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.

 

Does the "Eye" and "Brain" kill Evolutionary Theory?

page: 8
6
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by B.A.C.
reply to post by jfj123
 


I believe in the verifiable observable facts of Evolution. I don't agree with the Theory. They are two different things.

[edit on 17-3-2009 by B.A.C.]


I could post factual evidence to support evolution all day but you're not interested in it.
I have posted multiple sources regarding ocular evolution but that seemed to be ignored in favor of picking on one single site and playing the semantic game with scientific language.
Now you want the thread to die. Why would you want that? Maybe because you don't like the answers you're getting ? along with evidence you cannot refute?
I'm not saying you're a scientologist but you're acting much the way scientologists act...whatever.

[edit on 17-3-2009 by jfj123]


A theory isn't fact. It explains facts. It can NEVER be fact, because it has to be falsifiable.

Also, if they can't decide what a species is, we can argue until we're blue in the face, you want me to pick one of the 10 definitions they have? Give me a break.

All the sources on ocular evolution are giving their best explanation for what is observed. It isn't factual, it's explanation based on observations.

I DON'T agree with their explanations. What's the point in arguing about it. Why would I believe in God and think he didn't create us? What sense does that make? It makes no sense at all. Just because your "Pope" said belief in God and Evolutionary Theory is compatible, for political reasons, doesn't mean all Christians fall for that crap.

Again, I'm letting the thread croak, it's a pointless argument on both sides.

God Bless




posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 



It means i was where you are now a long time ago.

I guess knowledge is just like evolution. It takes time


This is a clue:

I dont believe everything i read. And i dont use Google to say that this is what i know. Because its not what i know but what i read.








[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.

reply to post by jfj123
 


I believe in the verifiable observable facts of Evolution. I don't agree with the Theory. They are two different things.

[edit on 17-3-2009 by B.A.C.]


I could post factual evidence to support evolution all day but you're not interested in it.
I have posted multiple sources regarding ocular evolution but that seemed to be ignored in favor of picking on one single site and playing the semantic game with scientific language.
Now you want the thread to die. Why would you want that? Maybe because you don't like the answers you're getting ? along with evidence you cannot refute?
I'm not saying you're a scientologist but you're acting much the way scientologists act...whatever.

[edit on 17-3-2009 by jfj123]


A theory isn't fact. It explains facts. It can NEVER be fact, because it has to be falsifiable.

The problem is that you're using this to make the theory of evolution seem less legitimate.


All the sources on ocular evolution are giving their best explanation for what is observed. It isn't factual, it's explanation based on observations.

Spend some more time reading.


I DON'T agree with their explanations. What's the point in arguing about it. Why would I believe in God and think he didn't create us? What sense does that make? It makes no sense at all.

That makes no sense to you but now you're trying to understand the mind of god. A bit presumptuous of you, isn't it? Do you honestly believe you can understand the infinite mind of a completely omniscient being? That's the height of hubris if you ask me.

Maybe "god" decided to start the universe with the big bang and then ALLOWED evolution to take place. Why wouldn't "he" do it that way? Time would have no meaning to a being with endless existence.


Just because your "Pope" said belief in God and Evolutionary Theory is compatible, for political reasons, doesn't mean all Christians fall for that crap.

Nope, only the reasonable ones


There is evidence that evolution is correct and no evidence that god exists so why would you believe in creationism over evolution? I'm not saying you shouldn't believe in god but you're saying that something with no evidence should take precidence over something that does have evidence to support it.



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by jfj123
 



It means i was where you are now a long time ago.

I guess knowledge is just like evolution. It takes time


This is a clue:

I dont believe everything i read. And i dont use Google to say that this is what i know. Because its not what i know but what i read.



[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

And what does that mean? I'm sure you know what it means but without explaining it, I can't know what it means.



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 07:35 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


I put God above ALL. No amount of evidence and faulty theories would ever make me believe otherwise. God isn't falsifiable, sorry.

A good theory can speak for itself. It doesn't need to be debated. It's their semantics not mine, lmao.

Law of Gravity - so observable and testable it became law.

Electromagnetic Theory - has never failed to explain anything in it.

Mathematics - people make mistakes, Math doesn't

These are real Science. They don't need courtrooms, they don't need to redefine things, they don't need to call themselves theory AND fact to confuse, etc...

Just give it up, I'll do the same.

God Bless



[edit on 17-3-2009 by B.A.C.]



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by jfj123
 



It means i was where you are now a long time ago.

