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.

 

10 Ways Darwin got it wrong - The Conspiracy of Evolution

page: 18
28
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 02:14 PM
link   
THIS THREAD WILL REMAIN CIVIL AND POLITE!

General ATS Discussion Etiquette – Please Review This Link.

1) Be polite. Above all, we take pride in the fact that AboveTopSecret.com is renowned as a destination for civil and polite discussion of nearly anything. Treat your fellow ATS members with respect, and your time here will be rewarding.


Debate the topic - not each other.

TheRedneck
ATS Forum Moderator




posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 03:17 PM
link   
Gday,


Originally posted by s373r3d
Only in that last 100 years did we discover that Newton was wrong about gravity. Then comes Einstein.


Newton was NOT wrong about gravity.
Newton was 99.9% right.
Newtonian gravity is good enough to get men to the moon.

But Einstein was 100% right.


K.



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 04:42 PM
link   
Matter doesn’t work that way my friend and even a snowflake has many re-thinking this self assembly argument

How variables act to shape matter can be explained deterministically, even though the determinants are unknown and the outcomes are unpredictable


I Understand that, believe me I do, but what evolution does, is assume evolution is true first, THEN they make their interpretations based on those assumptions as they have always done. To keep the idea alive they have resorted to post modernist semantics calling it a fact when their is NO such consensus and the altenberg 16 proved that because they cannot agree on a damn thing. The book, will the real, evolution please stand up" convicts the reader to either face the facts or continue as a fool.

Yes, I understand that theories are frequently unexplained. Theories on gravitation explain how gravity operates as a force, but cannot explain what causes things to gravitate!

Therefore, the fact Intelligent Design presupposes an unexplained designer is not a problem anymore than it is for gravity or the time god or the unnamed, un-photographed, best guess and artists imagined and rendered, common ancestor is for evolutionists

Where does our observation of the evidence lead us? It certainly does not lead to the tree of life you are describing. As for DNA, one of the most perplexing issues of morphology is that DNA will not ALLOW a FRACTION of the mutation errors they had thought it did. In fact, it more or less reboots itself after only two generations to the default template of the life form it is instructed to build to already digitally hard coded specifications. This is 2009 data my friends, so I suggest you catch up on the latest before you talk to me as if you think you know what you are talking about.

I consider design, purpose, direction, intelligence undeniable in life/biology and I attribute its ultimate source to a genius mind! By faith yes, but also by observation leading to what I feel is a logical conclusion.

You ask, "If a complex god can exist without a reason, why can't matter or energy exist without a reason yet every thing we see has a reason it exists which is dependant on other specific existing things beings and matter. I can only speculate what Gods reason would have been to create matter, maybe he was bored, who cares! The FACT is; of the two, only one can even HAVE a reason to and I would think, THAT would be the one, that DID. Matter doesn't care about reasons and matter doesn't even matter, and unless you have the intelligence to have postulated the question, you have given, as far as matter is concerned, it doesn't even matter, that it doesn't matter! I mean you are asking for the same kind of answers evolution will never know nor will I unequivocally but at least I am not positioning myself as if the facts are any less or any more available for my interpretation of the evidence. Remember, we are BOTH looking at the same evidence. You see a transitional species, claiming it must be another primate we share that ever-elusive common ancestor, while I see a dead monkey.



The idea for science to spend time wondering about how whales lost their legs.
They have looked at the DNA of whales (hox c6-c10) and could find no trace of vestigial genes. Perhaps it is because they never had any legs!

I am thinking about the babies born with tails when they are really just abnormal fatty growths without bones or an unusually structured end to the coccyx, which produces a bump

The Hox gene you think we are so reticent to answer isn't because we are caught in a losing argument, it may be perhaps people don't like having to embarrass others or that in some cases, one may speak as if they have their mind made up, why confuse them with the facts?

This whale for instance, uses those limbs deep within the core of its body as arms would an oar at depths it must conserve body heat and save energy using a slower paced form of propulsion while, it can transfer more blood to the extremities flukes and fins where other muscles are incorporated in a more direct propeller propulsion effort. NEVERTHELESS, they look like HIPPO LEGS so THAT must mean, it wasn't a cow after all it was a HIPPO it came from!

