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.

 

"Intelligent Design" is a conspiracy.

page: 13
6
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 7 2009 @ 09:20 AM
link   
That was just sad. Do you really believe all that? If so, how do you work a computer? That's based on scientific principles as sound as evolution. So why would you believe electricity works?


(BTW, I'm not going to bother rebutting your Beheism and Hovindized material. It's ridiculous. Partially (at best) understood science should not be used to disprove anything.)

For those with an open-mind, compare talkorigins.org to ICR.org, and THINK about the differences between the two. But don't do that if your faith won't blind you to the facts, you might come out without it.




posted on May, 7 2009 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by R13sg0
A wave = energy. That is the defintion of a wave. It's transporting energy along a medium without transporting matter. And the definition of the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum mechanics is that the state of all matter should be described as wavefunction. That is because Quantum particles behave as wave.

In a wave matter moves vertically and energy moves horizontally. What goes for nature of matter, as far as I know it shows both point particle and wave -like properties.



So they use a wave function to predict the probability of the location of a particle. And lo and behold as soon as they measured in the most probable spot, it was there. Time and time again. So they came to the conclusion that the observer caused that to happen. It created the peak of a wave at that spot.
So all matter is energy and that's also the observer effect. Did that answer your questions?

I think you've misunderstood the observer effect. And no, this did not answer my question.



E = ℎ ℏ and p = ℎ / λ

E stands for energy. What do the other symbols stand for?



Biophotons: "a permanent light emission from all biological systems in terms of single photons, indicating a biological quantum phenomenon. The intensity ranges from a few up to some hundred photons/(s cm²) within a spectral range from at least 300 to 800 nm. The spectral distribution is flat, following almost a f = const. - law which means that the excitation temperature increases proportional to the frequency under consideration. The photocount statistics follows a Poissonian distribution, the relaxation of delayed luminescence (photon intensity after illumination of the system in darkness) follows not an exponential (exp (-at)) but a hyperbolic (1/t) law. Every change in the biological or physiological state of the living system is reflected by a corresponding change of biophoton emission."

Nothing unusual about that. Expect instead of biophotons I'd just call 'em quanta.



And don;t be afraid to watch 'What the bleep do we know'. It's like the most dramatized version of Quantum mechanics you've ever seen. It's cool on every level. But you know, google the names they mention and find stuff out for yourself.

I've seen it. It was entertaining pseudoscience.



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by PowerSlave
Just a question though for whomever, why hasn't every living thing on the planet evolved to our level of intellect? Considering we all came from the same soup, but some of us stopped evolving after we became a tree or cockroach or a monkey or man. Since we are the only ones, I guess that makes us special?


Learn the theory before you refer to it. Nothing has stopped evolving.

"..from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."

Closing words of The Origin of Species

[edit on 7-5-2009 by rhinoceros]



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by mostlyspoons
My take is that the big bang THEORY and the THEORY on evolution is just that; a theory. How can we justify their teaching then, when as a theory (i.e. drawing a conclusion based on overt facts, which may or may not be directly related) it isn't any more PROVEABLE than believing in intelligent design.

You make it sound as if some guy just said "maybe it's like this" and that's that. Just a theory. What you fail to acknowledge is that both of these two theories are supported by a mountain of evidence. We make predictions based on them. The theories work. ID on the other hand isn't even a theory. It's just a biased opinion.



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 09:49 AM
link   
reply to post by ChemBreather
 


Monkey's don't drive cars because they don't need to go to the adult bookstore or the casino. I propose that you take a few biology classes and toss in an earth history class where you can learn about the expanse of geologic time. Ignorance is bliss dude and it's just plain irritating when the ignorant make baseless declarations and live by butchering the facts.



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by PowerSlave
Just a question though for whomever, why hasn't every living thing on the planet evolved to our level of intellect? Considering we all came from the same soup, but some of us stopped evolving after we became a tree or cockroach or a monkey or man. Since we are the only ones, I guess that makes us special?


If something is successful in it's niche, there's no pressure to adapt new features. Mutations can be beneficial, harmful, or neutral. To be beneficial they have to give an advantage, albeit slight, to one critter over another. If there's no benefit, there's no advantage.

A better question would be why did we evolve to the level we have? The answer may lie in Chromosome 2. More study is needed.



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by R13sg0
Trees, petrified, standing upright trough 'millions of years' worth of sediment layers. (It's not a single event, it's a regular event).

