There's Something Very FISHY About Evolution! Smell it here!

page: 6
26
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 01:08 PM
link   
It's 2012 and people are still determined to live in the dark ages. It's truly scary that someone who denies evolution can have a voice in society. You are holding back humankind.




posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by EnochWasRight
 


/facepalm

You clearly don't possess even a basic understanding of how evolution works.

Not worth arguing.



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 01:40 PM
link   


You would think 400 million years is enough time for evolving at least a tiny bit...considering the Dinosaurs are claimed to have went extinct only 60 some odd million years ago.


Actually it had changed... And evolution doesn't state something must change if it's well suited to it's environment.. Hence you are assuming evolution has set rules of what will happen in accordance to what you're expecting..

www.newscientist.com...
news.sciencemag.org...
www.tandfonline.com...

So yes, it did evolve, and today's species isn't the same as it was back then. And it appears to have evolved to survive in very, very deep water environments as apposed to it's former prehistoric self.

Oh and btw, trying to cherry pick examples you have a best shot at for a GOD of the Gaps argument while ignoring those you don't is dishonest and at best intentional ignorance. Sorry, you can't just take a natures oddity and then proclaim victory in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence to which requires you to utterly ignore by intention.. Basically you don't have a problem with lying, and you find that lying is necessary to keep your religious ideology in control, in power, and going. It's called lying for Jesus, and it's so pathetic that it's literally embarrassing to the human species that such people even exist at all. Hence, you people must really hate life, and fear the living hell out of reality in order to do that. When I see people do that, I see a scared child.
edit on 1-8-2012 by TheJackelantern because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 01:55 PM
link   



Is it falsifiable and what could falsify it?

If it's not falsifiable, it is not science.


Wrong.. Falsifiable only means it's testable to determine if something is false or not.. Anything that exists is falsifiable (testable).. And since we don't live in a static existence where nothing changes, alters, decays, ect.. It's a general statement that # changes and many things can change over time to where what once was is no-longer..

However, facts are not falsifiable in the context you are trying to use it. You can test a fact and it will never change being a fact.. If something changes, the fact that this something was what it was before it became what it is now isn't going to make it falsified either.. So you're using a straw-man argument. And I already falsified your argument a while back, and proved why your arguments are pure nonsense..



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 02:10 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 02:19 PM
link   
Both sides of the debate, in this context, are stupid.

Yep.



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Turq1
Both sides of the debate, in this context, are stupid.

Yep.


Actually the stupid one is the one that is self-refuting... I put forth an irrefutable argument, and the stupid is where people are in need of intentional ignorance to convince themselves of their fantasies.. That is stupid, and applicable to stupidity. The arguments I posted are not however as it's defending non-stupid positions, or non-intentionally stupid positions..
edit on 1-8-2012 by TheJackelantern because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by TheJackelantern
 



Both you seem to have a comprehension level of a 1 year old


Is this how you engage in discussion on a regular basis?

Clearly you are unable to keep emotions in check and have a civil conversation. That's too bad I would have enjoyed a discussion I am certain.


Now we wait for the circular irrelevant arguments, continued ignorance, pleading, crying, and


I posed one simple question and all that is warranted and justified. Really. Good grief man.

Anyways. It appears since you already fully know what I could ever possible say there just isn't a point eh?


Let me know when you change your mind.



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by DarknStormy
reply to post by EnochWasRight
 


I thought thought came before the word?


I thought it was my understanding that everyone heard...




posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 03:57 PM
link   



Is this how you engage in discussion on a regular basis?


It's deserving when someone has to repeat something to you several times over while you bother not to listen or take the time to comprehend something before making a reply. You clearly didn't get it when your response seems utterly clueless to the point made. Hence, your response was a self-refutation incoherent to the argument.



Clearly you are unable to keep emotions in check and have a civil conversation. That's too bad I would have enjoyed a discussion I am certain.


Nope, I am being direct and calling you out. If you think it's uncivil, it's more so to engage a discussion with logical fallacies, intentional ignorance, or any other form of dishonest discourse. You're basically crying about having to conform to some level of intellectual integrity.




I posed one simple question and all that is warranted and justified. Really. Good grief man.


Yes it was, because it was a prediction, and a prediction likely to have come true. Annnnd...it did.



Anyways. It appears since you already fully know what I could ever possible say there just isn't a point eh?


