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: 14
14
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 04:53 PM
link   

edit on 15-12-2012 by begoodbees because:




posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by begoodbees


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)



Hello? Why do you not read the facts people present to you? Willful ignorance?
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by paradox

Originally posted by begoodbees


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)



Hello? Why do you not read the facts people present to you? Willful ignorance?
en.wikipedia.org...


There is no proof in the that link, just more speculation. The fact that there is evidence to support a theory, does not prove the theory. String theory for example.
If you can refute or explain any of my arguments than feel free. But if not don't throw some oversimplified nonsense at me and pretend that it has meaning.

Common decent could be just as easily explained by my ipad example but since you have been indoctrinated you probably have not read any of my posts because you already "know" that you are right. Furthermore I believe that common descent is something that everyone agrees on. The question is did we descent from a warm pool of mud, or something slightly more sophisticated.

Here are some vocabulary words for you. Coherent, Belligerent, Theory, Fact, Evidence, Proof.
Also you should never use Wkipedia as a source. Any college/high school professor/teacher would tell you the same thing. It is unthinking people believing everything they are told and that they read that has caused this problem to begin with.

"It is better to remain silent and let people assume your stupidity than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."
edit on 15-12-2012 by begoodbees because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by begoodbees

There is no proof in the that link, just more speculation.


No, everything in that link is PROVEN. It just supports the theory of evolution. I can't help that that upsets you so much.


The fact that there is evidence to support a theory does not prove the theory.


You were just saying earlier that there is no evidence. Are you confusing yourself now? There is an overwhelming amount of evidence, and it just continues to pile up. How upset does that make you?



If you can refute or explain any of my arguments than feel free. But if not don't throw some oversimplified nonsense at me and pretend that it has meaning.


You have no argument besides "it's just a theory blahblahblah I don't know what I'm talking about"



Common decent could be just as easily explained by my ipad example


No it can't.


but since you have been indoctrinated you probably have not read any of my posts because you already "know" that you are right.


It has nothing to do with "indoctrination," it has to do with going where the evidence leads. I think you just like to believe you are special by going against the grain. But in reality, it just makes you look silly. Your entire pretense is that you have deluded yourself into believing there is some mass conspiracy, therefore evidence means nothing to you. You didn't even read the entire page! You finally clicked the link, but you simply just read the first heading and nothing else. So silly.



Here are some vocabulary words for you. Coherent, Belligerent, Theory, Fact, Evidence, Proof.
Also you should never use Wkipedia as a source. Any college/high school professor/teacher would tell you the same thing. It is unthinking people believing everything they are told and that they read that has caused this problem to begin with.


I am not writing a research paper. If that were the case, I would go to the individual sources listed within the citations. Maybe you should do that instead of nitpicking. Reading all of your straw man arguments is getting tiresome.



"It is better to remain silent and let people assume your stupidity than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."
edit on 15-12-2012 by begoodbees because: (no reason given)


Great quote, I am a big fan of irony.
edit on 12-15-12 by paradox because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by paradox
 


You did not do your vocabulary lesson did you. Proof is different than evidence. I will withdraw from further debate with you as it is not my duty to educate you.



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 07:26 PM
link   
reply to post by begoodbees
 


The utter obsurdity of this unproven speculation that somehow something as complex as even a single cell could manifest on its own in a pool of chemicals is mind boggling. Add to that the complexity of DNA and it becomes not just implausible but impossible.

To refute your point of it being "not just implausible but impossible", I'd point to the Miller-Urey experiment -- granted it's a favorite whipping boy of creationists -- but, more importantly the refinements to the experiment that have taken place since the original experiments in order to better mimic the primordial atmosphere. Abelson and Holland refined our understanding of the primordial atmosphere in the 1960's and even Miller said that his assumptions about the atmosphere at the time of his original experiment had been wrong. What happens when you replicate the Miller-Urey experiment with an atmosphere that more closely models the primordial atmosphere as it is understood now? You not only get amino acids, as in the original experiment, you get nucleotides and nucleotide chains. So it's easy to understand how complexity can arise from a "pool of chemicals", especially when you look at the formation of amino acid chains as the very simple dehydration reaction that aligns the amine end of the molecule to the carboxylic acid end of the molecule that it is.


Many people I believe have been bullied into a middle ground stance that life was created to evolve which makes very little sense as well since there are no transitional fossils on record. Every past so called evidence of transitional species has been eventually proven phony such as pig tooth man better known as Nebraska man.