[Citation needed]



The Earth is not as OLD as people claim it is, the estimated age of the Earth shifted from 70,000 to 4 billion years in 20 years. Both where calculations done by scientist. Time is added to make the evolution theory sound more plausible.

New estimates came as man learned more.



Darwin examined 14 different finches. And he theorized every living thing has a common ancestor. Then a guy showed embryonic resemblance, and Darwin said about that: It's the most important piece of proof for my theory. But the embryo drawings where falsified, Darwin was mislead.

First of all provide a quote in which Darwin states that embryology is the most important piece of proof for his theory. Second Darwin theorized that (again closing words of The Origin of Species):

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one.."

Third, those drawings are in fact really accurate. Feel free to compare them to MRI scans of different embryos.



Ever since, the search for proof was on. It was fossil hunting time! But one thing was missing, a geological time scale. So back in 18 something, there was no c14 dating or anything of that kind. A few 'scientist' decided to put all the fossil finds into layers, give the layer a name and assign a fossil to it. They pulled the ages right out their noses, from their ass and scientific rolling of the dice. It was complete bull#, but up to now they define the age of a fossil by the layer it is found in and the age of the layer by the fossils that are found in it.

Incorrect, both carbon dating and layers are used simultaneously in age definition.



Then suddenly they found living dinosaurs. The coelacanth for instance. It's a miracle it survived for millions of years! Why, how millions of years? Because it is found in rock that is millions of years old, and how do you know that rock is millions of years old? By the fossils they find in it. Never ever will they admit that maybe the timeline is completely wrong.

A living dinosaur? HAHAhAaaa




The embryonic evidence, the evolution of the horse, the pelvic of the whale, it was proven wrong long before i was born.

[Citation needed]



Evolution has the Weird habit of not evolving itself.

Yeah like Lamarck's theory, Darwin's theory and Modern synthesis. Completely similar.




Nobody has seen evolution occur today it hasn't been observed.

E. coli long term evolution experiment. Peppered moth evolution. Etc. How about you stop with the lies now?

At first you seemed like a rational member, but I now see you show heavy anti-science bias. I wonder why..

You know back in Darwin's time people thought that all breeds of dogs, pigeons, sheep, cows and such had their own ancestral species. At least nowadays even creationists acknowledge that some change happens. Who knows, maybe in 150 more years all of this creation nonsense has been left behind..

[edit on 7-5-2009 by rhinoceros]



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 10:16 AM
link   
"Nobody has seen evolution occur today it hasn't been observed. "

Darwin's finches still pass on adaptions as the weather cycles occur in the Galapagos. This has been observed for forty years now.

And, if you please, can we use "able to successfully breed with another" as one way to define species? One human can successfully breed with another to create a new person, yes? So, then, if a male Great Dane breeds with a Chihuahua female, the result just might be exploded doggie. They can no longer successfully breed together. So they are in the process of become two separate species. Evolution in action. (And the result of an "intelligent designer", no less.
)



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 





Learn the theory before you refer to it. Nothing has stopped evolving.


I'm sorry, did I say everything stopped evolving????
Maybe you should learn to read before insulting me.



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by PowerSlave
I'm sorry, did I say everything stopped evolving????
Maybe you should learn to read before insulting me.

I didn't imply that you said everything stopped evolving. Let's review what you said:


Originally posted by PowerSlave
Considering we all came from the same soup, but some of us stopped evolving after we became a tree or cockroach or a monkey or man.

Now what did I say?


Originally posted by rhinoceros
Learn the theory before you refer to it. Nothing has stopped evolving.

Did you imply that you said everything stopped evolving? I did no such thing. So you should learn:

1. The Theory
2. To read

PWNED

[edit on 7-5-2009 by rhinoceros]



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by texastig

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
IDers are conspiring to inject religion into schools under the guise of "science". Dover, Del., and the Evolution Wars in Kansas have shown this to be the case.

What I'm wondering is if they think the whole country is stupid enough to believe that ID is anything but a sham?


The Bible was taught in schools in early America and no one had a problem with it then and they shouldn't have no problem with it now.

Thanks,
TT


People had no problem with teaching that the world was flat at one time either, should we go back to teaching that in schools?