The kind of reverse engineering it would take to have a land animal for some reason want to keep going back in the water to deeper and deeper depths all the while this marvelous mutation called sonar, the kind we can't begin to match, is estimated at around 57 million years. That is just for the sonar, and what ever else is going on. We already know, DNA will NOT take this any further than that. That is why evolution is going through another MASSIVE reconstruction!

You are regurgitating old information and NO, I am NOT lying Dawkins Doesn't know what our common ancestor is, what it looks like and can only SUPPOSE one.

To continue the whale:


In general, as an animal increases in size, its surface area decreases relative to volume. A whale's fusiform body shape and reduced limb size further decrease this surface-to-volume ratio.

A low surface-to-volume ratio helps an animal retain body heat: the large body core produces metabolic heat. Only through the relatively smaller surface area exposed to the external environment (the skin) is that heat lost.

A thick layer of blubber just under a whale's skin helps insulates a whale from heat loss. There is a heat gradient from the body core, through the blubber, to the skin.


A baleen whale's circulatory system adjusts to conserve or dissipate body heat and maintain body temperature. It is is called "countercurrent heat exchange."

Veins surround some arteries of the flippers, dorsal fins, etc, and heat from the blood coursing through them is transferred to venous blood supplies rather than the environment. It is speculated, when a baleen whale dives, circulation decreases at the skin, as the temperature drops as the more fathoms it dives, keeping the blood to the insulated body core for more critical organs. In warm water, the whale dissipates body heat. It does this diverting circulation increases near the surface of the skin and flippers, flukes, and dorsal fin. Excess heat given off and as more blood flow can be allowed to the more external muscles of the fins, which have a more direct influence on the propulsion capabilities of this whale.

Baleen whales do have a mutation that affects expression. NOT a mutation as DNA can make anything already and does not NEED evolution! It is already powerful enough to make all the creatures that have ever lived according to the template it has for that life form and all that "junk DNA" evolutionists used to call it, isn't junk after all.

Other whales do not have this, so this particular change cannot be associated with the loss of hind legs. It is important to remember that hox genes act as switches. There have to be other genes, which actually produce legs when and where turned on by the appropriate hox gene

You may disagree that violating a couple laws proves an entire theory wrong, but I got news for ya, once you rely on material explanations only, for the basis of a theory, guess what? You are stuck with them. For someone so into offering flowery fantasies about mysticism and magic, you have convinced me of one thing Ill agree with. That if your version of evolution were true, it would certainly have to be done by magic.

If you want to say the laws don't apply, you'll have to show evidence for that first before you can rely on the rest of your theory and as many instances of manipulated data to fit the theory and as many manufactured dino to bird fossils that have been debunked coming out of what has become an industry for making them, YOU WOULD THINK that is only scratching the surface. That is just the ones that were caught. Many many more are getting away with it. YOU would THINK that it would have a domino effect reversing much of the tree of life and that the theory having one then two then hackles embryo's java man Colorado man that dead monkey they call Lucy ALL of that had other ideas corroborating each other, in fact Piltdown was used to substantiate evolution during the scopes trial. So with all that patently pathetic Piltdown fraud and such un-testable un observed and impossible to falsify making it UNSCIETIFIC by definition according to the scientific method, evolution lives by a double standard while holding ID to one they have already falsified before they investigated it.

They do this using questions like "who designed the designer?" which is an infinite regress of circular logic they are fully aware of but so am I. It is supposed to undermine the concept by showing the designer is presupposed and cannot be explained.


However, scientific hypothesis make presuppositions all the time. String Theory was built on the presupposition of extra-dimensional reality at subatomic level. It would be impossible to create a theory that predicts extra-dimensions without presupposing they exist.

