Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Science against evolution

page: 2
12
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 12:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Quadrivium
No matter how long I age, or how long I look in the mirror I will never change into an elkopotimus.
I will be a human no matter how long it takes. Prove me wrong.
I can only prove that you don't understand the concept of an analogy, so more difficult concepts may be beyond your grasp.




posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 01:30 AM
link   
www.youtube.com...

1 hour presentation on evolution, goes over a bunch of evidence/facts supporting evolution.



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 01:35 AM
link   






A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."[1][2] Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and do not make apodictic propositions; instead, they aim for predictive and explanatory force.[3][4]

Theory wiki




There is no such thing as, "The Scientific Method", research and experimentation are exploratory, departments often find their work contradicts another departments results.

Deductive reasoning plays a huge part but Inductive reasoning is as you say probabilistic, it relies on forms of predictive analytics to extract statistical weight from the data, creating a `strong` logical likelihood of that outcome.
The data extracted is used to either support a preconceived logical outcome or a close approximation of it, if the data makes no sense in this conceptual context it may force a radical change of thought or be discarded as a fault in the experiment.

All of these stages aimed at explanation are open to interpretation, so depending on how strong the support is for this new knowledge the weaker the critics will be, other departments included,,,no funding for them equals more for you.

Many a modern theory finds it was constructed on less than solid scientific foundations, constructed from dubious methods and force of personality.

edit on 20/12/12 by ironbutterflyrusted because: add
edit on 20/12/12 by ironbutterflyrusted because: add



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 06:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Quadrivium
No matter how long I age, or how long I look in the mirror I will never change into an elkopotimus.
I will be a human no matter how long it takes. Prove me wrong.
I can only prove that you don't understand the concept of an analogy, so more difficult concepts may be beyond your grasp.

you can not even prove that.
You may be able to prove from my previous post that I was being a smart
and having a little fun with your "analogy". It was a poor one at best to explain macro-evolution.
There is no solid evidence for it.
None.
You can not observe it.
You can not test it.
You can notstudy it.
It is not scientific .
As I said before, evolutionist apply evidence to THE theory when they should actually be applying a theory to the evidence. That is how science is supposed to work. If your theory does not work, find another that does.



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 08:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Quadrivium
 


Working nights is taking a toll on me. I have miss spoken twice now on the same subject.
I said earlier that.....

evolutionist apply evidence to THE theory when they should actually be applying a theory to the evidence.

What I meant to say was.....
Evolutionist apply their theory to the evidence when they should be applying the evidence to a theory.
My apologise.
edit on 20-12-2012 by Quadrivium because: because I am exhausted



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 01:41 PM
link   
12 Arguments Evolutionists should avoid
Example of the first two:
Argument 1 Evolution is a fact
Argument 2 Only the uneducated reject evolution

You can see them all in this link:
12 Arguments Evolutionists should avoid



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Quadrivium
No matter how long I age, or how long I look in the mirror I will never change into an elkopotimus.
I will be a human no matter how long it takes. Prove me wrong.
I can only prove that you don't understand the concept of an analogy, so more difficult concepts may be beyond your grasp.


You owe me a coffee..
And a keyboard...



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Quadrivium
 



There is no way around this and that is the exact reason why evolutionist try to distance themselves from...


biologists really are an insecure bunch.

for centuries, they were picked on by their better developed cousins, physics and chemistry.

Darwinism is also a centuries-old hypothesis, but it wasn't until Watson & Crick mid-20th century that biology could finally throw off the "embarrassing" notion of vitalism and join in the chorus of the mechanical universe.

and now that they have found it, by god, they cling to it fiercely!

the joke is on all of whom cannot see the death throes of reductionism and mechanical, linear causality. biology is far far FAR more complex than drawing circles and lines on tablecloths with crayons! but I do appreciate this analogy for illustrating the fact that, as is commonly said in the calculus, "it is one thing to set up the equation, and quite another to actually solve it".



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Apocryphon
While it is true that abiogenesis is one of the biggest hoaxes perpetrated upon mankind rivalling even that of religion itself, as others have pointed out this particular site is in error regarding their definition of evolution. As pointed out, they ought to be questioning abiogenesis, not evolution.
edit on 19-12-2012 by Apocryphon because: (no reason given)


More accurate: Involution and Evolution. What say you to this?



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 05:02 AM
link   
I clicked on the 1st link and despite a lot of sweat and gritting of teeth I read on until I came to this little gem:


Mississippian rocks are supposedly older than Pennsylvanian rocks; but Pennsylvania was a state before Mississippi was. Chronologically, the two names make no sense.



I learnt long ago that you will never win an argument against stupid....



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by alfa1

1. The definition of "evolution" given by those people in no way even remotely resembles the definition given by scientists.
One supposes that it is very easy to disprove the existence of aything at all if you change your own private personal working definiton of it to something else.

