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: 13
14
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 02:46 AM
link   
In reality if science did declare evolution as a law or observed fact than that would be even more of a conspiracy and would put the final nail in the coffin of the credibility of our scientific institutions.




posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 02:53 AM
link   
"A scientific theory is a unified set of principles, knowledge, and methods for explaining the behavior of some specified range of empirical phenomena. Scientific theories attempt to understand the world of observation and sense experience. They attempt to explain how the natural world works."

key word here is "attempts"

No where does it say that a theory unequivocally explains the subject matter as fact. I hope I have finally put this baby to bed.



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 02:56 AM
link   
reply to post by begoodbees
 


And where are your FACTS that creationism is true? All I've seen is a bunch of bickering over why evolution is a theory, and not a fact. That's all fine and dandy, but now you have to complete the process. Present the factual basis for non-evolutionary advancement and creation of the human species. Otherwise this entire thread just comes down to science disproving your belief.

I'm really curious what facts you have to back up creationism.

~ Wandering Scribe



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 03:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wandering Scribe
reply to post by begoodbees
 


And where are your FACTS that creationism is true? All I've seen is a bunch of bickering over why evolution is a theory, and not a fact. That's all fine and dandy, but now you have to complete the process. Present the factual basis for non-evolutionary advancement and creation of the human species. Otherwise this entire thread just comes down to science disproving your belief.

I'm really curious what facts you have to back up creationism.

~ Wandering Scribe


What are you talking about? I am refuting your indoctrination not presenting theories. People always turn the argument into a word parsing match because they can offer no real reason as to why they religiously believe the evolution theory. The only explanation for their belief is life long indoctrination.
edit on 15-12-2012 by begoodbees because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 03:16 AM
link   
Does anyone really believe that a bunch of smart guys (scientists) got together and said "lets use the word theory but we'll really mean fact, that should fool everyone"?

It is absurd. I have seen over time people (religiously indoctrinated evolutionists) slowly attempting to morph the definition of scientific theory to make it less theory and more fact. It was this observation that started me thinking that someone is conspiring to fool the population. At least there are still a few fairly honest definitions left on the web.

Maybe I'll go digging for an old dictionary or encyclopedia and show you how scientific theory was defined before the religious evolutionists got a hold of it. Real scientists are not so confident about anything that cannot be proven through observation and reproduction. Hence the term theory.



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 03:49 AM
link   
reply to post by begoodbees
 


While we may disagree on other matters, I truly enjoyed reading all your posts in this thread.


It is absurd. I have seen over time people (religiously indoctrinated evolutionists) slowly attempting to morph the definition of scientific theory to make it less theory and more fact. It was this observation that started me thinking that someone is conspiring to fool the population. At least there are still a few fairly honest definitions left on the web.


I wouldn't say someone is conspiring to fool the population. Its basically a case of bandwagon jumping on the part of the people. They see all these charismatic anti-God scientists speaking and writing about it. They see science being promoted as some antidote to religion and faith which they see as brainwashing. They see creationists and ID proponents being mocked. They are convinced that evolution is a 100% fact... so they subscribe to ToE and refrain from questioning it.

The problem with ToE is that it is promoted as THE explanation on as to how the variety in the animal world came to be. All other explanations are ridiculed away. Nobody seems to want to ask the tough questions.. or even seriously address those asking those questions. The least they could do is at least honestly admit that they don't know, instead they resort to the usual name-calling.



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 04:07 AM
link   
Thanks for the back up skorp.

In any other aspect of life "it happened all by itself" would be an unreasonable and unacceptable explanation. For some reason though when it comes to the formation of life and the appearance of humans on the planet "it happened all by itself" becomes a completely sensible explanation. It defies logic.

I think you may be on to something with your assessment of the situation.



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 04:34 AM
link   
reply to post by begoodbees
 


I had made this post on page 8, with regard to the idea of Evolution being "observed fact".



What can be observed scientifically is several orders of magnitude lower than what the ToE teaches... that asexual single celled organisms, over time, evolved into multi-cellular organisms with body parts that reproduced sexually. Evolution on this scale is unobservable because of the incredibly long time frames involved, but yet evolution is passed off an "observable fact" because its been observed on a very tiny scale. If we were to be honest about it, the only "observable fact" is that organisms turn into newer variants of themselves. Nothing more, nothing less.