Being Wiccan (yes, not an atheist), if I had been alive back then, I would have been burned at the stake, should we also go back to this because a majority of people "did not have a problem with it?" Oh, and "most" people did not have a problem with slavery either, maybe I should make you my slave and we should all go back to a slave society? My kitchen needs cleaned, come on new slave get to cleaning before I have to pull out my whip.

ID is not scientific, it is a belief. I don't have a problem with a philosophy or religious class being taught in schools that teaches about all the different religious beliefs. Let's leave science in the science class, and beliefs where they belong, in a religious or philosophy class.

I admit, my beliefs in religion and spirituality, are just that, beliefs. I have zero proof, I do not have any scientific method that can be used to test my beliefs. I cannot "prove" that their is a god/goddess/, but I believe so. I cannot prove anything about my beliefs, and neither can Christianity (or any other religious belief system). I have "faith", but I do not have scientific "proof".

Harm to None
Peace



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by amazed
I admit, my beliefs in religion and spirituality, are just that, beliefs. I have zero proof, I do not have any scientific method that can be used to test my beliefs. I cannot "prove" that their is a god/goddess/, but I believe so. I cannot prove anything about my beliefs, and neither can Christianity (or any other religious belief system). I have "faith", but I do not have scientific "proof".


On the other hand us scientists can at least disprove some beliefs like the power of prayer. The great prayer experiment! I'm thinking fundies weren't too happy about that one


I'm thinking Christians probably learned nothing from this experiment. I mean in how many churches did a priest go something like "people, instead of thinking that you're doing something you should in fact do something, praying doesn't work" after hearing about this experiment? 0?

But that's how organized religion works:

1. Come up with a story
2. Ignore contradicting evidence
3. Profit

[edit on 7-5-2009 by rhinoceros]



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by rhinoceros
[Citation needed]











New estimates came as man learned more.


Citation needed. Show me how and what.



First of all provide a quote in which Darwin states that embryology is the most important piece of proof for his theory.

Charles Darwin, letter to Asa Gray, Sept. 10, 1860, in Francis Darwin (editor), The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. II (New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1896), p 131 :

“...by far the strongest single class of facts in favor of...”[/



Second Darwin theorized that (again closing words of The Origin of Species):

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one.."


Grandeur makes no facts it makes a good story though.



Third, those drawings are in fact really accurate. Feel free to compare them to MRI scans of different embryos.


Ouch. My friend, you are so wrong. This is really a classical misunderstanding. But the way you present it as truth makes me wonder about the validity of your points. Let me give you a quote from your bible Talkorigins.com

"Furthermore, Haeckel's theory was rotten at the core. It was wrong both in principle and in the set of biased and manipulated observations used to prop it up. This was a tragedy for science, because it set evolutionary biologists and developmental biologists down a dead-end, leading to an unfortunate divorce between the fields of development and evolution that has only recently been corrected." link




Incorrect, both carbon dating and layers are used simultaneously in age definition.


Both are interpretations of assumptions on its validity. No proof. All radiometric dating are right in there half life measurements. But to apply radiometric dating you have to assume that that the ammount of radioactive particles are stable. So far it has not proved to be stable.



A living dinosaur? HAHAhAaaa

Yes fossilised in rock 'millions' of years old and alive even today. i just gave the puppy a name. You can not refute this, only laugh it off.



[Citation needed]

embryo's: See above.
Horses: Even leading evolutionists such as George Gaylord Simpson backed away from it.
Whales: The bones are used for mating, not for walking. It doesn't even vaguely represent a hipbone.




Yeah like Lamarck's theory, Darwin's theory and Modern synthesis. Completely similar.


I was referring to the faulty statements still appearing in textbooks.



E. coli long term evolution experiment. Peppered moth evolution. Etc. How about you stop with the lies now?

E. coli experiments did not produce other species it showed the abilities of one virus to mutate within its abilities to mutate. No new information was added on the genome.
Peppered moth evolution is also, like the embryonic claims, a well know scam. Also it doesn't show evolution it shows a specie can adapt within its ailities to mutate. No new genome information is added, just scrambled.



At first you seemed like a rational member, but I now see you show heavy anti-science bias. I wonder why..


Anti-evolution is not anti science! And like i said, if you go past the 'follow the lord' nonsense you will find that creationist aquired a lot of data and are really aproaching some of the stuff in a very scientific manner.
It's just that evolutionist can't look past the 'Jesus' crap. I've been busy with this stuff for a long time and my conclusion is that ID/creationists have the stronger points. READ MORE



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by R13sg0




Are explained here.



