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.

 

Evolutionist I can prove to you that what you believe (evolution) is based on illogical reasoning, i

page: 12
26
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 02:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2

Can you please tell me the probability number?

Side note: one of you friends said this:


Debunky

I can tell you the propability: 1

Propability only matters in things that have not yet happened.
If you win the lottery, do you give back the money, since the chance is too small?


Do you think science and mathematics and common sense will back up his opinion?

[edit on 18-7-2010 by edmc^2]


Don't think so, know so.
To make it a bit clearer a experiment:
I have a dice here, and will now throw it 10 times.
I get:
1,4,5,4,2,(fell off the desk) 5,1,5,6,4

Now the propability of me throwing this particular sequence is 1/6^10=1,6*10^-8 or
0,000000016
Yet, i just did it.
Propability is meaningless for things that have already happened.

[edit on 19-7-2010 by debunky]




posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 02:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wolfenz

Originally posted by mf_luder
Very interesting write-up indeed, supported by what looks to be some halfway-decent research.

But I still severely doubt we all just popped into existence out of thin air.

Can't prove that one. Can you?

Cheers!



Ill give it a shot

this universe is a Parallel from another The Creators are from another Layered Dimension ! that some how punched through this Dimension

Theres a Balance
one rule for a Physicist is!
for every Action there is a Reaction !!!!!!

you Know Matter - Anti Matter push Pull positive negative Gravity Anti Gravity Space Black Matter and the in between what we would call Ghost

its just a Guess as we have claims of UFOs Aliens Unexplained Ancient Anomalies

but still no PUBLIC proof of any existence of Life outside our Solar System None to the Public (disclosure ) except a few Astronauts and Some military officials with security clearances or CIA NSA Officals coming into the Spot light , Still no Communication Signals From Seti program yet Millions of Stars (Suns) out there in our Galaxy and there is millions+ Galaxy s there got to be life out there

Find a Galaxy


What you just said made absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Try again.

Plus, whatever it was you were trying to convey does not support that some God-Being willed us all to just appear here.

Sorry.



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 02:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by mf_luder

Originally posted by Wolfenz

Originally posted by mf_luder
Very interesting write-up indeed, supported by what looks to be some halfway-decent research.

But I still severely doubt we all just popped into existence out of thin air.

Can't prove that one. Can you?

Cheers!



Ill give it a shot

this universe is a Parallel from another The Creators are from another Layered Dimension ! that some how punched through this Dimension

Theres a Balance
one rule for a Physicist is!
for every Action there is a Reaction !!!!!!

you Know Matter - Anti Matter push Pull positive negative Gravity Anti Gravity Space Black Matter and the in between what we would call Ghost

its just a Guess as we have claims of UFOs Aliens Unexplained Ancient Anomalies

but still no PUBLIC proof of any existence of Life outside our Solar System None to the Public (disclosure ) except a few Astronauts and Some military officials with security clearances or CIA NSA Officials coming into the Spot light , Still no Communication Signals From Setti program yet Millions of Stars (Suns) out there in our Galaxy and there is millions+ Galaxy s there got to be life out there

Find a Galaxy


What you just said made absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Try again.

Plus, whatever it was you were trying to convey does not support that some God-Being willed us all to just appear here.

Sorry.


LOL OMG whats your theory i would like to here it !

i was in a way being sarcastic in a small degree ! what i said below




this universe is a Parallel from another The Creators are from another Layered Dimension ! that some how punched through this Dimension


Ill make it simple look at some Sources!! will ya

Imagining Other Dimensions ( from the Nova Site)
www.pbs.org...

Wiki Dimension
en.wikipedia.org...

Does Space Have More Than 3 Dimensions?
www.astronomycafe.net...

How can extra dimensions of space be detected? (CERN & LHC )
collidinguniverses.blogspot.com...

Mini Black Holes Might Reveal 5th Dimension
www.space.com...


Yup Maybe God's Headquarters is There ! in some place we cant see some Higher Dimension! you know Heaven Or Hell What ever you Prefer !
You Honestly Couldn't understand that ?

Try Again ! READ the Sources and Repost!

Science Religion Fail

are you talking about this ? the Action-Reaction Rule of Physics ?



in every interaction, there is a pair of forces acting on the two interacting objects. The size of the force on the first object equals the size of the force on the second object. The direction of the force on the first object is opposite to the direction of the force on the second object. Forces always come in pairs - equal and opposite action-reaction force pairs.


The Law of Action-Reaction (Revisited)
www.physicsclassroom.com...
The Law of Action-Reaction (Revisited)


Reaction
en.wikipedia.org...


3D to 4D shift (with Carol Sagan!!!! TY Carol !! )



Dont be a SQUARE SEE the video above!

