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.

 

Debunk evolution once and for all

page: 38
13
<< 35  36  37    39  40 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by The Matrix Traveller
 


No, I don't think we're necessarily going back and throwing everything we discovered 10k years ago in the future. Last I checked I'm not laughing at the guy who invented the wheel


I love how you equal science with belief. You might not be a creationist, but you have created your own little religion




posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by oozyism
I'm sick of Atheist and any anti-Religious, or anti-God movement who revolve all their arguments around evolution.

GOD takes the idea of evolution as an insult to him. I would also be insulted if someone came around and claimed computers and technology came to exist by mere chance.



[edit on 23-8-2010 by oozyism]


How do you know god is a man? How do you know god is insulted by evolution? Did "he/she" tell you? How do you know?

I believe that we came out of the goo and that all life on this planet is related.

I think it's incredibly arrogant of humans to think that this planet was made for us rather than us being made by it.

Fossil records don't lie....
www.telegraph.co.uk...



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


So tell me what is this religion you accuse me of creating ???

You have lost me.

I obviously upset you in some way, so I guess this is why you brand me with making or partaking in some sort of religion of your own imagination, unknown to me...


Makes me think of 2001: A Space Odyssey by Arthur C. Clarke and the reaction of those Primates to the Monolith....


Almost like human behaviour today don’t you think ???

Some will make war with me (LIFE), and some will side with me, but I guess that is the way of the Primate and do I want to change this ???

Not really do You ???

edit on 9-12-2010 by The Matrix Traveller because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by The Matrix Traveller
 


I'm not upset at all, I just think that you're taking the matrix movies a bit too seriously. A lot of your posts show some hints of the content of those movies. That's alright, but in the end, it doesn't change the fact that you're trying to argue about science through philosophy. That's just not helpful when talking about evolution. I mean, what's next? You wanna talk about medicine and how consciousness (see, I can underline stuff too) effects it...and how the "heart" is just an image of our consciousness or some other philosophical stuff?

As for why I think what you write is comparable to a religion:

The thread title is "Debunk Evolution"...and you start posting stuff like this...



The problem is in discussing God or a god, is that everyone has a different idea what God is or should be.


What has "god" to do with evolution? There's no scientific proof for god, so it's not helpful at debunking evolution.



My personal understanding is that the Root is "Awareness" for without "Awareness", Nothing at all would be known to exist.


That's a PHILOSOPHICAL statement! Look, if you really wanna prove this scientifically, make an experiment and show clear evidence that this is the case...until you do, it's nothing but pure speculation. Speculation similar to...wait for it...RELIGION!




Without “Awareness” there would be NO natural selection. As I accept "Natural Selection" so “Awareness” would have to exist first, otherwise NO selection would knowingly take place!



Again, you make a random claim and use your first claim as backup. That's NOT science! That's making random claims. Not saying those claims aren't interesting...but they're are science and you can't prove/disprove evolution through philosophy.




Is it the Cause or the Manifestation which is Evolving ???


Interesting philosophical thought...but again, nothing but a hypothesis at best.

According to your logic, we have to question every single field in science, including medicine, mechanics, and so on. Just because you BELIEVE things don't exist unless you're aware of them.

That might, or might not be the case. But it's a philosophical question as we have no means of testing it. You claiming without awareness nothing exists is therefore nothing but SPECULATION...similar to religious people speculating about Eden and talking snakes.



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 01:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Matrix Traveller
So now just because you use a "catch word" Science, that the interpretation by a Primate having a few letters attached to his name awarded by other "Primates" is flawless???


Ever watched "Planet of the apes"?


And what's wrong with primates? It's a perfectly good mammalian order. Maybe not as specialized as chiroptera, and most primates aren't as cuddly as the lagomorphs, and we certainly don't have the raw power of the carnivora or artiodactyls. But the primates are just fine.

I think those macroscelideans are up to something, though. Shifty sorts, with their twitchy little noses...