Evolution presupposes evolution is true and have merged distinctly different definitions of those observed and those unobserved and unproven by suggesting micro evolution is macro evolution long term and follow using some anecdote to illustrate traveling to another state as if the state were another species. As long as it keeps walking in that direction, it is going to get there. However, that is not an accurate portrayal of the kind of massive feat of biological re-engineering this would take. First, it needs the kind of DNA that mutates without its rate and instance for mutation being curtailed exponentially, the moment two copy errors are made. It would be accurate to say the life form walking across state lines is actually walking a Tran’s continental trek on its knees, backward and has an entire ocean in its way making it impossible to begin with.



If Matter is energy and energy is matter how can God create something from nothing is another trick question. The idea is only glossed over as something from nothing or that a creator or God started with ZERO meaning notta no amount etc. and Science more often than not ends up proving the Bible correct.

zero!www.astrosociety.org...


Then their are these claims of plagiarism of the Bible when not one of you can prove the authors of one pagan book are not the same one or ones that made the others but for some reason they can prove Jesus never existed.

The speak derogatory of the Bible as merely a book that was written to explain things people didn't understand, Well DUH?? However, what is so ironic is, not only is that partly true, but isn't that the same thing Science attempts to do? The Bible was just a book written by men!

Umm Yeah, SO?

So is every science book I have ever read.

The Bible is a 4000-year-old book so it does not apply. What doesn't apply?

You think atheists won't be celebrating their God Darwin a thousand years from now. They Celebrate it now when they know darn well that almost all of Darwin’s data no longer apply's and offer excuses like how he didn't have the benefit of the technology we have today. Ok so what is it they can't understand that many of the prophesies of the ancients won't be known until the technology or events arrive that identifies them?

They say the Bible was written to control the masses yet admit societies that have had religious culture survive substantially longer and better than Godless ones. Perhaps a little structure isn't a bad thing. Perhaps we use science in many ways to control the masses. Me I think the whole control the masses thing is HOGWASH. Twice I have seen this so-called science community say their are hippo legs in whales as if to suggest some kind of vestigial argument.


What anti-IDists try to do is to either re-define science to include only “natural” processes, as if intelligent causes are non-natural, or try to tie ID to the supernatural. They think that if ID is tied to the supernatural then it has violated some arbitrary rule of science. Either that or they try to hold ID to some other arbitrary rules of science, never thinking that the reigning paradigm has no chance of meeting those same standards.







[edit on 16-11-2009 by Kerry_Knight]



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 04:55 PM
link   

I consider design, purpose, direction, intelligence undeniable in life/biology and I attribute its ultimate source to a genius mind! By faith yes, but also by observation leading to what I feel is a logical conclusion.


Well, you can consider that and even believe it but you have no proof that what you see stems from a genius mind.

On the other hand there is abundant proof for evolution and natural selection.


You are regurgitating old information and NO, I am NOT lying Dawkins Doesn't know what our common ancestor is, what it looks like and can only SUPPOSE one.


Science is constantly learning and new discoveries are made every day- you can think because science can't explain everything at this time that your genius mind creator wins by default but you must also realise just how lame that argument is.



[edit on 16-11-2009 by lifecitizen]



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by lifecitizen

I consider design, purpose, direction, intelligence undeniable in life/biology and I attribute its ultimate source to a genius mind! By faith yes, but also by observation leading to what I feel is a logical conclusion.


Well, you can consider that and even believe it but you have no proof that what you see stems from a genius mind.

On the other hand there is abundant proof for evolution and natural selection.


I HAVE considered it and I do believe it because I see a UNIVERSE of evidence which is the same evidence the same amount you say they have for evolution but interpret different for various reasons but you haven't read my post, You still have a mechanism problem to deal with and THAT makes YOUR theory implausible and I am being generous



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 05:13 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 

Thanks for your opinion.
However, I take offense to it.
My intention was never to troll.
It was merely to post an article I found interesting.
Also in honor on the anniversary of his work.

If you cannot understand my intention after this far
into the thread, too bad for you.
You can always start a thread about trolling or whatever you would like it to be about.
My intent is to bridge gaps in understanding and share experiences.
To promote peace with ones neighbors regardless of personal belief.
I know strange huh?

