The Evolution Delusion: conspiracy ?

reply to post by CT Slayer


??? I don't understand what you are trying to ask. You doubt Plotinus is a serious metaphysician? I'll admit that I do not know a non-serious metaphysician, so I guess I accidentally insulted the non-serious metaphysicans, if any do in fact exist.

[edit on 2-3-2010 by ancient_wisdom]

reply to post by nophun



I believe you missed my point, when I said

So would there be any difference if the subject of Aliens was replaced with that of God, and perhaps question evolution as a whole or in part. Ridicule? perhaps.

You decided to answer with your little rock story.

My statement/question was somewhat rhetorical. My point was, when those in the scientific community decide to take "aliens" seriously they are ridiculed. For perhaps investigating something against the normal school of thought, or the bulk of their peers.

In kind, those in the same circles who perhaps would like to investigate the god theory, are labled ID'ers. Which has basically been bashed to death by atheists who all claim the idea of ID (ha)is a front for christianity. Which I disagree with.

Much like the partisan political debate, too many feel the need to take sides regardless. Once a side is chosen they become so unwavering in their opinions it becomes a futile exercise.

There are 2 things to consider, touch/physical evidence and spirtuality. Since spirituality cannot be touched or measured or encased in a museum then it must be handled with an open mind not tweezers, or measuring tapes.

reply to post by PowerSlave

Nope I understand fully.
Sorry my rock and god ralph was just me having some fun

Here is the thing. There is no scientific theory of god or aliens. There is nothing showing there should be. Science does not try to disprove god there just is no theory for it because there is no way to show god is real or not.

Evolution (and natural selection) on the other hand we can and do test

Science cannot really disprove "God did it", Science did not try to disprove "God did it this way" but it did. It shows everything living on earth evolved from other species (evolution)

Evolution does not disprove God started life on earth, it does disprove god created humans as they are now 6000 years ago.

Sorry I am still hurried I can answer better latter if needed




[edit on 2-3-2010 by nophun]

Originally posted by CT Slayer
We are told how similar organs in organisms from different species are controlled by similar genes, and it is then suggested that small changes in the DNA which controls such similarities between organisms can give rise to new species.

I bet most people (including the ones who "believe" in evolution) don't know how genes work or what they're made of. They know it has something to do with DNA and what we look like, but that's about it. I mean if you had to write an essay about genes, what would you write? Most people couldn't write more than one or two sentences. People have no clue.

How you describe genes, it's how biology is taught to children. The actual story is a thousandfold more complex. It's out there for you to read if you seriously wish to understand both sides. If you do embark on that journey, do so with patience. It's not easy. But it's totally worth it! It's amazing how far our species has come in understanding how life on Earth works.

There's one thing I don't understand. Most of us don't question the theory of relativity. While I have no clue about the underlying science (for example why the speed of light isn't 300 000 000 m/s instead of 299 792 458 m/s) I still believe it. I believe it because a ton of scientists say it's so and all their experiments and observations support it (I believe in them). It's the same exact thing with the theory of evolution. All scientists say it's so. All experiments and observations support it. Nothing has contradicted neither relativity nor evolution. So why is it that pretty much everybody buys the first theory, but certain people have huge problems with the second theory?

oh and p.s. You don't know if Neanderthals spoke or not. We don't know if there was a language(s) or not. Further, is there thought without a language (perhaps it's the reason we can't remember things from very early age)?

[edit on 2-3-2010 by rhinoceros]

Originally posted by ancient_wisdom
I would just like to say that serious metaphysicians do not consider creationism or evolution to be the true model for totality. They consider Emanation to be the true model. Since some might view this as a topic derailment, I will keep it brief.

At a quantum level, we can simply consider this zero-emission.

Any change upon zero-emission is science (with a principle of study).

Such quantum level easily excludes philosophy and semantics.

reply to post by Kandinsky


Cremo is dishonest and mendacious. He uses old news snippets and rhetoric to enchant people with his own world view....Hindu creationist BS.

Ok that is your opinion...and here is what I said....

"I said I can relate to things he talks about"...

May I add ...Not everything he talks about is junk... there have been stolen artifacts, you say he dishonest…dishonest about WHAT? all his information?.... he admits that he went to India to gather research and information... how is that mendacious
I don't dispute that what he uses to gain public fame like news clippings and all the rest of the garb he adds yeah I can see your point thanks for giving me some feedback


[edit on 2-3-2010 by NorthStargal52]

Originally posted by rnaa
I encourage you to keep studying evolution and the Theory of Evolution from people who understand it and want you to understand it.