Another thing that one needs to be careful about is the method in which evidence is presented to prove the ToE. My approach is simple. Evidence that organisms develop into new variants is just that - evidence that organisms can turn into new variants.... NOT evidence of the grand idea that all life descended from the single cell. Fossil evidence is simply evidence that a certain animal once existed... NOT evidence that the animal was part of a particular sequence. Unfortunately many people don't read between the lines and continue to accept it as legitimate science.

Whenever I ask a question like "How did sexual reproduction come to be" or "How did sentience arise in organisms descended from the non-sentient single cell? I'm just given a bunch of explanations on as to it MAY have occurred. Its basically peoples conjecture / opinion on as to how it happened packaged as a "scientific document". While many just accept it as truth, not many stop and realize that is absolutely no way to observe or confirm one mans theory regarding the subject.


edit on 15-12-2012 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 05:25 AM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 


Yeah, that's pretty much what I have been trying to convey in a nutshell. We are in agreement.



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 05:44 AM
link   
reply to post by begoodbees
 


Does it help this way?

A fact is something like a fossil is found in such and such a layer of rock.
A (scientific) theory tries to explain why the fossil is there in that layer of rock.

The other thing that’s needed to make it a proper scientific theory is that it needs to be falsifiable
en.wikipedia.org...

so for example if the fossil of a bunny is found in a layer of rock that should only contain dinosaurs then ToE would have a problem



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 06:25 AM
link   
reply to post by racasan
 


Yes, thank you. Your simple and accurate description shows that you have understanding of the matter and are not just spouting off your opinions.
edit on 15-12-2012 by begoodbees because:




posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 06:39 AM
link   
reply to post by begoodbees
 


I think I understand your viewpoint on this. I too believe in variation and adaptation, it is clearly identifiable. What I have trouble with too, is one species evolving into another. Of all the species of life on this planet, why have we not observed a variation that would create a new species? It's argued that it takes millions of years for this to happen. Is this due to each species constantly improving? If so, then why have creatures like the crocodile remained unchanged for so long?

I see the evidence that is used to determine which animals evolved into their modern day counterparts, but it is circumstantial, not fact. Is the mule or hinny a new species? It didn't evolve, it's a hybrid. Perhaps that is the cause of new species, breeding. That could explain species having things that are out of place like a vestigial tail. Perhaps two ancient ape/human like species bred to create what we are. Is that evolution?

Oh, I will say I believe in creation in some form, a design, but I'm not religious.



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 06:42 AM
link   
reply to post by DaesDaemar
 


That sounds like a rational perspective to me. As long as we retain the ability and will to ask questions we will eventually find the irrefutable truth, whatever it is.



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 06:43 AM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 


A much more succinct answer than mine!



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 08:19 AM
link   
Things were created to evolve



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by begoodbees
 


The horse and the rhinoceros came from the same prehistoric creature.

The (EDIT: ) Giraffe zebra has a relative that looks more like a zebra - a baby born at a zoo recently.

Birds and reptiles are very close cousins.

Nice try, but evolution is as much a fact as gravity.


edit on 15-12-2012 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 11:01 AM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


Bigfoot has been proven to be a cross between modern man and a primate of some sort. Isn't that living proof of evolution?



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 

I think so, yes....

wait. Did they catch one and do its DNA thing?



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


Well I see this has quickly devolved back into the realm of speculation. Evolution of species by definition takes millions of years and therefore even if true could never be observed or reproduced and therefore never scientifically proven. That is what I find so divisive about the whole deal.

Any one with enough common sense to realize this is labeled ignorant. These are the traits of indoctrination. It has been beaten into your head your whole life so that you will except no other possibilities. This is the deception. Thank you for your opinions anyways.

I suppose you think that all of the latest theories are fact. String theory, is that a scientific fact? According to a lot of people on here theory means fact. String theory might be true, there is some evidence to support it. It is however far from observable fact. Point is you believe evolution is fact because of your indoctrination by tptb.

I hate to start slinging the same mud that I have accused others of, but I am beginning to catch a whiff of true ignorance.



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 01:47 PM
link   
Even if it could be reproduced in a lab all that would prove is that it can happen with human intervention and would not necessarily prove that it could happen all on its own.

Many believe that God created life to evolve. If God could do that why could he not just as easily create man in his current form?

I don't claim to have all of the answers but I am intelligent enough to still have questions.

I revert back to my technology argument. Yes our technology has evolved but it evolved under the guiding hand of man. The ipad has evolved from it's predecessors but was also created in its current form. Why is it so hard for people to entertain these thoughts? It is not as if it goes against your religious teachings right?
edit on 15-12-2012 by begoodbees because:



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join