I have appologized in saying I am human and not a very good thread runner for lack of a better way to put it.
Excuse me. I merely wanted to give my experience and hope others shared theirs.
I appreciate very much the forum to do this with.
I thank you all and ATS for allowing it!
I very much appreciate all your posts.
I can't tell you all how much I enjoy reading them and responding.
I feel lucky to keep up actually!


I am growing and learning always, as we all are,
and I will not be interfered with in this process.
By you or anyone. I will find the answers I seek.
You have no right to interfere in this process whatsoever!

In no way am I affiliated with the website in the OP.
Was merely to promote speculation and sharing of feelings and experience. Sure I thought it was a catchy title and thats about it
as far as 'trolling' for posts or whatever thats all about anyway.
As you can see I have enough stars to fill a sky and enough friends
to consider myself a rich man.
If you need more stars for some reason, go elsewhere,
you wont get any from me. Unless you want to contribute that is.

As you can see I do not lack friends here.
I actually consider most here as one.
At least the ones that dont bash, and sometimes even then I will friend
them if I respect where they are coming from.
Look at my profile and see how many really know me, then judge me.
I warn you first however, I am very different than many assume I am.
If you have something to share here other than bashing the OP,
Please do, otherwise you know where the door is.

If you dont want to participate by giving your opinion like these other
fine folks have done, at least have the courtesy to not bash!
I did a thorough search before I posted this btw.
How many dont bother to even do that? I've seen it happen daily.
And how many dont bother to read what another says anyway?

I resent the fact you say this, when the depth and personal feelings
posted by these good people on this thread are so apparent.
Also as I have done.
If you can't see this or comprehend what is being put forth.
Maybe you should go start that thread now.
Peace and good luck.

Sorry for the rant everyone. I am very sad at this time.
A dear friend passed away and my patience is nonexistent.
Sorry if this is not appropriate mods and thank you for your
understanding and help.
I wont sit by while I am attacked personally for honestly sharing my
obviously very personal feelings.
I want others to know they can share without fear of prejudice.
Isnt there enough of that already in this world?
Thank you everyone. You guys rock! D


[edit on 16-11-2009 by dodadoom]



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by rnaa
This is clearly a trolling thread.

The 'problems' listed in the opening post have been posted (in various forms) in many other threads where they have been answered directly, completely, and politely.

In no case that I can find has the poster attempted to debate the rebuttals in anyway shape or form. Instead they purposely and maliciously pick out those threads from impatient and frustrated posters and attack them as non-responsive and assumptive of the original posters belief system as if those frustrated posters are the only ones that are attempting to engage the original poster.

Invariably, the arguments against the original 'problems with evolution' proposition are totally ignored. As they obviously would be, because the 'problems' have been answered over and over and over again on multiple threads and web sites.

The posters purpose is clearly not to deny ignorance or gain answers to their questions. The only purpose seems to be to engage in silly word games about who is making unwarranted assumptions about whose belief system or anything that will keep the argument going.

I have an hypothesis: these threads, which seem to be regenerated on a fairly regular cycle of about a month (research required) are being propagated by a group of people who couldn't care less about the topic, but are engaged in a game, there is probably a bet involved on who can pull the most responses with their tripe. This constitutes a clear conspiracy, don't you think?

An alternate hypothesis: these threads are less than subtle advertisements for the authors that the material is sourced from.

Now that this is in plain view, I wonder how this can be tested? The Heisenberg principle would no doubt apply.



Clearly a trolling thread- the OP attacks people who don't agree with them and sucks up to the people that do agree with them.

I think you're right about the conspiracy- wonder who will win



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 08:58 PM
link   
reply to post by dodadoom
 



Fantastic.

Mod Note: One Line Post – Please Review This Link.



[edit on 11/16/2009 by TheRedneck]



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 09:12 PM
link   
To Lifecitizen.
What a matter you still mad at lil' ol' me?
I am not still ignoring you, obviously I read your informative and well thought out and just really nice post.

Are you here to bash too and spout hate towards me? Seems so.
I dont suppose you read anything I have just posted have you?