I guess knowledge is just like evolution. It takes time


This is a clue:

I dont believe everything i read. And i dont use Google to say that this is what i know. Because its not what i know but what i read.



[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

And what does that mean? I'm sure you know what it means but without explaining it, I can't know what it means.


You just said the magic word. If i dont explain you can't know.

I will give a task.

If mother nature creates a dimension 4 with out you knowing how it was made. How can you figure out exactly how dimension 4 was made.

Now mother nature created dimension 4 by doing this: ?

Ill tell you after you have given me your scientific facts. You can use google all you want.



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


I know the answer


I don't need explanations to support logic. I don't trust explanations that don't make sense either. We have that in common.



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.
reply to post by spy66
 


I know the answer


I don't need explanations to support logic. I don't trust explanations that don't make sense either. We have that in common.


You bet



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.
reply to post by jfj123
 


Law of Gravity - so observable and testable it became law.

That's not how it works
Let me post again.


Some people think that in science, you have a theory, and once it's proven, it becomes a law. That's not how it works. In science, we collect facts, or observations, we use laws to describe them, and a theory to explain them. You don't promote a theory to a law by proving it. A theory never becomes a law.

A theory never becomes a law. In fact, if there was a hierarchy of science, theories would be higher than laws. There is nothing higher, or better, than a theory. Laws describe things, theories explain them.

An example will help you to understand this. There's a law of gravity, which is the description of gravity. It basically says that if you let go of something it'll fall. It doesn't say why. Then there's the theory of gravity, which is an attempt to explain why. Actually, Newton's Theory of Gravity did a pretty good job, but Einstein's Theory of Relativity does a better job of explaining it. These explanations are called theories, and will always be theories. They can't be changed into laws, because laws are different things. Laws describe, and theories explain.





[edit on 17-3-2009 by jfj123]



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by spy66

You just said the magic word. If i dont explain you can't know.

Can't know what?


I will give a task.

I don't do homework


If mother nature creates a dimension 4 with out you knowing how it was made. How can you figure out exactly how dimension 4 was made.

First, you'll need to define mother nature then prove that mother nature is both sentient and capable of creating dimensions.

For now, I'll respond with this:
A guy named bob builds a wood desk without you knowing how it's made. How can you figure out how bob made the wood desk?
There are many ways to find the answer of how it's made without initially knowing how it was made. That's part of the scientific process.


Ill tell you after you have given me your scientific facts. You can use google all you want.

You can just use common sense.

Instead of beating around the bush, simply post what you're talking about. Right now, you're making little to no sense.



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 09:51 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


Do you worship theories or something?

A theory is NOT above a law, you're kidding yourself. They can't even be compared. You believe everything you read?



wilstar.com...
Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to describe, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and universal, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don’t really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.


A theory is one step up from a hypothesis, and one step below a law. A theory also relies on a more complex set of explanations, explanations that can be changed. They also make predictions, predictions that can be falsified.

Google can't teach you everything, jf.

I'm done arguing with you, are you still in school or what? Seriously. You place WAY too much faith in the establishment.



wilstar.com...
Development of a Simple Theory by the Scientific Method:

* Observation: Every swan I've ever seen is white.
* Hypothesis: All swans must be white.
* Test: A random sampling of swans from each continent where swans are indigenous produces only white swans.
* Publication: "My global research has indicated that swans are always white, wherever they are observed."
* Verification: Every swan any other scientist has ever observed in any country has always been white.
* Theory: All swans are white.

Prediction: The next swan I see will be white.

Note, however, that although the prediction is useful, the theory does not absolutely prove that the next swan I see will be white. Thus it is said to be falsifiable. If anyone ever saw a black swan, the theory would have to be tweaked or thrown out. (And yes, there are really black swans. This example was just to illustrate the point.)


Evolutionary Theory has been tweaked because of Black Swans being observed.

And you were trying to tell me I don't know what a theory is? Quit being so arrogant. The source I used is a good study aid. My kids use it.





[edit on 17-3-2009 by B.A.C.]



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 10:23 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


Might as well just show you this. Its quite beautiful.

www.youtube.com...



[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 11:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Horza
 


Your reply to my original post was enlightening. One major difference between the Theistic Evolution model and what I was trying to say is, that God could or would be the first life form. The father of us and all life.
This would eliminate the supernatural aspect of the heavenly father. He is just dad, grand dad times a billion ,zillion. When we find eyes and brains on other planets in the universe, we can then cross that bridge.
To be correct Ray should only answer to (distant son of God)
I hope no one interrupts.