Evangelists are not interested in the empirical, primal, or fundamental levels of any science, technology, or religion. Evangelists are comparable to salesmen and saleswomen that either or both understand how to read technical documentation or a selection of study.

You have no hope of understanding either by studying the people who have no interest in understanding it themselves and especially don't want you to understand it.

Infinite evolutionist need to trust hope in others. When there is potential for no hope detected then forensic sciences instinctively control.

Who exactly is saying dinosaurs are unnatural?

Thrice explained automatically weighs on numbers and that is even less hope for natural selection.

This entire part of the discussion is nonsense as far as I can tell.

Hope it eventually becomes self-evident by less than a scientific miracle.

Biology studies the natural world.

Biologist do not understand the agricultural level of sciences. Those of Ag-Biotech understand the natural world.

Things found in nature are natural.

This is a sign of artificial intelligence by noumenon to explain phenomenon.

Dinosaurs were once part of the natural world, and now their remains are part of the natural world.

The probability of noumenon to change their intellectual purpose would change their statement if such change occurs. This suggests crystallized structural states only recognized natural fossilizations by mere affection while not deactivated.

Biology has nothing to say about the super-natural world.

Noticed the distinction between natural and the super states, yet the comprehension of substates are questionably deactivated.

Prediction (by apprehension): the tesseract, while well known, is often forgotten and appears almost forgotten, in awareness, at a super natural level; thus, the mere loss of any of the six main senses meant a natural selection of recovery and increased rate of 'brain' growth. Disease unlabeled, as a paranormal condition may have been observed.

reply to post by dzonatas


You really do hate the English language, don't you? That whole post was a series of nonsensical, disjointed sentences.

Originally posted by davesidious
reply to post by dzonatas

 

You really do hate the English language, don't you? That whole post was a series of nonsensical, disjointed sentences.

Evidently, people misunderstand the nature of evolution as the theory of evolution; analogously to, how people misunderstand pure english as the Theory of English.

reply to post by dzonatas


No, they don't. I'm sure you want to think they do, but they don't.

Originally posted by CT Slayer

Originally posted by NorthStargal52
reply to post by Zenithar

 

Well I can relate to many things that Michael Cremo is talking about, this is what I was thinking many, many of years ago. He talks of what humans are... that humans are a combination of matter, mind, and
consciousness or spirit.
In other words our body is just the shell consisting of matter but the mind our brain contains our consciousness or spirit. This is what never ends our spirit every living things mamals, trees, rocks, all have this spirit...
So is there a divine spirit?? yes I believe there is...

'

You are very astute and wise to understand such RAAADICAL an idea.

Well. radical to infallible darwinian religion and dogmatic fundamentalist faith.

You don't know me enough to judge me like that .... I am not a radical person at all I do not adhere to any such darwinian religion as you put it. I am not a dogmatic fundamentalist either....

I speak my own mind .... I have never sided with any certain view. I will say this there are many people commenting on this topic and they all have a right to their thoughts because to them that is what they believe in.
I read the posts and I comment about things that match my own beliefs..
Just because we don't see eye to eye on things does not constitute for labeling me or bashing me ...

[edit on 2-3-2010 by NorthStargal52]

my problem with creationism is that God obviously does not cause everything, there is a hierarchy in which each living thing has its own limited consciousness, limited the most in plants and insects, slightly greater in animals, most profound in humans, but this does not mean that humans have absolute free will, they do have more freedom the more they free their mind.

my problem with evolution is that it should not be compared with creationism, since it is not a religion nor does it try and answer all questions concerning origins of species. Abiogenesis is the theory of life coming from non-life, or biogenesis which says life comes from the ocean, evolution is not concerned with the first species to be produced.

Originally posted by davesidious
reply to post by nophun

 

I think it's a safe bet to say that much closer to 100% of all biologists agree that the theory of evolution accurately describes the phenomenon of evolution.

Most people who argue that the ToE is false do so from ignorance, not because there are holes in the theory (which is about as water-tight as possible).

I don't think creationists understand that to disprove the ToE, they have to disprove every single discovery and piece of evidence that backs it up. Including DNA.

But anyway, I'm sure this thread will be a rousing success, filled with creationists saying how piltdown man disproves everything or, as you said, hiding in the gaps, and people with even a rudimentary biology education fruitlessly trying to teach them.

Here we go again!

