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.

 

I no longer believe in Evolution as currently being used

page: 15
8
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 11:46 PM
link   

flyingfish

SisyphusRide

flyingfish
Your confused, you don't need games when relying on facts


would you agree that facts change?

would you believe that our understanding changes at a great pace and that we sometimes learn that truth is something we otherwise took for granted?

truth is fact


So, in other words, you're saying, in light of the evidence that proves you wrong, you "still" prefer willful ignorance.

Got it...


no... I am saying you are not a good teacher or educator, or bringer of truth (which is "fact" remember?)

try baby steps with me




posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 01:52 AM
link   

darkbake

The theory of evolution as it is currently being used without believing in any spirit or life force is not just unbelievable, it is an outright lie. LIE. As in can be proven false.

A vital part of evolutionary theory is that organisms can choose to evolve any way they want, and then the ones that work stay around. However, modern evolutionary theory even contradicts itself. That choice is the life force. Without the life force, there is no evolution

It is a fact. And it is absolutely dangerous to be promoting a false scientific theory. .


Absolutely,100% untrue. Organisms get no say in what course evolution takes. It's NATURAL selection not SELF selection. huge difference. You can go on about life force yo your hearts content, however you completely misunderstand what science does. Science deal in facts and evidence. Sometimes those facts begin as supposition and conjecture but that is never the end result.



How did our society get anywhere without the life force? How was language created? What about a boat? Or a book? How did Newton make Calculus?

It is patently impossible for electrons firing in the brain at random to make calculus, it just does not happen. Period. And that has to be explained. That is not some religious argument, that a gaping hole in the "no life force" argument.

Calculus originated in Newton's mind, and was isolated to his mind (and maybe some collaborators). The probability of it occurring due to random chance without any set goal is zero. Rocks cannot set goals. Electric wires cannot set goals. Even computers cannot program themselves.


Except for a couple of glaring errors in your argument. You make it sound as if calculus just appeared in Newton's mind one day with no preexisting foundation to it despite the fact that it in fact does have earlier basis going back to India and Greece not to mention work being done by his contemporaries. The foundations were there, calculus just closed the holes in earlier work. The other more massive issue with your 'impossibility of spontaneous mathematics' hypothesis is that not only was it not spontaneous in Newton, it wasn't spontaneous in Leibniz either. If you're not familiar with Liebniz you can thank him for all the fancy notations used in as well as the name of Calculus. Liebniz even published Calculus prior to Newton. 2 people independently came up with calculus, arriving at the same end result despite starting from different directions( Newton from differentiation, Liebnitz from Integration). Calculus didn't not have a set goal but the mathematicians who worked on it did, finalizing a theorem.




edit on 19-11-2013 by peter vlar because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 02:31 AM
link   
Why is it that Evolution is always on trial? Why is creationism never put to the test? I have yet to see an animal just appear out of thin air, as this is how creationism works. Or not appear out of thin air, but see some dirt and elements get thrown together to make a pig.

I have never seen that happen, nor has anyone else. So where do you creationists (wow such an ugly word, i hate typing it) get your "Evidence" from the bible? 5 or so pages of genesis is enough evidence to convince you that millions of documented cases showing evolution taking place is wrong?

I thought you creationists were smarter than that, then again, you are creationists so I guess that answers that question.

Mr. Tyson does a great job pointing out the many flaws in "Creationism" here. Which sad to say is an incredible blow to that "field" I used quotes around that word because creationism isn't a field of study, more like a sick joke played on gullible people, who cannot think for themselves.





I will end my post here, as I cannot add further to the discussion. Ray Comfort is a fool and a liar. Anyone vouching for his is just as guilty of being the same things.
edit on 11/19/1313 by GR1ill3d because: Grammar.



posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 06:38 AM
link   

SisyphusRide

Cogito, Ergo Sum
the chap in the video is simply telling the truth.


the chap in the video is stating a fallacy with no introduced data or scientific fact in the opening lines of his statement...

