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: The greatest conspiracy

page: 4
16
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 12:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by andrewh7
 


well i think we can extrapolate that it has its own mass murderers to wield around and smash people over the head with, such as those who developed the idea that since we are all animals, our lives are not nearly as valuable as we think they are, and what we really need is to evolve our own kind via science. therefore we are subject to social engineering schemes such as euthanasia and recombinant dna scenarios. in human terms, survival of the fittest becomes the greediest, cruelest, most blood thirsty and vile individuals on the planet. just for that reason alone, i shun the entire idea


Those are not good reasons to shun a scientific theory. just because a group of psychos twists data or create nonsense such as social survival of the fittest (a political creation. the theory was not meant to separate humans), does not mean that an entire idea should be shunned.

It's like saying that christianity is evil because of the mass murders of the past, when in fact it was the result of twisting the message. Or saying communism is evil and does not deserve to be investigated further, when in fact it is a good political theory that has yet to be used successfully in our world.




posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 12:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by andrewh7
 


well i think we can extrapolate that it has its own mass murderers to wield around and smash people over the head with, such as those who developed the idea that since we are all animals, our lives are not nearly as valuable as we think they are, and what we really need is to evolve our own kind via science. therefore we are subject to social engineering schemes such as euthanasia and recombinant dna scenarios. in human terms, survival of the fittest becomes the greediest, cruelest, most blood thirsty and vile individuals on the planet. just for that reason alone, i shun the entire idea


Survival of the fittest is a reality. It is evil only because a man says it is. A lion doesn't kill a pig because he hates the pig - only men kill out of hatred or for sport. Hate Evolution but know in the back of your mind that we stand here on the top of the food chain above all other species on this planet - generally unafraid of being consumed by predators because he are intelligent and we know how to build tools to promote the survival of ourselves and our families. Hate evolution - anyone who knows, who truly understands it could care less what you think. To me, it's like listening to someone complain about the morality of breathing oxygen, gravity when falling on your butt, or the eating plants and animals to survive.

We have something amazing - we can learn from not just our own mistakes but from those made thousands of years before we were born by people who had no relation to us whatsoever. Evolution tempers our genes, but cultures tempers our values.

Men invented self-ruling governments with laws because we came together as a people and decided that we didn't want to worry about be murdered or robbed. Killing a man to take what he has is certainly adaptive for some species but we are a SOCIAL SPECIES. We survived by working together as a team, trusting one another with our lives. Evolution is clearly not evil if it can create something so amazing.

Evolution accepts everything that is good and bad about humans. Religion takes credit for all that is good but disregards everything that can go wrong with us or what wrongs can be committed against us. Thanking a God for a doctor removing a tumor without pondering the existence of the tumor in the first place is nonsensical.

The earth and man are not perfect, far from it. Religion puts a rosy picture on everything and for that reason alone should be looked upon with a skeptical eye. I respect religion because it gives people purpose and allows them to deal with an inherent fear of dying. However, personally, I would rather die knowing as much about the world as possible. I desire the truth rather than rosy white lies. That just who I am.





[edit on 4-10-2009 by andrewh7]



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 12:54 AM
link   

God doesn't exist because there is no evidence that he exists - period


that was an unscientific and misleading statement. God is a theory based on personal observation and experience. it may be objective but i wasn't on the boat with darwin either, doesn't mean he doesn't exist nor does it mean what he saw, he didn't see. he's a theory, not even based on personal observation or experience. lol

gads this argument is so stale. can we find a new thing to bash? oh my gosh a men of all backgrounds have abused and killed women for thousands of years. does that mean men are bad and we should avoid them?


you answer your own questions. there are good people and bad people everywhere.

and quit trying to tell me what to read and believe, k?
k!



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 12:58 AM
link   
For those who disagree with the idea of "God".

Turn this over in your heads...
Now, evolution states that things will just keep getting better and better. So let's say... man keeps evolving for a couple of trillion years. He figures out how to control the weather, how to escape the earth... the solar system... the galaxy... He eventually evolves into an unrecognizable form and keeps evolving from there.
He learns how to create things with his mind and figures out how to step out of time.
Eventually, the form he is in achieves immortality.
All of this is "evolved" over trillions and trillions of years.

Eventually one of them decides "he" wants a pet... or a planet of pets.

Need I go on?



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 01:07 AM
link   
reply to post by sisgood
 


Now, evolution states that things will just keep getting better and better.

