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: 20
8
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 25 2013 @ 02:25 PM
link   
By trying to claim that evolution is nothing but faith is the latest trick by fundamentals. Saying that evolution is a belief like a religion is just the latest used car salesman tactic by the religious wing nuts to try to deter people from science and evolution by discrediting it and an attempt to play on emotions by comparing the understanding of evolution to blind faith.

It is just another fad, and next year you will see droves of Christians come on here all touting some new tactic. But right now we have to deal with the "evolution is faith" bunch.

The attempt Is to make us out to be hypocrites. It is a dishonest game of semantics.

As I have always said, if Jesus wanted people to go out and spread his religion, he would of made Christians better salesmen.




posted on Nov, 25 2013 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by helldiver
 


The alternative, or null, hypothesis is simply that evolution does not occur in a linear fashion.
That makes timing a bit of a mystery.

So if someone is using a computer to model evolution, say using some type of whatever recursive alogarithm would represent that best, then applying the punctuated equilibrium model would invalidate all the input information.
If things evolve at a random pace that can sometimes be slow, but sometimes fast then the number of values effecting change becomes essentially limitless thus making all input variables equally as likely.

The simple need for an alternate, or ad hoc, hypothesis from gradualism into punctuated equilibrium invalidates the theory.
Because the evolution from gradualism into punctuated equilibrium is done strictly out of a lack of evidence.
This supposed theory was created solely to explain away deficiencies in the original hypothesis.

These are all hallmarks of fallacy.
edit on 25/11/2013 by kyviecaldges because: Because I made a stupid error. That is why we edit.



posted on Nov, 25 2013 @ 03:27 PM
link   

kyviecaldges
reply to post by helldiver
 


The alternative hypothesis is simply that evolution does not occur in a linear fashion.
That makes timing a bit of a mystery.

So if someone is using a computer to model evolution, say using some type of whatever recursive alogarithm would represent that best, then applying the punctuated equilibrium model would invalidate all the input information.
If things evolve at a random pace that can sometimes be slow, but sometimes fast then the number of values effecting change becomes essentially limitless thus making all input variables equally as likely.

The simple need for an alternate, or ad hoc, hypothesis from gradualism into punctuated equilibrium invalidates the theory.
Because the evolution from gradualism into punctuated equilibrium is done strictly out of a lack of evidence.
This supposed theory was created solely to explain away deficiencies in the original hypothesis.

These are all hallmarks of fallacy.
edit on 25/11/2013 by kyviecaldges because: Because I made a stupid error. That is why we edit.


So, just to be clear, you're saying that variable rates of evolutionary change over geological time scales actually invalidates gradualism and punctuated equilibrium?

edit on 25-11-2013 by helldiver because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2013 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox
 





It is just another fad, and next year you will see droves of Christians come on here all touting some new tactic. But right now we have to deal with the "evolution is faith" bunch.


If you believe something without having evidence to validate its truth then you are doing so on faith alone.

And that is exactly what you are doing with Darwinian Evolution.

Good try with the association of my argument with a Christian's argument, because they are as undereducated as the whole lot about my view.
I am simply a skeptic.

I am an actual skeptic, not some neo-skeptic here to promote the status quo party line.



posted on Nov, 25 2013 @ 03:36 PM
link   

helldiver

kyviecaldges
reply to post by helldiver
 


The alternative hypothesis is simply that evolution does not occur in a linear fashion.
That makes timing a bit of a mystery.

So if someone is using a computer to model evolution, say using some type of whatever recursive alogarithm would represent that best, then applying the punctuated equilibrium model would invalidate all the input information.
If things evolve at a random pace that can sometimes be slow, but sometimes fast then the number of values effecting change becomes essentially limitless thus making all input variables equally as likely.

The simple need for an alternate, or ad hoc, hypothesis from gradualism into punctuated equilibrium invalidates the theory.
Because the evolution from gradualism into punctuated equilibrium is done strictly out of a lack of evidence.
This supposed theory was created solely to explain away deficiencies in the original hypothesis.

These are all hallmarks of fallacy.
edit on 25/11/2013 by kyviecaldges because: Because I made a stupid error. That is why we edit.


So, just to be clear, you're saying that variable rates of evolutionary change over geological time scales actually invalidates gradualism and punctuated equilibrium?

edit on 25-11-2013 by helldiver because: (no reason given)


If your input variables are limitless then it becomes impossible to get a predictable conclusion.

How can you argue that point.

If the variable rates of change are random.

That is the key. Because what punctuated equilibrium is asking me to do is believe that the effects of variable rates of change over geologic time scales on evolution can be understood.

If something is truly variable then all input values become equally as likely.

And the greater the number of input variables, the less likely for something to happen.
edit on 25/11/2013 by kyviecaldges because: Because I made a stupid error. That is why we edit.



posted on Nov, 25 2013 @ 03:56 PM
link   

helldiver

kyviecaldges
reply to post by helldiver
 


The alternative hypothesis is simply that evolution does not occur in a linear fashion.
That makes timing a bit of a mystery.

