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: 15
14
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 12:30 AM
link   
reply to post by begoodbees
 



When science becomes dishonest it is no longer science by definition.


The real problem is some of the people behind science... and the mass media and pop-culture that you had pointed out in the OP. Science only works in the hands of scientists... and when scientists have already come to a conclusion and then direct all findings to fit the conclusion, then there is a problem.

Most people tend to take the words of evolutionary scientists as irrefutable truth. They feel questioning the ideas of these evolutionary scientists makes them ignorant and on par with those who doubt evolution.



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




posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 12:31 AM
link   
reply to post by begoodbees
 



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.


Another example of circular argument-
Whenever I question how something came to be (be it sexual reproduction, sentience, camouflage) the answers I get can be summarized by "it evolved". The conclusion that it "evolved" is already made and they give reasons on as to why a certain trait evolved. The thing is, I am more interested in seeing how it evolved. Of course, ToE proponents know its impossible to know exactly what happened billions of years ago... yet we are to hold someones ideas on events that took place billions of years ago as a scientific fact.

I really think you would be interested in reading my very first subject on ATS...
How did sexual reproduction come to be?



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



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 04:00 AM
link   
reply to post by begoodbees
 


You're not refuting any indoctrination of mine. I've not presented whether I do, or do not, believe in evolutionary theory on this thread. I have only said: "OK, if evolution is wrong, present the facts that Creation is correct." Instead of presenting those facts though, you are just accusing me of things I haven't done.

Now then, let's try this again.

In order for evolution, and all of the evidence suggesting evolution, to be wrong... you must have evidence of Creation. What is your evidence of Creation?

Let's try to stay on topic here, OK?

[edit to add]

Since the other thread we're discussing on is also moving into this topic, I'm going to just bring my discussions from there over to here, to avoid cluttering two forums with the same content. I hope you don't mind.

[edit to add]

~ Wandering Scribe


edit on 16/12/12 by Wandering Scribe because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 05:01 AM
link   
reply to post by begoodbees
 

You replied to me in three separate posts; I hope that, for the sake of simplification, you don't mind if I reply to all of them here.


Everything you have mentioned are all good examples of speculation.

What I have provided are observable facts. You may choose to interpret them differently but, if that is that case, then you should provide your interpretation of those facts and the basis for that interpretation.


Yes common sense and all observed factual science dictates that the spontaneous formation of DNA is in fact impossible.

Can you explain how you came to that conclusion given that the formation of nucleotides and nucleotide chains has been observed under conditions which, based on our best understanding, mimic the primordial atmosphere?


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.

I give you facts and treat you with respect, you call me ignorant and give me analogies in return. It would appear that you're not really interested in an honest discussion.


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.

You're not really refuting or discussing the facts that I've presented here. You're simply trying to make the case that because it sounds complicated, it must be false.


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/

Your reply in this part shows that you didn't even research and read the information I provided. These are not people that are simply not prone to heart disease, they are more resistant to it than the "typical" person. The mutation which is responsible for this has been identified.


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

Given that your "scrutiny" involved pointedly not reading the information provided, I think your claims that my evidence (nowhere did I call them proofs) "falls apart" are premature.


The point being, anyone who believes this as irrefutable fact has clearly been indoctrinated.

I'll restate my opening reply of this post: "What I have provided are observable facts. You may choose to interpret them differently but, if that is that case, then you should provide your interpretation of those facts and the basis for that interpretation." I can argue that your seemingly -- I say seemingly because you haven't provided your own interpretation of the facts presented -- off-handed dismissal of these observed facts is a sign that clearly you have been indoctrinated.


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.

Given that predictions have been made and supported by the transitional fossils, I'd argue that dismissing it as speculation is unfounded.


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.

Have you researched the fossil record of the evolution of the horse? Also, please bear in mind that the fossil record is hardly the strongest evidence for evolution. In the complete absence of fossils, there is still enough genetic evidence alone to give it the same status as the dominant scientific theory explaining biodiversity as it has today.


unfortunately with this subject matter I predicted quite accurately that my intelligence would come under attack.

Keep in mind that your cries of "indoctrination" may be viewed by some as an attack on your part.


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.

What changed your beliefs? Was it evidence or something else?