There are many here who I dont see eye to eye with.
However look at my friends list and you will see many on there as well.
I appreciate all comments, even childish ones attacking me personally
and adding nothing to the thread as others have done. IMO

If you can find it in your heart to forgive me for any hurt I've caused you,
I would appreciate it. I have already appologized to you and will again,
if need be.
It takes a bigger man to do that
One grown up enough to admit he is not perfect but who is always trying
to be a better person with more patience!


Do you understand that?
If I may be so bold, what is your take on the evolution thingy?
Or was your post strictly to suck up to me?
Peace.

Edit:
Sometimes the best of friendships can come out of the worst beginnings!
I respect you.




[edit on 16-11-2009 by dodadoom]



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 09:31 PM
link   
reply to post by IrnBruFiend
 

Um, thanks?
I am not sure if you are being sarcastic or what.
Care to elaborate just a tad bit for my ego fix for the day?

If you are paying me a compliment that is!


Kidding, thanks for that awesome reply all the way from Scotland?
Thanks for the laughs too!

Way cool!....especially on the legs eh?

You know one of my favorite bands is Nazareth!
I have oodles of songs by them on my ipod!


Once again a well thought out and very succinct post!
Me likeys! Care to drop a tear or bash a little?



Edit: What do you think of all this 'origin of man' stuff?

Natureboy gets the star for that last one!


[edit on 16-11-2009 by dodadoom]



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 09:37 PM
link   
I didn't realise one word posts were frowned upon haha.

No that's some great information you posted. Evolution is the biggest scientific disaster of the century. Evidence will never corroborate with Darwin's theory of evolution because it's a scientific non-starter.

DNA evidence proves this. Let's simplify this.

All primates have 48 chromosomes.

All humans have 46 chromosomes.

This 'missing' chromosome has infact been fused together somehow. This is not a result of evolution as it is scientifically, impossible.

And surprisingly, the 7 Sumerian Tablets of creation - along with countless other pieces of evidence - corroborate with this scientific evidence and you're on the right path from there.

Evolution and Creationism are intellectual prisons.











[edit on 16-11-2009 by IrnBruFiend]



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 09:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by dodadoom
To Lifecitizen.
What a matter you still mad at lil' ol' me?
I am not still ignoring you, obviously I read your informative and well thought out and just really nice post.

Are you here to bash too and spout hate towards me? Seems so.
I dont suppose you read anything I have just posted have you?

There are many here who I dont see eye to eye with.
However look at my friends list and you will see many on there as well.
I appreciate all comments, even childish ones attacking me personally
and adding nothing to the thread as others have done. IMO

If you can find it in your heart to forgive me for any hurt I've caused you,
I would appreciate it. I have already appologized to you and will again,
if need be.
It takes a bigger man to do that than one who won't.
One grown up enough to admit he is not perfect but who is always trying
to be a better person with more patience!


Do you would understand any of that?
If I may be so bold, what is your take on the evolution thingy?
Or was your post strictly to suck up to me?
Peace.

Edit:
Sometimes the best of friendships can come out of the worst beginnings!


[edit on 16-11-2009 by dodadoom]


What on earth are you babbling about- I have no need to forgive you, you are just a random poster on a random message board- I assure you you haven't hurt me so no need to apologise.

'evolution thingy'- are you serious?



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Kerry_Knight
 

Holy Moly! Great stuff! Star!


So, you are basically saying, what is consciousness?
Where did it come from?
And what does it have to do with matter, anyway?

Doesnt a complex mathmatical design equation solve most
problems with all these theory's about and including the entire universe?

Wouldn't this be a more likely and logical approach in design?
What about the same complex design found in bible code for instance?
Only now with computer can we even see this!


Great lesson on the whales too!
Great link, thanks!

Here are my favorites! Thanks!



They do this using questions like "who designed the designer?" which is an infinite regress of circular logic they are fully aware of but so am I. It is supposed to undermine the concept by showing the designer is presupposed and cannot be explained. ...

Sounds like a conspiracy!



Perhaps we use science in many ways to control the masses. Me I think the whole control the masses thing is HOGWASH.