Exactly how many times do you need to have science explained to you before you stop pretending you have absolutely no idea what it means?


Do you really believe our technology will still be the same say in 10,000 years?

Or do you think they (in 10,000 years) will look back and have a laugh about our so called science today.


Nice how you colluded "science" and "technology" there, creating a little logical fallacy - the false dilemma.

In ten thousand years, I doubt our descendants are going to worry too much about scientific rigour - odds are we'll be back to digging roots with sticks and spray-painting hands on long-decayed office buildings by that point in future.

However, much closer to our time, of course our science and technology aren't going to be the same - that's a feature of the process. You really have it stuck in your head that science is dogmatic, which would be ironic if it weren't so annoying. The conclusions reached by scientific practice can and often do contradict the established model. And quite often the newer version wins. Not always, sometimes the newer model is wrong - that's what evidence is for.


Thank goodness Science does change through the ages, as we learn more about our immateral selves, as well as bio-mechanics/Robotics.


Actually it's had more to do with discarding the false notion that we have "immaterial selves." That sort of thing is a large part of what held human advancement back for so many centuries. So many times in history, a culture has come close to true and honest scientific breakthroughs - Rome, China, Tahuantinsuyo - that would have spurred an industrial revolution long prior to the 19th century, but it kept falling through, often because science lost to superstition (Rome fell and the church took over, China and Tahuantinsuyo both kept falling through because the "divine emperor" kept dicking around, etc)

The results of science will change. But the actual praxes of science, the methodology, is going to be the same. because it works, and it works amazingly well.



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 04:05 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 

Sorry I am starting to get bored again....


I'm not upset at all, I just think that you're taking the matrix movies a bit too seriously. A lot of your posts show some hints of the content of those movies.


You obviously don’t... or can’t take in what I am saying....

Just for your own clarification I will repeat myself again…. (This is becoming so boring)

What year did the series come out you refer to as the matrix movies ???

Well my Research started in August 1973

Just a few years before matrix trilogy came out don’t you think ???

Some 25 years before or thereabouts...

So please do not bring this up again, as you have been told many times. (and its getting a little boring)…


That's alright, but in the end, it doesn't change the fact that you're trying to argue about science through philosophy.

That’s your interpretation but I am NOT arguing….


That's just not helpful when talking about evolution. I mean, what's next? You wanna talk about medicine and how consciousness (see, I can underline stuff too) effects it...and how the "heart" is just an image of our consciousness or some other philosophical stuff?

Well I guess this just shows your emotional response in more sarcasm, so I guess I am correct in saying what I write upsets you…
If you don’t like what I write, then don’t feel you have to read it…


As for why I think what you write is comparable to a religion:
The thread title is "Debunk Evolution"...and you start posting stuff like this...


If you can’t understand then don’t read my posts…

Regarding my words you bring attention to quote;

The problem is in discussing God or a god, is that everyone has a different idea what God is or should be.

Refers to you arguing that there is a debate between Creationism and Evolutionists where you believe All Creationists are religious, which is in my opinion is totally false.

So I was hinting the whole debate is futile or is that a little over your head ???

Not all Creationists are religious…

Yourself referring to your LIFE is part of what has Created all this... But do you know your LIFE Entity???

When your last breath takes place, are you going to Loose....

a. Your LIFE?
or
b. Your body?


What has "god" to do with evolution? There's no scientific proof for god, so it's not helpful at debunking evolution.

You are a strange one aren’t you… I mean how you interpret others…
This is my point…
Religion doesn’t come into it, but you have to accept we are also dealing with all religious thinking people as well so I write in a way to communicate with them also.
The philosophy often bridges the gap who are not like yourself.
So my posts are obviously Not for you but for others…

These words you bring my attention to… Quote;

My personal understanding is that the Root is "Awareness" for without "Awareness", Nothing at all would be known to exist.

Put it another way...
Without “Awareness” in the equation Nothing at, all would now anything exists…


That's a PHILOSOPHICAL statement!

