The Evolution Delusion: conspiracy ?

Originally posted by hippomchippo
So christianity has been perfect since jesus came about?

People should look at religion as a way to test science and expand science itself. Once the religion itself works through to convey value and meaning to particular words, then what is left the 'gods' of those religions.

It is as if those 'gods' are intentionally made to evolve science itself. The 'gods' are 'myths' as if a direction to steer science towards. People of science have already fallen for such 'spell' to debunk that 'god'. Once that god is debunked, it's like a D&D game to gain experience.

Salutations everybody!

[edit on 8-3-2010 by dzonatas]

Originally posted by dzonatas

Originally posted by hippomchippo
So christianity has been perfect since jesus came about?

People should look at religion as a way to test science and expand science itself. Once the religion itself works through to convey value and meaning to particular words, then what is left the 'gods' of those religions.

It is as if those 'gods' are intentionally made to evolve science itself. The 'gods' are 'myths' as if a direction to steer science towards. People of science have already fallen for such 'spell' to debunk that 'god'. Once that god is debunked, it's like a D&D game to gain experience.

Salutations everybody!

[edit on 8-3-2010 by dzonatas]

How can we use religion to test science?

Is that asking if something created by science is allowed by a god?

[edit on 8-3-2010 by hippomchippo]

Originally posted by hippomchippo
How can we use religion to test science?

Ask yourself if you are a god. Then ask how you would prove it by science.

Is that asking if something created by science is allowed by a god?

There are books that pretty much have defined the basic morals to apply to creations. Look at the rat-brain 'daleks', and ask if it was created in a moral fashion or if it has morals:

Originally posted by dzonatas

Originally posted by hippomchippo
How can we use religion to test science?

Ask yourself if you are a god. Then ask how you would prove it by science.

Is that asking if something created by science is allowed by a god?

There are books that pretty much have defined the basic morals to apply to creations. Look at the rat-brain 'daleks', and ask if it was created in a moral fashion or if it has morals:

No, answer my question.
You said we can use religion to test science, please explain how we can do that.

Originally posted by hippomchippo
No, answer my question.
You said we can use religion to test science, please explain how we can do that.

Your question is answered, so tell me what you don't understand.

reply to post by Donny 4 million

Originally posted by davesidious
reply to post by NorthStargal52


Or, if we stick to science, we are entirely 100% terrestrial in origin as a species.


I guess you don't keep up with the scientists. They just claimed the Horse Head Nebula has all the crap waiting willing and able.

Whether the Horse Head Nebula, or any other nebula contains the organic molecules necessary for abiogenesis has nothing to do with 'us' and our origin as a species. It just means that the pre-conditions for life exist throughout the universe and our immediate vicinity in the universe is not unique in that respect.

Why do you insist on silly interpretations of reports of rather straight forward and expected results? The real surprise would be if organic molecules were not found, especially since they have already been found in many places throughout the universe. Just another example of testable prediction from theory being confirmed.

reply to post by hippomchippo

No, answer my question. You said we can use religion to test science, please explain how we can do that.

Don't bother feeding the troll. It will just start speaking in tongues.

reply to post by Beancounter72

...I used to believe in (random) evolution because I wasn't taught anything else...

So here is your chance to get back on track.

Mistake number one: evolution is not random. Mutation is random, but only provides the 'resource' for evolution. Evolution is a process of natural selection which rejects or accepts from the pool of mutations available and that selection process is not random.

a) evolutionists' eyes glaze over and they mumble 'I don't know' when you ask them how the earliest pieces of dna, ..., managed to created a much larger single-celled organism that has a protoplasmic outer layer and hundreds of different chemical processes going on inside.

Mistake number two: no eye glazing and only a minimum of mumbling (it is possible that I have a different definition of mumbling than you though). 'Evolution' doesn't concern itself with how pieces of dna (and rna and other organic molecules) became life; that is abiogenesis, a completely different field of study. Those who study abiogenesis don't have glazed eyes, they have several competing hypotheses which are slowly coming together to form a theory. This video is one such explanation from one of the fields leaders. (I've posted this link before, and I'll keep posting it until people start understanding that abiogenesis is a field of study separate from evolution and is developing).

b)evolutionsts' eyes glaze over and they mumble 'I don't know' when you ask them how millions of single-celled organisms that are very generalized (like the ameba), suddenly all decided to stick together and specialize to form the first multi-cell organism.

Mistake number three: Again no eye-glazing and no mumbling. The explanation is readily available to you from many sources and presented in many formats with a simple search on Google for "evolution multi cell organism".

Here are a few to get you started:

• How Single-Cell Organisms Evolve Into Multicellular Ones
  
• Multi-cell Organisms (a slow loader, be patient, you will be rewarded).
  