So if someone is using a computer to model evolution, say using some type of whatever recursive alogarithm would represent that best, then applying the punctuated equilibrium model would invalidate all the input information.
If things evolve at a random pace that can sometimes be slow, but sometimes fast then the number of values effecting change becomes essentially limitless thus making all input variables equally as likely.

The simple need for an alternate, or ad hoc, hypothesis from gradualism into punctuated equilibrium invalidates the theory.
Because the evolution from gradualism into punctuated equilibrium is done strictly out of a lack of evidence.
This supposed theory was created solely to explain away deficiencies in the original hypothesis.

These are all hallmarks of fallacy.
edit on 25/11/2013 by kyviecaldges because: Because I made a stupid error. That is why we edit.


So, just to be clear, you're saying that variable rates of evolutionary change over geological time scales actually invalidates gradualism and punctuated equilibrium?

edit on 25-11-2013 by helldiver because: (no reason given)


And just so you know... the only reason that I brought up punctuated equilibrium is because it is a null hypothesis.
That was my whole point in the discussion of truly random input variables.



posted on Nov, 25 2013 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by kyviecaldges
 


The problem though us that it seems that you are approaching biological systems as though they are mathematical equations with a linear route and a defined static answer and that just isn't the case with biological organisms. If evolution had a set or stated goal then sure you could uplugin whatever variable you want and run the numbers but this simply is not the case no matter how much you want it to be so. You're lookin at evolution under a microscope without vein aware of the true scope of it. It's like standing on an 1000 mile long interstate highway next to a sign that says the next town is 10 miles away but saying its a lie because you can't see where the road disappears to over the horizon.



posted on Nov, 25 2013 @ 05:33 PM
link   

peter vlar
reply to post by kyviecaldges
 


The problem though us that it seems that you are approaching biological systems as though they are mathematical equations with a linear route and a defined static answer and that just isn't the case with biological organisms. If evolution had a set or stated goal then sure you could uplugin whatever variable you want and run the numbers but this simply is not the case no matter how much you want it to be so. You're lookin at evolution under a microscope without vein aware of the true scope of it. It's like standing on an 1000 mile long interstate highway next to a sign that says the next town is 10 miles away but saying its a lie because you can't see where the road disappears to over the horizon.


You are totally mis-framing my argument.

I am not the one saying that Darwinian Evolution acts like a mathematical equation.
If someone believes what today is taught as the origin of species, then they believe a model only proven through the use of recursive algorithms.
If you don't have this mathematical construct, then the very theory being promoted in this debate is moved to the conjecture pile.
And that is fine, because even with the mathematical model- it is still conjecture.

This is based upon ancient and heralded computer maxim.

G.I.G.O.

Garbage In Garbage Out.
edit on 25/11/2013 by kyviecaldges because: Because I made a stupid error. That is why we edit.



posted on Nov, 25 2013 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by kyviecaldges
 


How am I misfeasance anything?
I'm going by your posts which discuss input variables and conclusions. It's all there. If I've misinterpreted it then I apologize as I'm simply trying to understand your ever evolving argument.



posted on Nov, 25 2013 @ 06:03 PM
link   

peter vlar
reply to post by kyviecaldges
 


How am I misfeasance anything?
I'm going by your posts which discuss input variables and conclusions. It's all there. If I've misinterpreted it then I apologize as I'm simply trying to understand your ever evolving argument.


My argument is not ever evolving.

I find it humorous that you are trying to take the fact that I already accused the supporters of Darwinian Evolution of using the ad hoc hypothesis fallacy, and use my words against me.

I don't know how much more clear I can make it for you.

I am not proposing a position. I don't have a theory.
What I am proposing consists of a collection of null hypotheses that make it impossible for the modern view of Darwinian Evolution to be possible.



posted on Nov, 25 2013 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by kyviecaldges
 


I totally get what you are proposing. I'm simy countering that its incorrect supposition on your part with nothing to support it. You can call it using your words against you if it makes it more palatable but the fact rains you make statements and shy away when called out on it. You're entitled to your opinion just as I am mine. We all have to live with our choices as well as live in the worldview we find works for us. This is something I've been doing for 18 years, in the classroom the field and the lab and the science is solid. You disagree and think its all hullabaloo, that doesn't leave much room for conversation at the end of the day. If you're happy not believing science then who am I to judge. However if your postulations are based on pure poo expect someone to jump in. It's just the nature of things. Lets be fair. You think I'm wrong. I think you're wrong. Neither is going to convince the other that their way is more correct. Lets just live And let live lol



posted on Nov, 25 2013 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by peter vlar
 



I totally get what you are proposing. I'm simy countering that its incorrect supposition on your part with nothing to support it.