There are an immense number of transitional fossils on record. And please keep in mind that the majority of the scientific community never accepted Hesperopithecus haroldcookii as an actual hominid. And also keep in mind that it was scientists doing field work that verified that it was a fossil tooth of an extinct species of peccary, not a modern pig. The beauty of science is that it's ultimately self-correcting.


It seems evident to me that species were created to sustain themselves within a given set of parameters, thus variations can and should occur. One species changing to another more complex species defies logic. The line given is usually as follows “slight genetic mutations over time, survival of the fittest and abracadabra humans are born”. The problem I see with this is that there has never been a case of a genetic mutation that was beneficial to an animal or human. What they call genetic mutations the general public calls birth defects and although they might not all be crippling none of them are beneficial or an improvement upon the norm.

Actually, most mutations are neutral and a deleterious mutation is just as likely as a beneficial one. Your claim that "none of them are beneficial or an improvement upon the norm" is easily refutable, even just in our own species. Here are three examples of beneficial mutations found in humans:

-- There's a common mutation that yields better lipoprotein profiles and reduces the risk of coronary artery disease. (Galston et al; Z Gastroenterol 1996 Jun;34 Suppl 3:56-8)
-- There's a common mutation that enhances immune cell function in humans. (Virchow et al; FEBS Lett 1998 Oct 2;436(2):155-8)
-- There's a common mutation the lowers the risk of myocardial infarction by reducing the presence of one of the factors in the blood coagulation cascade. (Iacoviello et al; N Engl J Med 1998 Jan 8;338(2):79-85)

And those are just a couple that I looked up a while ago from the mid to late 90's. I'm fairly certain that if you peruse the PubMed database, you can find examples of many more from more recently.


Let the name calling begin.

I don't think I've done any of that in my reply, have I?



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by begoodbees
reply to post by paradox
 


You did not do your vocabulary lesson did you. Proof is different than evidence. I will withdraw from further debate with you as it is not my duty to educate you.


A court of law would disagree with that


And that's good, because you have nothing logical to add.



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 07:41 PM
link   
As distasteful as this idea may seem to some, does no one find it interesting that organisms can not only maintain such momentum as to continuously sustain its own species, but even build onto it? It doesn't just adhere to the original blueprint - it REDESIGNS itself according to its environment. And since, according to evolutionary theory, these creatures all started from simple molecules that cultivated life in suitable conditions...doesn't that suggest a molecular intelligence, one that is not just perpetual, but proactive? Continually building into something greater...that's not just chance, that's intent. However simple, it is still intent.

Does this fascinate no one other than me? That's where I see divinity. The intent to not just sustain, but improve. Because if no such intent existed, mad chaos would have resulted and the molecules would have grown into something far less harmonic in design. Something so chaotic as the Big Bang wasn't guaranteed to give birth to a range of particles that could so easily fit together and become what we have today. If it was truly chaos, I don't see that happening. I see an explosion that scatters bit and pieces of itself far and wide, where they will play around and interact but ultimately fail to build.

Does anyone else see this?



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


You make some valid, intelligent points. Thank you for your thoughts.



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 08:17 PM
link   
I can't help it it is too easy.


Definition of PROOF
1
a : the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact

1ev·i·dence noun \ˈe-və-dən(t)s, -və-ˌden(t)s\


Definition of EVIDENCE
1
a : an outward sign : indication
b : something that furnishes proof : testimony; specifically : something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter

Websters not Wiki. Thank you for once again proving your lack of understanding of anything and further proving my original point.

Judges and scientists are educated in the meaning of words.



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by paradox

Originally posted by begoodbees
reply to post by paradox
 


You did not do your vocabulary lesson did you. Proof is different than evidence. I will withdraw from further debate with you as it is not my duty to educate you.


A court of law would disagree with that


And that's good, because you have nothing logical to add.


Why does this keep turning into a debate about the meaning of words? If you do not know the meaning of simple words than you should really refrain from arguing for or against any complex issue such as this. Also see definition of word logic, hahaaha.
edit on 15-12-2012 by begoodbees because:




posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 


Everything you have mentioned are all good examples of speculation. Yes common sense and all observed factual science dictates that the spontaneous formation of DNA is in fact impossible. Maybe you don't understand just how complex a single cell is or a single strand of DNA. New York city is legos in comparison.
Your examples of mutations are just examples of variations that occur in every species. I don't look like you. That is not a mutation it is just a normal variance. This is all really simple stuff that is made to sound complicated in order to fool the uncritical mind.

