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 vs. Science, not Creationism!

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 05:52 PM
link   
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.




posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 08:47 PM
link   
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.



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 09:00 PM
link   
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.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 04:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by saturnine_sweet

Honestly, there is no way to discuss with you. You parrot facts, rather than apply knowledge. I do not mean that as an insult;
but it still is, dont worry it makes me all warm and fuzzy inside


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 better go re-write the op then, its not exploring how this branch of science can still account for the variation in animals even with shorter dating ranges available

your are stating evolution fail as science, and i quote


What people who debate this issue seem to fail to perceive is that the theory of evolution fails as science.


it fails that spectacluarily its principles are used for our own benefit in practically every branch of science from electronic's, engineering, agriculture and medicine and a whole bunch more inbetween

its making live more comfortable and saving countlesss thousands literally daily .. if you class that as a failure of science and some kind of quais religeon ...

you then try to show how a biological concept is a failure by making claims about the validtity of a branch of chemistry

your claim are unfounded or our right wrong, if were going to discuss evolution in the light of changes to the world timeline and those of the specie we will be covering you first have to validate the claim the dating is wrong in the first place


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.


we have trees olders then 7000 years old .. the same method you state you used to draw the 7000 year conclusion. so if it bieng based on their assumptions 1 tree ring = 1 year then its your assumptiion too and your just as wrong as they are

but as 1 tree ring = 1 year and its been tested and hshown not to be an assumption then the clock work 1 ring = 1 year an be compared to silt deposits and checked for regular they are compared to known age so we calibrate thoe as acuratley as we are able to calibrate c14 with dendrochronology

because the silt layers go back further then 11,500 years and we can and have calibrated them in part of the world we can test inclusions within the known age depoit and then use that to calibrate the c14 tests as already done with dendrochronology to give us dates in some places around the 28,000 year mark with great accuracy

what part is that is asumption and bias which would mean not based on testing and comparrison?

becaue all of it is comparisons, no ones assuming silt deposits are regular they are making sure they are

so please cut out the name calling and mud slinging and stick to facts


you want to discuss evolution under the light of revised dating you need to show beyond making statements that are plain wrong and have been demonstrated to be so (i might add providing plenty more evidence for the validity of those claims then found in the op) that the dating has or should be revised in order to warrant the discusion in the first place

unless this entire thing is a hypothetical what if the dating was wrong what would that mean, but the op doesnt ask that it tate it IS wrong and does so badly

yopu can call it parroting or dogma or anything else you feel the need to rather then provide evidence or adress the fact the op fails on every point

and as the op i the very bakbone for the dicussion its failure collapses the whole science V evolution premise which is absurd to begin with as evolution IS science not only by its very nature but by the simple fact the overwelming majority of scientists say it is


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.
and not all rocks hard clays a rock, chalks a rock, we dig most of our fosil outr of the desert so most of them the rock was nothing more then sand to begin with

and this does nothing to invalidate or question evolution a a part of science



what I am trying to do here actually opens the door for you to further your ideology, if you could actually discuss it.


further our ideology by playing what if games and basing thi new found better ideology on lies and bad data sets .......


I have presented facts;
and they were wrong so not facts


you have presented me the denials of a believer.
and accurate facts


Disheartening indeed.
very the op is a shame its an attempt to dicredit evolution and seperate it from what it is science, this i done by making faulty claims based on no evidence with nothing supplied to back up these faulty claims and when anyone questions a single one of those faulty premises you start hurling mud and names

the very first reply which actually presented any supporting evidence to be found in the thread you immediatley call it as evil naturalist biased lies and then pull out a creationists faulty attempt at science and pretend that isnt biased

not only that your challenege was to isochron dating, the reply and supporting evidence horza provided was to isochron dating and then your link is a general mind numbing foul up that doesnt deal with isochron dating

it deals with mother/daughter particle and how he like to prend it invalidates the entire proces when isochron dating doesnt take the daughter particles into account it doent need so you could artificailly fill it with daughter particles and it wouldnt effect the isochron dating

p.s. your link is that great it also wants to carbon date rocks


Evolutionists generally don’t use carbon 14 dating because they believe most rocks of interest were formed millions of years ago, and were never alive.
sorry do most creationsist thinks rocks were once alive?

how old the rock is makes no differance its a rock and c14 dating cant be used on rocks that wernt once alive, infact it cant be used on rock that were once alive either becasue they are rock not organic residue


so what we are doing here is dicusing the pooint raised in the op, becasue those points are faulty werew haing to correct those first to see how they alter the premise of the op before we can even begin to start dicuing evoloution

but hey why provide evidence for our claims, or discus those claims when we can pretend they are valid and move on becasue we want them to be right and thats good enough aparrently and then we can call names and sling mud at anyone who doesnt agree


present evidence your claims as to dating methodology bieng wrong are valid please



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 05:50 AM
link   
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.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 06:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by saturnine_sweet
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.


What's a lot of cases? Can you name more than 2? 20? I'm sure you can't name even 5 cases, but prove me wrong. Put your money where your mouth is and show us a lot. Even if there were a million cases there'd be nothing weird about it, convergent evolution is very much real. There are more ways than one to build a house, are there not? Genetics shows us the real past. But yeah, turns out another evolution denier has no idea of how it works. Color me shocked! Stupid naturalists thought that organisms were related because they looked kind of similar. Newer methods show us that even thou they look similar they were in fact built on different foundations. Clearly evolution is a theory in crisis.


[edit on 9-3-2009 by iWork4NWO]



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 07:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by saturnine_sweet

I provided evidence.
not you told us to go find our own


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]



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 09:45 AM
link   
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


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 phenomena
www.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



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 09:59 AM
link   
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.]



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 10:01 AM
link   
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



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 10:09 AM
link   
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]



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by noobfun
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


OK I'll agree. But you are making the same mistake. You're trying to refute what he say's using Science, it's the same thing.



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


Lack of understanding? Or was the course material designed in such a way to get the Kids away from believing anything but Science? No hope, no faith, just science. Let's face it Humans are not rational. There will ALWAYS be a belief in the unexplainable. Even in science.



you should introduce them to ATS and your thread and if they need correcting on it im happy to lend a hand


It took 4 pages of us arguing about "The Theory of Evolution is a fact" before you agreed with me. Thanks I can do my own explaining.






[edit on 9-3-2009 by B.A.C.]



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 10:26 AM
link   

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.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.
It took 4 pages of us arguing about "The Theory of Evolution is a fact" before you agreed with me. Thanks I can do my own explaining.


hahah didnt join the debate until page 4 so it was an instant agreement

it did take us 13 pages after that for you to agree with us that evolution had two contextual meanings ... sure you dont want a hand?

any idea which text book? might be able to find an e-book copy and take a gander my self



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by noobfun
it did take us 13 pages after that for you to agree with us that evolution had two contextual meanings ...


I always did agree the word could be used in two ways. Just not 2 ways at once.
Can it be 1 OR 2? yes Can it be 1 AND 2 at the same time? No.

As for the text book they are using, I'd have to get the exact name of it from my boy. Then maybe I could get an e-copy of it. Good idea.

[edit on 9-3-2009 by B.A.C.]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join