No it doesn't. I states that things will change when pressured to and generally become more complex with entropy.


So let's say... man keeps evolving for a couple of trillion years.

Not sure you realise how many years a trillion is. The universe hasn't even exits for 1/10th of a trillion years. Man won't exist in this time.


Eventually one of them decides "he" wants a pet... or a planet of pets.

Need I go on?


I think so. If you're suggesting that God or a god is an evolved being, then was he designed? That what about his designer's designer? And the designer's designer's designer? At some stage, an organism had to achieve this level of advancement naturally, i.e. without a designer. There is no real evidence to suggest that we haven't evolved naturally so why presume a designer? We may be the first in the line.

[edit on 4-10-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 01:09 AM
link   
reply to post by sisgood
 


evolution never states that things "will get better and better", that is a misconception some people have. The snake losing it's legs could be viewed by us humans as disadvantageous, yet it allows this species to survive in it's environment just fine. the whales being aquatic mammals can be viewed as disadvantageous in our human minds, for the whale needs to go to the surface to breathe. Yet it is fitted to exists in such an environment due to evolution.

evolution does not have a goal, if evolution meant only improvement, then many animals we view as "lower life forms" such as bacteria or amphibians wouldn't exists.



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 01:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo

God doesn't exist because there is no evidence that he exists - period


that was an unscientific and misleading statement. God is a theory based on personal observation and experience. it may be objective but i wasn't on the boat with darwin either, doesn't mean he doesn't exist nor does it mean what he saw, he didn't see. he's a theory, not even based on personal observation or experience. lol
k!


If there is evidence of God, please present it. Darwin existed because there is evidence he existed in photographs and books and the body in his grave. God has no such evidence. God is an answer to a question that no one has an answer to....yet. Why is the sky blue? I don't know - God made it that way because blue is a pretty color. The more real knowledge we learn, the less and less we draw upon the God excuse to settle our curiosity - that is a historical fact. Apparently, my sarcasm was interpreted literally by some. The sky isn't blue because God made it that way but before we knew why it was really blue, God got the credit.

Two overriding questions may continue to perpetuate the God answer for quite some time - (1) why do we exist and (2) what happens when we die.

purpose
Religious people want to tell you that Science is cold and that it makes your life meaningless. They are lying to you. You exist because thousands of generations before you fought for their lives and the lives of their families. Some of those ancestors were dumber and hairier but guess what? They are still your ancestors. I give them a minimum amount of respect simply by not pretending they never existed. In my opinion, a light sensitive patch of skin gradually sensing motion and then detail and then color is FAR MORE AMAZING then a wizard snapping his fingers. Just my opinion.

You are individual. You are alive. You decide right and wrong. Define your own purpose. Choose your own destiny. You are not a divine being's chess piece. You may be manipulated at times by other people but certainly not a God.

Life after Death
No one knows what happens to you after you die. If anyone tells you they do, they are lying to you. If they cite a religious text, what happened to people who died before that book was written by a man? Believe what you want! I don't reach conclusions without evidence. That's just me.


[edit on 4-10-2009 by andrewh7]



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 01:12 AM
link   
sigh, survival of the fittest will always always ALWAYS, end up bad for humans. it's the paradox of the physical world.



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 01:16 AM
link   
reply to post by andrewh7
 



If anyone tells you they do, they are lying to you.


more unscientific assertions. it's a personal observation. personal. as in you only get the answer if you ask for it. you keep telling me i'm my own person but don't accept what my person has experienced because your experience is different. that's fine and dandy. you don't have to accept my experience but you do have to allow me to have it without threat of death or i'll just start calling people such as yourself, little popes.



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 01:18 AM
link   
reply to post by andrewh7
 


The sky is blue because of the combination of air molicules (sp?) we have in our atmosphere.
I don't remember the percentages but... that's why.



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 01:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by sisgood
For those who disagree with the idea of "God".

Turn this over in your heads...
Now, evolution states that things will just keep getting better and better. So let's say... man keeps evolving for a couple of trillion years.
Need I go on?


No it does not. There is no all defining word better. People are no more evolved than hamsters. Evolution is a process not an adjective. Nature is full of niches and species fight for the right to fill those niches. If evolution only produced perfect products why is the fossil record full of extinct species - failed branches? Prehensile tails (one that can grip a branch like a finger) worked in South America but not in Africa. A species with one might thrive just great in Africa and an ape without one might do great in south America. Having or not having this characteristic doesn't make an animal "better." That's a subjective term invented by people. In nature, all that matters is that you are alive, you have food and water, and a mate. Monkeys don't sit around all day complaining about politics or religion. Some people might say that's a "better" lifestyle.