• Evolution of the Cell
  

c) evolutionists' eyes glaze over and they mumble 'I don't know' when you ask them how the first 46 chromosome ape-like ancestor managed to have 46 chromosome children when she(or he) was surrounded by 48 chromosome ape-like creatures. When you cross a 48 chromosome horse with a 46 chromosome donkey, you get a 47 chromosome mule which is sterile. Mules cannot produce other mules. But evolutionists would have us believe that our earliest 46 chromosome ancestor managed to have 46 chromosome FERTILE children all by herself or himself.

Mistake number four: unanswered questions don't cause eye glazing in science, they cause eye twinkling! An unanswered question is the life blood of science. Science isn't a 4000 year old set menu. It is an ongoing adventure and there are always unanswered questions.

Human chromosome 2 is a fusion of 2 chromosome's that occur separately in other great apes. The exact mechanism of how the fused chromosome number was inherited from that first individual may be unsure, but that it did is undeniable. It is not a failure of science that it cannot explain everything at any given instant. Maybe we will understand this problem perfectly well tomorrow, or next year, or next century, or never.

There are various hypotheses. Not all cross species offspring are sterile, it is unusual but not unheard of. Maybe 'Eve' had twins that interbred. Sure there is mumbling about it, just like my mumbling here; until there is an answer all a scientist can be say about it is that we don't know, we are working on it. What would you have him do rather than admit he doesn't know?

Charles Darwin himself did NOT claim that humans evolved from apes...

Mistake number 5: Only anti-evolutionists that claim that Darwin's work implies or claims that humans evolved from apes. So your assertion is correct, and for good reason. The Tof E claims (and DNA evidence shows) that both humans and apes descended from a common ancestor. Can you see the difference? While Darwin didn't claim something about human descent he didn't know he was, however, confident that natural selection did never-the-less operate on humans, and said so.

From his biographical entry on Wikipedia:

Lyell had already popularised human prehistory, and Huxley had shown that anatomically humans are apes.[128] With The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex published in 1871, Darwin set out evidence from numerous sources that humans are animals, showing continuity of physical and mental attributes, and presented sexual selection to explain impractical animal features such as the peacock's plumage as well as human evolution of culture, differences between sexes, and physical and cultural racial characteristics, while emphasising that humans are all one species.[137] His research using images was expanded in his 1872 book The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals, one of the first books to feature printed photographs, which discussed the evolution of human psychology and its continuity with the behaviour of animals. Both books proved very popular, and Darwin was impressed by the general assent with which his views had been received, remarking that "everybody is talking about it without being shocked."[138] His conclusion was "that man with all his noble qualities, with sympathy which feels for the most debased, with benevolence which extends not only to other men but to the humblest living creature, with his god-like intellect which has penetrated into the movements and constitution of the solar system–with all these exalted powers–Man still bears in his bodily frame the indelible stamp of his lowly origin."[139]

... and said the question of human development was the biggest challenge that his theory of survival of the fittest faced and for which he had NO answer.

Mistake number 6: the study of biology didn't stop with Darwin and Darwin knew his was not the last word. He was a scientist and he knew that he had built on the work of others and that others would build on his work. In his remarks that you are paraphrasing he is challenging those who come after him to find those answers. In the 150 years we have found some of those answers and still have many hundreds of years of work to go.

Darwin also did not know anything about DNA, or thousands of other pieces of evidence that proves his remarkable insight. That only demonstrates that science advances.

No evolutionary biologist or geneticist in his or her right mind would publically trash their career by raising doubts over the ToE but privately, amongst themselves, more and more experts in the fields of biology and genetics are admitting that the ToE has a LOT of problems with it and they are seeing things in their research that the ToE says should NOT be there.

Mistake number 7: If they are not publishing it, how do you know about it? This is one of the more silly propositions put forth anti-evolutionists and doesn't hold up to even the most superficial scrutiny.

Scientists are human. They want to be right, and when they find 'holes' or mistakes they want people to know they are more right than than the other guy.

There is NO career advantage in being wrong or in continuing a wrong conclusion. If the TofE has holes, there is no advantage to keeping the hole secret, and there is every advantage with going public (and getting funding to research that hole).

reply to post by dzonatas


No. That is just you making stuff up again.

reply to post by dzonatas


You can't test a methodology with supernatural beings. That is several kinds of retarded.

Originally posted by davesidious
You can't test a methodology with supernatural beings. That is several kinds of retarded.

Go back again and re-read my post to see the difference between a supernatural god and a god that became a god through science. Then, notice what the series Stargate is about and how they had to not believe in supernatural gods.

Most likely, you'll just say, "but stargate is just fiction... that is just retarded..." type of canned response.

Again, at the heart of the discussion, if people want to discuss how a person became a god through scientific means, that is not retarded. You are just unable to see it that way. Such mutations would not be random when only scientific tools are used to make that change.

reply to post by dzonatas


No, you are misusing words again, and expecting others to magically know you are misusing them.

