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.
it and it doesn't make sense in the Darwinian model so it makes perfect sense it was put there artificially probably as a mistake.
Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by itsthetooth
How did you come to this conclusion?
Go read up on the chimpanzee genome project, no genes were lost in the fusion. Did you think that humans are the only species we’re going to have a complete DNA sequence for?
What do you mean based his work, they don't even talk about the same things. I have never found Sitchen or daniken talking about DNA.
Do you think Pye came to his conclusions about aliens because of the DNA evidence, or that he came to his conclusions about the DNA evidence because he believes in aliens? Note that I’m giving Pye the benefit of the doubt for actually believing in what he’s claiming.
OMG
That's hardly an answer. My Bible starts at Genesis 1:1. Yours has a preface?
If it takes you a century and a half to piece together an easy puzzle, your doing it wrong!
You seem to be laboring under the misconception that science has a predefined end point at which everyone just says “enough” and stops researching. Every answer leads to more questions in every field of research, not just evolution.
It’s also ironic that you would make a statement like this, since you claim to have been at it for 30 years but still can’t produce a single piece of objective evidence to support your claims.
Does it mean if you don't understand something, and the community of physicists don't understand it, that means God did it? Is that how you want to play this game? ... If that' how you want to invoke your evidence for God, then God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance that's getting smaller and smaller and smaller as time goes on.
I don't even care if someone wants to say, "You don't understand that, God did it." ... What would bother me is if you were so content in that answer, that you no longer had curiosity to learn how it happened. The day you stop looking because you're content God did it... you're useless on the frontier of understanding the nature of the world.
Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by itsthetooth
I like how you're resorting to thinly-veiled personal attacks when you can't actually address my points. Keep it up -- it exposes your true colors.
My extrapolation is based in part on the bible, Pye's work, Sitchens work and Danikens work. You claim they all believe the same things, but I was never able to find anything that proves that. In fact I'm sure that Pye had no idea his findings match the bible. What I'm saying is they all agree in the same direction, and nothing I ever found was doubled information. I don't have 30 years in studying this I have 30 years into the supernatural and paranormal. I've explained this to you before, and you seem to still have a problem grasping this, are you sure your suited to be making the statements that you are here?
Fallacies according to who? All I hear is that Pye followed Sitchen yet wouldn't he have been busted for copying his work? And I guess it's just a big coindence that it all matches the bible, but no one points this out or realizes it right?
Originally posted by flyingfish
reply to post by itsthetooth
My extrapolation is based in part on the bible, Pye's work, Sitchens work and Danikens work. You claim they all believe the same things, but I was never able to find anything that proves that. In fact I'm sure that Pye had no idea his findings match the bible. What I'm saying is they all agree in the same direction, and nothing I ever found was doubled information. I don't have 30 years in studying this I have 30 years into the supernatural and paranormal. I've explained this to you before, and you seem to still have a problem grasping this, are you sure your suited to be making the statements that you are here?
You are arguing complete fallacies, and you're defending your case by parroting your own ignorance, or inability to comprehend evolution. Not only do you discredit yourself but also that which you're defending.
Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by bottleslingguy
1. I doubt they've been researching cystic fibrosis for 150 years.
2. That's how science works -- "We don't know how this happens, let's do some research." This is how creationism/interventionism works -- "We don't know how this happens, let's say [God/aliens] did it! Even though we have no objective evidence for the existence of [God/aliens]." You're just using a variant of the "god of the gaps" logical fallacy. Let's call it the "aliens of the gaps" logical fallacy.
To quote Neil deGrasse Tyson:
Does it mean if you don't understand something, and the community of physicists don't understand it, that means God did it? Is that how you want to play this game? ... If that' how you want to invoke your evidence for God, then God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance that's getting smaller and smaller and smaller as time goes on.
The same applies to "interventionism", which is just creationism for the non-theists. He goes on to say:
I don't even care if someone wants to say, "You don't understand that, God did it." ... What would bother me is if you were so content in that answer, that you no longer had curiosity to learn how it happened. The day you stop looking because you're content God did it... you're useless on the frontier of understanding the nature of the world.
