EVOLUTION - Did YOU Know?

page: 5
24
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by SuperiorEd
 


"Evolution" has always been a simple plot: convince the sheeple that they can "evolve" to a "higher being." Very easy to do. Most sheeple aspire to being their own god, so believe they will, even if it defies the truth before their own eyes.

Beware though. God has given us all the evidence of his creations....when we come before the judgment seat, feigned ignorance will be no excuse.

Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Isn't it time to man up and follow truth?




posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 05:45 PM
link   
ET interference can probably explain a lot of this!



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by SuperiorEd
Carry that one step further. No matter in the universe has ever been in the same state twice. The earth has never been in the same part of space twice. Neither has the galaxy. Time has never been in the same moment twice. All matter is in a constant state of flux and movement. Science has never made the same observation twice that was not part of a governed law keeping matter in a specific form according to predetermined design and purpose

Please explain the bolded statement in depth. Governed law you say? You're going to need some proof of that. Scientific laws are our MEASUREMENTS of forces and how various forms of energy interact. If I measured the exact volume of the earth, would that indicate that a magical force made this planet that exact size, simply because we have the measurement? Certainly not.


The big bang would have started our universe in a high state of order, evenly distributed in all directions.
All that would have existed in the prima materia of energy in a high state of order and vibration. Entropy would have been as low as possible, like an extremely hot cup of coffee.

From that moment to now, all reality, according to science, has been in a chaotic motion as entropy increased. Are you saying that purpose shows up in all matter simply on its own over time? Is this what science would have us believe, despite the fact that no matter has ever been the same twice, or even in the same place twice?

No, I am not saying that. I don't recall anything close that being in my post. Science doesn't claim that either. I heard a good analogy, though. Think of a brand new bed sheet. After years of use it gets wrinkled. Such is the case with entropy and the universe. Things aren't perfectly ordered, but if you look at the known universe as a whole, you can see most of the galaxies are very similar and were formed in the same way with similar distribution in the univese. Also the matter wasn't perfectly distributed in all directions during the big bang. There were clumps with higher energy than others.


Form and function come from information. Purpose comes from intent. Intention is a will to survive. Intent is by design.

Say what? Can you back up any of that?


Either case will not allow for complex organization with purpose unless there is a designed intent. Matter can only change states by collapsing wave function. Wave function collapse must be accompanied by consciousness or it is simply random chaos in motion. Entropy in information theory negates the possibility of a chaotic system to self-organize on the level we see in nature. The presence of consciousness is what sets matter apart from animated matter.

What does any of this have to do with science or evolution? I mean sure you can speculate all day about what consciousness implies, but I was talking about actual scientific data and whatnot.


It is a mathematical certainty that bits of information will degrade quicker than they can collapse the indeterminate wave of probability.

Please explain / back this up.


The fact that dimensions are observable toward this purpose demonstrates a higher level of organization behind what we experience on an observable scale.

What are you talking about? Other dimensions, or just the 3 we can see? Observable toward what purpose? bits of info? I have no idea where you're going with this. Information theory has nothing to do with evolution.


Humans are vastly more complex than the sun, yet the sun is our source according to science.

Humans more complex than the sun, eh? Can you prove that?


Life is the exception to entropy in information. As it is easily seen that we are more than what science calls our source, we can deduce that our source is not the system we occupy. It is greater than ourselves. We are greater than what is around us. Consciousness creates matter.

Consciousness creates matter eh? Can you show me this? Information theory and regular entropy are not the same thing. Can't say that anything in this post answers my questions



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by SuperiorEd
What creates the oak tree? Does the information in the acorn created the oak tree from matter, or does the matter around the acorn create the oak tree? Information creates the oak tree is your answer. Matter could care less what it's used for. Where does the information to form come from? Where does the purpose of the oak tree for the other life come from?

I already know where you're going with this. Obviously DNA is what determines characteristics of organisms, but you seem to have a different definition of information which is not consistent with genetic information. Are you claiming that DNA is an intelligent designer in itself, because one might be able to argue that. But arguing that there is a force BEHIND the DNA giving it those instructions is just a guess.


There are 900 species of fig wasp. Each fig tree needs a specific fig wasp to germinate the tree for fruit production. The fig tree has been observed with fig wasps in the fossil record going back 34 million years. There are 900 species of both tree and wasp. The fig wasps of the fossil record are the same as the ones today. Explain. That's 34 million years of stasis and mutualism. Which came first? Wasp or Tree? Wasp or fruit? Tree or wasp? Both?

