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.

 

The Lie of Evolution from a Credible Scientist

page: 7
26
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by EnochWasRight
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 



Take a look at how "evolutionary algorithms" can create code which is beyond our comprehension.


That's programming and programming comes from code that is written, not accidentally put together randomly. Choice must be involved. Algorithms do not create.
Actually the evolutionary algorithms do put code together randomly, over and over until the code does something useful... that is the whole freaking point... but since you haven't even grasped this one simple concept I see no point wasting my time replying to or even reading your following points. Good day.

edit: ok I lied, I couldn't help but read your entire post just to see what you had to say, and I feel it's necessary to reply to one more of your points;


What produced the energy and the perfection in law that is necessary to have life? Why these laws and no others.

So you are asking where all the energy in the Universe came from? The Big Bang no doubt, the evidence is more than clear on that... but no one really knows how the energy was actually created or what sparked the Big Bang. And this is where you're starting to have a real argument. Of course the Big Bang may have been sparked by some sort of intelligence, I can admit that much...

However, what has happened after the Big Bang is purely coincidental which ever way you look at it, pure chaos and undeterministic probabilities. If there is such a God that sparked the creation of our Universe, there is not a single doubt in my mind that the Universe was left to develop on it's own, in it's own natural way to exhibit it's own natural beauty and unexpected probabilities.

Life is an inevitable occurrence when given enough time, the probably may be mind-bogglingly low, but you cannot deny the possibility exists. The most wonderful and awe inspiring creations are ones formed by absurd possibilities and magical occurrences. If there is a God, the Universe is simply his experiment, he does not actively create and design, he watches in amazement as the Universe creates it's self based and the simple underlying laws it started with.

Evolution is a natural logical process that cannot be denied, for it is absolutely real and it's effect are in work as we speak right now. It is processes like evolution that would allow the potential God to experience things beyond what he can create, possibly even things beyond his own comprehension. Just as we can provide that spark which allows computers to develop code and solutions to complex problem all on their own, code that is beyond our comprehension.
edit on 21-3-2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 




Actually the evolutionary algorithms do put code together randomly, that is the whole freaking point... but since you haven't even grasped this one simple concept I see no point wasting my time replying to or even reading your following points. Good day.


Nature offers many building blocks, few of which are the best fit when it comes to optimal components for life itself. Nature offers no intelligent process to back this up in an intelligent way with simple, single celled life. We also know that the first cells use chemiosmosis. This negates the simple word in single cells. Simple is not what we see. Deriving ATP over the membrane of the cell is not some random chemical reaction. It is a function of a motor and mechanism that leads to a purpose. Examine those simple cells closer, as we can now do, and there is way more to the industrial complex of the cell than first met our eye. Chemiosmosis also banished the idea of the primordial goo of evolution. I'm sorry to say, but intelligence is necessary to complete any chain of information to form and function with meaning, let alone an entire universe that is interdependent on the whole to manage the sum of the parts.

Consult this article to see that I am correct. Using a computer to simulate evolution shows that the processing is necessary to evaluate the design on an ongoing basis. The machine comes from consciousness, as do the laws that govern the process. If you really want to test this out, put some building blocks on a table and wait for them to form a working machine. Keep the processing of the computer out of the equation. Wait for it. Nope. No matter can form itself into a human over time apart from a designer working on the states of matter by collapsing wave function.


Evaluating Transitional Forms

The relatively simple selection criterion (horizontal movement) required the computer simulator to evaluate about 100,000 designs. Selection criteria for a biological organism are far more complex and multifarious; many more designs would have to be explored randomly before a workable design for a living organism could emerge.

