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.

 

Can you prove evolution wrong?*

page: 332
31
<< 329  330  331    333  334  335 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by HappyBunny
 


It looks more like they evolved from us.




posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by HappyBunny
I have to disagree. IMO abstract thinking and language is far, far older than the Neolithic Revolution. Doesn't art require abstract thinking? They found a "paint factory" dating back 100,000 years in South Africa. Not only had they figured out how to make paint (which requires a rudimentary knowledge of chemistry even if they didn't understand it in those terms), but they knew enough to store it in abalone shells. Abalone shells are glazed. Other shells would just absorb the color.

But that's still action -> almost instant reward type of situation, and could be just learned behavior. Not so with farming, where the result of action is like a year away. I don't however claim to be a linguist so my idea of abstract language being the enabler of the neolithic revolution could very well be wrong. Not claiming it to be a universal truth. Still, if abstract language is a very old invention, then why aren't there any very old postulated root languages in Africa?
edit on 29-3-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


I looked at the first link and noticed how they are trying to question the possibility of there ever being supernatural beings. Simply because they know it to be false. This is the type of mentality I'm talking about, then you call me the troll. What proof do they have that supernatural beings don't exist?



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 





"in fact embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses.."


Of course it does, it combines chemistry with biology, history, archaeology, zoology, and a ton of other fields. Hypotheses are in there too because they have to be tested before turning into theories. So for example, some bat scientist might put forward a hypothesis stating some bat migrated from South Africa to Yemen. It's a hypothesis related to evolution, but wether the hypothesis is correct or not, it doesn't disprove evolution...it just means the bat didn't migrate.




"he theory specifically postulates that all of the earth's known biota are genealogically related,,"


Of course it does!!! All the objective evidence suggests so, and nothing speaks against it.





Speciation is another example.


Speciation isn't a hypothesis





It's only been witnessed in some aquatic life, viruses, bacteria and some fly's.


Those are the ones Wiki lists


Besides, those are the only species where you can witness the process in real time because of high birth rates. DNA analysis and the fossil record clearly show that speciation is taking place for all life forms on this planet, including humans.




I guess everyone has to have something to believe in.


Yeah...just some chose to base it on objective evidence and therefore believe in evolution...while others don't care about facts at all and therefore believe in intervention, giant unicorns, space turtles, gods with elephant heads, and other nonsense



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


I looked at the first link and noticed how they are trying to question the possibility of there ever being supernatural beings. Simply because they know it to be false. This is the type of mentality I'm talking about, then you call me the troll. What proof do they have that supernatural beings don't exist?


Clearly you haven't even read the links


And of course they won't accept a "# it, everything's possible...magic did it" answer. If they did, we would never discover anything for real. We wouldn't fly planes, wouldn't have sent people to the moon, wouldn't be able to type on computers, and so on. That approach leads to stupid results, like people cutting themselves in order to cure diseases in the middle ages.



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
What proof do they have that supernatural beings don't exist?

How does one go about proving that? What proof do you have that Batman or Cthulhu don't exist? What proof do you have that I am not God? Russell's teapot:



Russell's teapot, sometimes called the celestial teapot or cosmic teapot, is an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) to illustrate the idea that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others, specifically in the case of religion. Russell wrote that if he claimed that a teapot were orbiting the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, it would be nonsensical for him to expect others not to doubt him on the grounds that they could not prove him wrong. Russell's teapot is still referred to in discussions concerning the existence of God.

edit on 29-3-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by itsthetooth
What proof do they have that supernatural beings don't exist?

How does one go about proving that?


Easy...you use tooth's proven method of figuring out reality. Repeat after me:

"Everything's possible, magic can do everything even if all the objective evidence points against it!! Barbara Streisand, Barbara Streisand, Barbara Streisand!"

Don't ask why the Barbara Streisands are required, logic doesn't matter.



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by HappyBunny
I have to disagree. IMO abstract thinking and language is far, far older than the Neolithic Revolution. Doesn't art require abstract thinking? They found a "paint factory" dating back 100,000 years in South Africa. Not only had they figured out how to make paint (which requires a rudimentary knowledge of chemistry even if they didn't understand it in those terms), but they knew enough to store it in abalone shells. Abalone shells are glazed. Other shells would just absorb the color.

But that's still action -> almost instant reward type of situation, and could be just learned behavior. Not so with farming, where the result of action is like a year away. I don't however claim to be a linguist so my idea of abstract language being the enabler of the neolithic revolution could very well be wrong. Not claiming it to be a universal truth. Still, if abstract language is a very old invention, then why aren't there any very old postulated root languages in Africa?
edit on 29-3-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)


As I understand it, it's because the methods used by linguists can't go back more than 12,000--15,000 years. There was one study published last year, though, that traces language in Africa back at least 50,000 years:

www.outsidethebeltway.com...