I first have to "believe on faith" the statement he makes is fact.. which it is highly unlikely.


That you ignored the sociological papers I linked which back up exactly what he said, seems obvious. The US is the western modern world's version of fundamentalist Afghanistan/Middle East. An anomalous and strange mixture of 3rd world society, amongst first world affluence. A thriving academic community, yet with a general population who also reject science en masse, for religion. Why don't you take the time to browse them?

There are other papers from various academics which look at this problem and it is a problem in the societal health sense.

It is not the gentleman in the video who's claims are unfounded. Read the links and explain why he is wrong.


edit on 19-11-2013 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it.



posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 07:16 AM
link   

SisyphusRide

Krazysh0t

SisyphusRide

MarsIsRed
The great irony to all this is that some hardline creationists believe that if science somehow undermined modern evolutionary synthesis then creationism would be correct - which is, of course, another great fallacy. Invalidating one theory in no way validates another. It would simply mean a new theory must be sought which explained the observed facts.


how then does something come from nothing... It is a great mystery.

Observation of our surrounding and the natural world would suggest that things are created.

plant seeds are created after pollination... offspring are created after fertilization... buildings are created after they are built, ect ect.


There you go! See this is what I was talking about. What you JUST did right there is misrepresent Evolution. Evolution doesn't explain how something can come from nothing. The Big Bang Theory and Abiogenesis talk to those points depending on which something from nothing you are referring to (living or inanimate). They are NOT part of the theory of evolution though.
edit on 18-11-2013 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)


Sir/Madam...

maybe you missed page 1 and page 2, and page 3 ect ect of this thread?

what does evolution have to do with God?

there is one thing no one in the world I do not think can stand... it is quite possibly quite universal, crossing cultures and language barriers.

no one like a double standard toting hypocrite... and I would wager that is a fact.


Way to deflect. I didn't even say the word "god" once in that post you quoted. So what are you talking about? How about addressing the point I brought up in the text you quoted. You know how you asked a question about how evolution has to do with life coming from nothing and I countered by saying that you are wrong, evolution doesn't say that. The only hypocrite here is you, you pretend to seek knowledge but then ignore the information when it is provided for you in favor of the narrow view you've come up with.



posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Cogito, Ergo Sum

SisyphusRide

Cogito, Ergo Sum
the chap in the video is simply telling the truth.


the chap in the video is stating a fallacy with no introduced data or scientific fact in the opening lines of his statement...

I first have to "believe on faith" the statement he makes is fact.. which it is highly unlikely.


That you ignored the sociological papers I linked which back up exactly what he said, seems obvious. The US is the western modern world's version of fundamentalist Afghanistan/Middle East. An anomalous and strange mixture of 3rd world society, amongst first world affluence. A thriving academic community, yet with a general population who also reject science en masse, for religion. Why don't you take the time to browse them?

There are other papers from various academics which look at this problem and it is a problem in the societal health sense.

It is not the gentleman in the video who's claims are unfounded. Read the links and explain why he is wrong.


edit on 19-11-2013 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it.


was it written by a panel of experts, paid for by my tax dollars and certified learning curriculum that is deemed accurate for educational purposes?

alrighty then...



posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 10:00 AM
link   

SisyphusRide
That you ignored the sociological papers I linked which back up exactly what he said, seems obvious. The US is the western modern world's version of fundamentalist Afghanistan/Middle East. An anomalous and strange mixture of 3rd world society, amongst first world affluence. A thriving academic community, yet with a general population who also reject science en masse, for religion. Why don't you take the time to browse them?

There are other papers from various academics which look at this problem and it is a problem in the societal health sense.