I agree, nowhere is this more prevalant than in amerika.
Be it food, entertainment, religion, health care, I could go on.
Maybe it is just all about our consumptive appetite and attitude?
Only the willing can be controlled.....

Very good last paragraph also! Peace and thanks!


[edit on 16-11-2009 by dodadoom]



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 11:41 PM
link   
Life Citizen:
Sorry for the babbling.
I'll try to write a little slower and more concise.

Sounds good, I am glad, thanks.
Party on!

Ya, evolution.
Have you heard of it?



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 11:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Kerry_Knight
 




The idea for science to spend time wondering about how whales lost their legs.
They have looked at the DNA of whales (hox c6-c10) and could find no trace of vestigial genes. Perhaps it is because they never had any legs!


I would be interested in seeing some papers about this because i raelly don't think that true at all, firstly whales having legs is a widely accepted fact - fossil records and extensive, museums have skeletal structures, people cutting up modern wales still sometimes report finding them, etc, etc, etc...

Well here's a real scientist talking about the genetics of whale legs - interesting how he finishes his essay...



How do you make a whale? Clearly, you don't just "lose" the genes required to make hind limbs. You have to revise and add to the control information for existing banks of regulatory genes involved in limb formation.

scienceblogs.com...

or we could take this section from early in the essay...



The main players in limb formation, the genes Sonic hedgehog (Shh), the Fgfs, and the transcription factor Hand2, are all still present and fully functional in these animals.


I'm sure you can't argue that early whales, as exemplified by Ambulocetus natans, show well-formed fully functional hind legs - are you suggesting that god decided to make a type of whale which had legs, shortly after he had killed the many whalelike animals which science believes they evolved from - he then kept making the legs smaller and smaller, through Basilosauroidea which again he killed all whale like things, turning them to stone just to make way eventually for the modern cetaceans whales which today only very rarely contain rear legs in their phenotype, although displaying them clearly still in their genotype and embryonic development.

Some images of skeletal legs for you to look at,

www.edwardtbabinski.us...
creationistidiocy.blogspot.com...

Either god had a very tough time trying to get whales right, for some reason he was #sure# they needed some form of rear legs - finally though it seems that no, get rid of most of them... or evolution is the only rational answer.



This whale for instance, uses those limbs deep within the core of its body as arms would an oar at depths it must conserve body heat and save energy using a slower paced form of propulsion while, it can transfer more blood to the extremities flukes and fins where other muscles are incorporated in a more direct propeller propulsion effort.

again do you have some scientific evidence of this or is it decided purely on faith?

While i say that whales have limbs deep within the blubber these limbs are today pretty much only a pelvis with leg sockets (like our acetabulum) and two unattached bones - you see when sonic hedgehog (shh) was crippled about 34 million years ago it stopped the limbs working, the whale can't do anything with them - the whale learned a new form of swimming where it waggles it fins like almost all aquatic animals do, this is much more effective.



this marvelous mutation called sonar, the kind we can't begin to match,


abcnews.go.com...

The link is to a rather heartwarming story of a blind child who has learned to use echolocation to 'see' - it seems that the brain mechanics of echolocation are actually almost exactly the same as those we use for sight - in fact many people have suggested that bats 'see' the image created by their noises in the same way we see color and shape, the very same circuits of the brain. Evolution is a very powerful thing, when the latent ability exists and the conditions are right it can be very swift indeed - just look how fast humanity managed to evolve pigs, chickens, cows, etc into the animals they are today! Ok not exactly natural selection, but that it can be done in a few thousand years on such a scale shows that it is possible for the systems to shift very rapidly.

Dawkins could actually take you on a walk around the british museum (and various other science buildings) and show you skeletons of people who you are actually related too - sure without a time machine we will never be able to draw a precises and detailed map - not knowing the exact high and hair color of each and every one of our forfathers doesn't cause the slightest problem - it's the genes that we track, when they developed and who has them - but still, i will find some quotes or maybe a video of dawkins explaining this.



all that "junk DNA" evolutionists used to call it, isn't junk after all.