2. The definition they use is close to "abiogenesis". So it naturally occurs to ask why they...
a/ didnt know this, and
b/ didnt call their site "scienceagainstabiogenesis"

The only two explanation that come to mind are that they're either idiots or liars.
(or both)

If you read some of the articles in the site you will find that they do know the difference. Scientists make a distinction between evolution and abiogenesis but many nonscientists use don't make this distinction and consider evolution and abiogenesis to be two parts of a single process. They are simply using the popular definition rather than the scientific one.



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 01:03 PM
link   
A site called "Science against evolution" that does not present any science. SHOCKER. That page made me die of laughter, that has to be satire, right? If you want a good laugh, check this out:

scienceagainstevolution.info...

The sources are all wiki and their great revelation is that the geological periods were named after the areas they were found in. To them, that automatically means it has nothing to do with time! That's really scientific, guys. Thanks for that.


"The doctrine that unguided natural forces caused chemicals to combine in such a way that life resulted; and that all living things have descended from that common ancestral form of life."



I'm just going to keep saving quotes like these and keep them for rainy days.


“Convergent evolution” is a special case of this thinking. It is the evolutionists’ way of explaining things that are the same—but should not be. Evolutionists believe that humans and chimps should have similar hearing because they both evolved from some unknown ancestor. Humans and insects should not have similar hearing because they don’t have such a close common ancestor. Therefore, any similarity has to be explained by convergent evolution.


I found another gem! This guy really sounds like he has a firm grasp of biology. "Things that are the same but should not be". He must have a PHD to be using high class vocabulary like that!


Lesson 2 discusses three fatal flaws in evolution:

1. There is no known scientific law that allows something to evolve from nothing
2. No scientific law can account for non-living things coming to life
3. There is no known scientific law that would allow one kind of creature to turn naturally into a completely different kind.


It's funny how people just make up their own definition of evolution and roll with it, without doing any research whatsoever.

1. Evolution never claims that something evolved from nothing.
2. Evolution has nothing to do with that
3. Evolution never claims that.

This guy needs a biology 101 class asap. He thinks he's talking science, but clearly this is religiously motivated. Has to be satire.. at least I hope it is. Otherwise society's in trouble.
edit on 21-12-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 


I still get the basic idea however. Evolutionitsts can always claim that it's not being quoted correctly, but the fact of the matter is, there is still no law or rule that explains how a species turns into another species.

There is no proof that any and all changes are all part of the same process known as evolution. There is not even proof that any single incidence of change is in fact part of evolution, it is however assumed that it is. Once again I bring up the case of ADHD. People with this are highly likely to have deleted sections of their DNA and multiplied sections as well. It was also determined that being introduced to lead is likely causing this, also smoking introduces lead.

So in other words, a smoking pregnant mother causes evolution. It's got to be the biggest crock I have ever heard of. And you can't claim that it's never been claimed because it was only recently that scientists were able to identify the fact that specific genes were tied to ADHD, in other words prior to this find, scientists would have been assuming that those changes are actually from evolution, but now you can see they aren't.



posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 


So as you can see Barc, its just a matter of time before scientists are able to identify all changes, and remove that frame of guesswork out from under you that has been making this false claim all along.

All changes will eventually be accounted for and there will be no questionable, guessed claims available for someone to assume that evolution is responsable for.



posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by fastbob72
abiogenesis not evolution,try again.

why is it the anti-evolution lobby singularly fail to understand what evolution is.


Purposely fail. FTFY.

It's called using a straw man, ladies and gentlemen.



posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Quadrivium
reply to post by Quadrivium
 


Working nights is taking a toll on me. I have miss spoken twice now on the same subject.
I said earlier that.....

evolutionist apply evidence to THE theory when they should actually be applying a theory to the evidence.

What I meant to say was.....
Evolutionist apply their theory to the evidence when they should be applying the evidence to a theory.
My apologise.
edit on 20-12-2012 by Quadrivium because: because I am exhausted



Is evolutionist a cutesy thing used to make Anthropologists look silly? Because that's what the degree says, Anthropology not Evolutionist. This is probably as useful as huffing gas but let me give you some reading material to explain macro evolution-

www.talkorigins.org...

And while I'm at it let me leave you with the immortal words of Richard P Feynman
"... there are many reasons why you might not understand [an explanation of a scientific theory] ... Finally, there is this possibility: after I tell you something, you just can't believe it. You can't accept it. You don't like it. A little screen comes down and you don't listen anymore. I'm going to describe to you how Nature is - and if you don't like it, that's going to get in the way of your understanding it. It's a problem that [scientists] have learned to deal with: They've learned to realize that whether they like a theory or they don't like a theory is not the essential question. Rather, it is whether or not the theory gives predictions that agree with experiment. It is not a question of whether a theory is philosophically delightful, or easy to understand, or perfectly reasonable from the point of view of common sense. [A scientific theory] describes Nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment. So I hope you can accept Nature as She is - absurd.