[edit on 19-7-2010 by Wolfenz]



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 03:54 AM
link   
Am I right in thinking that you describe the whole theory behind the evolution of our universe as 'illogical desire'?

Yet your 'a body is complicated so it must have been made by something' is more scientific and obviously not fuelled by your desire to 'want' a creator?

What a classic thread. A great display of illogical unscientific reasoning.





posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 04:19 AM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 








But the fact that one cannot understand how something came to be does not indicate that one may conclude it was designed.

So in other words if I don’t understand how the space shuttle was put together, how it came to be or how gene splicing works, how it came to be , etc, then I’m supposed to conclude that it was not designed?


No, that is not what that statement means. You are supposed to NOT conclude that it was designed, thats a difference. Until you arrive at some evidence, you cannot conclude anything, thats important to realize, and thats where creationists make a mistake.

For example, we do not have enough evidence to conclude with some reasonable certainty how first life appeared. Therefore, it is still possible that it was intelligently created! Many people believe in this, some people think it was by god, some people think it was by aliens etc. But it is nothing more than a belief, science is more or less agnostic in this.

But we have plenty of evidence that after it appeared, it developed on its own by biological evolution, and no intelligent agent is needed to explain its variety.




Do you agree that the DNA - its function, its components, its remarkable process to sustain life was a product of design? Is it scientific? If not please let me know how it came to be?


No, I dont think it was. But it is a viable scientific hypothesis, because it is scientifically possible, even without any supernatural god or powers, that DNA was designed by aliens. But you have no evidence to back it up, just as I dont have much evidence to back up my opinion (abiogenesis).




What chance is there that the correct amino acids would come together to form a protein molecule? What is the chance of even a simple protein molecule forming at random?


1. We dont know yet, but this chance could very well be quite high. There are thousands of complex organic molecules or orderly crystals that arise without any intelligence, only by chemical laws. Why should it be impossible for basic life to arise the same way?
The probability in our universe could be 100 %.

2. Very very small. But simple or complex organic molecules are not supposed to be forming at random, they are a result of chemical laws creating them. You are mistaken if you believe that anyone thinks life appeared at random!
Proteins were probably not the firrst self replicating molecules (protolife). Instead, it was RNA.




Do you think science and mathematics and common sense will back up his opinion?


Actually I do not. The probability of some event happening does not depend on if the event has happened in the past. But it is evidence that this probability would not be zero.

[edit on 19-7-2010 by Maslo]



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 04:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by soleprobe
reply to post by NoHierarchy
 


Every real person on this site knows global warming is a fraud... and those who say that it's real science along with evolution in the same breath reveal the single source of these frauds


I'm sorry, but with all honesty you are a moron.

If you can't see that the REAL conspiracy is to discredit the science behind Evolution/Global Warming then you've been brainwashed and dumbed down very very well.

The scientific debates about both these things ended DECADES ago. The only people who seriously doubt (or spread doubt) about these things are religious fundamentalists, corporate tycoons, and blathering political ideologues who will tell any lie with a straight face to useful idiots like yourself so they can win re-elections and line their pockets with lobbyist bribes and non-existent approval from god.

Perhaps you're just undeveloped in your knowledge of these things and will learn more as you go... but for now you really need to lay off the Fox News and Alex Jones... nobody with an ounce of intelligence/knowledge takes them seriously anyway.



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 05:06 AM
link   
It's quite nonsensical to discuss propabilities in this context.

Another example:
Halflife of plutonium is 420 years.
This means the chance for every plutonium atom to decay (and release radiation) at any given minute is 4,5*10^-9 or 0,0000000045
You must therefore conclude that plutonium decay is very unlikely. Montheless we try to keep folks away from it, and put warning signs on containers containing it. Strange huh?



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 06:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Romantic_Rebel
 





...What is with creationist wanting disprove Atheism and Evolution?...


Abject fear

-opinion-
Fear of their wrathful God that commanded Adam and Eve to not eat the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Fear that not repudiating that act will condemn them in the eyes of that wrathful God that punished Adam and Eve for becoming human and persecuted Job for no reason what-so-ever except that he/she/it could.
-/opinion-

-speculation-
They seem to think that they can reverse original sin and they have abandoned the God of Love in the New Testament for the God of Anger of the Old Testament in the hope that God will allow them to return to the Garden of Eden if only they give up their humanity and repudiate Earthly knowledge of the very world that God reputedly created.
-/speculation-



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 07:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by evil incarnate
reply to post by Deuteronomy 23:13
 


Here is a good place to start. I will expect a well thought out god inspired refutation. Live Evolution Witnessed in Controlled...

Then you can check out Birth of a new species witnessed

Which more addresses the issue you seem to be confused about in having different genetic makeup from your progenitors.

