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 Grandest Conspiracy Ever Known. The New Age Religion of the Unproven Speculation (theory) of Evo

page: 11
14
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by humphreysjim
"blue" is just a human word to describe an experience created by our brain. My "blue" may be completely different to your "blue".


what matters is the "majorities" perception and in which they choose to define this color as... this is universal too, something that the theory of evolution of ape into man is not, but which it needs to be.

see universality is the key... go try to explain the british theory of evolution to someone living in the COngo who has never seen a plane like in that movie "the Gods must be Crazy"

however if you ask they to tell you what color the sky is the majority of the people in the tribe are going to point to the blue colored square on your paper.

this is what matters...




posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by SisyphusRide

what matters is the "majorities" perception and in which they choose to define this color as... this is universal too, something that the theory of evolution of ape into man is not, but which it needs to be.


So you're saying absolute stone cold facts are based on consensus?

Dude, what are you smoking?

edit on 14-12-2012 by humphreysjim because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 10:40 AM
link   
i couldnt even finish reading the first page before becoming very exhausted.

this is an incredibly old argument that even intelligent creationism believers these day wont make.
but yet here it is...



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by humphreysjim
 


I think it's thoroughly unreasonable to ask Homo Sapiens to come up with all the answers. What's the rush? Why do you have to hurry everything? The faster we get the answers, the more roughshod and unreliable they are.

I'd rather wait a hundred years and get a thorough, well-researched and fully verified answer than jump around for fifteen years and half a rough outline that gives us a "reasonable" probability that this line of research will lead us to a projected thesis that one of the following eighteen possibilities could be the right approach to an answer we aren't sure exists.

See what I mean? Let's just take our time. The only way to get a good answer is to do it properly.



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by humphreysjim
SisyphusRide, let's cut the crap. If evolution is not true, explain the fossil record, please.


I don't care about the evolution of fish... neither does religion.

I care about the evidence of Humans coming from Apes and the tangible fossil record of "fact" which does not exist.

I know you just need to establish evolution of anything to be able to apply it to humans, but sorry to tell you my friend this is not the case.

the Bible states Humans were created in the image of God not fish fossils...
edit on 14-12-2012 by SisyphusRide because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity

I'd rather wait a hundred years and get a thorough, well-researched and fully verified answer than jump around for fifteen years and half a rough outline that gives us a "reasonable" probability that this line of research will lead us to a projected thesis that one of the following eighteen possibilities could be the right approach to an answer we aren't sure exists.


You'll be dead in a hundred years mate.



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by SisyphusRide

the Bible states Humans were created in the image of God not fish fossils...


Ah great, the Bible.

Where are the stone cold hard facts for the reliability of the Bible, since you're a man of certainties?

Now this I have to hear...

edit on 14-12-2012 by humphreysjim because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by SisyphusRide
 


I said I was done but had to address this silly comment.

Science is based entirely on evidence. If the evidence changes to either improve the theory, then the theory is refined further. If the evidence changes to disprove the theory, than the theory is discarded and science starts over to try and explain the observable phenomena.

Again, back to this image for me every time you post this stuff...




Out again. Have a good day.



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 10:56 AM
link   
Interesting. Ask a creationist for proof the Bible is completely reliable and they disappear...



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by humphreysjim
 



You'll be dead in a hundred years mate.


I'm well aware of this. That's a pitiful excuse to make a poor job of finding the truth. If it's worth doing, it's worth doing right, dead or no dead.



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by GAOTU789
 


we can rely on the Dog (K9's) to provide more evidence of creation of a certain species thru cross breeding than we can from evolution of ape into man.

I just can't get around the silly theory if the Big Bang, it is actually kind of funny when you think about it... science can't figure something out so they come up with everything being this very small dot of everything and then life arising from a rock.

rock are still rocks man... I guess if we wait around long enough we can watch a rock turn into some lifeform? I think we have a better chance of a tornado going thru an Air Force junkyard and assembling an F14.

I'd just like to see that missing link I keep mentioning... half the readers here probably never even heard of Piltdown man, including the supposedly scientifically minded.

I don't reject science I just do not feel it is enough to explain the real questions...



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by humphreysjim
 



You'll be dead in a hundred years mate.


I'm well aware of this. That's a pitiful excuse to make a poor job of finding the truth. If it's worth doing, it's worth doing right, dead or no dead.


Science is, and always will be, based on current knowledge, which is, and always will be, incomplete and imperfect.

The point is, the evidence for evolution is good enough right now to accept it as true. It's not perfect, but it's good enough.



