Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 9
26
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 03:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheJackelantern
No I saw it...and it's something often breached here on these forums..



So you acknowledge you broke the T&C you agreed to and yet you ponder why you were penalized for it


Are you being obtuse to get a rise?

You go on and on about your noble cause. Truth doesn't care. Intellectual integrity. Honest discourse.

The truth of the matter is despite your intelligence and your contributions you are coming across as an arrogant jerk and making conversation with you very difficult. You can reduce that down to our inability to comprehend and we are all 1 year olds in your all-mighty eyes but at the end of the day if you want to be a part of this community (or any I would hope) you need to TRY and understand you are NOT being civil.....




posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 04:22 AM
link   



So you acknowledge you broke the T&C you agreed to and yet you ponder why you were penalized for it


Are you being obtuse to get a rise?


How am I pondering the penalization? I found the point system of interest regarding it. I don't put the T&C before intellectual integrity. And many don't..Just read threw the forums and you can find how thin that line is. Especially in this forum topic..



You go on and on about your noble cause. Truth doesn't care. Intellectual integrity. Honest discourse.


Yep...you're starting to get the point...the T&C is only in my perspective something to consider, but I will not necessarily follow it and be forced to respect intellectual dishonesty. Like I said, if you think I am going to respect someone who's dishonest, you're fooling yourself.



The truth of the matter is despite your intelligence and your contributions you are coming across as an arrogant jerk and making conversation with you very difficult.


Too bad. And I say that because the ultimate case of arrogance and disrespect is often rooted in those whom are intellectually dishonest. Especially those whom are so by pure intention. It's like someone playing the victim when called out on their dishonesty. I for example am no victim as I did violate the T&C for the sake of standing up for intellectual integrity as many people often do on a normal basis. The worst thing to a meaningful and respectful discussion begins with dishonest, dishonest discourse, and the application of fallacy arguments.



You can reduce that down to our inability to comprehend and we are all 1 year olds in your all-mighty eyes but at the end of the day if you want to be a part of this community (or any I would hope) you need to TRY and understand you are NOT being civil.....


When it's clearly being displayed, yes..And it's an analogy, and observation of that behavior.. It doesn't mean your general comprehension ability is that of a 1 year old, it's just that such dishonest and intentional behavior is. You either engage in honest discourse or you don't. And it's fair to say that those who don't are being childish, disrespectful, and not interested in a meaningful discussion.. And that was the point being made. And if that violated the T&C, and I get penalized for it, well that is what happens... However, my post had more to do with an interesting observation of the ATS point system. You can take what you want from that..


So give me some reasons why I should ever respect intellectual dishonesty..
edit on 2-8-2012 by TheJackelantern because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 04:24 AM
link   
reply to post by TheJackelantern
 



If you think I should respect a dishonest person's behavior and lack of intellectual integrity because they "predate" me, you're living in la la land.. :/


You are taking this out of context or simply didn't understand.

Your wording suggested you have contributed more than us.

I was showing you how absurd that position is in light of the time we have been members. So yes predating you by years is very much a fair response to that. How can you say you, a very new member, have contributed more than many of us who have been contributing for years more than yourself.

Meh.


So give me some reasons why I should ever respect intellectual dishonesty..


You are asking me to accept the premise there was intellectual dishonesty on my part to begin with.

Sorry.

I don't.

If you stopped to breathe perhaps I would have been allowed a chance to communicate my 'discourse'

*edited to add: You're a lost cause right now. I am sorry you don't understand. Good luck with ATS. For now I will put my attention elsewhere.
edit on 2-8-2012 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 04:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by TheJackelantern
 



If you think I should respect a dishonest person's behavior and lack of intellectual integrity because they "predate" me, you're living in la la land.. :/


You are taking this out of context or simply didn't understand.

Your wording suggested you have contributed more than us.

I was showing you how absurd that position is in light of the time we have been members. So yes predating you by years is very much a fair response to that. How can you say you, a very new member, have contributed more than many of us who have been contributing for years more than yourself.

Meh.
edit on 2-8-2012 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)


Wrong, I was referencing those who are being intellectually dishonest. You're quote mining me again, and trying to twist what I said.. So again you are behaving like ______



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 04:40 AM
link   
reply to post by TheJackelantern
 



Wrong, I was referencing those who are being intellectually dishonest.


No. Right.

You referenced me (in addition to others). You have said more than once I was intellectually dishonest.