Perhaps…
But what I am writing is obviously Not intended for you, but for others…


Look, if you really wanna prove this scientifically, make an experiment and show clear evidence that this is the case.


We can’t prove these things because they involve the “Awareness” of non material components.
But we can show it in the result...

It is a bit like trying to prove what love is…
You can see the result but can’t hold it as a material thing in your hand, neither can you see Love through a microscope etc.
So how do you prove the existance of Love???
You can't...
But we can see the result of Love. Well I can anyway even if by some chance you can't.

As I have already explained as you well know, I am involved full time in R&D so we don’t need to go over and over this again.
Its starting to bore me

until you do, it's nothing but pure speculation. Speculation similar to...wait for it...RELIGION!
What a lot of fertiliser of BS type…
Like I said I have obviously upset you, so this is why your continuing slander in an Un Scientific manner regarding my posts…

Get over yourself …
I’m sure there are some others besides you in this Program or Universe.


Without “Awareness” there would be NO natural selection. As I accept "Natural Selection" so “Awareness” would have to exist first, otherwise NO selection would knowingly take place!

A little over your head is it???


Again, you make a random claim and use your first claim as backup.

You are entitled to your own interpretations its call free will, even if you have misunderstood me…


That's NOT science! That's making random claims. Not saying those claims aren't interesting...but they're are science and you can't prove/disprove evolution through philosophy.



That's making random claims. Not saying those claims aren't interesting...but they're are science


Are you agreeing with me ??? or simply got lost in your words ???

Sorry no offence… You see we all make errors including yourself

Again you bring my attention to… Quote;

Is the Cause or the Manifestation which is Evolving ???

Again; I guess a little over your head.


Interesting philosophical thought...but again, nothing but a hypothesis at best.

As I quoted earlier; There are two forms of science. You obviously didn’t bother to read.
Not very Scientific of you…

Some start of with a theory based on an idea and then try to prove it through Science demonstrations.

Then there is the other which is pure observation and recording what is witnessed.
In the case of Evolution, you try to fill the gaps yet there is no proof, except your desire to fill those gaps… Sounds like that god of the gaps again doesn’t it ???


According to your logic, we have to question every single field in science, including medicine, mechanics, and so on.

Correct…
Its call revision....
We do it all the time, its just that you are obviously not aware this goes on.
One example is when something new arrives on the scene which demands more answers and questions the former understanding…
Thankfully this often happens..


Just because you BELIEVE things don't exist unless you're aware of them.

Incorrect…


That might, or might not be the case. But it's a philosophical question as we have no means of testing it.

Bingo exactly my point…


You claiming without awareness nothing exists is therefore nothing but SPECULATION...

So you keep trying to convince yourself.... Why?

“Without awareness nothing exists”
Prove to me to the contrary… I await your Scientific evidence on this.


similar to religious people speculating about Eden and talking snakes.

Here we go again more unscientific slander..
I thought you had more intelligence than this...
Sadly perhaps you have proven me wrong and you aren't as intelligent as I first gave credit to you.



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 04:12 AM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


I like your humour...


The results of science will change. But the actual praxes of science, the methodology, is going to be the same. because it works, and it works amazingly well.


I agree but that is only for the now and it will no doubt change due to evolution…
I guess in the more distant future as our understanding of investigating skills will evolve as all things do …



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 04:17 AM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 



Nice how you colluded "science" and "technology" there, creating a little logical fallacy - the false dilemma.


Sorry I didn’t intend to have you believe they are the same… That is Science & Technoloy.
Put it down to my poor English skills…



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by The Matrix Traveller
 


Now it's you who sounds upset, not me


Look, the fact remains, you can't prove or disprove SCIENTIFIC theories through philosophy because your claims aren't FALSIFIABLE or even testable (as you admit correctly). Because of that very fact, they are 100% useless when it comes to proving/disproving a scientific theory. You can of course use it to get inspired, but when it comes to proof, philosophy is kinda useless...