Citation needed. Show me how and what.

I'm not going to bother. I don't see how this is relevant.



Charles Darwin, letter to Asa Gray, Sept. 10, 1860, in Francis Darwin (editor), The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. II (New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1896), p 131 :

“...by far the strongest single class of facts in favor of...”

Sorry that quote is missing the magic word (hint: where is embryology?)



Grandeur makes no facts it makes a good story though.

Just showed how you were wrong.



Ouch. My friend, you are so wrong. This is really a classical misunderstanding. But the way you present it as truth makes me wonder about the validity of your points. Let me give you a quote from your bible Talkorigins.com

"Furthermore, Haeckel's theory was rotten at the core. It was wrong both in principle and in the set of biased and manipulated observations used to prop it up. This was a tragedy for science, because it set evolutionary biologists and developmental biologists down a dead-end, leading to an unfortunate divorce between the fields of development and evolution that has only recently been corrected." link

Yeah, his theory was bs, but the drawings themselves were in fact amazingly accurate. Like I said, compare them to MRIs of embryos. You'll see..



Both are interpretations of assumptions on its validity. No proof. All radiometric dating are right in there half life measurements. But to apply radiometric dating you have to assume that that the ammount of radioactive particles are stable. So far it has not proved to be stable.

[Citation needed]



Yes fossilised in rock 'millions' of years old and alive even today. i just gave the puppy a name. You can not refute this, only laugh it off.

Dude it's a fish, not a dinosaur. What's the problem here?



Horses: Even leading evolutionists such as George Gaylord Simpson backed away from it.
Whales: The bones are used for mating, not for walking. It doesn't even vaguely represent a hipbone.

Have to get back to this later. We do have a perfect fossil record for whales thou. From land to the sea. The record is beautiful. It even shows how that blowhole thingy slowly transfers to the top of their skull.



I was referring to the faulty statements still appearing in textbooks.

Oh. Well you certainly weren't too clear about that. What faulty statements still appear in textbooks?



E. coli experiments did not produce other species it showed the abilities of one virus to mutate within its abilities to mutate. No new information was added on the genome.

Really, a virus? Is this how clueless you are? Just so you know Escherichia coli is the most studied bacterium. No new information, huh? Check the results.



Peppered moth evolution is also, like the embryonic claims, a well know scam. Also it doesn't show evolution it shows a specie can adapt within its ailities to mutate. No new genome information is added, just scrambled.

I'm not even going to bother. Study the basics, then we can continue.



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 





Did you imply that you said everything stopped evolving? I did no such thing. So you should learn:

1. The Theory
2. To read

PWNED



Lord............ what are you 10?

No need to discuss anymore thank you



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by R13sg0
 


"It's just that evolutionist can't look past the 'Jesus' crap. I've been busy with this stuff for a long time and my conclusion is that ID/creationists have the stronger points. READ MORE "

I've read dozens of books, including Behe. I can't see where the creationists have any arguments at all. They are hampered by the fact that they aren't telling the truth. They're lying about their motivations and that shows in everything.



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by PowerSlave
Lord............ what are you 10?

Sure would be funny if I was. Imagine, a 10 yo owns you intellectually.


[edit on 7-5-2009 by rhinoceros]



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by rhinoceros
Are explained here.


"Brief periods of rapid sedimentation favor their formation" And that's my point.



Sorry that quote is missing the magic word (hint: where is embryology?)


"embryology is to me by far the strongest single class of facts in favour of change of forms, and not one, I think, of my reviewers has alluded to this. Variation not coming on at a very early age, and being inherited at not a very early corresponding period, explains, as it seems to me, the grandest of all facts in natural history, or rather in zoology, viz. the resemblance of embryos. "



Yeah, his theory was bs, but the drawings themselves were in fact amazingly accurate. Like I said, compare them to MRIs of embryos. You'll see..


You implied something completely different. You implied it was correct. Nice drawing or not.



[Citation needed]


Not needed. It's simple. You detect the ammount of c14 in a plant. Then you check the number against the number you can measure in the air. And then you can calculate the half-time.
And if c14 levels where stable over that period, had the same ammount as we have today then you have an accurate reading.
You only have to assume that the levels are at equilibrium and have been that way for a couple of million years.