Then explain the bit that ruins about ability to produce vitamin C? that has a massive bit of 'junk' inside it!



The Bible was just a book written by men!

Umm Yeah, SO?

So is every science book I have ever read.



And what was the last science book you read that demanded you obey it because it we the divine word of god? the last one that said you must give a certain part of your wages to the church or forever face hellfire? the last one that ended like revelations?

Either religion is always right or it has no right to tell me what to do....

Science doesn't try to tell people what to do, it provides proof and evidence of how the world actually works - moral theory, politics, etc are the secular sciences of how to treat each other - evolution certainly doesn't try and suggest anything other than a theory (proven) of how life came to exist.



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 12:07 AM
link   
Of course Darwin was wrong, his theories are over 150 years old! We have learned a little more about evolution since them. Why people still talk about him is that he laid the ground work for modern evolutional theories. Like Freud, pretty much all of his theories and ideas have been proven wrong, but if it wasn't for his work, we wouldn't have our modern psychology.



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 12:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Kerry_Knight
 



...what evolution does, is assume evolution is true first, THEN they make their interpretations based on those assumptions as they have always done.

Completely Incorrect. Evolution (the natural changes that occur in life on Earth) is an observed phenomenon. There is no assumption being made by anyone, it is observed fact. The theory is an attempt to explain that observed phenomenon.


To keep the idea alive they have resorted to post modernist semantics calling it a fact when their is NO such consensus and the altenberg 16 proved that because they cannot agree on a damn thing.

The conference you refer to is a normal professional conference. Such conferences happen all the time in all science disciplines. The purpose is to get the best thought leaders in one room, face to face, to discuss current problems and the state of their research.
Contrary to your assertion, (and of the book you are plugging in the next sentence) these guys agree on almost everything, but there are always new problems and alternative solutions to the new problems.
There is nothing nefarious going on here, just people taking a break from laboratory and classroom and administrative drudgery to have a beer with colleagues and swap ideas about their work.


The book, will the real, evolution please stand up" convicts the reader to either face the facts or continue as a fool.

The book is going to 'convict' somebody? That is a court's job isn't it?

OK, assuming you meant 'convince', having read the 'hook' I doubt that very much. The intro is so bad, and full of such bad info, that it won't convince anybody to buy it unless they are a fool.


... the fact Intelligent Design presupposes an unexplained designer is not a problem anymore than it is for gravity

That is almost a reasonable view, except for three things:

1) there are only two real possibilities for the unexplained 'Designer': an "Omnipotent God", and an "Alien Intelligence". Both have extreme difficulties. For the "Young Earthers", only God will do of course. For the "Old Earthers", the question is when did the Designer do the design? At the Big Bang? That cuts out Aliens, but God could have done it, and he could have done it using evolution couldn't he?. After the Big Bang? OK, Aliens could have done it then, but the problem is who designed them? Or did God create them and then they created us?

You see? An explanation for evolution without recourse to an Intellegent Designer is an inherently simpler hypothesis (and does NOT necessarily rule out an Omnipotent God to kick it off).

2) there is simply no need for a "designer", unexplained or not. There has been no example put forth by the proponents of Intelligent Design that cannot be explained by straight forward evolutionary processes.

3) If you assume a Designer, whether God or Alien or extra-dimensional pixie, created life, then there is no need to ask any further questions about the world. It negates the purpose for the existence of science, because the answer is always 'because the ID did it that way'. Science is about describing how the natural world works, attributing the natural world to non-natural causes stops science.

Perhaps this is your hidden agenda? Because "Intelligent Design" has as it's presupposition that the world is not natural, it is by definition not a scientific endeavor.


...As for DNA, one of the most perplexing issues of morphology is that DNA will not ALLOW a FRACTION of the mutation errors they had thought it did. In fact, it more or less reboots itself after only two generations to the default template of the life form it is instructed to build to already digitally hard coded specifications...

Absolutely incorrect. DNA replication errors occur all the time, in every single reproductive act (and that is the only errors that matter for evolution) for every species. If a replication error happens to be disastrous, it won't be "corrected in two generations", it will be excised immediately. The affected individual will not reproduce. Disastrous errors are quite rare.