Just as evolutionists are preprogrammed (indoctrinated) to conclude that all non believers are either just plain ignorant or mentally insufficient.

I don't perceive that you are either of those things but, from my perspective, your off-handed dismissal of some of what I've presented to you looks like "indoctrination" to me. Perhaps "indoctrination" is in the eye of the beholder?
edit on 16/12/2012 by iterationzero because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 07:16 AM
link   
reply to post by begoodbees
 


I don't have a strong argument against that because obviously, not even our top scientists have a concrete answer for it. Suffice it to say: "Hmm, that is a most interesting observation."

In other words, valid point. Clearly, no one else has anything to add against it.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wandering Scribe
reply to post by begoodbees
 


You're not refuting any indoctrination of mine. I've not presented whether I do, or do not, believe in evolutionary theory on this thread. I have only said: "OK, if evolution is wrong, present the facts that Creation is correct." Instead of presenting those facts though, you are just accusing me of things I haven't done.

Now then, let's try this again.

In order for evolution, and all of the evidence suggesting evolution, to be wrong... you must have evidence of Creation. What is your evidence of Creation?

Let's try to stay on topic here, OK?

[edit to add]

Since the other thread we're discussing on is also moving into this topic, I'm going to just bring my discussions from there over to here, to avoid cluttering two forums with the same content. I hope you don't mind.

[edit to add]

~ Wandering Scribe


edit on 16/12/12 by Wandering Scribe because: (no reason given)


My original question is why do people believe it is a fact. Your reply of prove creation is right is the definition of strawman. The whole point I am making is that neither creation or evolution can be proven. So why do evolutionists think that all who disagree are just ignorant?

So please try to stay on topic.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by begoodbees
 


According to quantum physics, we create things every second of our lives. Theoretically, nothing exists until we observe it - then it collapses and we have a measurable reality, according to our perceptions.

Or so the theory goes. So really, evolution and creationism can coexist. I don't know, I'm having fun with it. You people take this topic way too seriously for having no concrete answers. Figured I'd get imaginative with it.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 


I do not not wish to examine every aspect of this with a microscope as it will get very boring very fast. Any real scientist would admit as several have agreed that evolution is not proven fact but indeed a theory based on some observable evidence. That is known and has been established on this thread already.

So why do so many people believe it is a factual teaching of science? Because it has been presented as such on every tv documentary and nature show for at least the last 30 years and in the education system. That is the definition of indoctrination.

I don't want to see the latest speculations based on the latest observations. I simply want to know why is the population being indoctrinated.

If you read the whole thread you will see that alot of people actually believe that theory in science equals fact. Since that is not true why do people think that if they are not indoctrinated. Science is at its heart a search for truth. So then scientifically minded people should welcome other ideas and theories but when it comes to this people are as closed minded as they could possibly be. (on both sides).



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by begoodbees
 


According to quantum physics, we create things every second of our lives. Theoretically, nothing exists until we observe it - then it collapses and we have a measurable reality, according to our perceptions.

Or so the theory goes. So really, evolution and creationism can coexist. I don't know, I'm having fun with it. You people take this topic way too seriously for having no concrete answers. Figured I'd get imaginative with it.


Quantum physics are blowing the theory of relativity away, along with the laws of physics. This is a good example of not just a theory being challenged but also scientific law.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 12:48 PM
link   
You say you are not indoctrinated. Ask a Catholic Christian or any other religious person if he is indoctrinated, what do you think he would say?

"I am not indoctrinated, I know the truth and you are deceived. I will pray for you."

Sounds exactly like many people on this thread except for the praying part.

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



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by begoodbees

My original question is why do people believe it is a fact. Your reply of prove creation is right is the definition of strawman. The whole point I am making is that neither creation or evolution can be proven.

So please try to stay on topic.

Oh, my face, too many atomic face palms, ow, ow!

You have no point, there is evidence for evolution, creation, none.
(However, I cannot rule out the ancient aliens theory of DNA manipulation.)



So why do evolutionists think that all who disagree are just ignorant?

Because they are, believing myths as fact IS ignorant.

Prove this wrong... sorry, strawman again, asking for evidence is a bad thing, carry on with your faith.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by begoodbees


Quantum physics are blowing the theory of relativity away, along with the laws of physics. This is a good example of not just a theory being challenged but also scientific law.