If the evolutionary process were at work in nature, multitudinous transitional designs would connect various organisms. Therefore, a large number of transitional creatures should appear in the fossil record. The near absence of transitional forms, one of the hallmark features of the fossil record, 4 stands in sharp contrast to the expectations of evolution.
Rearranging Designs

Efficient search among the robotic design possibilities appears to be dependent upon the dramatic rearrangement of designs with each generation. The algorithm employed by the Brandeis researchers modified, deleted, added, and relocated the components of successful designs after each round of evaluations. In biological systems, no mechanism exists to produce these dramatic changes. Rather, the mechanism that produces biological change (mutations) can only yield small variations on existing biological features.


Evolution is left with the same problem: One of explaining the mechanism of programming behind the universe and the laws of Quantum Physics that underlay the machine that keeps it all running.

LINK
edit on 21-3-2012 by EnochWasRight because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by EnochWasRight
 



Examine those simple cells closer, as we can now do, and there is way more to the industrial complex of the cell than first met our eye.

Their complexity says nothing about how they were created. You need to understand that.


I'm sorry to say, but intelligence is necessary to complete any chain of information to form and function with meaning
Meaning? You seem to be confused... living systems have no inherent meaning, their only "goal" is to propagate and reproduce... they must have this instinct or they will die. Of course the very first life forms probably didn't have this instinct, but it was developed because evolution decided a species was more fit to survive with this instinct, thus the trait prevailed. The rest of the "meaningful" functions are simply more complex functions built on top of that in order to further our ability to survive.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 




So you are asking where all the energy in the Universe came from? The Big Bang no doubt, the evidence is more than clear on that... but no one really knows how the energy was actually created or what sparked the Big Bang. And this is where you're starting to have a real argument. Of course the Big Bang may have been sparked by some sort of intelligence, I can admit that much...


That's right, evolution does not know. We do, however, have an ancient document that tells us where it originated. Not only this, but it backs it up with a valid comparison to our own view of Quantum Mechanics and Physics. Read my earlier posts and I demonstrate this. Also, Susskind demonstrates below. Please comment on Susskind. He backs me on this subject. Energy and entropy come from information in movement. Consciousness is the only thing that can move information to form with purpose. Nothing else in our experience tells us any different. We can make up grandiose theory, but when the theory does not match what we can verify by experience, observation and a document that is an enigma to the entire process, we have truth emerging as wisdom from the knowledge we witness. What of Susskind? So far, no person here dares to mention this video?

He is really clear on the points I make about energy and information being part of the quanta of light duality. Light is not a duality. It's a trinity of particle, wave and consciousness. We also have other documents that point this out. Hermes states it in two places. The Emerald Tablet and the Corpus Hermeticum.

Emerald Tablet and Strong and Weak Nuclear Force

Corpus Hermeticum and Matter as Thought




edit on 21-3-2012 by EnochWasRight because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by EnochWasRight

As you derail, I'll keep asking for you to provide some context. So far, incredulity has not provided a shred of evidence for evolution. Care to answer the video below with some sort of a response that contains meaning from a platform of reason and rationality? The problem is this: Susskind ends the lie of evolution with the knowledge that entropy is information in movement. Consciousness is the preexistence of information that gives life to matter in form. Show your bias as you wish to express it, but this does not change the facts of this thread as being demonstrated with validity against evolution. The theory is dead. Evolution is a result and not a cause. Dawkins is wrong.



If you think I'm going to take the time to respond to someone else's argument in someone else's video, you're sorely mistaken 'superior' enoch.

I will say this however, if Susskind has indeed shown that the theory of evolution is a 'lie', then he had better be prepared to become the most famous person on the planet in a very short amount of time. Nobel awards, TV spots and lecture circuits await!

But then the video was posted in November of last year, and as far as I know the theory of evolution is still considered to be a cornerstone of biological science, and Susskind has not become a world famous scientist.

This along with your habit of cherry picking what to reply to and what not to reply to, is consistent with the dishonest theme found throughout your posts.

However, I am willing to say it seems I was wrong in regards to the circumstances surrounding your ban, and I apologise.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by EnochWasRight
That's right, evolution does not know. We do, however, have an ancient document that tells us where it originated. Not only this, but it backs it up with a valid comparison to our own view of Quantum Mechanics and Physics. Read my earlier posts and I demonstrate this.


