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: 29
26
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by edmc^2
 


reply to post by edmc^2
 


Welcome back.

edmc^2, there is no answer to your question, as your question is a nothing like what the evolutionary timeline predicts. Arthropods (which include crustaceans like crabs and lobsters) arose about 570 million years ago, whilst fish were a bit later to the party, showing up around 500 million years ago.

So...fish didn't evolve into crabs.

reply to post by edmc^2
 


The basic fallacy is this. We have actual indicators that manufactured objects were manufactured. We know that they cannot arise naturally. On the other hand, we are certain the biodiversity arises naturally.

Of course, we also see examples of natural structures that have the same function as artificial structures arising. As PZ Meyers pointed out once, driftwood walls forming upon shorelines serve the same function as man-made walls, are incredibly complex, and are actually more complex than the man-made version.

Why? Because manufactured items tend towards less unnecessary complexity.



"Arthropods (which include crustaceans like crabs and lobsters) arose about 570 million years ago, whilst fish were a bit later to the party, showing up around 500 million years ago.
"
Thanks for clarifying that one madness, bec. I'm getting different oppinions on this one. So just to be clear, which came first then? Please explain the latest evolution theory.

Let me start with this: (please correct me if I'm wrong)

My summary of Prof Dawkins book: the Selfish Gene


He speculated that in the beginning, Earth had an atmosphere composed of carbon dioxide, methane, ammonia and water. Through energy supplied by sunlight, and perhaps by lightning and exploding volcanoes, these simple compounds were broken apart and then they re-formed into amino acids. A variety of these gradually accumulated in the sea and combined into proteinlike compounds. Ultimately, he says, the ocean became an “organic soup,” but still lifeless.

Then, according to Dr. Dawkins’ theory “a particularly remarkable molecule was formed by accident” that started life. From there, this molecule had somehow the ability to reproduce itself. Similar molecules clustered together, and then, again by an exceedingly improbable accident, they wrapped a protective barrier of other protein molecules around themselves as a membrane. Thus, it is claimed, the first living cell generated itself.


External Source Link

From there "evolution" took over and life came to be as we know it. Correct?

Now, was is the "Darwin Fish" that came first to evolved or was it the "Arthropods"?

ciao,
edmc2


ps.

"driftwood walls forming upon shorelines serve the same function as man-made walls,"

logic tells me that man-made walls require intelligence while driftwood walls - are simply gathering of deadwoods with no intelligence behind it (evolution at work) , unless your saying otherwise.

Mod Edit: No Quote/Plagiarism – Please Review This Link.
Mod Edit: External Source Tags Instructions – Please Review This Link.
edit on 1/3/2011 by maria_stardust because: Added external source tags to plagiarized content.




posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by edmc^2
 


That would require inanimate objects like stones to require a creator as you claim...we know they don't..so your whole argument is seriously flawed. You just CLAIM inanimate objects require a creator, but that's demonstrably WRONG.


You missed my point MrXYZ- that is, intelligence.




ciao,
edmc2



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Why is this wrong? Why is your quiz pointless?
Because you don't offer the choice of natural AND created.

All the images on the right were human creations that very poorly mimick nature.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 02:01 PM
link   
Just a simple question, this is not realy my area on ATS.

The reason it took until 1997 for those scientists to build the robot was because thier brains needed to study and 'evolve' to the level of intelligence needed to perform the task, otherwise the creator surely would have given us that knowledge too.

Before I get the reply the Creator had already programed us with the knowledge, how about why did'nt he just create the robot himself?

I thought it was a poor quiz.

Regards S_G



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by indigothefish
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


i think he/she is speaking of inanimate objects with the complexity of living things, like computers and robots...
edit on 1/3/2011 by indigothefish because: (no reason given)


Complexity is in the eye of the beholder. A tree is no more complex than a computer, and vice versa if you look at the cells. Either way, he's trying to fill a gap in knowledge (since he doesn't have evidence to support his claim) with a mythical creature...it's the typical god of the gaps trap he's falling for


MrXYZ - do you know evolution's typical 'gods of gaps'? Or should I say its 'magic wand'?