As to the painting, it takes time to figure that out by experimentation and cause/effect. You'd also need a reason to go through all that.

A few years ago they found serpent carvings on rocks in South Africa dating to 70,000 years ago.

www.dailymail.co.uk...

All of these require abstract thinking at the very least.
edit on 3/29/2012 by HappyBunny because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by HappyBunny
 


It looks more like they evolved from us.


Turn it upside down, Kevin Costner.

/sarc



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 





How does one go about proving that? What proof do you have that Batman or Cthulhu don't exist? What proof do you have that I am not God? Russell's teapot:
Probably because you would posses crazy ability's, just like all the weird stuff in the bible, hey.



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Clearly you haven't even read the links

And of course they won't accept a "# it, everything's possible...magic did it" answer. If they did, we would never discover anything for real. We wouldn't fly planes, wouldn't have sent people to the moon, wouldn't be able to type on computers, and so on. That approach leads to stupid results, like people cutting themselves in order to cure diseases in the middle ages.
I see, so your side in this is that we as humans know everything, there is nothing else that can be learned, and there couldn't possibly be other life out there that has unexplained abilitys.



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Easy...you use tooth's proven method of figuring out reality. Repeat after me:

"Everything's possible, magic can do everything even if all the objective evidence points against it!! Barbara Streisand, Barbara Streisand, Barbara Streisand!"

Don't ask why the Barbara Streisands are required, logic doesn't matter.
Magic does seem to answer what was going on. Again magic is just a term we accept for not understanding. That doesn't mean its not real.



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Clearly you haven't even read the links

And of course they won't accept a "# it, everything's possible...magic did it" answer. If they did, we would never discover anything for real. We wouldn't fly planes, wouldn't have sent people to the moon, wouldn't be able to type on computers, and so on. That approach leads to stupid results, like people cutting themselves in order to cure diseases in the middle ages.
I see, so your side in this is that we as humans know everything, there is nothing else that can be learned, and there couldn't possibly be other life out there that has unexplained abilitys.


No, I'm saying there's stuff we know because of scientific objective evidence (eg. evolution), and stuff we simply don't know. You on the other hand simply fill a gap in knowledge (aka what we don't know) with magic (aka god or aliens intervening) even though you have ZERO objective evidence to support your case.



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
No, I'm saying there's stuff we know because of scientific objective evidence (eg. evolution), and stuff we simply don't know. You on the other hand simply fill a gap in knowledge (aka what we don't know) with magic (aka god or aliens intervening) even though you have ZERO objective evidence to support your case.

That's not all the "identifier of arcane virus" does. In many cases he flatly refuses to accept reality and forces magic into places where there are no gaps but in his mind.
edit on 29-3-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





No, I'm saying there's stuff we know because of scientific objective evidence (eg. evolution), and stuff we simply don't know. You on the other hand simply fill a gap in knowledge (aka what we don't know) with magic (aka god or aliens intervening) even though you have ZERO objective evidence to support your case
You don't need to fill any gaps, everything is already documented, its just an issue of identifying it.



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 





That's not all the "identifier of arcane virus" does. In many cases he flatly refuses to accept reality and forces magic into places where there are no gaps but in his mind.
Hey as soon as someone fronts me some reality, I'll be all ears.



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
Hey as soon as someone fronts me some reality, I'll be all ears.

Really? I though just a few posts ago you insisted that living inside whales is a totally viable option for humans, even after being told what would happen..

From now on whenever someone invokes God, I will invoke Anti God, a being that cancels out ever single action of God.

edit on 29-3-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by rhinoceros
 





That's not all the "identifier of arcane virus" does. In many cases he flatly refuses to accept reality and forces magic into places where there are no gaps but in his mind.
Hey as soon as someone fronts me some reality, I'll be all ears.
Surely not. You said the more you learn the smaller your ears get so if someone manages to teach you something you will be all No ears.



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by itsthetooth
Hey as soon as someone fronts me some reality, I'll be all ears.

Really? I though just a few posts ago you insisted that living inside whales is a totally viable option for humans, even after being told what would happen..

From now on whenever someone invokes God, I will invoke Anti God, a being that cancels out ever single action of God.

edit on 29-3-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)


But you are God...you can't cancel out yourself!



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by colin42

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by rhinoceros
 





That's not all the "identifier of arcane virus" does. In many cases he flatly refuses to accept reality and forces magic into places where there are no gaps but in his mind.
Hey as soon as someone fronts me some reality, I'll be all ears.
Surely not. You said the more you learn the smaller your ears get so if someone manages to teach you something you will be all No ears.


Prime example of devolution!




top topics



 
31
<< 329  330  331    333  334  335 >>

log in

join