I'm going to have fun telling you about this absurdity, because I find it delightful. Please don't turn yourself off because you can't believe Nature is so strange. Just hear me all out, and I hope you'll be as delighted as I am when we're through. "

- Richard P. Feynman (1918-1988),
from the introductory lecture on quantum mechanics reproduced in QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter (Feynman 1985).



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by peter vlar
 





And while I'm at it let me leave you with the immortal words of Richard P Feynman
"... there are many reasons why you might not understand [an explanation of a scientific theory] ... Finally, there is this possibility: after I tell you something, you just can't believe it. You can't accept it. You don't like it. A little screen comes down and you don't listen anymore. I'm going to describe to you how Nature is - and if you don't like it, that's going to get in the way of your understanding it. It's a problem that [scientists] have learned to deal with: They've learned to realize that whether they like a theory or they don't like a theory is not the essential question. Rather, it is whether or not the theory gives predictions that agree with experiment. It is not a question of whether a theory is philosophically delightful, or easy to understand, or perfectly reasonable from the point of view of common sense. [A scientific theory] describes Nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment. So I hope you can accept Nature as She is - absurd.

I'm going to have fun telling you about this absurdity, because I find it delightful. Please don't turn yourself off because you can't believe Nature is so strange. Just hear me all out, and I hope you'll be as delighted as I am when we're through. "

- Richard P. Feynman (1918-1988),
from the introductory lecture on quantum mechanics reproduced in QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter (Feynman 1985).

Evolution is not a scientific theory, it fails the litmus test that judges if an experiment is scientific.

First off there is no proof that any or all changes ever observed are all part of the same process known to be evolution.
Second, its never been witnessed. No one has ever observed an ape evolving into a human.
Third there has never been any verification that after speciation, more or even other specieation can occur, its just assumed to be possible.

Anything can be assumed possible, that doesn't make it real.

Target Food on the other hand proves intent in creation.
Through observation of numerous diets of random species there are some rather odd things discovered.
First is that the species always chooses the same food as a whole. In other words we don't have some of the species eating this and others eating other things, unless location plays differences in diet choice.
Species never experiment with food, unless they are starving of course, but we never see or hear about this experimental phase where they try to eat a rock to determine that its not good tasting, or try dirt to find out they don't like it.
You can't even pretend that its a choice thats made because it appears more that a choice has been pre determined.

Species in Target food will only eat between one and three items for life. This food will provide the absolute nutrients for that species. As in the case of the abalone and kelp. When Target food is no longer available for what ever reason, that species can be found eating just about everything from the food group of the Target food, as though they are trying to find it. This is phase one of hunger. After neither of those are available they might pick up an additional food group, as in the case of the squirrel. This is phase 2. Phase three is total starvation, eating rocks and dirt and poo.
Domesticated animals are not bound to all of this as we determine what they eat.

So the more items a species eats, the farther aways they are from anything related to the original Target Food. Humans are a good example of this. As the bible states, we were given everything, every plant, every herb, every animal, but none of these things are from our home, and also that earth is not our home. So this is why we don't have our intended food.



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Barcs
 


I still get the basic idea however. Evolutionitsts can always claim that it's not being quoted correctly, but the fact of the matter is, there is still no law or rule that explains how a species turns into another species.

Yes there is. It's called speciation. Why do we have go over the basics of evolutionary theory and modern synthesis over and over again?


There is no proof that any and all changes are all part of the same process known as evolution.

This thread is called science against evolution. If you got some science present it, stop gossiping. If a genetic change causes a noticeable change in a species, then yes, that is proof of the process of evolution, which is genetic mutation sorted by natural selection. You still don't understand that very simple and accurate definition of evolution. Maybe you should stop ignoring people that can understand the science.


Once again I bring up the case of ADHD.

Evolution is not about one individual. It's about a a trait that becomes dominant in the species because it gives them an advantage over others and helps them pass down more genes to their offspring. Are the effects of ADHD passed down genetically to children? If not, then it doesn't qualify as evolution. It is modifying the already existing genes on one individual. If the genetic changes are passed down and the changes gave certain populations an advantage over others, then it would qualify as evolution.
edit on 29-12-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


interesting that instead of quoting any evidence I showed to support evolution, you instead use my quote from a physicist about the general lack of scientific understanding by most people and that somehow proves evolution incorrect. Just for the record, its Anthropologist, not evolutionist. aside from that I'm going to quit while I'm ahead and stop swimming in the kiddie pool before everyone starts to giggle about sitting in their own pee.



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by peter vlar
 





interesting that instead of quoting any evidence I showed to support evolution, you instead use my quote from a physicist about the general lack of scientific understanding by most people and that somehow proves evolution incorrect. Just for the record, its Anthropologist, not evolutionist. aside from that I'm going to quit while I'm ahead and stop swimming in the kiddie pool before everyone starts to giggle about sitting in their own pee.
Any anthropologist would be smart enough to know that no one has ever witnessed apes evolving into humans, and in fact have never witnessed anything evolving into anything else.

So maybe I should quit while I'm way ahead an avoid participation in the assumption pool.






top topics



 
12
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join