Dude it's a fish, not a dinosaur. What's the problem here?


That it is still alive. That it didn't evolve, not even after millions of years. Same fish. That is a problem.



Really, a virus? Is this how clueless you are? Just so you know Escherichia coli is the most studied bacterium. No new information, huh? Check the results.


excuse me for my mistake. And you didn;t prove my point wrong. The little critters didnt get arms and legs turned into male and female, invented fire and does experiments on other lifeforms after thousands of lifes.
If the average life of a humanoid is 30 years, then that experiment covered the evolution period of 600,000 years. We didn't even exist back then, so a new species was the least i expected.



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 12:03 AM
link   
I'm with Rhino. R13sgo is one of the blind men describing the elephant. It's incredible how humans have the ability to stumble along the path of ignorance while the real answers are just a fraction of a scintilla away. I suppose it's about personal pride and not desiring to venture beyond ones comfort zone. In the end it's almost tragic that many humans of our time will go through their lives without appreciation for the greatness of nature and biology and our unique place in nature. Open your eyes people. Like the Rhino guy said study the theory. All life on planet Earth is evolving now. Cool.



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 07:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by FeedingTheRat
I'm with Rhino. R13sgo is one of the blind men describing the elephant. It's incredible how humans have the ability to stumble along the path of ignorance while the real answers are just a fraction of a scintilla away. I suppose it's about personal pride and not desiring to venture beyond ones comfort zone. In the end it's almost tragic that many humans of our time will go through their lives without appreciation for the greatness of nature and biology and our unique place in nature. Open your eyes people. Like the Rhino guy said study the theory. All life on planet Earth is evolving now. Cool.


I don't know why you portrait me as someone who doesn't appreciate nature and the way things evolve. Because i do, i love it here.
And i did studied the theory, i don't like it. I don't like the way it is presented, i don't like the way it is rigid, i don't like the way scientist seem to scramble evidence in order to fit a theory. Getting fossils from all over the world, all kinds of climates that seem to fit in an order that supports their claims. I mean, how can some ever say that the ancestor of the horse was a meat eater. How does a meat eater become a plant eater. Standardanswer: "They evolved slowly over millions of years because of random mutation and natural selection." It's like the greatest non-answer there is.

The thing i really dislike is the fact how people respond when you have a serious critical question about evolution. They act like you, or Gawdzilla. Never go into facts, always point to some vague reference and i have to look it up for myself. It's a disgrace man. I see that in almost every discussion about evolution, it's critics that build their case and find interesting stuff. It's the evolutionists that point, laugh and tell them that they are blind for facts.

I'm not blind for facts, on the contrary. I love science. I hold it in high regard. for example i like the experiments done by Dr. Ignacio Ochoa Pacheco. He created life by heating sand. No water, no soup, no supporting theory. Complex multicellular lifeforms within 24 hours. Dr. Dan Burisch confirmed the experiment and killed those more complex lifeforms because he grew concerned for the safety of humans. (could be a virus etc.)
He had a pretty cool theory about micro worm holes created in the vacuum.

So creation, we've seen it in the lab. Evolution, we have not seen it in the lab. Creation supports ancient texts and myths. Evolution is the opposite of ancient knowledge. Creation gives life a meaning. Evolution deprives life from meaning. Creation is supported by science, evolution is supported by scientists.

And logically there has to be a much greater diversity within one specie at the present moment, if evolution was true. Of course we see a degree of diversity within species, but it is always very limited. We have been trying to get bigger and bigger pigs, but we wont get pigs the size of dinosaurs back. Or for instance, basically we can rule out natural selection for the human race. We take care of the sick, deformed and unlucky mutations. Yet humans stay humans. Pearl divers that dived for generation, don;t develop webbing between fingers and toes. It look like a minor adjustment to me. And even if something like that occurs, like the guy with the tail, it never stays. In all cases the skeleton remains the same, other then size... there is no diversity to the extent that evolution-theory should imply.
And why does evolution seem to grind to a halt. Only to shower us with new life forms after a catastrophe. And you can try to find answers in biology, then why ignore morphogenesis that is one of three foundations for development biology. That clearly implies design and where does that come from?

Maybe you found your comfort zone in evolution, i can live with that. Calling me ignorant is telling that you find yourself all knowing. We aren't, not you nor me. We only know a fraction.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join