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: 16
14
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Toadmund
 


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

Maybe so in your opinion, I just believe evolution, I don't have to explain it, an internet search will explain more than I can.
And defend I did, I stated evolution is based on science, creationism is based on faith.




posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by begoodbees
 


I do not not wish to examine every aspect of this with a microscope as it will get very boring very fast.

I'm sorry to hear that, for whatever reason, you are unwilling to discuss the facts I have presented. I was looking forward to an honest and spirited discussion.


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.

There are two concepts that often get conflated because they are, annoyingly, called the same thing. There is an observable phenomenon (i.e. a "fact") called evolution. There is an overarching theory used to explain biodiversity commonly called the theory of evolution, more accurately called modern evolutionary synthesis, which is unfortunately reduced to the shorthand notation "evolution". Evolution is a fact, and evolution is also a theory used to explain the fact of evolution.

I've stated my opinion on ATS multiple times that it's not only science education that needs to be improved, but education about science. If we taught kids how to actually apply the scientific method, the difference between a fact and a theory and a law, and how none of them somehow morph into the others at some point, and how & why the words "proof" and "proven" are meaningless in a scientific context, I think you'd have little reason to claim that indoctrination is taking place.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by begoodbees


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:



Because you keep turning it into an argument of semantics. You're the one who keeps posting dictionary definitions and you wonder why? I was simply refuting your claim here in which you state:


So many have defended the factuality of evolution with no evidence to support it. That is what religious people do. The more fervently you argue, the more you are proving your religious indoctrination.


You are given evidence (Yes, FACTS. Tangible proof which has been observed both in the laboratory and in the natural world) which only further support the theory of evolution, yet you do not read or comprehend. It's simply cognitive dissonance. You have convinced yourself there is a conspiracy, so you are not willing to do any research or read about any facts. Your only argument for pages now has been "It's only a theory!!!" which is simply pathetic, to be honest.

If you want to change the course of the argument, please try refuting the FACTS and explain why the theory of evolution and all the evidence supporting it is WRONG. Good luck to you.

ETA: Again, here is the link from before which you refused to read:

en.wikipedia.org...

A great list of FACTS.
edit on 12-16-12 by paradox because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Toadmund
 


As I have said. All of the evidence that supports evolution also supports creation. This is not complicated.

It is only perspective that dictates which you prefer. Common ancestry. If we evolved common ancestry makes sense. If we were created, common ancestry also makes sense.

All motor vehicles share common decent and therefore have alot of the same parts made of the same materials. That does not mean that they evolved on their own. We all know that all of our technology has evolved under our guidance.

Perhaps on a different planet their are vehicles that do not resemble ours at all because they were created by different intelligent beings. Not because they spontaneously evolved their.

The same is true with all of the circumstantial evidence.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by begoodbees
 


I do not not wish to examine every aspect of this with a microscope as it will get very boring very fast.

I'm sorry to hear that, for whatever reason, you are unwilling to discuss the facts I have presented. I was looking forward to an honest and spirited discussion.


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.

There are two concepts that often get conflated because they are, annoyingly, called the same thing. There is an observable phenomenon (i.e. a "fact") called evolution. There is an overarching theory used to explain biodiversity commonly called the theory of evolution, more accurately called modern evolutionary synthesis, which is unfortunately reduced to the shorthand notation "evolution". Evolution is a fact, and evolution is also a theory used to explain the fact of evolution.

I've stated my opinion on ATS multiple times that it's not only science education that needs to be improved, but education about science. If we taught kids how to actually apply the scientific method, the difference between a fact and a theory and a law, and how none of them somehow morph into the others at some point, and how & why the words "proof" and "proven" are meaningless in a scientific context, I think you'd have little reason to claim that indoctrination is taking place.


No, I am not going to read every page of wikipedia ever written just to accommodate your ego. sorry.
I am not here to examine known facts but to dispute the speculations.
edit on 16-12-2012 by begoodbees because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Toadmund

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Toadmund
 


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

Maybe so in your opinion, I just believe evolution, I don't have to explain it, an internet search will explain more than I can.
And defend I did, I stated evolution is based on science, creationism is based on faith.


They are both based on faith. You have faith that there is no other intelligent life that could have created organic life. Others have faith that there is. It is just that simple.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by paradox

Originally posted by begoodbees


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:



Because you keep turning it into an argument of semantics. You're the one who keeps posting dictionary definitions and you wonder why? I was simply refuting your claim here in which you state:


So many have defended the factuality of evolution with no evidence to support it. That is what religious people do. The more fervently you argue, the more you are proving your religious indoctrination.


You are given evidence (Yes, FACTS. Tangible proof which has been observed both in the laboratory and in the natural world) which only further support the theory of evolution, yet you do not read or comprehend. It's simply cognitive dissonance. You have convinced yourself there is a conspiracy, so you are not willing to do any research or read about any facts. Your only argument for pages now has been "It's only a theory!!!" which is simply pathetic, to be honest.

If you want to change the course of the argument, please try refuting the FACTS and explain why the theory of evolution and all the evidence supporting it is WRONG. Good luck to you.

ETA: Again, here is the link from before which you refused to read:

en.wikipedia.org...

A great list of FACTS.
edit on 12-16-12 by paradox because: (no reason given)


I have to post definitions because most of the people who have shared in your beliefs have proven themselves to be very uneducated. Again evidence is not proof. Again, all of this evidence for evolution is also evidence of creation. It is just a matter of perspective.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 05:00 PM
link   
You are only serving to prove your closed mindedness on this issue which is further evidence (not proof) of your indoctrination.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by begoodbees
 


No, I am not going to read every page of wikipedia ever written just to accommodate your ego. sorry.