It would be irrelevant to the points I made regarding the subject.. You can't say anything without having to abide by the premisses and principles I outlined to start with. So your argument would be moot.
edit on 1-8-2012 by TheJackelantern because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by TheJackelantern
 


Like I said. When you are wanting, and more specifically able, to have a discussion let me know.

Also, are you certain you are not confusing me with other posts. You seem to think you know my argument. Whereas I truly did not present it...at all.

I liked your use of the word 'moot'... that's precisely how I feel about this "discussion".

Congratulations on your victory



Yes it was, because it was a prediction, and a prediction likely to have come true. Annnnd...it did.


Really? Where did I "continued ignorance" "pleading" "crying"?? I made one damn post.

You're ridiculous man
edit on 1-8-2012 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 


If this post is of you sir:


An effect can't. He used the word cause tho Implying that Existence itself being that initial cause.

Really either take is no less mind boggling and bizzare. You asked him what then existed before the big bang, and the obvious retort is what before God. Either way we are faced with some eternal component to reality (Existence if you want). Wether it was a transcendent Godhead or an eternal physical Universe. Either one is magical and impossible in my eyes. I dare call it intelligent stuff ^_^


I then dare say I am not confused. Yes, your own argument ignores the point, misses the point, and is a self-refutation that only proves the point... If you want to continue playing "I'm stupid" games, find some place where that debating tactic actually works..
edit on 1-8-2012 by TheJackelantern because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by TheJackelantern
 


"I am stupid games"?

Where? What? When did I say anything? What the hell are you even going on about? Seriously dude...I feel like you are responding to voices I am not privy to.

Here is the entirety of what you can extrapolate is my 'position' and it is most certainly not telling of the entirety of what my position is. I have lost interest in furthering it with you.


Either way we are faced with some eternal component to reality (Existence if you want). Wether it was a transcendent Godhead or an eternal physical Universe.


But that's it. From that and that alone you have formulated your attack. I already granted you victory. No need for reply.



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 05:17 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by TheJackelantern
 


Sure buddy. I will let you know. As I only have the comprehension of a one year old this might take some time however. I suggest continue being incredibly right all the time in the interim.



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 05:47 PM
link   



Sure buddy. I will let you know. As I only have the comprehension of a one year old this might take some time however. I suggest continue being incredibly right all the time in the interim.


Advice for you.. Reading comprehension helps a great deal when choosing to engage in a debate.. If you can't accomplish that, or take responsibility for your own statements that are entirely incoherent to what was being discussed, especially repetitively, the argument of you being like a 1 year old is a proper analogy whether you find it civil or not. You're aren't talking to someone who's afraid to offend for the sake of intellectual integrity... And the facts I presented aren't going to care what I think either. They as facts are biased little bastards, and sometimes for some people, such facts hurt the EGO or one's fantasies.. I know, I dealt with this problem, and I have no sympathy for those whom can't engage in honest discourse. If you have to lie or be dishonest to protect your beliefs, then there is something fundamentally wrong with them. So you can either throw a tantrum, or you can take the time to seriously engage in a meaningful discussion.

edit on 1-8-2012 by TheJackelantern because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sinny
Hey Enoch, nice to bump into you again,

I found my self very puzzled regarding the subject, it is true everything is by design, I mean like, everything we know exits comes down to some sort of order/equation/formula,

From sacred geometry, numerology, cryptology, the ratio of body parts, the revolutions around the Sun, the flow of the tidle waves,

To, my favourite, bananas being made to peel.

But I don't believe in any God known to any religion on Earth.

I'm stuck


And then of course there is the question of what is life? Energy? Soul? Conciousness?

From what I gather, it is something the mind recieves, but does not create.

One of the main reasons I cannot believe in one single creator, is because I'm curious as to what made the creator? And so on and so forth, like trying to percieve what the first thing to ever exist was.

Thoughts like this make my mind go giddy.

edit on 31-7-2012 by Sinny because: (no reason given)


Our ability to conceptualize is dependent on the reflecting points we have as symbols and metaphors. This doesn't mean these symbols and metaphors do not exist at a higher level than we can perceive. We are limited in a material world from having access to a spiritual world. My reasoning of spirit is consciousness. There should be no reason that information in a consciousness state would need to be limited in any way. It is pure information and information only needs to be rendered into a form for meaning. God limits our world by law. This is why we cannot move past faith into fact. Our awareness is not broad enough by design. My suspicion is that one being exists in another higher dimensional state and this reality of matter is merely a projection of form for the conscious state to render as an artificial reality to its own.