So,...your point is?



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 01:12 PM
link   
One more thing. All of the evidence that is in support of the evolution theory can just as easily be used to support creation theory.

One is no better than the other. Both are theories, both are supported by evidence and both are at the moment unproven.

When one casts aside preconceived notions, this is the conclusion that can be drawn.


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



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by begoodbees
 


Can you go over what you just wrote here, or am I going to have to refute everything you just wrote while I furiously face palm till I bleed?
Your statement is crock full of BS.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Toadmund
 


The two of you taunting each other with your lack of evidence is thoroughly amusing, but you might want to stop playing the gentleman and actually get your stuff together so the rest of us don't get the impression that you're stalling.

This isn't a urinating contest, it's a discussion. Either you are going to post evidence and support, or you are not. It's not a dog treat.
edit on 16-12-2012 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 01:28 PM
link   
Yawn, I'll come back if anyone has anything interesting or even coherent to add.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by begoodbees
The fact that so many people religiously believe the most unlikely and implausible explanation for where the most sophisticated objects in the known universe (living things) originated is the best evidence of this global conspiracy.

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.

Why do so many people believe this so easily while scrutinizing everything else so carefully. This seams to be the one area where otherwise scientific minded people choose to believe in magic. This is why I and I believe many others have labeled evolution not an observable or provable science but in fact a religion.

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.

Pig tooth man was portrayed in true propaganda style on the news as the missing link. If the news propaganda machine does this in any other arena critical thinkers and conspiracy theorists would instantly see the seeds of conspiracy, but with evolution we have been programmed/indoctrinated that any explanation other than evolution is just plain ignorance. I wonder how many times I will be bullied and called ignorant for presenting these facts.

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.

Opposing evolution in the modern day is like opposing any other prevalent religion in the past. Persecution is what follows.

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.

Let the name calling begin.

Here is another perhaps more coherent analysis of the subject.

www.icr.org...
edit on 13-12-2012 by begoodbees because: added link


DNA has a 521-year half-life

Whats funny about this is how the evolutionists are trying to push the limits of DNA in a desperate attempt to explain the soft-tissue that has been found in several dinosaur bones, because they know that if soft tissue were found in dinosaur bones then it means that they were not completely fossilized and are only a few thousand years old, no where near 65 million years old. The previous maximum was thought to be around 10,000 years according to several sources. Now with this recent study in the link above they've pushed as hard as they can and can still only get to 1.5 million years in appropriate conditions. That's still not even close to the 65-100 million years needed to explain the blood cells in dinosaur bones, as the evolutionists and Jurassic Park would like you to believe.

Soft tissue discovered in T-Rex bones:


Part 2


Generally 10 or 20 half-lives are enough to eradicate the DNA as they are saying. This give us around 5,200 to 10,400 years, as scientists have been telling us for years. So I'm quite certain they are stretching the figures beyond reason to even get the 1.5 million figure with this study.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 02:05 PM
link   
Granted there are attempts to spin the facts on both sides. That is what indoctrinated people do. They do anything to try to prove that their doctrine is the correct one. Often they cross the line into dishonesty. As I stated previously about saying there are transitional fossils instead of saying there appear to be transitional fossils.
edit on 16-12-2012 by begoodbees because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


OK, here goes:

Originally posted by begoodbees
One more thing. All of the evidence that is in support of the evolution theory can just as easily be used to support creation theory.

Just no, where is the evidence for creationism? And don't say it's all around me, or it's too complex to happen on it's own, that's not evidence.

Evolution, the theory is based on evidence and careful scientific thought and study.




One is no better than the other. Both are theories, both are supported by evidence and both are at the moment unproven.

Show me evidence of creationism, you must have evidence, because you claim there is, tell us about it.



When one casts aside preconceived notions, this is the conclusion that can be drawn.


Creationism is all preconceived and I do not agree with your conclusion.



Something to add here, say creationism is fact, why would a god make something that cannot change and adapt to its environment? Why would it be so far fetched for a religious person to combine both ideas or theories?
Sure believe in creationism, can you not believe evolution as well? would be pretty dumb of a god to make creations that will die out because it cannot adapt to its changing environment.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Toadmund
 


Both theories are full of holes. Why bother questioning one when you can't even defend the other?




top topics



 
14
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join