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 11:01 AM
link   


Looks like evolution.
edit on 14-12-2012 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-12-2012 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 11:06 AM
link   
Hello, I found your opinions in your post very interesting. I think it is true that many believe in evolution without even researching it because it seems like the "smart and scientific" thing to do. At the same time I believe that evolution has alot more evidence than creationism as creationism leaves alot to the immagination. Though there still are many unanswered questions in evolution and one should make sure to learn as much as possible about it before making a judgement. Just as one should know alot about a certain religion before judging it. I do however disagree that evolution is a religion. I have not established a full opinion on how we came to be but I do know there is some evidence pointing towards evolution, for example a classmate was talking today in my biology class (were doing a unit on evolution but our teacher is happy to hear opinions on why it isnt real so its not telling us its 100% proven to be real) about how a parasite (involved with yeast) affected humans many generations ago for a few generations and it was a big problem. Scientists observed that many generations later that humans had changed or evolved to better suit the yeast parasite. Some changed to be less suseptable to the parasite but also had a smaller body structer along with lower fertility rates and on the other side some evoloved to be more suseptable to the parasite but had a more physically equipped body along with higher fertility resulting in more offspring. These suseptability factors were not present when the parasite was initially a problem. From what I have read and heard I believe that evolution is possible to be better equipped for certain enviromental changes but at the same time I believe in the possibility of a god-like creator figure. Many the evolving on organisms it a component of life that was created by a god-like figure to equip his creations to survive in different conditions or else if there was drastic changes that would slowly wipe out life then they could slowly adapt to suit these conditions. This last part is just speculation though.

Overall I do agree with you in the sense that many do not research or question evolution and blindly follow it so they seem like they are intelligent. I also think it some cases it has become a fad to bash religion, I personally don't follow a certain religion but I am open to the posibility of a god-like figure. At the same time I do disagree with lots of religious theology, such as judgmenetal tendicies that are created from religious rules.

One think that did bother me from your post is when you said that nobody says evolution is speculation and states it as fact (im assuming in schools and such?). I do believe this is not true as evolution is classified as Darwins theory (ex. Darwins theory of evolution). A theory means something that is an idea or opinion and is not a set fact. For example, humans having eyes would be a fact but humans having a third eye in their mind is a theory. Theory is pretty much speculation but many theories can have lots of evidence and can be presumed real (but still has holes that need to be answered). It was not be a theory anymore if it was 100% proven.

What are your thoughts?



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 11:06 AM
link   
mods step in and throw in the towel...


I know better than to be around in a thread in which they magically appear...

Mod's shouldn't do that, it's unfair and they should use their standard user account to join in a conversation. Under the Mod banner it only appears they are flexing muscle.

i'm outta this topic too, don't perceive it as running from a fight or capitulation, I just know better



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 11:16 AM
link   
this is there agenda.
"In classrooms all over the world and on every nature/science show that I have seen in my lifetime evolution is presented as fact. I never hear them say “Scientists speculate” before mentioning the subject. Why is something with nothing but circumstantial evidence being presented as factual science? I know what the religious fanatics will say, but if it cannot be observed and reproduced than it is not science."
they have no bizz teaching anything other than the 3 r's reading, writing and rithmetic as alternates history (true history - whatever that is) and lit.
of course a host of other baloney subjects such as the failed but still prevalent sex ed - soon to add...other topics no doubt.
one of my daughters is a teacher and we do not always agree what should or should not be taught - but teaching unfounded evilotion is not the way to teach science - or maybe they should make up the missing links - then awala!



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by begoodbees
 


Whenever I see threads like these I am reminded of the beer commercial where the only educated person in the frame claims he is 99.999% certain, and is made fun of by his troglodyte "friends."

The truth is, we live in an inverted universe, where the only 100% certainty comes from hucksters who shill religion and superstition, and this is held up as the ultimate example of "truth."

"Scientists speculate" is simple, common English for "everything that follows is subject to future / continuous revision," which is pretty much how reality actually works.



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by SisyphusRide

Originally posted by humphreysjim
SisyphusRide, let's cut the crap. If evolution is not true, explain the fossil record, please.


I don't care about the evolution of fish... neither does religion.

I care about the evidence of Humans coming from Apes and the tangible fossil record of "fact" which does not exist.

I know you just need to establish evolution of anything to be able to apply it to humans, but sorry to tell you my friend this is not the case.

the Bible states Humans were created in the image of God not fish fossils...
edit on 14-12-2012 by SisyphusRide because: (no reason given)

That's a very ignorant way to put it...



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 11:53 AM
link   

edit on 12/14/2012 by Klassified because: redacted. already answered.



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 11:57 AM
link   

edit on 12/14/2012 by Klassified because: redacted. already answered.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join