You claiming there is no awareness is the same as someone talking about an invisible sky daddy...at least until you provide strong evidence.You yourself admitted you can't prove it in your previous post...



“Without awareness nothing exists”
Prove to me to the contrary… I await your Scientific evidence on this.


What's the difference between your quote and "God create the universe"? NOTHING! Both can't be falsified or proven...yet you keep on repeating it as fact, just like religious people when they talk about their religion.

edit on 10-12-2010 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 04:42 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Was I a little upset in my last post ???

Yes and I apologise for that.

What upset me, is that I had actually given you more credit before, but you showed me that your development as a person was rather low… I was just disappointed in you.

But we fill in the gaps when talking about Evolution as well...

The old god of the gaps thingy again..
Plain old guess work...
So it sounds like some make a religion out of Evolution....


By my thoughts have never been against Evolution...
I just question what actually is it that is Evolving ???

Is it the Species in this tiny Universe???
Or is it that which drives these things???

This suggests the debate is really founded on the question of what LIFE is…

Some suggest that the bio-mechanics is Life
while others suggest that bio-mechanics is just the vehicle.

I side with the debate that the bio-mechanical structures are just the vehicle…

But that does Not say there is a god thingy Catholics preach…

But it does suggest that your “Partition” of LIFE is part of the overall LIFE which was/is
Manufacturing what we each experience.
This LIFE exists in all and that is the “Driver” or ocupant, and the Biomechanical structures are merely the vehicles that we, LIFE (Non Material and Non Dimensional) use to play with and express ourselves through, in a given environment that jointly we all Manufactured in the first place.

How do I prove this???
It can’t be proven in this world, but I can show you a way to both experience your real self
and in doing so discover that there is another part…. which is the real you.

It is a matter of “Discovery” just like through a child experience, leaning in its first few months in its new world or experience..

So the proof comes in entering those experiences involving the real you, which is nonmaterial
and non-dimensional.
The proof can only be provided in that World and Not in this world of Bio-mechanics.

The process takes about 15 minutes… and does Not involve any religious activities or drugs, instead you remain as the observer only…



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Matrix Traveller
reply to post by MrXYZ
 

. . . What upset me, is that I had actually given you more credit before, but you showed me that your development as a person was rather low… I was just disappointed in you. . . .

Excuse me while I go vomit.
I've been reading your posts, Matrix, and they are equal parts of boasting, confused hogwash and stolen ideas.

Don't be surprised if some of the more intelligent people online see through your patronising chest-beating.



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by The Matrix Traveller
 




Some suggest that the bio-mechanics is Life
while others suggest that bio-mechanics is just the vehicle.

I side with the debate that the bio-mechanical structures are just the vehicle…


You "siding" with one of two random statements that aren't backed up by evidence is just another word for you BELIEVING!! Basically, you're creating your own religion.

I mean, comon', you even admit yourself you can't prove your belief. But people can make detailed predictions regarding evolution, or gravity, or motion thanks to science...and it's all backed up by scientific evidence and not "I side with X...and therefore X is correct!" wanna-be backup.

In short, I think you should post your ideas in this forum as it better fits your philosophical discussions.

edit on 11-12-2010 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


All I can say is that I feel sorry for you....



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Matrix Traveller
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


All I can say is that I feel sorry for you....

Best argument ever


Many of your ideas would go along well with Buddhism...but then again, a Buddhist wouldn't use ad hominem attacks when trying to make a point

edit on 11-12-2010 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 



Thanks for the link to this thread MrXYZ…

I’ve started reading from about page 35 but I’m not quite up to speed on this thread yet…

but I have a question…

Is this thread about trying to refute the “theory of evolution” or about refuting “evolution” i.e. the development of species over time.

It’s just that I accept “evolution” but not the “theory of evolution”.

If it’s just about refuting “evolution”, I suppose I could play devils advocate, now that I’m here.