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 01:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by sisgood
reply to post by andrewh7
 


The sky is blue because of the combination of air molicules (sp?) we have in our atmosphere.
I don't remember the percentages but... that's why.


That's true, but you're not listening to me. I was making a point about about God filling the void of ignorance that science has not yet progressed to fill. Humans are dominated by curiosity. I think we can all agree on that point. How frustrating is it to wonder why something is the way that it is and not know? How can you answer the question of why the sky is blue without knowing what oxygen is or even knowing what an atmosphere or a planet really is? People were understandably annoyed. So, some guy came around and said because God made it that way. Effectively removing all the complexity hidden behind the real answer. It's convenient and it's easy to understand. Welcome to the human race. Fortunately, some people didn't settle for this answer. Some people were even willing to be killed to resist the easy answer.

Example: Why do the stars and sun spin around us throughout the day? Because the earth is the center of the universe - everything spins around it. See - it offers an explanation and a nice boost to the ego as well. Eventually, we figured out we were wrong. A lot of people can believe something but that doesn't mean that that idea is in any way correct.

In two hundred years, who knows what the majority of people will know to be true. We think the "flat earth" people were morons. What will our great great great grandchildren think of us? Maybe we'll nuke ourselves off the face of the Earth and there won't be any more good and evil, until the cockroaches start walking and talking and make a little cockroach Fox News that tells the other cockroaches what to think about everything and everyone.



[edit on 4-10-2009 by andrewh7]



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 01:30 AM
link   
"The bible cannot be true because women cannot conceive any other way than sexual congress!"

"The bible cannot be true because men cannot fly in the sky!"

"The mahabharata cannot be true because you can't destroy two cities at once iwth an iron thunderbolt!"

"The mahabharata cannot be true because you can't fly around in the sky in an invisible car, nor make it move around with the power of your thoughts!"

etc etc etc omygosh etc.

it's like staring ya in the face, waving, jumping up and down, and you're saying, it's all fake because it's not possible.

fine. let's see ya fly to your wife's artificial insemination appointment in a stealth aircraft with a brain computer interface.



now if WE can do all that stuff we ain't supposed to be able to do because god weren't supposed to be able to do it, cause some guys in 1500 AD said so, barely out of the dark ages, they were.... it's like your fencing with yourself.



[edit on 4-10-2009 by undo]



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 01:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo
"The bible cannot be true because women cannot conceive any other way than sexual congress!"

"The bible cannot be true because men cannot fly in the sky!"

fine. let's see ya fly to your wife's artificial insemination appointment in a stealth aircraft with a brain computer interface.

[edit on 4-10-2009 by undo]



I like your enthusiasm. You're right but I especially like that you created a relevant avenue to a video on a cloaking jacket. Very unexpected.
Well done.


[edit on 4-10-2009 by andrewh7]



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 01:37 AM
link   
reply to post by sisgood
 


I have to ask this. If evolution is a conspiracy, what is the purpose? What is the incentive to deceive people in this way? Why would scientists conspire to deceive? What would they stand to gain/lose in such a conspiracy?

Science has no problem being wrong, it happens. Its the beauty of the system. When new evidence presents itself an attempt is made to account for it. Science has been wrong many times in the past, and what did they do? They adjusted in order to try to find the truth. There is no incentive in science to perpetuate false theories and misnomers. Why would they do that?

So, for arguments sake, lets say that evolution is completely wrong and a scientist finds absolute proof that it is wrong. Do you know what would happen? A new hypothesis would be made and tested in order to find the truth. That is how science works. Until there is some absolutely damning evidence to refute evolution(bible does not count)in its current form, it will remain as is.

If the goal of science was to deceive and manipulate, then we would still have many other old theories and ideas that perpetuate today. We would still be arguing whether or not the earth was flat or that blood letting should be used in modern medicine. It is not the goal of science to deceive.

Science takes the evidence at hand, tests it and attempts to produce correct answers and the truth. If they didn't do this you could never move forward and we would not have the technological advances that we have today. When a huge hole is punched in a theory or hypothesis, its back to the drawing board to attempt to explain it using the new evidence.