A good metaphor for us to use in this case is our own virtual world. The only thing our virtual world lacks is our own consciousness being implanted in the machine. Until this happens, the characters in the computer have no conscious awareness of self. Since God states clearly that we are HIS image INSIDE his created image of himself, we must assume that his consciousness is our own. We are a division of an unlimited potential. Why do we not have awareness of God directly? God says we are behind the veil. The same veil would be the circuits in the computer for the Sims character. If we could somehow plant our awareness inside the machine, yet retain our own, we would see both sides of the veil. Why can't we do this?

Simple. We are limited to time in a slice. We see frame by frame because we are 3D creatures moving in 4D. Higher dimensions see the lower dimensions in totality. One dimension below sees the one above in a slice. A 2D paper sees a point moving in slices across its plain of existence. A 3D objects sees the sheet of paper as a slice moving it time. A 4D object should see time as we view a 3D object. We must move around to see it. A 4D being would see time as future, present and past in one state. Our 3D objects are 2D objects in slices, like a CT Scan image. A 5D being would exist in a probability state and see all probability affecting the time in the fourth dimension, but in slices of the dimension below. A 6D being would see all probable states that exist from point A to Z.

God is above the entire dimensional state. For him to look at our beginning and end is no problem. He sees our past and future because he sees above the probability state of the fifth dimension.

Let me explain it a different way. Watch this video. LINK

Notice how the flatland characters were unaware of the dimension above. They saw 3D one slice at a time. We are the same. We see 4D one slice at a time.

Fit this into how we make a choice. When our matter (3D) changes states, it does this because of interactions with probability from 5D. 4D is the slice of change that is collapsed form the dimension above the fourth. This is called collapsing wave function. When we make a choice, this choice changes the states of matter around us by movement. Can I drop a rock and it fly up? No. Law governs the probability state. The future is indeterminate, yet we can determine a portion by law by making choices that are governed by law and us. Free will is our ability to use the law to change states of matter. We collapse the indeterminate wave of the fifth dimension into the fourth to make a choice in the 3rd. God is above the fifth and has the ability to use providence. He manages time from beginning to end at one time. As observers, we can only change a slice at a time.

This is why our own conceptualization is limited to slices. Since the world is never the same twice, science is not observing matter. Science can only measure the changes to matter by measuring the law that governs the process. This limits us to a full understanding of how God can see it all at once. Awareness is the key to faith. Expand beyond the material world and into the spiritual where there are no limits.

By seeing how easy it is for us to create a lower reality to us, we can then see how God can create us as a lower reality to himself. Just because we are too dumb to see it clearly does not mean God needs to be like us. Our highest intelligence could merely be one braincell worth of power for a dimensional creature that sees mathematics with advanced mental vision. For all we know, a more advanced being might see mathematics as we see light. Maybe God sees light in all spectrum. We are limited to the rainbow. This doesn't mean other beings can't see beyond.

I would assume fallen beings like us are limited for a reason. We must be taught as children. This is precisely what God says. We are in a mirror image and being taught by a Father as a child. If you are the image here, this means the real you casting the image is somewhere else.

1 Corinthians 13

11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. 12 For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.



edit on 1-8-2012 by EnochWasRight because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by squiz
I've a question for the devout followers of the modern synthesis religion.

Is it falsifiable and what could falsify it?

If it's not falsifiable, it is not science.

Hmm... I bet no one will answer this one, far too dangerous
edit on 1-8-2012 by squiz because: (no reason given)


Your premise is incorrect. Both religion and science are studies of governed law. Science says that there is no governor. Religion says that the governor left us the blueprint for the designs of the reality for us to read. The question then becomes one for both science and religion to answer as witnesses of the law. Science is observing matter to determine law. Matter has never been the same twice. We can't verify that matter will behave the way we observe apart form the laws being fixed. Once a law is changed in any way, the matter behaves in an entirely unique way. Science bases it's entire foundation on believing that the law is fixed and immutable. It verifies this with observation of matter behaving in predictable patterns.