Granted, I'm talking about evolutionary biology and not physics, but the sentiment still holds.edit on 30/10/2011 by iterationzero because: (no reason given)
I wasn't attacking you, I was asking a valid question.
I've explained this to you before, and you seem to still have a problem grasping this, are you sure your suited to be making the statements that you are here?
Originally posted by itsthetooth
Fallacies according to who? All I hear is that Pye followed Sitchen yet wouldn't he have been busted for copying his work? And I guess it's just a big coindence that it all matches the bible, but no one points this out or realizes it right?
Originally posted by flyingfish
reply to post by itsthetooth
My extrapolation is based in part on the bible, Pye's work, Sitchens work and Danikens work. You claim they all believe the same things, but I was never able to find anything that proves that. In fact I'm sure that Pye had no idea his findings match the bible. What I'm saying is they all agree in the same direction, and nothing I ever found was doubled information. I don't have 30 years in studying this I have 30 years into the supernatural and paranormal. I've explained this to you before, and you seem to still have a problem grasping this, are you sure your suited to be making the statements that you are here?
You are arguing complete fallacies, and you're defending your case by parroting your own ignorance, or inability to comprehend evolution. Not only do you discredit yourself but also that which you're defending.
1: that other guy was talking about the 150 year thing that had to do with recessive genes in general and you and he warranted the same reply. Although you are extremely intelligent, I think your problem may be that you focus on nitpicking.
2: my research shows that people thousands of years ago were writing about people from another planet (the ones writing knew how many planets we have in our s.s. and that the Earth was round etc.) tampering with dna. Read the Lost Book of Enki. They talk about mistakes in the process that caused diseases and deformities. (I'm sure you won't waste your time learning more about this)
3:if you are quoting Tyson you might as well talk to the hand.
Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by bottleslingguy
1: that other guy was talking about the 150 year thing that had to do with recessive genes in general and you and he warranted the same reply. Although you are extremely intelligent, I think your problem may be that you focus on nitpicking.
The things I'm "nitpicking" are the details you're trying to use to support your hypothesis. If you can't get those details right, what does that say about your hypothesis?
2: my research shows that people thousands of years ago were writing about people from another planet (the ones writing knew how many planets we have in our s.s. and that the Earth was round etc.) tampering with dna. Read the Lost Book of Enki. They talk about mistakes in the process that caused diseases and deformities. (I'm sure you won't waste your time learning more about this)
Which people were writing thousands of years ago about people from another planet? Can you show that they knew how many planets were in our solar system? Knowing the Earth is a spheroid of some type is hardly a modern discovery. I'm more amazed by the cultures that couldn't even figure that out correctly.
3:if you are quoting Tyson you might as well talk to the hand.
Yeah, why would you want to hear the words of someone who has the kind of credentials he has? Someone who has actually done peer-reviewed and published research? You'd have to be daft to listen to someone like that.
I won you over with the "extremely intelligent" comment didn't I?
1: part of my point is that even the "expert scientists" can't agree on any of this so as far as I'm concerned we're at an impasse. My advantage is that I am using non-linear problem solving to figure out this comprehensive sphere of information in other words I am looking at the forest AND the trees.
2:here's a start www.thelivingmoon.com...
re Tyson: you have to realize just because people are published they can still be full of sugar and have nefarious intentions or even be just unwilling or unable to go places it takes you outside of mainstream science. He acts as though there is nothing to investigate a priori and that to me is a big red flag.
Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by bottleslingguy
Your "non linear problem solving" is another word for "pseudo-science". You should really stop getting your "information" from nonsense sites like livingmoon
Again with the nitpicking..... Like I said in an earlier comment: you have to be willing and able to accept the evidence in a comprehensive way. Add up ALL the evidence and if you are stuck in a linear path of knowledge you will never be able to come up with what I consider the right answer.