Science is comfortable being wrong and accepting that wrongness in the greater search for truth. It is religion and the dogma within that have a problem with being wrong and have created vast conspiracies in order to assert their dominance and avoid having to change their own religious "fact".

Do you or anyone else who refutes evolution have a better hypothesis to throw out there? Can your hypothesis be tested? Is it grounded in fact and science?



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 01:41 AM
link   
reply to post by andrewh7
 


Last post then It's beddy bye... I've got a big solo in the morning XD

Actually, (and bear in mind I'm sleepy now) I find plenty to explore with in my "structured Christian world" Theology is one subject that I absolutely love. (It's the evolution of the soul) I also spend some time trying to figure myself out lol Let's just say that I'm a human with some extra features.
But it isn't a problem for me because I have an eternal soul... in God's image. So, for me, a few... strange talents are just a reflection of my soul. If we are made in Gods image, wouldn't it make sense if we weren't completely mundane ourselves?
I love history, astronomy, and yes, trying to "figure" God out. I like nothing better than to sit down with a certain friend of mine and discuss matters of the spirit, God, angels and other things.

There are so many things that just can't be explained away... so much evidence of God around you. I could give you example after example... but then you'd know where I lived. lol
Let's just say that we've had more than our fair share of natural disasters and the fact that only 23 people died from one in particular is mind boggling... almost impossible.

I've seen so much evidence of God and spiritual beings. I just shake my head sadly at people like you. God has proved Himself to ME time and time again.

And now it's 1:36 AM... I have to be up at 6:30 AM...

Goodnight.



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 01:46 AM
link   
reply to post by andrewh7
 


oh yeah? well you'll like this then


if we were made in his image, and he could do that stuff back then,
just think what we will be able to do when we no longer have to tug around
a carbon-based, temporary, encounter suit!



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 02:01 AM
link   
reply to post by iamcamouflage
 


the problem is a matter of world view. you can be scientific and still believe in your spiritual self and/or the supernatural. the supernatural is better defined as those aspects of the universe and ourselves, that we've yet to fully discover. doesn't mean they don't exist, as i've suggested in my previous post about flying, artificial insemination and invisibility cloaking.

but let's theorize or rather hypothesize for a moment and consider our junk dna (it could be anything, i'm just using that as an example) is used to record our life's events and decisions. if you decide you don't have a spirit body or an after life existence, perhaps this is recorded like a last will and testament and you get "shut off" completely when you die - because that's what you believed, which is translated to, that's what you want. you make your reality in the spirit world, perhaps? *(maybe why the ancient egyptians thought if they wrote it down, it'd be true in the after life. )

now people who love others and who want to see you and everyone else, happily exploring the rest of eternity, would naturally feel compelled to remind you that you have an eternal spirit and please don't tell it to shut off when you die!
what a waste of life experiences. talents and so much more, that make each person an unique individual.

now i know religion has all that bad history. just ignore those guys. survival of the fittest always ends up with really bad people running everyone else's physical existence. you have to account for yourself, not for them. they got their own stuff to deal with.



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 02:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo
sigh, survival of the fittest will always always ALWAYS, end up bad for humans. it's the paradox of the physical world.


Wrong. The human race ONLY exists because of it. We are immune to or resistant to many diseases because our ancestors survived them. We are smart because our smarter ancestors were more likely to survive. It's made us a more robust and adaptable species.

Example: Those Blacks that carry a particular recessive gene have a natural immunity to Malaria but those who carry this same gene in its dominant form get sickle cell anemia. The risk of anemia was apparently less significant than the advantage offered by the recessive form. This 'survival of the fittest' concept has probably saved countless lives from Malaria. That's only ONE example



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 03:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by iamcamouflage
 


the problem is a matter of world view. you can be scientific and still believe in your spiritual self and/or the supernatural. the supernatural is better defined as those aspects of the universe and ourselves, that we've yet to fully discover. doesn't mean they don't exist, as i've suggested in my previous post about flying, artificial insemination and invisibility cloaking.



For anyone that is interested, here is a perfect example of religious people rhetoric. He has just asserted based on Zero evidence that atheists are wiped from the universe as punishment while Christians get an after life. Fear is how these people maintain control. They exploit ignorance to get attention and support. You people complain about the arrogance of science?
Take a look in the mirror.

[edit on 4-10-2009 by andrewh7]




top topics



 
16
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join