Religion is the same study, only on the plain of behavior of beings by law. Proverbs are merely restatements of natural law. The point is not what is studied, but what governs the changing states of matter. We merely look for the explanation that best describes the problem of finding the governor. First, we need to be sure of the law. God's law in the Bible covers our philosophical observation. Science covers direct observation of matter. Other branches of science observe economics, psychology and so on. If the Bible can be shown to be inconsistent with law, then we eliminate it from a source. The problem is, we cannot eliminate it. It keeps forcing us to redefine the observation according to paths it already laid out for us in the past. In other words, it continues to rise as our understanding of it rises. Science is on the same path forward with religion.

Here is all of quantum mechanics and the nature of light form the Bible.

All we know is Time, Space, Matter and Energy.

Genesis 1:1

In the Beginning (Time), God created the heavens (Space) and the earth (Matter). Let there be light (Energy).

We exist in an image of God's reality and WE are THE image of God as well. We are INSIDE the image he created with energy.

Genesis 1

1:27 So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

He calls energy light. We call enlightenment understanding. Leonard Susskind, eminent scientist, calls energy INFORMATION. VIDEO

I can verify what he says with one set of verses.

John 1

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

As stated in the OP, an acorn is DNA and has an enfolded Oak Tree within. Was it just a lucky guess when the Bible stated that God is light and that Light is Wave and Consciousness collapsing particle by WORD? This is precisely what our computer does behind the scenes.

As I have shown clearly in this thread, we are rendered energy by Word. Nobody has touched this fact. Why is that? Anyone care to comment on the video below?

I could fill this thread with all the facts like this that cannot be reasoned away. How can we still doubt? God is so clear on the facts that it would take a great deal more faith not to believe than simply see it for what it is.



edit on 1-8-2012 by EnochWasRight because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 06:42 PM
link   

our ability to conceptualize is dependent on the reflecting points we have as symbols and metaphors. This doesn't mean these symbols and metaphors do not exist. We are limited in a material world from having access to a spiritual world. My reasoning of spirit is consciousness.


This is 100 percent an appeal to ignorance. And there can only be a material world as things made of nothing can't exist or have any informational value. And it matter not if you want to call consciousness "spiritual", you're just trying to rename it as if it would magically change what it is...



There should be no reason that information in a consciousness state would need to be limited in any way. It is pure information and information only needs to be rendered into a form for meaning.


Yes there is a reason it is limited. And your own statement proves it and highlights it. You're basically trying to convert exactly what I stated regarding why consciousness can't exist without cause into meaning it's not limited when it is. It seems you are calling information GOD, and not that which requires it to even know itself exists GOD.. You're refuting yourself here.. Simply put, you are admitting that without information or the inertia of it, there is no conscious state, or this very universe. Information is then being stated as "Cause", to which comes in the form of energy. This to where energy and information are two sides of the same coin, and the conscious state is an emergent property through the processes and systems that produce it. You are an energy being made of atoms, and atoms made of energy. If you want to call that a "spirit", or a soul, feel free to do so. But keep in mind, cognitive systems are highly complex.. Just to support the cognitive level of a flea is immensely complex. And the only thing that sets the laws is existence itself regardless is set through conscious or unconscious processes.


God limits our world by law.


If you are referring to existence itself as GOD, then you would be right.. If not, then you are entirely wrong.


Our awareness is not broad enough by design.


This again is a self-refuting argument. How does one design awareness into existence without first requiring it? Awareness by design can only come from the study of awareness, how it works, and how it naturally emerges. But it can't just be created into existence by something that requires it.. It's this very issue that is collapsing your entire argument and position.. And without an informational system with feedback, there is no possibility of "awareness",,, All things that exist, especially conscious entities, are evolutionary emergent properties of this system to which is self-generating..They system that governs all other systems to which includes the cognitive system. It's fundamentally irrefutable and it can't happen in any other way.



My suspicion is that one being exists in another higher dimensional state and this reality of matter is merely a projection of form for the conscious state to render as an artificial reality to its own.


Again a fail to understand the principles of foundation. Higher dimensional states can't exist without the lower states. No different than why 10 apples can't exist without the 9 other apples to which includes the 10th apple. And even if existence was one giant brain, the conscious state or any projection for that matter can't exist without cause. Or the inertia of information within a self-generating system with feedback. Even Solipsism would be subject to defeat regarding this subject.