I predate your membership by almost a decade.

I'm starting to think you don't read your own posts. This is tiresome. I am not gonna play these games.

I started this with a simple post which included a simple question or you that I was genuinely interested in ur feedback on. You immediately resorted to personal attack. It's just silly. You can intellectualize this all day. Proof is on the screen.
edit on 2-8-2012 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 04:50 AM
link   



No. Right.

You referenced me (in addition to others). You have said more than once I was intellectually dishonest.


Yep.. You quote mined me and even yourself, and I did mention this applies to anyone whom is being intellectually dishonest. Intentional ignorance falls into this as well and becomes rather obvious after being repetitive in a discussion.



I predate your membership by more then a decade.


So what, that's utterly meaningless when it comes to integrity of your or anyone's arguments on any given subject.



I'm starting to think you don't read your own posts. This is tiresome. I am not gonna play these games.


which post do you think that is?



I started this with a simple post which included a simple question or you that I was genuinely interested in ur feedback on. You immediately resorted to personal attack. It's just silly. You can intellectualize this all day. Proof is on the screen.


Really now.. please outline the key points of my posts with quotation and then quote your own post and show us where your post seems to adhere to addressing the points I had made. I don't have a problem with people asking questions, I have a problem with people not honestly reading my posts, fail to address the points and then make statements that are not coherent to them.. It becomes a bigger problem when it becomes repetitive behavior.. "/ So when I call it out, usually that means it would be more meaningful if you would actually address a post on a point by point basis.
edit on 2-8-2012 by TheJackelantern because: (no reason given)
edit on 2-8-2012 by TheJackelantern because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 05:13 AM
link   
reply to post by TheJackelantern
 



So what, that's utterly meaningless when it comes to integrity of your or anyone's arguments on any given subject.


Again completely out of context....

As for the other comments. It's so very rare I don't want to respond. Congratz man you accomplished what many cannot. This is why I said good luck on ATS. What I meant was good luck keeping people interested in debate with your approach.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 05:46 AM
link   


Again completely out of context....


Then please clarify the context of your statement regarding people being here longer.. :/ It seems we are not on the same page regarding that context.


As for the other comments. It's so very rare I don't want to respond. Congratz man you accomplished what many cannot. This is why I said good luck on ATS. What I meant was good luck keeping people interested in debate with your approach.


Dishonest people aren't interested in a meaningful debate. You could hardly call them debates. And no, people who are interested in learning will seek out meaningful debates on subjects such as this. And why would I want someone dishonest to continue in a debate they do not contribute to? When something goes into pure ignorance, there is nothing of interest in it. I'm not the only person here that directly addresses those who are dishonest. Take a trip to the abiogeneis thread.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 06:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheJackelantern

Then please clarify the context of your statement regarding people being here longer.. :/ It seems we are not on the same page regarding that context.


This is what you said.


Standing up for honest discourse isn't without it's cost even though I've posted far more contributing material to this fora than those whom are so intentionally dishonest.


That's the context.

Again are you trying to be obtuse for a rise?

You accused many of us (including myself) of being intellectually dishonest ergo we are included in that post. That post states you have contributed more than said members. Hence my bringing up the length of time being members and the obvious logic that follows, the obvious absurdity that you a very new member have contributed 'far more'.

That's the post. That's what I was responding to. Stop pretending you're not fully cognizant of what you're doing.


Dishonest people aren't interested in a meaningful debate. You could hardly call them debates.


Agreed.
edit on 2-8-2012 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 06:22 AM
link   
reply to post by raiders247
 


Except that everything appears to be designed! LOL



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 07:21 AM
link   
Perhaps we can get back to the actual subject in the OP? One of the big problems with this forum is that the subject drifts completely away from the topic presented. As well as the emotional insulting tone that accompanies the objections. I'm guilty too, sometimes.

The internal compass is a challenge to conventual evolutionary thought. It is in essence an argument of the arrangement of independant parts collectively working together. Much like an engine or motor there are core elements that are essential to the functionality. Natural selection does not work unless there are functions to select upon.

Here's a beautifully simple anology of the problem.


There does not seem to be any direct lineages for any molecular machines that I can find. The TSIII system that was said to be intermediate to the flagella is now known to have emerged later completely demolishing Ken Millers argument that can be found all over the net. In fact the TSIII system itself presents the same problem.
And yet this is the main reason people think the argument is over.