[edit on 7/18/10 by evil incarnate]


I just read the story about the birth of the new finch species. Here is a quote from the text,

"No exact rule exists for deciding when a group of animals constitutes a separate species. That question “is rarely if ever asked,” as speciation isn’t something that scientists have been fortunate enough to watch at the precise moment of divergence, except in bacteria and other simple creatures. But after at least three generations of reproductive isolation, the Grants felt comfortable in designating the new lineage as an incipient species."

"NO EXACT RULE EXISTS.... blah blah blah......" and "THE GRANTS FELT COMFORTABLE...blah blah blah......

"comfortable" now there is a nice scientific term for you. This 'evidence' is weak.

I am laughing so hard I am doubled over.

Here is a comment that came at the tail of the article you sent me.

"In my science classes, we were always told that what set species apart wasn’t necessarily their unwillingness to mate with others, but their inability to do so successfully (no offspring or offspring incapable of producing more offspring). Have these birds reached that stage yet? Otherwise it just makes them a variation of the same species, doesn’t it?"



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 07:54 AM
link   
reply to post by evil incarnate
 


I am not religious and your conclusion about what my stances might be were wrong. I expect such thinking from dogmatists such as yourself.



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 07:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Deuteronomy 23:13
 


Deuteronomy 23:13

As part of your equipment have something to dig with, and when you relieve yourself, dig a hole and cover up your excrement.



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 08:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by debunky
Of course, people like me need to look up what it says in Deuteronomy 23:12



Designate a place outside the camp where you can go to relieve yourself.


Ah, ok.

I'd like to apologize if I was a bit snarky.
Thing is, what you said has not been observed, has been observed on numerous occassions. You want me to give you a specific example?
en.wikipedia.org...

And if you read the article on the bacteria, note how many generations they were observing:
300
With humans that would be around 6000 years. even for dogs it would still be 900, and we managed to breed those into quite a variety of different animals than wolves.


A quote from the article you sent me: "It is thought to have evolved from the overground species Culex pipiens recently." This is not the language of cerainty. You example does not prove your stance at all. btw I don't consider wiki an authority on anything except maybe bs.

I am studying the single cell thing. I was wondering is there such a thing as a 2 celled species or a 3 celled species or a 4,5,6,...10082 celled species? Perhaps you could send me a link.

You even got my quote wrong. It's 23:13 It says take a spade with you so you can bury your excrement. I hope you aren't planning to become a lawyer. You would starve to death.



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 08:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Deuteronomy 23:13
 


Observed instances of speciation



While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas.





Digby (1912) crossed the primrose species Primula verticillata and P. floribunda to produce a sterile hybrid. Polyploidization occurred in a few of these plants to produce fertile offspring. The new species was named P. kewensis. Newton and Pellew (1929) note that spontaneous hybrids of P. verticillata and P. floribunda set tetraploid seed on at least three occasions. These happened in 1905, 1923 and 1926.




A species of hemp nettle, Galeopsis tetrahit, was hypothesized to be the result of a natural hybridization of two other species, G. pubescens and G. speciosa (Muntzing 1932). The two species were crossed. The hybrids matched G. tetrahit in both visible features and chromosome morphology.





In a series of papers (Rice 1985, Rice and Salt 1988 and Rice and Salt 1990) Rice and Salt presented experimental evidence for the possibility of sympatric speciation. They started from the premise that whenever organisms sort themselves into the environment first and then mate locally, individuals with the same habitat preferences will necessarily mate assortatively. They established a stock population of D. melanogaster with flies collected in an orchard near Davis, California. Pupae from the culture were placed into a habitat maze. Newly emerged flies had to negotiate the maze to find food. The maze simulated several environmental gradients simultaneously. The flies had to make three choices of which way to go. The first was between light and dark (phototaxis). The second was between up and down (geotaxis). The last was between the scent of acetaldehyde and the scent of ethanol (chemotaxis). This divided the flies among eight habitats. The flies were further divided by the time of day of emergence. In total the flies were divided among 24 spatio-temporal habitats. They next cultured two strains of flies that had chosen opposite habitats. One strain emerged early, flew upward and was attracted to dark and acetaldehyde. The other emerged late, flew downward and was attracted to light and ethanol. Pupae from these two strains were placed together in the maze. They were allowed to mate at the food site and were collected. Eye color differences between the strains allowed Rice and Salt to distinguish between the two strains. A selective penalty was imposed on flies that switched habitats. Females that switched habitats were destroyed. None of their gametes passed into the next generation. Males that switched habitats received no penalty. After 25 generations of this mating tests showed reproductive isolation between the two strains. Habitat specialization was also produced. They next repeated the experiment without the penalty against habitat switching. The result was the same -- reproductive isolation was produced. They argued that a switching penalty is not necessary to produce reproductive isolation. Their results, they stated, show the possibility of sympatric speciation.




Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky (1971) reported a speciation event that occurred in a laboratory culture of Drosophila paulistorum sometime between 1958 and 1963. The culture was descended from a single inseminated female that was captured in the Llanos of Colombia. In 1958 this strain produced fertile hybrids when crossed with conspecifics of different strains from Orinocan. From 1963 onward crosses with Orinocan strains produced only sterile males. Initially no assortative mating or behavioral isolation was seen between the Llanos strain and the Orinocan strains. Later on Dobzhansky produced assortative mating (Dobzhansky 1972).


More observed instances of speciation events



Two strains of Drosophila paulistorum developed hybrid sterility of male offspring between 1958 and 1963. Artificial selection induced strong intra-strain mating preferences. (Test for speciation: sterile offspring and lack of interbreeding affinity.) Dobzhansky, Th., and O. Pavlovsky, 1971. "An experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila", Nature 23:289-292.




Evidence that a species of fireweed formed by doubling of the chromosome count, from the original stock. (Note that polyploids are generally considered to be a separate "race" of the same species as the original stock, but they do meet the criteria which you suggested.) (Test for speciation: cannot produce offspring with the original stock.) Mosquin, T., 1967. "Evidence for autopolyploidy in Epilobium angustifolium (Onaagraceae)", Evolution 21:713-719




Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse, which occurred in less than 250 years after man brought the creature to the island. (Test for speciation in this case is based on morphology. It is unlikely that forced breeding experiments have been performed with the parent stock.) Stanley, S., 1979. Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, San Francisco, W.H. Freeman and Company. p. 41




Formation of five new species of cichlid fishes which formed since they were isolated less than 4000 years ago from the parent stock, Lake Nagubago. (Test for speciation in this case is by morphology and lack of natural interbreeding. These fish have complex mating rituals and different coloration. While it might be possible that different species are inter-fertile, they cannot be convinced to mate.) Mayr, E., 1970. Populations, Species, and Evolution, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press. p. 348


Scientific definition of species:


In biology, a species is one of the basic units of biological classification and a taxonomic rank. A species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. While in many cases this definition is adequate, more precise or differing measures are often used, such as based on similarity of DNA or morphology.


[edit on 19-7-2010 by Maslo]



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by evil incarnate

Originally posted by consigliere
reply to post by evil incarnate
 


Perhaps you should google it because I have no idea how you come to the conclusion existence is proven reliant on observation from this. The experiment shows that observation alters interaction, not existence.



[edit on 19-7-2010 by consigliere]



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Deuteronomy 23:13
I am laughing so hard I am doubled over.


So out of all the examples given in this thread, you find some words you do not like in ONE and that is this funny to you? Do you have any idea how funny it is to see you attack only ONE example given?



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Deuteronomy 23:13
reply to post by evil incarnate
 


I am not religious and your conclusion about what my stances might be were wrong. I expect such thinking from dogmatists such as yourself.


I already apologized, Deuteronomy 23:13 for assuming you were religious. I already acknowledged that it was wrong for me to assume someone named after a bible quote was religious. Did you really need to go over it again?



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


"Evolutionist I can prove to you that what you believe (evolution) is based on illogical reasoning, illogical science and most of all based on DESIRE."

The only thing that nonsensical rant you posted proves to anyone is that your simple mind operates on flawed logic.

"Hey, we make complex stuff - stuff that requires intelligence to make! Humans are super-complex, so that means a super-intelligent mega being created us!"



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 02:40 PM
link   
There is absolutely no reason to dismiss wiki as a starting point.
But if you want something more established:
www.nature.com...

And that the exact moment hasn't been observed is rather uninteresting.
Are you aware what it would take to do that?
Just taking a DNA sample of every generation of every animal (every single individuum, not per species) on the planet! Continuosly. Good luck getting funding for that.

Of course, we can also assume that it happened sometime in the past when we formerly had 1 species in an area, and now have 2 (and immigration can be ruled out) Its either speciation happened, or God had a bored afternoon, and made another animal. There is no 3rd possibility.

[edit on 19-7-2010 by debunky]



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by vinrock
reply to post by edmc^2
 


"Evolutionist I can prove to you that what you believe (evolution) is based on illogical reasoning, illogical science and most of all based on DESIRE."

The only thing that nonsensical rant you posted proves to anyone is that your simple mind operates on flawed logic.

"Hey, we make complex stuff - stuff that requires intelligence to make! Humans are super-complex, so that means a super-intelligent mega being created us!"


Precisely Vinrock – what makes us so unique that we don’t require a maker? Kindly please explain in simple terms so that my simple mind can grasp it.

Btw,
Thank you for your post and illustrating my point.



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


It's an old hat, but what the hell:

Evolved or created?



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join