The funniest thing about this example is that it is evidence of evolution. Why would there be 900 separate species of fig wasp, and 900 separate species of fig tree? That alone disproves your idea that they were exactly the same 34 million years ago. Absolutely false. They branched out into 900 species since then. Lets think about this. As the environments changed in certain areas, the trees were also affected, and they changed to adapt to the environment as well. The wasps needed the trees, so they stayed and changed slightly overtime along with the tree. It is irrelevant which species came first. Eventually the trees that had wasps did better than the ones that didn't. Same with the wasps. Favorable traits made it easier for them to survive and reproduce.

Why would an "intelligent" designer make 900 separate species of fig tree and wasp? Wouldn't that be a little pointless and time consuming?
edit on 26-1-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 


I SAID:
Science has never made the same observation twice that was not part of a governed law keeping matter in a specific form according to predetermined design and purpose

YOU SAID:

"Please explain the bolded statement in depth. Governed law you say? You're going to need some proof of that. Scientific laws are our MEASUREMENTS of forces and how various forms of energy interact. If I measured the exact volume of the earth, would that indicate that a magical force made this planet that exact size, simply because we have the measurement? Certainly not. "

EXPLAIN:

There are six forces governed to fine tuning. Apart from these six, there would be no form in matter to observe. All matter is a unique as a snow flake. None of it has ever been the same twice. Even a marker you take from your desk absorbs electromagnetic energy from your hand and changes states. Further, that marker has traveled thousands of our miles in space in the time that you pick it up and look at it. Nothing is the same twice. There are no two objects in all of nature the same. No observation has every been done on two identical objects. We assume that our observations are what we see.

universal fundamental physical constants

1) N is equal to 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. This is the number that measures the strength of the electrical forces that hold atoms together, divided by the force of gravity between them. If N was weaker by three zeros, only a short-lived universe would ensue.

2) E is the value 0.0073. This defines how firmly atomic nuclei bind together and how all the atoms on Earth are made. The value controls the power from the Sun and how sensitively the stars transmute hydrogen into all the atoms of the periodic table. Carbon and Oxygen are common because of this. Nitrogen is made from existing life and bacteria. Apart from either, we would not breathe.

3) Omega measures the amount of material in our universe, like galaxies, diffuse gas and dark matter. Gravity and energy from expansion is governed by this value. If the ratio of gravity to expansion energy were too high relative to one set value, the universe would have collapsed long ago.

4) Lambda was the biggest scientific news of 1998 according to science. This newly discovered force of cosmic anti-gravity controls the expansion of our universe to a limit. This force is small, otherwise, it would have stopped galaxies from forming.

5) Q The fabric of our universe depends on the ratio of two fundamental energies being less than 1/100,000 in value. If Q were even smaller, the universe would be inert and structureless. If Q were much larger, the universe would be much more violent. No stars or solar systems could survive.

6) The number of spatial dimensions in our world, D, equals three. Life could not exist if D were two or four. Time is a fourth dimension, but different from the others. Time has a built in arrow. If you are familiar with flatland, then you know that there is only one slice that the 2nd dimension sees. The third dimension can see yet another, but when we look to the fourth, we only see a slice. Our sense tells us that the fourth dimension is more than the slice. God seems to have a way of seeing our future and dragging it to the past as prophecy. There is a reason for this.

It's time to start agreeing with science on these things. We are governed to purpose. There is no other way around this fact. It's not a theory.

edit on 26-1-2012 by SuperiorEd because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by SuperiorEd
reply to post by Barcs
 


I SAID:
Science has never made the same observation twice that was not part of a governed law keeping matter in a specific form according to predetermined design and purpose

YOU SAID:

"Please explain the bolded statement in depth. Governed law you say? You're going to need some proof of that. Scientific laws are our MEASUREMENTS of forces and how various forms of energy interact. If I measured the exact volume of the earth, would that indicate that a magical force made this planet that exact size, simply because we have the measurement? Certainly not. "

EXPLAIN:

There are six forces governed to fine tuning. Apart from these six, there would be no form in matter to observe. All matter is a unique as a snow flake. None of it has ever been the same twice. Even a marker you take from your desk absorbs electromagnetic energy from your hand and changes states. Further, that marker has traveled thousands of our miles in space in the time that you pick it up and look at it. Nothing is the same twice. There are no two objects in all of nature the same. No observation has every been done on two identical objects. We assume that our observations are what we see.

universal fundamental physical constants

1) N is equal to 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. This is the number that measures the strength of the electrical forces that hold atoms together, divided by the force of gravity between them. If N was weaker by three zeros, only a short-lived universe would ensue.