I have reveiwed several papers now including the ones posted here and none of them are conclusive. Some homology in proteins is infered. Comparisons to other IC systems such as ATP synthase. This looks a bit like that and so on. Co-opting is the standard proposal it seems, even though the subsystems can sometimes represent the same problem. Co-opting sub systems seems to be an intelligent process, IMO. and perhaps the only way to do it. Perhaps on the part of the cell? Who knows? In fact no one knows.

Yet people want to state that it has been settled there is no argument. Stories substitute for the scientific method. Stories are hypothesis, there is nothing wrong with that. You have to start somewhere. But what we are seeing when people make this absolute claim is scientsm and not actual science.

To claim it is resolved is DISHONEST. There are hundreds of these sort of systems, there are thousands of molecular machines. The fact is there is no real tangible pathway for any of them. Yes we can always imagine ways it might have happened. But that is not empirical science. It's been some 16 years since the argument was first presented in modern form and still no verifable pathways have been found.

But Empirical science has proven these types of systems exist.

A couple links from ID proponents responses regarding the flagella.
www.evolutionnews.org...
www.evolutionnews.org...
www.designinference.com...

Here's a couple of interesting clips to consider. The usual response is to simply attack the proponents and not the substance, it's almost irresistable to some it appears. When no answers are available they appear to devolve back into children. Just wait and see. Creationists propaganda etc... These peer reviewed stories refute it etc...

Think for youselves, you don't need to argree but take the time to really look at the arguments. Don't use quick thinking.




edit on 2-8-2012 by squiz because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 07:30 AM
link   
So not one single ID promoter can address my point about how crappy your designer is?
I guess it is easier to bicker about points and who was on ATS first.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 07:39 AM
link   
reply to post by squiz
 


I get the falsifiable part. There is no way to prove it wrong by us, so we can't rely on it to draw an implication. This is precisely the problem in science. Science is based on observing the changing states of matter. From this, they search the laws that govern the change. Nothing, apart from law, has EVER been observed twice. The Earth moves in a moving galaxy. If I touch an apple, the thermodynamic of that apple is changed. It never reaches the same state twice. Information entropy is working on the bits of information that hold the matter in the apple together. Over time, it rots when the energy looses the ability to hold the molecules together. As Susskind outlines in THIS VIDEO, energy is information. The same process that generates heat in your computer (movement of information energy) is the same process that causes the universe to cool and entropy to increase. As this happens, information entropy is degrading the bits that originate that information. This is why the old film in a camera degrades, but the CD lasts longer.

Here is where you are missing my point about falsifiable observations. You say that the Bible and God are not falsifiable (Separated from direct observation) and that they cannot figure into the law that is observed. Science has one problem here. Matter is the archetype for what we observe in law. The laws themselves are only falsifiable because there is a reflection in matter that allows us to see. The Bible is the lens that allows our astigmatism to be cleared when viewing law. The Bible is an outline of law. We understand that law because it is locked in parable and symbol, reflected by the very history we live. All of this is our reflecting point to see law with more than our mind and intellect.

To understanding anything on a high level, we must be able to test it. What did Confucius say? "I hear and I forget. I see and I learn. I do and I understand." Three factors are necessary to verify anything. We must hear, see and do. Take any of these away and we cannot observe anything. What is religion? It is the application of virtue by doing. We hear and see to refine the doing part. What is this? It is scientific observation of law by practicing the law and finding the optimal mean. Science does not like to discuss this, but the Law is already set to the optimal mean. This implies a governor. We can very easily falsify this by experience. What does experience tell us when viewing the law in the Bible? It matches the law before our experience catches up to what it implies.

What does this mean?

It was there first.

This fact is falsifiable. The enigma of how God draws the future into the past is also falsifiable. We see it coming and then it happens. Here is a great example:

A Thread I did on the Israel Captivity in Babylon

We know that the prophecy in this event proceeded 1948. This is easily falsifiable. Are the facts true? Yes. Is this a novelty event in history? Yes. No other nation has EVER been dispersed, only to come back again into a homeland. The fact that they returned to the very year that the prophecy said is astonishing to say the least. We could easily prove this wrong if it were untrue. We can't. It's true.

The Bible should have died long ago if false. The fact that it will not die is testimony to the fact that our observation of the world is mirrored perfectly with it's pages of truth. It's a mirror of our future, past and present.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 07:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by EnochWasRight


The Bible should have died long ago if false. The fact that it will not die is testimony to the fact that our observation of the world is mirrored perfectly with it's pages of truth. It's a mirror of our future, past and present.



