative News: 10 hours ago, 43 replies
Oakland City Council Cowers In The Face Of Brutal Truth
Social Issues and Civil Unrest: 15 hours ago, 36 replies
Social Issues and Civil Unrest: 15 hours ago, 36 replies
Naked man killed by Police near MacArthur Causeway was 'eating' face off victim
Breaking Alternative News: 10 hours ago, 35 replies
Breaking Alternative News: 10 hours ago, 35 replies
The Above Top Secret Web sites are a
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www2.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.002 seconds
Page processed in: 0.373 seconds
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www2.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.002 seconds
Page processed in: 0.373 seconds