None of the information or sources that I presented in my first post in this thread came from Wikipedia. This has nothing to do with ego -- to truly engage in the give and take of a discussion with someone is the antithesis of ego. For someone who is concerned with others believing your are uneducated or stupid, you are very dismissive of facts and evidence that are presented to you.


I am not here to examine known facts but to dispute the speculations.

Perhaps you would find the speculation a bit less... speculative if you examined the facts a little more closely instead of offhandedly dismissing them.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 05:09 PM
link   
If there is a rock at the bottom of a mountain, you may be able to prove some ways it did not get there but if it fell all on its own how could you ever prove that?
edit on 16-12-2012 by begoodbees because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 05:27 PM
link   
There have been references to magical and mythical beings but what scenario sounds more like magic to you? An ipad is found in the dessert. Is it magic that someone designed it and put it there or is it magic that it assembled itself and put itself there.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by begoodbees
There have been references to magical and mythical beings but what scenario sounds more like magic to you? An ipad is found in the dessert. Is it magic that someone designed it and put it there or is it magic that it assembled itself and put itself there.



If someone were to assert that something as complex as an Ipad or any computer for that matter assembled itself from nothing, or that it randomly "evolved" that way over an extensive period of time, then that is magical thinking, pure and simple. The same logic must be applied to the Darwinian theory of evolution which says that something as immensely complex as our DNA magically evolved by pure random chance, and nothing is more complex than our DNA. But if someone were to assert that the Ipad was designed that way, then that is obviously the most likely conclusion. This is why Francis Crik who first discovered our DNA said that the theory of evolution does not explain the complexity of the DNA strand, to him it had all the signs of a designer, but instead of the God of the Bible, he concluded that aliens did it through directed Panspermia. This is actually the direction that the whole theory of evolution is going, they have no conclusive proof for how we magically evolved, so now a lot of them are throwing the entire theory into outer space about aliens, or are at least willing to accept that.
edit on 16-12-2012 by BlackManINC because: (no reason given)

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

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


Edit - Richard Dawkins believes in the looney Ancient Astronaut theory:

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



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 06:01 PM
link   
reply to post by BlackManINC
 


Thank you for that info. I would agree that scenario is just as possible as any other.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by begoodbees
 


No, I am not going to read every page of wikipedia ever written just to accommodate your ego. sorry.

None of the information or sources that I presented in my first post in this thread came from Wikipedia. This has nothing to do with ego -- to truly engage in the give and take of a discussion with someone is the antithesis of ego. For someone who is concerned with others believing your are uneducated or stupid, you are very dismissive of facts and evidence that are presented to you.


I am not here to examine known facts but to dispute the speculations.

Perhaps you would find the speculation a bit less... speculative if you examined the facts a little more closely instead of offhandedly dismissing them.


I am aware of the facts. The known facts do not prove or disprove evolution or creation. That is the fact that is relevant to this thread.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 06:09 PM
link   
Anyone who says that spontaneous evolution of species is a proven fact of science is either indoctrinated or dishonest.This is a fact.
edit on 16-12-2012 by begoodbees because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by begoodbees
Anyone who says that spontaneous evolution of species is a proven fact of science is either indoctrinated or dishonest.This is a fact.
edit on 16-12-2012 by begoodbees because: (no reason given)


No one said it is spontaneous. That goes against evolutionary theory.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackManINC

Originally posted by begoodbees
There have been references to magical and mythical beings but what scenario sounds more like magic to you? An ipad is found in the dessert. Is it magic that someone designed it and put it there or is it magic that it assembled itself and put itself there.



If someone were to assert that something as complex as an Ipad or any computer for that matter assembled itself from nothing, or that it randomly "evolved" that way over an extensive period of time, then that is magical thinking, pure and simple. The same logic must be applied to the Darwinian theory of evolution which says that something as immensely complex as our DNA magically evolved by pure random chance, and nothing is more complex than our DNA. But if someone were to assert that the Ipad was designed that way, then that is obviously the most likely conclusion. This is why Francis Crik who first discovered our DNA said that the theory of evolution does not explain the complexity of the DNA strand, to him it had all the signs of a designer, but instead of the God of the Bible, he concluded that aliens did it through directed Panspermia. This is actually the direction that the whole theory of evolution is going, they have no conclusive proof for how we magically evolved, so now a lot of them are throwing the entire theory into outer space about aliens, or are at least willing to accept that.
edit on 16-12-2012 by BlackManINC because: (no reason given)

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

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


Edit - Richard Dawkins believes in the looney Ancient Astronaut theory:

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



Good video. Thanks.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by BlackManINC
 


I don't see anything wrong with the ancient alien theory.
If you read into it a lot of it makes sense.

Check out ;
www.bibleufo.com
www.bibleufo.com...
Or even open up your OT to Ezekiel and think of what he saw as a spacecraft and not necessarily god.
edit on 16-12-2012 by Toadmund because: add link



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by paradox

Originally posted by begoodbees
Anyone who says that spontaneous evolution of species is a proven fact of science is either indoctrinated or dishonest.This is a fact.
edit on 16-12-2012 by begoodbees because: (no reason given)


No one said it is spontaneous. That goes against evolutionary theory.


This thread is about spontaneous evolution, it is in the op. Guided or controlled evolution is essentially the same thing as creation is it not?



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by begoodbees
 


I am aware of the facts.

Given that new facts are constantly coming to light, this claim smacks of indoctrination.


The known facts do not prove or disprove evolution or creation.

No scientific theory is ever proven. Nothing in science is every actually proven. Here's a link that does a better job explaining it than I can at the moment. I realize that the meanings of the words used to talk about science are different from their colloquial meanings, but it's important to recognize and understand where those differences exist.


That is the fact that is relevant to this thread.

I think there are many facts relevant to this thread. To offhandedly dismiss some and not others would appear to be a facet of indoctrination.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join