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: 46
31
<< 43  44  45    47  48  49 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 30 2011 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 


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.

The fact that you're pratting on about an autosomal recessive disorder not fitting a "Darwinian model" of reproductive fitness just outlines how you haven't the first clue what you're talking about.




posted on Oct, 30 2011 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Tony4211
 

150 years of research and they can't explain how it got there.



posted on Oct, 30 2011 @ 06:01 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 

150 years of research and they can't explain how it got there.



posted on Oct, 30 2011 @ 06:15 PM
link   

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.


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?



posted on Oct, 30 2011 @ 07:17 PM
link   
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)



posted on Oct, 30 2011 @ 07:18 PM
link   
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.



posted on Oct, 30 2011 @ 07:55 PM
link   

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.


I wasn't attacking you, I was asking a valid question.



posted on Oct, 30 2011 @ 07:59 PM
link   
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.



posted on Oct, 30 2011 @ 08:15 PM
link   

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.
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?



posted on Oct, 30 2011 @ 08:19 PM
link   

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)


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.



posted on Oct, 31 2011 @ 04:52 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


I wasn't attacking you, I was asking a valid question.

Really?


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?

Like I said, you can't seem to actually address my counterpoints to your arguments and you always seem to take the same tack when someone does in this thread and yours. You ignore the counterpoints, go after the person making them, and then go right back to using the same arguments that were already refuted a day or two later.

Do you have anything substantive to say about two of your arguments for why our DNA must have been manipulated -- namely that we only use 10% of brains and that we're the only animals that have sex for pleasure -- being shown up as absolute myths?



posted on Oct, 31 2011 @ 05:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth

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.
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?


Pye wasn't a scientist


He was speculating with a VERY strong bias towards mysticism and metaphors. You might just as well ask the guy sweeping the roads about astrophysics


PS: Sitchen falls into the same category of crooks

edit on 31-10-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2011 @ 06:10 AM
link   
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.



posted on Oct, 31 2011 @ 06:37 AM
link   

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.



posted on Oct, 31 2011 @ 06:45 AM
link   
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



posted on Oct, 31 2011 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 


I won you over with the "extremely intelligent" comment didn't I?

I gave the same as I would a personal attack -- it's irrelevant to the conversation at hand.


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.

Can't agree about what, exactly? "Nonlinear problem solving" is one of those buzz phrases that makes people feel good about coloring outside the lines in order to get whatever answer they feel like getting with little to no objective evidence backing it up.


2:here's a start www.thelivingmoon.com...

Using seal VA 243 is probably the absolute worst thing you can use to support your argument. Sitchin bases his entire body of work on a demonstrably false translation of that lone symbol on a single seal out of hundreds. Sitchin claims that the symbol is that of our Sun, therefore the surrounding objects must be planets. Here's the problem -- the symbol used for our Sun is repeated on hundreds of other seals and the symbol on VA 243 isn't it. That's the symbol for a star. The symbol for our Sun is a four pointed star with wavy lines radiating from between the points, all surrounded by a circle.


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.

I disagree with your assessment of Tyson's arguments. He's not saying there's nothing to investigate a priori. The goal of science to take a priori knowledge (aka conjecture) and test it in a methodical way, thus changing it into a posteriori knowledge. Got a hypothesis? Great. Go test it and get back to everyone with the results.



posted on Oct, 31 2011 @ 10:55 AM
link   

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


that was the first link to part of what I was referring to. I originally got the bulk from Sitchin's Earth Chronicles (and I'm sure you'll bash that too so whatever). Point is if Iteration hasn't heard about this by now he's way out of the loop. I don't expect a conversion from anybody but to ignore the gist of what was written on clay tablets seven thousand years ago is ignorant. Especially where they talk about ancient cities that were in bloom thousands of years BEFORE the Sumerians. Their base 60 math, medicine, criminal justice codes, schools, construction abilties etc. It's things you can't just brush aside like so many main stream science adherents are quick to do.

As far as the non-linear part I meant that in the sense of a comprehensive look at evidence from around the globe. You didn't get the part where I wrote about noticing the forest AND the trees did you?



posted on Oct, 31 2011 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 


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.



posted on Oct, 31 2011 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 


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.

So when all of the individual pieces of objective evidence don't support your conclusion, somehow they magically do support your conclusion when taken as a whole? Why not just come right out and say that you don't actually care what any of the evidence says because, way deep down, you just know you're right? It works for the creationists. Or at least some of them. And it has nothing to do with linearity or non-linearity. You can come up with the most out of the box explanation for anything you want but, to use the parlance you seem to be fond of, it's nothing but a priori until you do something to test your hypothesis.



posted on Oct, 31 2011 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 


Well ok then so let's follow your argument of the four pointed symbol not representing our Sun. I've heard that before and it's a pretty good argument (although the way the clay tablet is made and the detail it took to create it goes unnoticed), so let's say you're right- it's not our Sun it is a star with a solar system (just like ours right down to the scale of the planets) somewhere else.
you don't find anything peculiar about that? They tell us exactly where they got these ideas, they come straight out and say people from another planet did it. That's where they got all their building plans (you do realize they weren't living in caves right?) and actual blueprints for society, culture, art, courts, textiles, etc. These were sophisticated people saying literally what was going on. Doesn't that warrant further discussion and investigation?



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 43  44  45    47  48  49 >>

log in

join