2) E is the value 0.007. This defines how firmly atomic nuclei bind together and how all the atoms on Earth are made. The value controls the power from the Sun and how sensitively the stars transmute hydrogen into all the atoms of the periodic table. Carbon and Oxygen are common because of this. Nitrogen is made from existing life and bacteria. Apart from either, we would not breathe.

3) Omega measures the amount of material in our universe, like galaxies, diffuse gas and dark matter. Gravity and energy from expansion is governed by this value. If the ratio of gravity to expansion energy were too high relative to one set value, the universe would have collapsed long ago.

4) Lambda was the biggest scientific news of 1998 according to science. This newly discovered force of cosmic anti-gravity controls the expansion of our universe to a limit. This force is small, otherwise, it would have stopped galaxies from forming.

5) Q The fabric of our universe depends on the ratio of two fundamental energies being less than 1/100,000 in value. If Q were even smaller, the universe would be inert and structureless. If Q were much larger, the universe would be much more violent. No stars or solar systems could survive.

6) The number of spatial dimensions in our world, D, equals three. Life could not exist if D were two or four. Time is a fourth dimension, but different from the others. Time has a built in arrow. If you are familiar with flatland, then you know that there is only one slice that the 2nd dimension sees. The third dimension can see yet another, but when we look to the fourth, we only see a slice. Our sense tells us that the fourth dimension is more than the slice. God seems to have a way of seeing our future and dragging it to the past as prophecy. There is a reason for this.

It's time to start agreeing with science on these things. We are governed to purpose. There is no other way around this fact. It's not a theory.

edit on 26-1-2012 by SuperiorEd because: (no reason given)


Oh yea! Well, guess what!

1+1 = 2 ... Yes, you read that, TWO!!!!!

And, two, get this, two is a magical number.

2 + 2 =4 But ALSO!!!! 2 x 2= 4!

So 4 = Magic Number

Now, don't forget but the other magic number, which is 10.

So 2, 4, and 10 are magic number, got it?

So, because Egypt has pyramids, and the most famous are at gaza, 3 is also a magic number.

So 2, 3, 4, and 10 are magic numbers.

When you have 10, and subtract 4, and add 3, you get 9! Guess what? When you add 2 to 9, than subtract two, the resulting number is still 9!


Turn nine upside down, and you get 6

Triple it, and you get the answer!

666!!!!

See, your creationists, !!!! The above is 100% Proof that Satan created the Universe!!!!

666 = Satan = Created the Universe! The above math proves it!!!!!!!
edit on 26-1-2012 by Confusion42 because: (no reason given)
edit on 26-1-2012 by Confusion42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by BBalazs
reply to post by SuperiorEd
 


Yes!
We are designed!
By nature, then the universe!
Its pretty much a fact.


Why designed?

Maybe we're the RESULT of nature and the universe? Maybe the ones that crawled out of the ocean but took a wrong evolutionary decision (and say decided to eat poisonous mushrooms, aren't around to say otherwise).

What we are (in my belief) are the evolved state based on environmental learning and adaptation, which manifests itself in our coded dna. Not coded by any god or such, but just by learning and experience.

edit on 26-1-2012 by mr-lizard because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 04:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by SuperiorEd
-Bacteria has less than 500 genes. Humans have more than 22 thousand genes. Ask yourself a question: Can evolution program genes?

No. Evolution is a concept, not a sentient thing.

Science lacks a single formula to describe how life originated. Any theory worth considering must contain measurable formulas to describe what is being studied. Evolution cannot be measured. Intelligent design, however, can be measured and verified. Consider these simple comparisons.

Look up the word "measure".


-The Human body is produced by 22 amino acids that are read by the ribosomes to produce proteins that construct the body. Hebrew tradition states that the universe was constructed from the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet. There are 22 Hebrew letters that originate our current western language. Ribosomes read the amino acids from roots of three or more to produce proteins. Hebrew starts with a three letter root, then branches to other words by adding other letters into the chain. There are 24 Greek letters that make our language of science and mathematics. In total, there are 46 chromosomes that produce the body from information. What are the odds that the 22 letters of Hebrew and the 24 letters of Greek just happen to add up to 46? What are the odds that RNA and DNA can best be described as sentences that follow linguistic rules? What are the odds that the proteins in your body are made in chains like sentences?

Apart from the human body using 20 amino acids, and not 22, your babbling is quite fun to read.


Your choices are two: 1) We are designed 2) We are a happy accident that defies entropy in information theory

Which is more likely?

#2. It is well proven.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 05:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Thain Esh Kelch
 




Apart from the human body using 20 amino acids, and not 22, your babbling is quite fun to read.