These two 'gods of gaps' are always used whenever evolution can't explain somethin.

Any idea?

BTW - can you please explain how or why "A tree is no more complex than a computer"?



ciao,
edmc2



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 



Originally posted by edmc^2
As stated in the OP - my answer is Creation which logically point to a Creator - possessing knowlegde and power greater than creation itself. We or I refer to him a the "True God" (since there are many who are called gods). Biblically speaking - he is known by the Hebrew tetra "YHWH/JHVH" - as Yahweh / Jehovah.


Except that your idea is not logical. Many, including myself, have demonstrated that it is completely illogical and falls upon a false argument of analogy.



As for "what does this statement ... have to do with evolution" - nothing or everything - depending on how you look at it.


No, it really just has nothing to do with evolution.



For "evolutionist*" nothing because it has no or cannot explain how life came to be.


Of course not, there's no reason for it to. Just like cell theory or germ theory don't have to explain how cells and germs came to be.



For proponents of Creation - everything because it cannot explain how life came to be.


Which, as I've repeatedly told you, is not a weakness of evolutionary theory. Evolution sticks to what it says on the tin, biodiversity. We have another, emergent field of biology, abiogenesis, to explain the origin of life.



Thus you are reffered to the following theories:

> Abiogenesis theory.
>The deep sea vent theory.
> Fox's experiments.
> Eigen's hypothesis.
> Wächtershäuser's hypothesis.
> Radioactive beach hypothesis

Which one do you think is the accepted theory as far as orgins is concern?


Now you're just copy-pasting old hat.


originally posted by edmc^2

Then there's also these competing theories about the origin of life:

> The deep sea vent theory.
> Fox's experiments.
> Eigen's hypothesis.
> Wächtershäuser's hypothesis.
> Radioactive beach hypothesis
and so on...the search continuous.


You posted that in July.

I think I've even explained this to you in another thread, which is why it looks so familiar. The fact that there are multiple models on a subject that hasn't been definitely established doesn't mean anything. Blind certainty is far worse than admitted ignorance.

Science is working on it as it gathers evidence, creationism claims to have all the answers without any of the evidence.



* Meriam Webster


Is a source of knowledge on the application of words in popular culture, not on precise terms of scientific merit. I'd like to see a justification of the use of the term 'evolutionist' outside of a dictionary.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Why is this wrong? Why is your quiz pointless?
Because you don't offer the choice of natural AND created.

All the images on the right were human creations that very poorly mimick nature.


Point of the test is logic.

Please tell me if a pencil requires a maker - that is, to put together its components - why is the universe doesn't require one? Please explain logically.

ciao,
edmc2



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Yep evolution should be rubbished, like how many times they tried to con us with missing links that where found to be false.

Darwins evolution = garbage.

Thats for people like richard dawkins who have never ever been right, but just ridicule subjects that they have no wonder for.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 



Originally posted by edmc^2
Thanks for clarifying that one madness, bec. I'm getting different oppinions on this one. So just to be clear, which came first then? Please explain the latest evolution theory.


Evolution has nothing to do with the order in which things came about, that is phylogeny, which tracks the progression of historical evolution. All evidence



Let me start with this: (please correct me if I'm wrong)


I'm sorry, but this is a swipe, or you are posting the same material in multiple places...



My summary of Prof Dawkins book: the Selfish Gene

He speculated that in the beginning, Earth had an atmosphere composed of carbon dioxide, methane, ammonia and water. Through energy supplied by sunlight, and perhaps by lightning and exploding volcanoes, these simple compounds were broken apart and then they re-formed into amino acids. A variety of these gradually accumulated in the sea and combined into proteinlike compounds. Ultimately, he says, the ocean became an “organic soup,” but still lifeless.

Then, according to Dr. Dawkins’ theory “a particularly remarkable molecule was formed by accident” that started life. From there, this molecule had somehow the ability to reproduce itself. Similar molecules clustered together, and then, again by an exceedingly improbable accident, they wrapped a protective barrier of other protein molecules around themselves as a membrane. Thus, it is claimed, the first living cell generated itself.