It is not the gentleman in the video who's claims are unfounded. Read the links and explain why he is wrong.


edit on 19-11-2013 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it.


was it written by a panel of experts, paid for by my tax dollars and certified learning curriculum that is deemed accurate for educational purposes?


additionally my ancient browser doesn't open PDF, and I am not allowed to download on this computer, so you are going to have to use your own words to convince me of your version of reality.


edit on 19-11-2013 by SisyphusRide because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by SisyphusRide
 


I am about to explore your link...but first let me answer this:


that is after you first claim belief in a deity known as science... even though our understanding of science changes at almost a daily rate in this day and age.


Do you know the definition of the word "deity"? I don't think you do.


de·i·ty noun \ˈdē-ə-tē, ˈdā-\
: a god or goddess
plural de·i·ties

Full Definition of DEITY

1
a : the rank or essential nature of a god : divinity
b capitalized : god 1, supreme being
2
: a god or goddess


So is Christianity a deity? Are you in the practice of being a god? Because that's basically what you're saying. If science, which in itself is merely a practice or a method of investigation, is a deity, then so is Christianity. You are in the practice of being a deity.

Maybe you should look these words up before you use them.

...I just looked at your link. So because there have been deities associated with the acquisition of knowledge and investigation, that knowledge and investigation in and of itself is a deity?

Subtlety is clearly not your strong-suit. It is no mystery that context befuddles you so much, given that anything other than the most blatant of addresses flies right over your head.



posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 10:14 AM
link   

AfterInfinity
Do you know the definition of the word "deity"? I don't think you do.


I am sure it will not be long before you adopt symbolism and craft a figurine for your religion...

even though you already have one





science is a man made practice...

the first result in google for science deity directs you to the link I provided.



posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 10:35 AM
link   

AfterInfinity
Do you know the definition of the word "deity"? I don't think you do.


do you know what a "knowledge" deity is? as I mentioned in my post.

let me be clear...

A knowledge deity is a deity in mythology associated with knowledge, wisdom, or intelligence.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by SisyphusRide
 


That doesn't make knowledge itself a deity, nor the investigation of such a deity.



posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 11:04 AM
link   

AliceBleachWhite

Religion requires people to believe in it. Evolution doesn't.

You and anyone or even everyone can spontaneously not believe in evolution, and, it'll still happen.





Do you believe in religion Alice ? Of course you don't.
Niether do I. So, " required " is a bit misleading and over powered.
Religion doesn't require anything. It's there that's all and I see it
as having little to do with faith. Sermons are important tho.
Not to the religious so much but, to the believer.
edit on 19-11-2013 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by SisyphusRide
 


bu-bu----but that is why its a THEORY... its not a law like thermodynamics. Its a theory meaning it builds the best possible conclusion given the current data presented without a clear conclusion.

Is it the best theory? Well scientifically its the best one at the moment considering the given data, but it is a theory, anyone who told you it is some kind of law is doing science wrong and should be fired, tarred and feathered.

Nice that you found information to better understand why its a theory so your doing it right. That is what science is poking and prodding, asking all those big questions and together we all reach a better understanding by learning about the world around us. YaY for science



posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by tigpoppa
 


No that is wrong. The way scientists use the word theory and the way laymen use the word theory are two different things.

What is a Scientific Theory?


When used in non-scientific context, the word “theory” implies that something is unproven or speculative. As used in science, however, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.

Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. In the scientific method, there is a clear distinction between facts, which can be observed and/or measured, and theories, which are scientists’ explanations and interpretations of the facts. Scientists can have various interpretations of the outcomes of experiments and observations, but the facts, which are the cornerstone of the scientific method, do not change.



posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 11:34 AM
link   

tigpoppa
reply to post by SisyphusRide
 


bu-bu----but that is why its a THEORY... its not a law like thermodynamics. Its a theory meaning it builds the best possible conclusion given the current data presented without a clear conclusion.

Is it the best theory? Well scientifically its the best one at the moment considering the given data, but it is a theory, anyone who told you it is some kind of law is doing science wrong and should be fired, tarred and feathered.