Some are prone to heart disease. They suffer from a degenerative mutation. All who are not prone to heart disease are simply not suffering from the same degeneration. They did not evolve a beneficial mutation that protects them from heart disease.

Do you see how easily all of these so called proofs fall apart under the most minuscule amount of scrutiny.

The point being, anyone who believes this as irrefutable fact has clearly been indoctrinated.
edit on 15-12-2012 by begoodbees because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 10:24 PM
link   
when you say "there are an immense number of transitional fossils on record". The honest way to say that would be "there are an immense number of fossils on record that appear to be transitional". Stating as fact what is indeed speculation is dishonest.

Even that is a stretch. There has never been found a complete chain of fossils that absolutely demonstrate every stage of evolution from one species to another. Granted a lot of them do appear to be related. However, just as you will find nothing in between ipad and ipad 2 you will find nothing between man and his closest counterpart. These are the real inconvenient truths that are not mentioned to the unwitting victims of this religious indoctrination.
edit on 15-12-2012 by begoodbees because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 10:30 PM
link   
reply to post by begoodbees
 



when you say "there are an immense number of transitional fossils on record". The honest way to say that would be "there are an immense number of fossils on record that appear to be transitional". Stating as fact what is indeed speculation is dishonest.


Exactly what I feel.
If only more people saw things this way.
:


However, just as you will find nothing in between ipad and ipad 2 you will find nothing between man and his closest counterpart.


Who knows... the people of the future might even believe that that ipad 2 evolved from its predecessor.



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



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 11:09 PM
link   
reply to post by begoodbees
 



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?


Excellent point.

To put it in another perspective...
I work as a graphic designer. When I present the final design, say a logo, to a client, I also present my initial sketches and variants of the same. From the very first doodle... to more refined sketches... to prints of other variations that lead up to the final logo... which was created in its final form.

My presentations indeed look like a sequence of "evolution".... it appears as if the final design "evolved" from the first doodle... but they were all created separately under my guidance. I admit, I secretly wish I could just create the first doodle and let it "evolve" without my guidance. I could go on a holiday and come back in a week to see the final design ready for presentation.



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 11:17 PM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 


Maybe we can coin a new phrase, "Guided Evolution" which is pretty much just another way of saying creation but it will not be as offensive to the secular religious types. haha.
Seriously though that is a valid argument and should be at least considered by people with an unbiased perspective or open mind so to speak.
edit on 15-12-2012 by begoodbees because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 11:31 PM
link   
When science becomes dishonest it is no longer science by definition.



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 11:49 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 


Just a quick reply. No you have not partaken in the slander, so although we may disagree at least we can disagree respectfully, unfortunately with this subject matter I predicted quite accurately that my intelligence would come under attack.

That is in my estimation a built in defense mechanism of the indoctrination. When I used to be a Christian, God himself could have come down on a cloud and told me I was wrong. The built in defense mechanism of my religious indoctrination would have made me conclude that it was indeed the devil and not God since it did not fit my beliefs.

Just as evolutionists are preprogrammed (indoctrinated) to conclude that all non believers are either just plain ignorant or mentally insufficient. Of course I am neither. Hopefully I have thoroughly demonstrated that. Of course only intelligence can recognize other intelligence.
edit on 16-12-2012 by begoodbees because:




posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 11:56 PM
link   
reply to post by begoodbees
 



Seriously though that is a valid argument and should be at least considered by people with an unbiased perspective or open mind so to speak.


Common sense tells us that complex things don't make themselves... yet common sense is dismissed when it comes to the question of the most complex things ever...life. They say its a "fact" that a series of unguided mutations over billions of years caused a single cell to become complex sentient multi-celled creatures.

They try to convince us that its a "fact" by either bringing up someones speculation on as to how it *may* have happened... or by showing us instances of variations as seen in labs and stretching it to fit the larger ideas of ToE.


Many years ago when I used to passionately debate this matter,(I have long since given up) I had made a thread on the subject of the Cambrian explosion a different forum. One poster attempted to explain it away by bringing up punctuated equilibrium. I simply pointed out that he was basically trying to support one body of guesswork with another body of guesswork. The idea of punctuated equilibrium was in itself an un-testable idea that was conceived for the sole purpose of defending another un-testable concept.

edit on 16-12-2012 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 12:09 AM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 


Yes, it is a circular argument.

Every time I bring up the Cambrian explosion I get a strawman. I really was expecting some strong arguments from people but I guess as it turns out there really aren't any strong arguments. Just the same old speculations.
edit on 16-12-2012 by begoodbees because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join