I see this tossed about all the time. Let's be very clear here about something: evolution is not a cosmological theory.

Do you understand what that means? It is not a theory about cosmology. Cosmology is concerned with the origins of the physical universe. Evolution is concerned with biological origins and progressions.

Evolution is also not a theory about biogenesis. It does not attempt to explain HOW life came into being.

It's frustrating to see religious believers consistently misunderstand these scientific theories and then attempt to argue against strawmen.

Finally, please leave Quantum physics alone. It has been so often misappropriated and misinterpreted as the pet theory of just about every New Age guru around solely because at a cursory glance it seems spooky and magical. I absolutely promise you that not a single person in ATS understands quantum physics to any appreciable degree. Unless they're a quantum physicist, of course.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 




Meaning? You seem to be confused... living systems have no inherent meaning, their only "goal" is to propagate and reproduce... they must have this instinct or they will die. Of course the very first life forms probably didn't have this instinct, but it was developed because evolution decided a species was more fit to survive with this instinct, thus the trait prevailed. The rest of the "meaningful" functions are simply more complex functions built on top of that in order to further our ability to survive.


To possess a goal, matter must have selfrealization. Are you sure you are founding your premise on what is observed. Matter cannot think and value one thing over another under your premise, yet the premise then lies to you and says that it can. The word probably should not be used when drawing an implication like evolution is a cause and not a result of a cause. Evolution can only be a result form a cause. If we new how God became conscious, we would then know something about Him. Since nothing in nature reflects him by direct observation, we lack the simple answer behind where God came from. Infinity cannot make sense to finite creatures. There cannot be a finite number of infinite things. There cannot be an infinite number of finite things. Time is finite. Man is finite. God is eternal. Immortal man is infinite by transition. God is permanent and eternal. Again, we have no way to reflect on this truth. We only know that it is the only conclusion. Logic leads us there as well as our observations of infinity in nature.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 01:46 PM
link   
I think alot of new age talk comes from the fact that; most ppl would love to hold firm to a certain truth. Truths cannot be certain. Information come from within. When we pre-decide what it is we are looking for, (in *this* cases God), we have already closed ourselves off to further investigation and are compelled to a philosophy of ignorance!

Beliefs should be tentative at best! Truths can undergo change! It's better to approach the world with the fascination of uncertainty!

Just my thoughts...
edit on 21-3-2012 by ConspiracyFearist22 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by EnochWasRight
 





We do, however, have an ancient document that tells us where it originated.


The same book claiming people can survive in whales...which you oh so conveniently keep on ignoring


There's a TON demonstrably wrong with the bible, so using it as objective evidence (or even worse, main proof) is crazy.

You're being incredibly disingenious in this thread, especially with crazy statements like the one below:




light is not simply particle and wave, but also consciousness.


No proof, no evidence, nothing to really back up that statement...yet you simply pretend it's a fact and the truth. That's the very definition of god of the gaps. You fill a gap in knowledge with god

edit on 21-3-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 02:35 PM
link   
This again? I don't understand why people are so set on the claim that complexity has anything to do with design. That is pure speculation and has no evidence whatsoever to back it up. If god is complex enough to design an entire universe, then who created god?



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 

In the beginning God.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikeprodigy
reply to post by Barcs
 

In the beginning God.



= preaching

And NOT fact



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 02:58 PM
link   
What people forget about complexity are the billions of years that were required to get there.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 02:59 PM
link   
Ok so as I understand it thus far (granted I haven't read the entire thread).

Op used the conception to birth vid to show the complexity of life, but then throws quantum physics into the mix, and just for added effect the holographic principle


Why ???

None of this debunks evolution, any more that it say's "God" is the creator.

The holographic principle runs on the premise that we aren't even physical, but a projected image of information.
The complexity of conception to birth is explained by DNA (information), and stem cells, you know those clever dudes that can be any cell in the body.