So it matters not if you think this universe is a hologram, simulation, or emergent according to the big bang theory. This universe isn't even relevant to the discussion.. :/ Occam's Razor is equally bound and ruled by the very premises I outlined.
edit on 1-8-2012 by TheJackelantern because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 07:07 PM
link   
BTW Enoch, thanks for the video as it's a good video concerning information science.. However, the video is out dated with recent physics concerning information escaping black-holes. Nor can information be destroyed by them like some used to believe. but other than that, it's more in lines with exactly what I have told you vs what you were trying to plead for. :/ So let's break it down to a statement I already made to someone else who claimed science or atheism was magically the belief we call came from "Nothing"... Well here was the response I presented:

Nothing in science or in physics would be considered a pure vacuum to which is an energy state devoid of particles, stars, galaxies, you, me ect. It's regarded as a highly unstable state to where a quantum fluctuation could cause an inflation event you know as the Big bang. And there was no "Explosion"..It was in inflationary event. Like blowing of a bubble in a bubble bath as an analogy... And it can happen for the simple fact that energy interferes with itself.

Some key terms to look up and understand:

* Zero point Energy:
en.wikipedia.org...

* Ground state:
en.wikipedia.org...

* Vacuum Energy:
en.wikipedia.org...

* And everything follows the orders of magnitude on the energy scale:
talklikeaphysicist.com...

And once you learn those basic things.. You can reference why space itself is an energy state..This to Which brings us to "Mass Density":



The mass density or density of a material is defined as its mass per unit volume. The symbol most often used for density is ρ (the Greek letter rho). In some cases (for instance, in the United States oil and gas industry), density is also defined as its weight per unit volume;[1] although, this quantity is more properly called specific weight.


The density value of the vacuum is that of empty space. Thus the vacuum In terms of mass density, its absolute value is less than 10-26 kilograms per cubic meter. In terms of energy density, this is about 10-9 joules per cubic meter. If you go by more recent measurements by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe and the many other experiments, they converge on a positive cosmological constant, equal to roughly 7 × 10-27 kilograms per cubic meter. This corresponds to a positive energy density of about 6 × 10-10 joules per cubic meter. Yes, that good old orders of magnitude on the energy scale we talked about earlier


Energy can neither be created nor destroyed in science..I even wrote a Laymen description of what science is basically telling you through empirical and well founded observations.. So here is the laymen break down:

E = Existence = Energy = information = force = cause = emergent properties = The Big Bang, the stars, the galaxies, you, him, her, me, and everything else.

Or:

E = Existence
E = Energy
E = Everywhere
E = Emergence or Emerging properties
E = MC^2
E = Evolution
E = Everything
E = Everyone
E = Me to

And if you like, E = easy to understand without having to go into Everything E can do, or how E does Everything it can do. E is thus the only Established and Empirically supported truth we have thus far. E Enables us to do the things we do, and be who we are. And without E there is nothing, no Existence, no me, no you, not anything. And well, it's good to know that E exists simply because nothing can't. It's good to know that E can neither be created nor destroyed. This means we will Exist in some form or another regardless of what happens after death. E is even every letter in the alphabet since it is the Energy that makes up the very Essence of Every letter.

E Explains itself and is self-Explanatory.. It's also Eternal, and gives us the ability to Even have Emotion..

It's simply "E"

Or in more simple terms, Origins can only be found in what you are made of..And even scientists know you can't be made of nothing (that which doesn't exist).. Energy is value of what everything is made of, and that includes itself. And there is only 1 force left to be unified with the 3 other forces. And that is gravity... And we know that is going to involve energy as well. Reality is a self generating system.. And you get higher complex from interacting forces to which make up a complex adaptive self-generating system with feedback.. And this very exact system is also entirely required to support complex cognitive systems that would be required to support a conscious state.. To demonstrate..We only need watch this video:

www.youtube.com...



And then you can also reference this:

* Conscious Mechanical Self-Organization
www.sourceintegralis.org...

Abstract

The evolution of consciousness is seen in the context of energy driven evolution in general, where energy and information are understood as two sides of the same coin. From this perspective consciousness is viewed as an ecological system in which streams of cognitive, perceptual, and emotional information form a rich complex of interactions, analogous to the interactive metabolism of a living cell. The result is an organic, self-generating, or autopoietic, system, continuously in the act of creating itself. Evidence suggests that this process is chaotic, or at least chaotic-like, and capable of assuming a number of distinct states best understood as chaotic attractors




edit on 1-8-2012 by TheJackelantern because: (no reason given)
edit on 1-8-2012 by TheJackelantern because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
26
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join