Darwin (Rockefeller friend) abandon his theory at the end of his life going christian again but the theory got stuck for centuries...
his theory is as true as vaccines and that there is no aliens on Earth

reply to post by k3456789


If his theory were wrong it would not have mountains of scientific studies that support it. Also, there is no proof that Darwin had a deathbed conversion and denial of evolution. The only story that talks of this is The Lady Hope story which was denied by Darwin's children and has continued to be declared as false by historians. In fact, one of the last things Darwin ever read was the journal that contained Mendel's famous study on pea plants.

people say that all of science agrees evolution is real. This is only because anyone who disagrees is called a creationist. It seems like an obviously false generalization that uses ideology and dogma in order to make a skeptic seem like they are not worthy of being called a scientist. The scientific community does not all agree on the same thing.

People say, "look around you, obviously there's a creator." What is funny about this comment is that when you look around yourself, you usually see buildings, cars, roads, and other things, created by humans, not god. So this statement only makes sense when you are looking at mountains and rivers.

Originally posted by k3456789
Darwin (Rockefeller friend) abandon his theory at the end of his life going christian again but the theory got stuck for centuries...
his theory is as true as vaccines and that there is no aliens on Earth

lolwat ?

No he never! Some crazy creationist lied and said he did
Darwin's daughter latter confirmed this creationist never even visited Darwin that day.

Even if he did .. who cares? the theory is tested an true today

Originally posted by nophun
Yet again you completely ignore my argument in the post and try to pick apart the example I used. My rock is a fair example and not many other creationist would disagree with it, even if they don't agree with my results.

What are you talking about "Yet again" I ignored your argument? WHAT ARGUMENT HOSS?? You haven't made an argument, you have only given your OPINION and that is ALL you have done PERIOD.

You say I ignore your argument in the same voice, the very same paragraph I used your incoherent example for design you gave using the rock and erosion analogy to pick it apart. So how is it I ignored it at the same time. Are you upset with me for some reason else all this other "stuff" you have said has NOTHING to do with YOUR argument and if it is so "Crystal Clear" that a Rock is not a design because erosion had something to do with designing them, you would be dead wrong. Erosion didn't create granite genius, and it doesn't design it in anyway.

So unless YOU can explain to me what the hell you are trying to convey, my pointing out that it makes no sense at all still stands because it doesn't .

The fact that a Christians agree with you, is most likely because they didn't want to embarrass someone who acts like he knows what he is talking about when he doesn't.

Most of your points are like this completely random rants or just good ol' disinformation.

For instance? Go ahead, SHOW ME.

In one thread you came up with beating me with a baseball bat so I could not reproduce with a hooker ... psycho creationist is psycho

Again, SHOW ME.

Yes, a 7th grader who understands that man and dinosaurs did not or even could not coexist . Better then some people ITT.

Did I say you didn't know that" Or is this another statment you imagine I have said? If so,

SHOW ME

What ?
Science does prove the crime of Evolution happened.

I never used the phrase in that way now did I?

Nope don't think i did. What I did was used your reversing of the way evidence is used to prove a claim mentioned in a science magazine or and I just used the example of how evidence is used in an allegation for the burden of proof. Example: in the context you gave would be like me saying "Nothing in the fossil record disproves evolution"

That is not what the fossil record is used as a resource for is it? NO. It is used to as evidence to PROVE a claim, NOT DISPROVE IT. I can say the same thing about GOD and say NOTHING in the fossil record disproves GOD. It isn't MY fault you used a context that doesn't make sense and it stands to reason why my rebuttal you can't understand either.

I am really starting to worry for your sanity

Their is something wrong with my sanity? Please share with us so that we might bear witness to your scholarly expertise in the field of Psychology.

Or are you just calling me names now?

Two times you have posted links that completely go against what your points you are trying to make..

Really? how to they go against the point I was trying to make? Oh and for the benefit of the readers, would you be so kind as to bringing them up to speed on just what point was it that my links and post were diametrically opposed in the alleged contradiction.

I don't even really know what to say to this..

Yeah, we get that about you but we've all been there. Takes time, and practice. You'll see

[edit on 2-3-2010 by CT Slayer]

Originally posted by NorthStargal52

You don't know me enough to judge me like that .... I am not a radical person at all I do not adhere to any such darwinian religion as you put it. I am not a dogmatic fundamentalist either....

I speak my own mind .... I have never sided with any certain view. I will say this there are many people commenting on this topic and they all have a right to their thoughts because to them that is what they believe in.
I read the posts and I comment about things that match my own beliefs..
Just because we don't see eye to eye on things does not constitute for labeling me or bashing me ...