"The chemical structures of the 22 standard amino acids, along with their chemical properties, are described more fully in the article on these proteinogenic amino acids." LINK

Argue with Dr. Charles McCombs, PHD. Evolution is a failure. The video below shows the utter nonsense that is produced by clinging to bias against God instead of rational reasoning from the evidence. Design is not just a theory, it is observable and measurable. Evolution, as a fact, is measurably wrong.

LINK

edit on 27-1-2012 by SuperiorEd because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 06:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Thain Esh Kelch
 


There are "facts" that evolution claim apart from evidence or measurable science.

For an evidence in science to be measurable, there must be relationships that are observable. Like truth, the context of what is measured must be related to the whole and not just to a few of the parts. We must see a relationship that is observable across the sum of the parts. Evolution can claim a small piece here and there, but design is measurable across the sum of the parts to unify our understanding of the whole. Evolution can also be unified within this framework as a function of the programming and encoding that nature provides for adaptation. Seen within the proper framework of design, conscious engineering then becomes the excluded middle argument that unifies the paradox. Change, as a function of adaptation, is not the cause of life but a feature of the cause. The cause is a source greater than the life it creates.

Nothing is greater than its source. Humans are greater in complexity and function than anything in its environment. All things flow away from their source and cannot rise above it. Since humans are measurably more complex than what science can observe as a source, we can easily conclude that the source of life is not matter that is observable. Like the Bible says:

Hebrews 11

3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

ID wins this debate on all levels. No amount of incredulity on the part of science will show a context otherwise. There is nothing to measure for the argument. ID has all of science, logic and reason on its side. ID is measurable on all three levels. The perception of evolution fits into that framework as misplaced concreteness that is incorrectly labeled as a cause.



edit on 27-1-2012 by SuperiorEd because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 06:19 AM
link   
Technically, evolution is the ultimate miracle [shush, don’t tell the atheists] because we are expected to believe [pun intended] that intelligence [us] can come from non intelligence. It can’t.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 06:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by mandroids
Technically, evolution is the ultimate miracle [shush, don’t tell the atheists] because we are expected to believe [pun intended] that intelligence [us] can come from non intelligence. It can’t.


We win the debate on many levels, but observing this simple fact from nature cancels the evolution idea before it even begins: All matter in nature flows away from its source. Life is greater than anything we can call our source. The argument against ID ends at this point. Until science shows that the sun or the earth is greater in complexity than a conscious, thinking and rational being, ID wins the debate before it ever begins. Purpose and function can be shown across the sum of the parts. The intent of a purpose cannot be separated from the consciousness that collapsed the wave function to make the choice. The states of matter cannot be changed toward purpose apart from wave function collapse. Only consciousness can produce change with intent (Design).



edit on 27-1-2012 by SuperiorEd because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 07:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs
Now prove your premises, lol. Prove the universe 'began' to exist. There is no proof at all that the big bang was the beginning of the universe. It was the beginning of what we know as the universe today, but it is impossible to study anything that happened prior.


You, sir, are absolutely correct. I actually expected someone to take me up on this two days ago. To quote myself from page 3 of this thread:


Originally posted by LessThanLethal
I think the distinction lies between those who rely on rational inquiry as opposed to those who rely on empiricism. Formulating logical arguments about morality and cosmology can become problematic when trying to demonstrate them empirically. It's easy to demonstrate physicality rearranging itself, but impossible to establish it popping into existence from quantum nothingness.


GonzoSinister requested a rational argument for Creationism that did not involve faith or religion. I offered him a scrap from William Lane Craig, a philosopher and theologian who popularized the Kālam cosmological argument.

Many believe the universe is eternal and infinite. Craig contends that an infinite universe leads to metaphysical "absurdities" and mathematical contradictions. In Craig's view, it's difficult associating the real world with transfinite arithmetic. Infinity, according to Craig, is merely an idea.

He also uses Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin’s theorem to suggest that out universe "must have a past space-time boundary."

My point is, Craig is a rationalist. I brought this up originally because I think SuperiorEd is a rationalist. And he's going to have a difficult time getting a room full of empiricists to accept his ideas.


Originally posted by Barcs
There is no proof at all that the big bang was the beginning of the universe. It was the beginning of what we know as the universe today, but it is impossible to study anything that happened prior.


You are an empiricist. Get it?