[edit on 17-3-2009 by Donny 4 million]



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 03:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.
reply to post by jfj123
 


Do you worship theories or something?

A theory is DIFFERENT from a law.


You believe everything you read?

Not when you're writing it



Google can't teach you everything, jf.

google creationism is where you seem to get all your info



I'm done arguing with you, are you still in school or what? Seriously.

No I've actually completed my 3 degrees. And you?


You place WAY too much faith in the establishment.

I place my belief in factual evidence.
I'm not sure where you place your FAITH???


And you were trying to tell me I don't know what a theory is?

Correct.


Quit being so arrogant.

Do they also take field trips to the creationist museum where they can learn that dinosaurs lived on noah's ark?



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 03:49 AM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


Whatever jf, have fun, like I said I'm done arguing with you. You finished your three degrees? Congrats! Hope that goes well for you.

Actually I try to make it a point to only quote non - bias sites.

I finished my degrees about 20 years ago.
I've never been to any Creationist museum BTW. I've been to the Smithsonian a few times though.

You can't say anything about the material I posted about theories, hypothesis, or laws, because it's all true. Degrees will never teach you that though. Experience and life will.

Like I said, I'm done arguing with you, it's fruitless.

Anyway, God Bless.



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 05:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by jfj123
 


Might as well just show you this. Its quite beautiful.

www.youtube.com...


[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]


And what does this have to do with the topic?

If you're not interested in explaining your posts and keeping them on topic, why bother posting here at all?

Seems very pointless.



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 05:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.
reply to post by jfj123
 


Whatever jf, have fun, like I said I'm done arguing with you. You finished your three degrees? Congrats! Hope that goes well for you.

Actually yes, thanks for asking



Actually I try to make it a point to only quote non - bias sites.

Of course you do



I finished my degrees about 20 years ago.

Good for you. What does the time frame have to do with anything?


I've never been to any Creationist museum BTW.

Frankly I'm SHOCKED.


I've been to the Smithsonian a few times though.

No doubt to point and laugh at all the stupid scientists



You can't say anything about the material I posted about theories, hypothesis, or laws, because it's all true.

What would be the point.
I've posted information about the evolution of the eye and that went ignored along with all the other evidence I've posted so why would I go out of my way to say anything about the material you've posted? The reality is that your belief system is set in stone due to your beliefs. No amount of evidence posted will EVER sway you from said beliefs.


Degrees will never teach you that though.

???? you can't learn from school ??? Interesting concept


Experience and life will.

How much is enough experience for you? I'm really curious ????


Like I said, I'm done arguing with you, it's fruitless.

Yes since you won't see reason, I agree that this discussion is VERY fruitless.


Anyway, God Bless.
Seems a bit insincere to me but whatever. Darwin bless



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 05:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by jfj123
 


Might as well just show you this. Its quite beautiful.

www.youtube.com...


[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]


And what does this have to do with the topic?

If you're not interested in explaining your posts and keeping them on topic, why bother posting here at all?

Seems very pointless.


Well not entirely. There was some landscape and animals for you to look at. I have the impression you dont really know what it looks like out side. So i thought i should show you.

We have to start somewhere. Right?

But lets just leave it. You know what you know and i am fine with that.

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 06:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by spy66
Originally posted by jfj123
Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by jfj123
 


Might as well just show you this. Its quite beautiful.

www.youtube.com...


[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]



And what does this have to do with the topic?

If you're not interested in explaining your posts and keeping them on topic, why bother posting here at all?

Seems very pointless.



Well not entirely. There was some landscape and animals for you to look at. I have the impression you dont really know what it looks like out side. So i thought i should show you.

By this statement, I tend to believe your impression are about as sharp as a bag of wet mice



We have to start somewhere. Right?

Maybe we should start with not trying to provoke and insult me and try explaining your statements in an adult manor??? That would be a wonderful place to start, don't you think???


But lets just leave it. You know what you know and i am fine with that.

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]


Frankly, if you're going to make statements directed toward me, I do expect an explanation. It's very childlike to make vague accusations then hide behind your computer screen.
Either don't make the accusations or at least be adult enough to stand behind them and explain yourself.



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.
As far as computing power is concerned the 1985 Intel 80386 PC was capable of 4 GB RAM and as much HDD storage as the IDE channels would allow (HDD could be made accessible through software). Depending on the OS installed.


Ah-yup. Except the 386 wasn't developed until 1986 (not 1985) and the first practical machine with it didn't appear until much later. Wasn't in common use until 1987 or so. I was thinking of the 8086's, which were in common use in 84-85 and just being replaced by the 286.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join