[edit on 2-3-2010 by NorthStargal52]

I wasn't judging you North, I was agreeing to your astute and wise consideration of something more than those who might otherwise think such ideas are radical. Sorry my being facetious about that radical part and not clarifying.

reply to post by CT Slayer

What are you talking about "Yet again" I ignored your argument? WHAT ARGUMENT HOSS?? You haven't made an argument, you have only given your OPINION and that is ALL you have done PERIOD.

My OPiNION!!! CAN you UNDERSTAND ME now PSYcHO ?????!!!!!
See I can come off as a complete jackass too

How is in just my opinion that there is not evidence for a god ?
Please show the evidence of a god PLEASE !!!!!!

This is going to be a theme I am going to just keep saying show me like you did

For instance? Go ahead, SHOW ME.

How about this one
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Again, SHOW ME.

THIS ONE I WILL NEED TO SAY SORRY FOR !!! I GOT MY CRAZY CREATIONISTS ALL MIXED UP, TRYING TO GO THREAD TO THREAD.

Sorry All you people sound alike .. likely has something to do with you guys just repeating what your Ken Ham website tells you to. IMO obviously

Did I say you didn't know that" Or is this another statment you imagine I have said? If so, SHOW ME

YES YOU DID !!! THE full quote can BE FOUND right HERE!!!
www.abovetopsecret.com...

We are even

I never used the phrase in that way now did I?

When did I say you did phrase it like that? SHOW MEH !
if you read back to what I was replying to you it would make sense. ..
or would to most people.

Their is something wrong with my sanity? Please share with us so that we might bear witness to your scholarly expertise in the field of Psychology. Or are you just calling me names now?

NO I THINK is IS completely NORMAL to TYPE in caps AND DENY FACTS !!!!one!1!11!

Really? how to they go against the point I was trying to make? Oh and for the benefit of the readers

This is still my mix up sorry you two sound like brothers .. seriously.

my BAD.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7d4a4abc3914.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by rhinoceros

We are told how similar organs in organisms from different species are controlled by similar genes, and it is then suggested that small changes in the DNA which controls such similarities between organisms can give rise to new species.

oh and p.s. You don't know if Neanderthals spoke or not. We don't know if there was a language(s) or not. Further, is there thought without a language (perhaps it's the reason we can't remember things from very early age)?

[edit on 2-3-2010 by rhinoceros]



Can't argue with the journey about learning and DNA and I have been on a more serious effort than I imagine most will ever undertake but each of us has but 24 hours in a day and how we invest in them to bring about the best in ourselves and what we contribute, will either be a beneficial one for many or the sum total of bad choices I we make, our own compromise.

Hows that going for you by the way Rhino? Hope you are doing well.

There's one thing I don't understand. Most of us don't question the theory of relativity. While I have no clue about the underlying science (for example why the speed of light isn't 300 000 000 m/s instead of 299 792 458 m/s) I still believe it.

Well you see, that is the difference between you and i Rhino because their is no evidence for light traveling at that speed. I think you will find it is 186,000 miles per second and not the other two you gave. Or was that m/s a typo and you really meant kms?

Ive read your other posts so I think you deserve the benefit of the doubt and meant kilometers per second

I believe it because a ton of scientists say it's so and all their experiments and observations support it (I believe in them)

Well the logical fallacy for either a consensus or guilt by association doesn't make good science and I don't believe in "them" what I believe in is the evidence that supports claims made about aspects of the ToE that have never been observed in any other context than a speculative desire to roll motivated by either grants and federal funding or a zealotry of atheism with a very open and vocal agenda to make the ToE THEE defacto replacement word for the word "science" it self. The Bias and un professional tactics the NAS has already been found guilty of at the highest levels of academia is no secret out there man and the constant equivocating between micro to macro is not good science either. It's a "Tactic" used in many areas of neuro lingustic programming and cognitive dissonance. But you already know this stuff.

All scientists say it's so. All experiments and observations support it. Nothing has contradicted neither relativity nor evolution. So why is it that pretty much everybody buys the first theory, but certain people have huge problems with the second theory?

Well see, Rhino, there is where you're wrong and for me to have to explain to you how it is I know such an absolute exaggeration so unscientific to say the least, well, I'm a little disappointed. But I'll get over it after I ask ALL the scientists their are, including those who have every reason to lie about believing it so much so the Senate had to get involved.

Ya know, a lie is a lie even if EVERYONE believes it and sometimes,



the truth is the truth, even when no one, believes it