Then the Torah is even more valid than the bible?
edit on 2-8-2012 by nunyadammm because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 07:50 AM
link   
reply to post by squiz
 




There does not seem to be any direct lineages for any molecular machines that I can find. The TSIII system that was said to be intermediate to the flagella is now known to have emerged later completely demolishing Ken Millers argument that can be found all over the net. In fact the TSIII system itself presents the same problem.
And yet this is the main reason people think the argument is over.


This is not entirely accurate. Chemiosmosis is the respiration of a cell to derive energy. It is a mechanical machine that is the most efficient mechanism to produce a fuel cell that man has ever witnessed. Because the process is so innovative compared to our own fuel cell technology, industry is now copying the newly discovered process for our own fuel cells. ALL cells first started with this mechanism. It was there at the beginning.

These mechanisms are interdependent. Do you notice the motor and stator? When did this evolve again?




posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 07:59 AM
link   
reply to post by squiz
 


Humans, like all animals, have mental maps but I am not sure that there is a compass such as the birds and fish use. Our brains reconstruct everything related to our current position, so we know where to find our car.

There is actually a rare disease that causes the brain to not make the reference connections needed to location, so the sufferer will step out of a store and the whole scene will be turned around and can't find where they are going and it will look unfamiliar.
Yes, the poor souls always have to be rescued by friends and families.

Since information can be passed through genetics, do we know for sure that maps are not being passed down genetically?

edit on 2-8-2012 by nixie_nox because: clarification



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 08:10 AM
link   
So why do many think it is not possible that there is a species of beings out there that are a million times smarter and more advanced than us that couldn't be steering our lives here? Our DNA could be compared to little antenna that pick up frequencies. Our minds are controlled by the interactions of chemicals of the food we eat with this DNA and junk DNA and chromosomes. It shapes our bodies and reproduction.

Redesigning our food and altering the food chemistry will alter the DNA bringing about unknown results. If you want evidence of that just look what is happening to people in the industrialized countries of the world. They think they are getting smarter but in essence are just getting more knowledgeable and the knowledge is clouding their judgement. Would you call God and the Angels aliens? They would probably qualify I think. Mankind could not totally comprehend the possibilities that are out there. All I can say that originally something even had to create god, that creation could have been random a trillion of years ago.

God could be compared to energy with an intelligence if we wanted to. A frequency which governs the structure of the universe as we perceive it with our limited senses. Our DNA interprets that frequency and our frequency determines how we perceive things. Understanding the complexity of these DNA instructional codes or antennas is complex. God is above my comprehension but I can accept that without questioning because I understand mankind's lack of perception of reality. Pride in our knowledge blinds mankind, this allows other people to deceive us easily and without our even perceiving it at all.

We are getting close to the final exam to see if we graduate. I'm busy studying to see if I can learn more from this world. This exam is right around the corner for people, it's pass or fail with no in between. Fail and you are required to start over from the beginning. I hope I pass the test this time.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 08:11 AM
link   
reply to post by EnochWasRight
 


Fair enough, you have some interesting points. I'm no sure why you are objecting though. I am supporting your argument as proposed in your video.

Is it because I said I was not religious? I really don't have a big issue with it. I just choose a different path.

You do realise I was asking if the modern synthesis is falsifiable don't you?

I think you've got your wires crossed somewhere. It's a very simple concept It doesn't require paragraphs of reasoning. There are different types information btw.
edit on 2-8-2012 by squiz because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 08:16 AM
link   
reply to post by EnochWasRight
 


Ah, yep ATP was one of the speculated pathways, there are significant differences though. The fact that it's ten times smaller and far less parts. It's much like convering a lawn mower engine into a car engine. And yes I absolutey agree it's a remarkable nano machine.

In fact it is just another example of the same problem. An extremely good one.

Do you get that I'm actually supporting yor argument?
Why are you asking when did this evolve again? Yep you've definately got your wires crossed.

There's been a few papers released on the ATP only just recently. It's pretty much all machine language in description. A new era of biology.

www.pnas.org...
www.pnas.org...
www.pnas.org...
www.pnas.org...
edit on 2-8-2012 by squiz because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 08:18 AM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox
 


Sure, I was refering to the original video posted about the salmon not people. I'm just trying to get back on topic.






top topics



 
26
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join