Nice that you found information to better understand why its a theory so your doing it right. That is what science is poking and prodding, asking all those big questions and together we all reach a better understanding by learning about the world around us. YaY for science


theories are meant to be broken... or changed, or altered, or proven wrong.

one of my favorites is Einstein’s Static Universe, dude was pretty smart...

en.wikipedia.org...

the scientific theory that light came from our eyes is another favorite of mine



posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 


Well that is what theories are built on like I said the given data. To elaborate it means when new data is discovered. A theory will be reexamined to see how to apply the new data to support or disprove the theory. Theories are built on facts, but their still theories, the Theory is not fact, it is a supposition of the facts gathered from the data presented.


reply to post by SisyphusRide
 


Very good point, the entire point of science and the use of theories is to prove or disprove them through a community working together. These are big questions, to big for any one person, and no one person, not even Darwin is responsible for the entire body of work, its a compilation over lifetimes of work by many contributors. This is how science is done, a question is asked, in a way everyone is a scientist which is what makes science so much fun. From Chemistry, hey even brewing coffee could technically be considered chemistry, to making ice cubes, welcome to physics. Everyday we do science without even realizing it but its all around us, and it is us, everything we do or see is from us which for me always feels comforting.



posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by tigpoppa
 


OT

can you teach me the science of how you did that multi quote...

or was it magic?



posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by SisyphusRide
 


I had to copy and paste Im not sure ATS does multi or any sort of in line quoting Im aware of. magic is always more fun though, but your mind must be sufficiently freaked to cntrl c and cntrl v



posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by SisyphusRide
 


You got meaning of word theory again wrong...

Let me help you:



the·o·ry
noun ˈthē-ə-rē, ˈthir-ē

: an idea or set of ideas that is intended to explain facts or events

: an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true

: the general principles or ideas that relate to a particular subject
plural the·o·ries
Full Definition of THEORY
1
: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2
: abstract thought : speculation
3
: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art
4
a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action
b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory
5
: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena
6
a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation
b : an unproved assumption : conjecture
c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject
See theory defined for English-language learners »
See theory defined for kids »

Examples of THEORY

a widely accepted scientific theory
Her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn.
There are a number of different theories about the cause of the disease.
She proposed a theory of her own.
Investigators rejected the theory that the death was accidental.
There is no evidence to support such a theory.
He is a specialist in film theory and criticism.
The immune surveillance theory of cancer holds that in a way we all do have cancer, that a healthy immune system fights off rogue cells as they appear. —Sallie Tisdale, Harper's, June 2007 *


Theory are not meant to be broken.

Do you see how wrong is your understanding of science?

This reminds me of Carl Sagan's quote:


Science is a way of thinking much more than it is a body of knowledge.


edit on 19-11-2013 by SuperFrog because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 01:13 PM
link   

tigpoppa
reply to post by SisyphusRide
 


I had to copy and paste Im not sure ATS does multi or any sort of in line quoting Im aware of. magic is always more fun though, but your mind must be sufficiently freaked to cntrl c and cntrl v


ok I'll try it in a text doc... I could have sworn we had this ability before the format change on the site no?

I recall being scolded for making seperate posts to reply to everyone...

oh well, the mind you know
magic is cool though I agree.

I vote for multi quote on ATS... hear hear



SuperFrog
reply to post by SisyphusRide
 


You got meaning of word theory again wrong...

Let me help you:


I do not recall providing you with or defining the word "theory"

but thanks anyway... although it does not change the fact the theories change, get superceeded, proven false or otherwise.

I'll come back to argue with you about your beliefs later, Greystoke is on netflix.

you know Greystoke don't you? it a movie about if someone is raised by animals they think they are an animal, that if they act like an animal then they must indeed be one... it is also about how if someone is led to believe they are an animal, that they act like one because they simply do not know any better.

good movie


edit on 19-11-2013 by SisyphusRide because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join