So yeah anyway....as you were



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 03:07 PM
link   
Why? Because even though people of faith would tell you they don't need proof for their beliefs (and why would they? It's faith, after all), they won't hesitate to snatch up any pseudo-scientific notion that can possibly be mashed into something that even remotely approximates supporting evidence.

It's the Woo Woo Effect.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 03:15 PM
link   
What always surprises me is that most people seem to believe either:

a) God created the universe and everything in it directly
or
b) Everything evolved through 'natural' processes (both living and non-living things)

I don't have an absolute belief in any one universal theory, but I do disbelieve both of these. One of the most simple possibilities I believe might be "the answer" is that we have natural evolution coupled with "interference" from God/TheGods/Whatever, resulting in humans. In that theory, God created man, but evolution is real too. Why is that so impossible for what seems like 99% of people to believe?

Then again, the whole thing could be effectively a simulation, or we could be self-replicating biological machines, left behind as remnants from an earlier version of humanity who left Earth to explore the stars. Who knows? All I know is that there are far more than those two possibilities at the top of my post, and I think that those on both sides of that argument are spinning themselves in circles, hiding from any possibility of one day finding the truth.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by EnochWasRight
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
As I said before, not one shred of evidence has ever been produced by an evolutionary scientist for this reasoning. They simply say, we DON"T know.



There are no examples. He is stumped because there is no obvious answer that has ever been observed other than the theory that it must happen. This is the hardest answer to give when the simplest answer is already available. We are programmed. It's all conjecture from the evolutionist. With an answer like a creator, we are on the right trail for the proper basis for what the data actually suggests. Evolution is DEAD as a theory.


Clearly, you do no research behind anything. When you watched this video I'm sure you could see the related video on the side explaining how this was a hoax. Either you watched it and decided to leave that out(which would mean you're intentionally repeating lies), or you just ignored it because you know it didn't match your world view(Bias, Bias, Bias). Or, maybe you didn't see it, and never did any research behind this specific claim you're making(Unreliable).

You may pick which of those 3 you are. I however, feel bad for those who only see the embedded video, and not see the comments and related videos exposing the lie. Therefor, I am going to provide the information here so that, regardless of what you believe, others can not fall for that trick.

Response blog post, by Richard Dawkins


With hindsight — given that I had been suckered into admitting them into my house in the first place — it might have been wiser simply to answer the question. But I like to be understood whenever I open my mouth — I have a horror of blinding people with science — and this was not a question that could be answered in a soundbite.

*Goes on to answer the question, in full detail.*


~
Realize that, even if you mean well, posting false material makes it so that no one can trust anything you say or post without background checking it, making you very much less persuasive. Also, if you have such a low criteria for accepting arguments against evolution that you buy into demonstrable falsehoods, you have no way of knowing which if not all the other ones you subscribe to are false. That is, if the difference between "knowing" you're right and "believing" you are matters to you at all.

~
Ignoring for a second that there is an answer. You're proposing that an argument out of ignorance is better than acknowledging that you don't know something. Which is in itself, purely ridiculous.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Prezbo369
 




I will say this however, if Susskind has indeed shown that the theory of evolution is a 'lie', then he had better be prepared to become the most famous person on the planet in a very short amount of time. Nobel awards, TV spots and lecture circuits await!


Maybe you are not paying attention. Susskind backs me that entropy is information that is in movement. Energy is not what we know by the surface of what we see. The entire universe is information, just as a hologram projection would require. Susskind only backs me on the notion that matter is not dead or lifeless. Rather, it is consciousness producing matter. Susskind is good here in this video. He does not draw the conclusion of evolution. I merely say the obvious. Evolution is the result, not the cause. Science lies to us with evolution on THIS ONE point. Evolution says matter originates consciousness. There was a day and age when this seemed plausible. No longer. We now know that one is not possible apart from the other.