I found this same stuff here (user name Peter replied to the post)
But THIS seems to be the real source of it.

Please cite your sources.



From there "evolution" took over and life came to be as we know it. Correct?


Um...I don't know. There aren't any references to the book, just random quotes. I'd like to see the actual quotes and references from the book. I won't comment on the state of the plagiarized explanation of what Dawkins said, but I'll say that evolution takes place no matter how life came to be.



Now, was is the "Darwin Fish" that came first to evolved or was it the "Arthropods"?


...the "Darwin Fish" is a silly pro-evolution metaphor. Arthropods came first.




"driftwood walls forming upon shorelines serve the same function as man-made walls,"

logic tells me that man-made walls require intelligence while driftwood walls - are simply gathering of deadwoods with no intelligence behind it (evolution at work) , unless your saying otherwise.


That's the point. And which is far more simple? The man-made wall.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by andy1033
 



Originally posted by andy1033
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Yep evolution should be rubbished, like how many times they tried to con us with missing links that where found to be false.


"Yep evolution should be rubbished, like how many times they tried to con us with missing links that where found to be false by proponents of evolution because they didn't fit in with the predictions of evolution or fossil evidence that came later."

Fixed that for you.

As for missing links? Which one?



Darwins evolution = garbage.


No, that's Lamarck's evolution. Darwin's evolution is verified by evidence.



Thats for people like richard dawkins who have never ever been right, but just ridicule subjects that they have no wonder for.


No, Dawkins has been right about a great many things, most notably the notion of the meme (a word he coined himself and is now used all over the internet).



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 







Of course it's your opinion but the fact still remain.

If 'a house is constructed by someone' so does the earth.

As for the differing theories - so far noone has answered the q I posted back in July, hopefully - you can so that i can finally put it to rest.

As for the term "evolutionists" I'll just use it since proponents of Creation are reffered to as "Creationists". Besides, it's simpler to say/type it that way rather than saying/typing "proponents of evolution" or "believers of evolution" or "people who believe in evolution".

otherwise - blame meriam webster

Ciao,
edmc2

gotta go...

Mod Note: Removed excessive quote and replaced with "reply to" tag.
edit on 1/3/2011 by maria_stardust because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 



Originally posted by edmc^2
Of course it's your opinion but the fact still remain.


No, that's not my opinion. I'm actually supported by evidence based science.



If 'a house is constructed by someone' so does the earth.


No, that doesn't logically follow. That's like saying if poop comes out of my butt, so does chocolate. It's a non-sequitur, the conclusion doesn't logically follow from the premises.

We have no evidence that the Earth was created, but we do have an insane amount of evidence to show that it is the result of natural processes.

Also, this thread is abut evolution, why are you mentioning planetary formation?



As for the differing theories - so far noone has answered the q I posted back in July, hopefully - you can so that i can finally put it to rest.


I've already told you, the science is still in progress. Scientists aren't certain, but they're actually working on the issue rather than claiming to have ultimate truth. Of course, you somehow mistakenly copy-pasted the original from Wikipedia, as all of the things in those list are abiogenesis, yet abiogenesis is listed separately.



As for the term "evolutionists" I'll just use it since proponents of Creation are reffered to as "Creationists". Besides, it's simpler to say/type it that way rather than saying/typing "proponents of evolution" or "believers of evolution" or "people who believe in evolution".


Well, creationism is religion. Evolution is science. Science doesn't have 'ists' except for scientists.



otherwise - blame meriam webster


Oh, I blame it for a great many mistakes and propagations of unfortunate cultural bias.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by edmc^2
 



Originally posted by edmc^2
Thanks for clarifying that one madness, bec. I'm getting different oppinions on this one. So just to be clear, which came first then? Please explain the latest evolution theory.


Evolution has nothing to do with the order in which things came about, that is phylogeny, which tracks the progression of historical evolution. All evidence



Let me start with this: (please correct me if I'm wrong)


I'm sorry, but this is a swipe, or you are posting the same material in multiple places...