- JC



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 


My word. A strong opinion you do voice.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Joecroft
 


Happy you found this and looking forward to your arguments. Out for a couple of hours now, gonna rewatch "127 hours", great movie!!

Oh, and of course theory of evolution. Not that you can separate the two really, as if one species evolves over the course of time, it will eventually create a new species over time...we've directly observed it in nature and the lab. And of course the DNA/fossil record backs this up. Keep in mind the theory isn't limited to what Darwin said, we now have DNA backup and a fossil record that's so ridiculously large, doubting it is a bit silly.

But like I said, I'm looking forward to your arguments...and it'll be a nice change from discussing with the fools over at the 2012 forum section



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Originally posted by MrXYZ

Oh, and of course theory of evolution. Not that you can separate the two really, as if one species evolves over the course of time, it will eventually create a new species over time...we've directly observed it in nature and the lab. And of course the DNA/fossil record backs this up. Keep in mind the theory isn't limited to what Darwin said, we now have DNA backup and a fossil record that's so ridiculously large, doubting it is a bit silly.


Well, I and have separated the two. “Evolution” has been observed and is a fact and clearly shows that species have developed over time. “The theory of evolution” however, tries to explain that fact, that’s why they are separate, although inextricably linked.

It’s just like we have gravity is an observable fact and then we have the “Theory of gravity”, to try to explain the observable phenomena.



Originally posted by MrXYZ
But like I said, I'm looking forward to your arguments...and it'll be a nice change from discussing with the fools over at the 2012 forum section


lol
From what I have read so far with your conversation with Matrix Traveler, the 2012 forum doesn’t seem like your kinda place. lol


Anyway to get the ball rolling and to play devils advocate regarding “evolution” i.e. the development of species over time, do you have any answers for the following questions.

(1) Why have insects not evolved much, considering they have had thousands of year’s head start, over most other species?

(2) Why have crocodiles not changed much since the Jurassic period to the present day?

------------------------------


Regarding the “The theory of evolution”, define “Random mutations”

Mutations are said to just arise naturally during the manufacturing of DNA and every time a cell replicates an error can occur resulting in whatever specific change in a particular given species.

Question.

How did the original organisms develop the ability to copy their DNA, bearing in mind, that in their early stages they couldn’t have evoleved into having that ability through a process of mutation, because they couldn’t have mutated into a mutationable species yet?

In simple terms...

How did organisms go from the simple to the complex, before they even had mutation capability?


- JC



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Matrix Traveller


But we fill in the gaps when talking about Evolution as well...

The old god of the gaps thingy again..
Plain old guess work...
So it sounds like some make a religion out of Evolution....


I will take this section in isolation, because I will freely admit to finding the rest of it overly pompous.

When you fill in the gaps regarding the evolutionary chain, you do not make the statement. "This is set in stone and it is true."
You extrapolate based on the current data and theorize. At a later date as more data becomes available that theory is revised and you/ I /everyone gains more insight...this process continues until there are no gaps (which may never happen).

God of the gaps is simply " don't know ?"..........."God did it!" and there the process ends until science fills the gap.

edit on 12-1-2011 by Noncompatible because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 10:21 PM
link   
Shouldn't we just start calling it "the theory of god"?

After all, no real evidence has been presented, at I must say that the extrapolations that are made from what is generally referred to as "the words of god" (The Bible) are quite stretched. No real logic shown.

God makes man: Man says, "Ugh....rock...."
God fiddles a bit: Man says, "OOOh, fire!"
God does some more playing: Man says, "Wheel...."
God still fidgets a bit: Man says, "Crop...pig...."
God has a little mess with it: Man says, "Shall we do lunch? Have your people call my people...Mwah!"
Is this an intelligent design? Is this man adapting to his surroundings?

So god didn't really create a fantastic man, did 'he'? Does that prove him fallible? Or just a tinkerer? Or a scientist trying to perfect something? Or did man, with this fabulous 'free will' thing, off and become sophisticated independently?



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 35  36  37    39  40 >>

log in

join