You are seeing science slowly come around. It's possible you do not see it. I am merely trying to help you view it the way I do. If you have another view, simply share it and contradict my own view with some scinece. Tell me the way it is. Please. Do share.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by xxsomexpersonxx
 


His comments have been rebutted. No need for me to do his thinking for him. He can come here to defend himself. You have done a good job as well. Here the rebuttal.

[www.discovery.org...]LINK[/url]

Another




posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by dogstar23
What always surprises me is that most people seem to believe either:

a) God created the universe and everything in it directly
or
b) Everything evolved through 'natural' processes (both living and non-living things)

I don't have an absolute belief in any one universal theory, but I do disbelieve both of these. One of the most simple possibilities I believe might be "the answer" is that we have natural evolution coupled with "interference" from God/TheGods/Whatever, resulting in humans. In that theory, God created man, but evolution is real too. Why is that so impossible for what seems like 99% of people to believe?

Then again, the whole thing could be effectively a simulation, or we could be self-replicating biological machines, left behind as remnants from an earlier version of humanity who left Earth to explore the stars. Who knows? All I know is that there are far more than those two possibilities at the top of my post, and I think that those on both sides of that argument are spinning themselves in circles, hiding from any possibility of one day finding the truth.


I am only concerned in this thread with the lie of saying evolution is a cause. For sure, evolution takes place. The difference I am responding to here is this: Evolution is a result, not a cause. This is a fundamental switch in the reflection that science uses to prop up the lie. We are affected by choice, chance and the actions of others. For the believer, chance is God's choice and providence. Free will demands that choice can be made. Collapsing the indeterminate wave is available because God allows the choice to be made. We do not make our hair grow, our eyes see or the sun shine. We have little to do with the mechanism of the universe. We only do tow things. One is dependent on the other. We think and we move. That's it. Humans can only claim these two as our own. EVERYTHING else is provided.

Further, we have never observed matter twice. We have never been in the same space twice. The earth moves and the galaxy moves. We have never been anywhere more than once. Science claims repeated observation. This is simply not possible. What we can do is describe the law of light by observation from the reflection. Law does not change. Matter changes, but law does not. The only thing that can be seen and studied is the invisible law that guides the matter around us so that we can do the two things we are capable of doing. At best, we know that our thought and movement demonstrate that we have no part in the production. We can change the states of matter for purpose, but only by law. As a paradox, we are part of the light around us as we collapse the wave. The wave is also collapsed for us. It takes consciousness to realize and it takes consciousness to make a choice. Consciousness is the key, not matter.

For me, this is a good starting point. What follows to my conclusions results from evidence God provides in the Bible and in nature by demonstration and reflection. Science provides a third perspective that agrees. Once I have a broader perspective, the symbols in nature then show up in all the other ancient writings of mankind as mirror to the rest. Rumi the Sufi, Buddha, Lou Tau, Solomon and all the rest say the same thing. They observe nature and law with description in symbol from the observation. Proverbs are merely natural law described. If this, then this. Science is the same. The Bible is different. It goes beyond.

When a man in a cave says that 666 would represent the beast that is killing our world and that this beast is a mark of mankind, I notice an element that is out of place. Carbon has 6 electrons, 6 protons and 6 neutrons. Carbon is the mark of life. Carbon is in the center of the garden (earth) as stated in Genesis. It is the mechanism that marks our commerce and technology and the reason we are losing our atmosphere. When the carbon chokes out the nitrogen (777) and oxygen (888), the plant will release the methane. When this happens, earth will become hell and fire. Did God say this in so many words? Did he say that overcoming the beast was the answer? YES.

I can verify what he said by history. John in the cave could not. How do we explain? The Bible knows the future before we do. This is all the evidence I really need to see God for being true to his WORD. Jesus is part of this image God produces so that we can be translated from the image to the spirit (pure consciousness).



edit on 21-3-2012 by EnochWasRight because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join