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 08:16 AM
link   
reply to post by LessThanLethal
 


Good point, I would add a basic look at the infinity idea. Ev erything can be infinitely enlarged or halved so mathematically infinity, I would say, is proveable by adding infinite zero's or halving fractions. Even in a finite space, a circle, you could add infinite number of points from the center outward. With this line of thinking, math and physics would not have existed before space creation. Question then is, if the universe has not always been, what exploded/caused the explosion? Where did the material come from? What encompassed that point of contact? Universe within a universe?
I have the idea that evolution is an impossibility. When examining the subject the one needed constant is the timeline needed to explain how vast complexities had to occur in order for the theory to hold as fact. If a biased approach is taken it is hard to hold to that because if, just if, the life timeline on this planet has been exaggerated, which I feel can be argued, then the idea starts to have more questions than answers.

I would also say when looking at enviornments on Earth and natural catastrophies, change usually occurs almost instantly rather than over long periods of time. Megaquakes, volcanic eruptions, meteors, hurricanes, tornadoes, landslides, floods, drastic swings in temperatures, plagues, viral infections, avalanches, droughts, etc.
Point being instead of evolving to survive in changing enviorments life usually has to choose either adaptation or extinction. Seems most have no choice but to die off because there is no way to cope with such extreme difference in conditions. We see it all the time, entire species go extinct, they don't have a chance to evolve, even if it were possible. Then I would also question if a species is existing in their intended enviornment and all is well, why would they morph into something else? Because a cretain amount of time has passed?

The on ly change I see is with shortage of food, species are smaller and with abundance, speicies are larger. Just look at the western world vs. starving countries.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 09:28 AM
link   
reply to post by MentalData
 


What if it's like that whole deal where the Universe creates itself in a repeating cycle, and that each passing Universe is a slightly altered reality, which is why sometimes people think things have already happened or will happen a different way? Destiny could just be our tendency to relive a previous Universe.

I mean, we're clearly no longer talking about evolution, so I thought I'd through that out there.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


We are talking about evolution, if you argue all species evolved from the first bacteria/lifeform on earth by chance/coincidence then everything in the universe happened by chance/coincidence. I would have to argued the laws our existence is bound by would have been created in some form or fashion in order to create our existence. I feel it all can't be by chance.

The point that you bring up is a complete idea in of itself where the mind shapes our reality and our senses enable us to perceive it. The blind or deaf or dumb could never interpret life the same as a person with 6 senses. Are there more senses to be had? If you were deaf you could only feel vibration of sound though there is sound all around you and how tuned your hearing is will tell you how many sources of sound there are. Blind you could imagine but would have so little to compare to or draw from. Dumb you wouldn't be able to even comprehend the idea of what we're speaking of. So to me it can't all be chance. The fact that we can articulate these debates is proof enough that nature could not produce intelligence above all others from creatures that lack ability of said intelligence. All animals have a certain intelligence of their own but ours is unrivaled by anything to walk this planet, our capacity is so staggering when compared to any other I am left only with design to explain it.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 10:30 AM
link   
reply to post by MentalData
 
Hold on a second you tell someone that his mind has shaped his reality then go on to give examples of deaf blind and dumb and then say you are only left with design to explain it as if that can be the only truth.

By your own example, your mind has shaped your reality and in that reality you are only left with design to explain it so why is your reality the true one?



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by MentalData
 


It wasn't chance/coincidence, but it didn't have to be a creator either, in my opinion.

Something that is witnessed time and time again in our daily lives is that reactions are happening everywhere. Matter forms complex matter and then react with other matter. These reactions may seem random, but due to their tendencies, I would argue that life was inevitable when the right ingredients became available. All it takes is one single set of amino acids joining together and replicating. Replication is an imperfect process, and the changes add up over time.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 


I did not say it is the only truth, it is the only conclusion I would personally support. The point that I am able to have what I would consider the full human experience gives me a complete opportunity to come to such conclusion. If you lack experience of senses there would be parts of Earthly reality you have no knowledge of those senses being needed to have complete understanding if there is such a thing. In my opinion the complexity of human thought and ability to comprehend at superior levels leads me to believe since nature has never produced such intelligence from lesser intelligence, therefore nature cannot produce higher intelligence from lesser. If it could it would have, we have no evidence of this. I think if it had billions of years to work on it, we wouldn't be the only ones with this mind capacity.

The point of the blind/deaf/dumb these are still people who generally have the same capabilities but defect has deprived them in some way. Now that defect has hindered, not intensified, the experience of life. That defect is not evolution but a breakdown in system function which in some cases can be repaired. You can give no animal mental capacity of a human. You can take an uneducated, secluded person and teach/expose them to the modern world. Modern man has not evolved, he has learned. Catastrophic world events could erase our knowledge from future people. They would simply start the learning process all over again through inquizitivness and curiosity. Knowledge evolution sure, physical evolution..not so sure.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


If that were true the planets would be teeming with life...From what we know that isn't the case..From what we know, not speculate.





new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join