My summary of Prof Dawkins book: the Selfish Gene

He speculated that in the beginning, Earth had an atmosphere composed of carbon dioxide, methane, ammonia and water. Through energy supplied by sunlight, and perhaps by lightning and exploding volcanoes, these simple compounds were broken apart and then they re-formed into amino acids. A variety of these gradually accumulated in the sea and combined into proteinlike compounds. Ultimately, he says, the ocean became an “organic soup,” but still lifeless.

Then, according to Dr. Dawkins’ theory “a particularly remarkable molecule was formed by accident” that started life. From there, this molecule had somehow the ability to reproduce itself. Similar molecules clustered together, and then, again by an exceedingly improbable accident, they wrapped a protective barrier of other protein molecules around themselves as a membrane. Thus, it is claimed, the first living cell generated itself.


I found this same stuff here (user name Peter replied to the post)
But THIS seems to be the real source of it.

Please cite your sources.



From there "evolution" took over and life came to be as we know it. Correct?


Um...I don't know. There aren't any references to the book, just random quotes. I'd like to see the actual quotes and references from the book. I won't comment on the state of the plagiarized explanation of what Dawkins said, but I'll say that evolution takes place no matter how life came to be.



Now, was is the "Darwin Fish" that came first to evolved or was it the "Arthropods"?


...the "Darwin Fish" is a silly pro-evolution metaphor. Arthropods came first.




"driftwood walls forming upon shorelines serve the same function as man-made walls,"

logic tells me that man-made walls require intelligence while driftwood walls - are simply gathering of deadwoods with no intelligence behind it (evolution at work) , unless your saying otherwise.


That's the point. And which is far more simple? The man-made wall.



Thanks for establishing that one - Anthropods came first. Did they came out of the "organic soup" and evolved into land animals (per Ela)?
Or did they evolved in different ways - species in the "organic soup" - from there "the fish" came to be, then evolved further into different species?

Just clarifying this to be sure:

BTW:
I used the Dawkins theory because he/it's seems to be the accepted authority / criteria and to confirm its accuracy. Is it accurate discription of "abiogenesis"?

ciao,
edmc2



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 



Originally posted by edmc^2
Thanks for establishing that one - Anthropods came first. Did they came out of the "organic soup" and evolved into land animals (per Ela)?


...no....nonono.

The "organic soup" as you call it, gave rise to incredibly simple organisms. All further organisms are evolved from these original organisms.



Or did they evolved in different ways - species in the "organic soup" - from there "the fish" came to be, then evolved further into different species?


...nothing 'evolved' from the "organic soup", primitive life forms merely arose in whatever way.



BTW:
I used the Dawkins theory because he/it's seems to be the accepted authority / criteria and to confirm its accuracy. Is it accurate discription of "abiogenesis"?


No, you used Dawkins writing a book for the public, and you took the entire description that you claimed for yourself from here, this is known a plagiarism, which is a form of theft.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 02:54 PM
link   


* Meriam Webster - Is a source of knowledge on the application of words in popular culture, not on precise terms of scientific merit. I'd like to see a justification of the use of the term 'evolutionist' outside of a dictionary.


I love it, arguing with the dictionary definition of Evolution to make your case, now that is Madness.
WOW!



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


So is the summary prof Dawkins' book accurate? Can the public use it as reference? If not, recommendation?

Ciao,
edmc2

Btw,
I can summarize it in a different way but the words will come up the same. Still the q remains - is the summary correct?



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 03:38 PM
link   
God's intelligence is perfect; Man's knowledge is imperfect but EVOLVES over time to become more perfect. So it is a little of both theories, creation and evolution.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by filosophia
God's intelligence is perfect; Man's knowledge is imperfect but EVOLVES over time to become more perfect. So it is a little of both theories, creation and evolution.


I see ur point but the thing is the word evolution got hijack that any advancement in humanity is defaulted to 'evolution' as in 'organic evolution' which totally different from the plain simple word evolution as defined in most dictionaries.