...
The idea for science to spend time wondering about how whales lost their legs.
They have looked at the DNA of whales (hox c6-c10) and could find no trace of vestigial genes. Perhaps it is because they never had any legs!

Totally Incorrect. The whale embryos develop buds for hind legs just like every other mammal. But the gene (which therefore obviously exists) gets 'shut off" at some point and do not develop. See scienceblogs.com... No genes were lost in the making of the whale.

(continued...)



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 01:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Kerry_Knight
 


(...continued)


...However, scientific hypothesis make presuppositions all the time. String Theory was built on the presupposition of extra-dimensional reality at subatomic level. It would be impossible to create a theory that predicts extra-dimensions without presupposing they exist.

Completely incorrect. String Theory (which is NOT generally accepted, by the way, it has run into several problems), was postulated to explain the results of mathematics which indicated that there must be more than the four common dimensions. It is a very ingenious one, and visually evocative, but not the only one. The existence of multiple dimensions was indeed seen in the mathematics before String Theory was thought of.


Evolution presupposes evolution is true

Completely and absolutely incorrect. Evolution (capital 'E' denoting the theory attributed to Darwin and others and the "Modern Evolutionay Synthesis" which is its current incarnation) EXPLAINS evolution (lower case e denoting the observed changes to life on earth over time). No assumption is being made, evolution is an observed phenomenon.


...and have merged distinctly different definitions of those observed and those unobserved and unproven by suggesting micro evolution is macro evolution long term

Incorrect. The MES asserts that micro evolution implies macro-evolution. It is "Evolution Deniers" that attempt to redefine the term Macro-evolution to mean something that it does not (and in fact attempt to redefine Micro-Evolution to restrict it to something it is not restricted to). Macro-evolution occurs above the species level and has been clearly observed in the fossil record.


...and follow using some anecdote to illustrate traveling to another state as if the state were another species.

I have never heard that analogy. Could you point me to a link for it? It is unfortunate that you don't understand it, but it could be useful to others.


...
What anti-IDists try to do is to either re-define science to include only “natural” processes,

Completely incorrect. No redefinition is going on here at all. Science is, and always has been, BY DEFINITION, a study of the natural world. Period. ID'ers attempt to insert a designer outside the natural world (that is a supernatural agent) into science problems is not just an attempt to redefine science, nor even to just to hijack science. It is a blatant attempt to kill science.


as if intelligent causes are non-natural, or try to tie ID to the supernatural.

An intelligent cause, outside the natural world, is supernatural by definition. An Alien intelligence, if 'natural', had to either 'evolve' naturally without recourse to a supernatural cause or be itself the result of a supernatural creation, thus your acknowledged circular argument.


They think that if ID is tied to the supernatural then it has violated some arbitrary rule of science.

Completely Incorrect. The 'rule' is not arbitrary. It is the definition of what science is.



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 01:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by IrnBruFiend
I didn't realise one word posts were frowned upon haha.

No that's some great information you posted. Evolution is the biggest scientific disaster of the century. Evidence will never corroborate with Darwin's theory of evolution because it's a scientific non-starter.

DNA evidence proves this.

Nope. It confirms it, absolutely, positively, and undeniably.



Let's simplify this.

All primates have 48 chromosomes.

All humans have 46 chromosomes.

This 'missing' chromosome has infact been fused together somehow.

Yup. Proves that all primates, including humans, are related via a common ancestor somewhere back in the distant past.




This is not a result of evolution as it is scientifically, impossible.


I thought you guys, on your side of the debate were not supposed to be making assumptions.

You are assuming that because you don't understand precisely how it happened, then it couldn't have happened. (argument from incredulity)

That is the difference between you and the scientific method. Science sees that it has happened and seeks to explain it. That's all: science just tries to explain how observed phenomena could have happened. And the simple fact is that what we know about Chemistry and Physics provide perfectly reasonable answers about how those chromosomes might have fused.



[edit on 17/11/2009 by rnaa]



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join