God you are so wrong.

I just totally checkmated all of you cats.
If that is the best that y'all have then I am done.

Ciao.



posted on Nov, 25 2013 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by kyviecaldges
 


Whatever helps you sleep at night. I tried using verifiable science, your response was similar to my 5 year olds when she doesn't get to watch TV. I and others have attempted reason, you ignore it. I tried to be nice and go with the old live and let live axiom because there's no point in arguing with you and here you are claiming checkmate. Sorry, but to put someone in checkmate you must be playing against an opponent. The only person you're playing against is yourself. Ciao indeed.



posted on Nov, 25 2013 @ 07:46 PM
link   

peter vlar
reply to post by kyviecaldges
 


Whatever helps you sleep at night. I tried using verifiable science, your response was similar to my 5 year olds when she doesn't get to watch TV. I and others have attempted reason, you ignore it. I tried to be nice and go with the old live and let live axiom because there's no point in arguing with you and here you are claiming checkmate. Sorry, but to put someone in checkmate you must be playing against an opponent. The only person you're playing against is yourself. Ciao indeed.


You are still trying to reframe my argument and use it against me.
That is all you have left in the tank.
You got no more ammo. You just emptied your clip.

And I am still standing.

We are indeed at an impasse, but simply because I have shown that Darwinian Evolution as we are taught is not possible.
Abiogenesis.
Single to multi-cellular-bad boy/girl-top of the food chain-predator of today.

This is not difficult to understand, methinks; however, another huge premise in my argument is that self-brainwashing mechanisms best seen in cognitive dissonance theory have become the norm go to argument when people are confronted with this reality.
Thank you for helping me prove that, without a doubt, my view has not been tainted by contradiction.
The mainstream is wrong.

49% of the world is below average. That leaves about 2% of the population making the choices for everybody.
Whose side are you on?
The 49% above or below average?

Your response is telling that I have the honest perspective, free from contradictory reasoning.

And anyone reading who is capable of critical and objective thought should see it plain as day.
edit on 25/11/2013 by kyviecaldges because: Because I made a stupid error. That is why we edit.



posted on Nov, 25 2013 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by peter vlar
 




Ignorance is overrated as well yet this thread keeps on keeping on.


And the skeptic is the last man standing.

It only makes sense that it takes a true skeptic to stop the smack talk of a motley crew of scientific fundamentalists.
It is much easier to invalidate a theory than create one.

The burden of proof is on y'all folks. All I gotta do is sit back and easily shoot the proverbial ducks on the proverbial pond. I don't think that I used the word proverbial correctly. I can't think of a single proverb about shooting ducks on a pond.
edit on 26/11/2013 by kyviecaldges because: Because I made a stupid error. That is why we edit.



posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 01:08 AM
link   
reply to post by kyviecaldges
 


(Facepalms)
I don't think you really understand evolution properly, do you?



posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 01:24 AM
link   

AngryCymraeg
reply to post by kyviecaldges
 


(Facepalms)
I don't think you really understand evolution properly, do you?


Or logic for that matter!



posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 03:20 AM
link   

AngryCymraeg
reply to post by kyviecaldges
 


(Facepalms)
I don't think you really understand evolution properly, do you?


Please don't be so rough.

My ego can only take so much abuse until I melt.

Kind of like the witch from Wizard of Oz.



posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 03:26 AM
link   

helldiver

AngryCymraeg
reply to post by kyviecaldges
 


(Facepalms)
I don't think you really understand evolution properly, do you?


Or logic for that matter!


Funny that you say that without offering any support for your statement.

Someone who understands logic would call that conjecture or a conjecture.

Yeah. Read the thread son.



posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 03:30 AM
link   

nixie_nox
By trying to claim that evolution is nothing but faith is the latest trick by fundamentals. Saying that evolution is a belief like a religion is just the latest used car salesman tactic by the religious wing nuts to try to deter people from science and evolution by discrediting it and an attempt to play on emotions by comparing the understanding of evolution to blind faith.

It is just another fad, and next year you will see droves of Christians come on here all touting some new tactic. But right now we have to deal with the "evolution is faith" bunch.

The attempt Is to make us out to be hypocrites. It is a dishonest game of semantics.

As I have always said, if Jesus wanted people to go out and spread his religion, he would of made Christians better salesmen.



not to savvy, are ya.

no one cares what you think about God. except God.
you can think what what you want. no one cares. you want to know more, ask.

evolution sucks, full stop. how bout that?
science has been about as good as obamacare.

no, really! i embrace my iphone and pc but still find them lacking.

where is my flying car?
where is the "beam me up, scotty?"

oh, really? fantasy? maybe someday?

sucks living in the here and now, doesn't it?

evo-lu-tion, lol.

prove it.

prove a t-rex will be stuffed on my table nov 28th.

prove a frog turned into a gator.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join