What your describing is advancement as opposed to 'org evolution'.

Edmc2



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 



Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


So is the summary prof Dawkins' book accurate? Can the public use it as reference? If not, recommendation?


I don't even know if the reference to the book is correct. The source that you plagiarized doesn't actually have any references to the book itself, so I'm unsure if those are even Dawkins' own words.



Btw,
I can summarize it in a different way but the words will come up the same. Still the q remains - is the summary correct?


No, the question remains if the quote is accurate. I have no idea of this as I do not own a copy of this book, nor does the source you stole from provide any references.

Regardless, the book itself is several decades old, having been originally publish in 1976. Scientific knowledge has grown leaps and bounds since then, so I'm guessing some of it might be slightly inaccurate, though I could be wrong.

reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


Dictionaries, specifically common-use dictionaries like Merriam-Webster, aren't sources on scientific terms. If you want to define evolution, go to evolutionary biology sources, not linguistic ones. I'm not going to go to Merriam-Webster for medical terms, because specific medical dictionaries are made for such things for a reason.

I still find it odd that you reply to me whenever you can throw out an ad hominem, yet not when you're asked legit questions.

reply to post by filosophia
 


No, none of that has anything to do with biology.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 



I don't even know if the reference to the book is correct. The source that you plagiarized doesn't actually have any references to the book itself, so I'm unsure if those are even Dawkins' own words.


Sorry to intervene here, but i think he is referring to this quote i think The Selfish Gene Dawkins R.A on page 14-15. Taken from the 30th anniversary Edition.


We do not know what chemical raw materials were abundant on earth before the coming of life, but among the plausible possibilities are water, carbon dioxide, methane, and ammonia: all simple compounds known to be present on at least some of the other planets in our solar system. Chemists have tried to imitate the chemical conditions of the young earth. They have put these simple substances in a flask and supplied a source of energy such as ultraviolet light or electric sparks — artificial simulation of primordial lightning. After a few weeks of this, something interesting is usually found inside the flask: a weak brown soup containing a large number of molecules more complex than the ones originally put in. In particular, amino acids have been found — the building blocks of proteins, one of the two great classes of biological molecules. Before these experiments were done, naturally-occurring amino acids would have been thought of as diagnostic of the presence of life. If they had been detected on, say Mars, life on that planet would have seemed a near certainty. Now, however, their existence need imply only the presence of a few simple gases in the atmosphere and some volcanoes, sunlight, or thundery weather. More recently, laboratory simulations of the chemical conditions of earth before the coming of life have yielded organic substances called purines and pyrimidines. These are building blocks of the genetic molecule, DNA itself.

Processes analogous to these must have given rise to the ‘primeval soup’ which biologists and chemists believe constituted the seas [15] some three to four thousand million years ago. The organic substances became locally concentrated, perhaps in drying scum round the shores, or in tiny suspended droplets. Under the further influence of energy such as ultraviolet light from the sun, they combined into larger molecules. Nowadays large organic molecules would not last long enough to be noticed: they would be quickly absorbed and broken down by bacteria or other living creatures. But bacteria and the rest of us are latecomers, and in those days large organic molecules could drift unmolested through the thickening broth.

At some point a particularly remarkable molecule was formed by accident. We will call it the Replicator. It may not necessarily have been the biggest or the most complex molecule around, but it had the extraordinary property of being able to create copies of itself. This may seem a very unlikely sort of accident to happen. So it was. It was exceedingly improbable. In the lifetime of a man, things that are that improbable can be treated for practical purposes as impossible. That is why you will never win a big prize on the football pools. But in our human estimates of what is probable and what is not, we are not used to dealing in hundreds of millions of years. If you filled in pools coupons every week for a hundred million years you would very likely win several jackpots.


Here is the The Selfish gene first edition

I could be wrong though, to be honest.

Hope that helps

Peace
edit on 3-1-2011 by Seed76 because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-1-2011 by Seed76 because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-1-2011 by Seed76 because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-1-2011 by Seed76 because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-1-2011 by Seed76 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join