This discussion ends here, *Snip*

Mod Note: General ATS Discussion Etiquette – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 3/10/2010 by semperfortis]

reply to post by davesidious


"no, yoooo misuse words" -- "Yooo retarded..." -- "Yoooo way out of this world..." etc etc more childish remarks from you dave.

You obviously have some strong beliefs on how your so-called science works. When it comes to DNA, evolution, or such topics, you can't seem to disagree to just disagree. Whatever you think is science you treat like religion. Keep clicking those bash-points because you think ATS is just a game.

See, gave you a chance not to be on the ignore list. You had you chance to debate. You complained with the childish remarks above. You didn't even try at all.

Your tantrum started because you didn't want to accept the possibility that humans may be something other than homo-sapien, despite all the facts of difference species and random mutations.

Oh wow, mutations are random, yet dave says it's not random when it comes to homo-sapiens. If people don't use dave's dictionary of evolution, you "misuse words."

And dave begged for me not to ignore him.

Originally posted by rnaa
Mistake number two: no eye glazing and only a minimum of mumbling (it is possible that I have a different definition of mumbling than you though). 'Evolution' doesn't concern itself with how pieces of dna (and rna and other organic molecules) became life; that is abiogenesis, a completely different field of study.

Before you continue to fling troll poo around again, let's get your opinion on abiogensis on where you draw the line where it is not evolution. In my opinion, I can model a universe where there is absolutely no abiogensis. Then you come along and argue abiogensis.

The whole argument was made before, if there is only 10 units of something, then any notion to add an 11th unit would be abiogensis or creationism.

Think about that until you can completely remove abiogensis from any argument. Then you understand what is and is not random about mutations. If a mutation leads to use up all 10 units for a single organism, and abiogensis, creationism, and whatever other resources 'don't exist', then the next mutation surely is not random. It can only divide itself.

Mutations are not always random. Life itself may be another conscious affect on mutation besides a lack of resources beyond available resources in a finite condition.

[edit on 9-3-2010 by dzonatas]

reply to post by dzonatas


It's far from childish to call someone out on their misuse of the very language we are trying to debate in. If you can't even use words correctly, how on earth are we going to have a discussion? You get argued into a corner, then you start changing the meaning of words to suit your tenuous position. I've seen it happen in several discussions you've been in, and of course the U2U back-and-forth where you tried (and failed) to understand the words "Human", "Homo sapiens", and "Humanoid".

My beliefs are in the scientific method, and the scientific method only. And they're not really "beliefs", but "understanding of". It's very self-explanatory, and makes perfect sense. It's not as if there isn't mountains of evidence supporting the theories you mentioned.

Your entire post is just an ill-conceived stab in the dark to try to gain some purchase in your increasingly-erratic, bizarre argument. You are constantly twisting words and misusing them to suit your current whim. It's depressing.

Originally posted by davesidious
I've seen it happen in several discussions you've been in, and of course the U2U back-and-forth where you tried (and failed) to understand the words "Human", "Homo sapiens", and "Humanoid".

Of course you failed to recognize the difference between each one. You argued they are the same, and that is complete nonsense.

My beliefs are in the scientific method,

Your beliefs only designate your religion, not the scientific method itself. Obviously, this difference is not understood by you.

It's very self-explanatory, and makes perfect sense.

If it is so self-explanatory, then that answer why you trolled me all over ATS like and made childish remarks not to ignore you. If it is so perfect, then you must be creme of the crop, a supernatural example, a one of a kind, genius. Normal humans and homo-sapiens accept that things need to be explained to a degree becuase normal people disagree, and that is part of being human.

It's not as if there isn't mountains of evidence supporting the theories you mentioned.

It's not like there is mountains evidence that support you are alive. Touche.

Unless you can prove your are alive, you are just homo-sapien... not human. Humans are alive.

reply to post by dzonatas


I didn't say they were the same.

"Human" and "Homo sapiens" mean the same thing. "Humanoid" means having the shape/form of a human. It doesn't matter how many times you treat us to your spurious nonsense on these boards, words won't magically change their meaning to suit your rather perverted world-view.

[edit on 9-3-2010 by davesidious]

Originally posted by davesidious
"Human" and "Homo sapiens" mean the same thing.

Then you need to come up with evidence to support your THEORY, because here is evidence that they don't:

This skull, among others, are estimated to be tens of thousands of years old. Apart from its obvious abnormalities, it also exhibits characteristics of both Neanderthal and human skulls – an impossibility, according to anthropology. Neanderthals didn't exist in South America.

source

Please, provide evidence of proof about this if the skull is human, homo-sapien, neanderthal, or something alien, or whatever, because there seems to be lots of anthropologist that just "make-up" this troll poo for you to accuse people they are "the same thing."

reply to post by dzonatas


That has nothing to do with the definition of words.

Also, that skull can quite easily be human. Binding the skull can shape it, for example, which was a common practice in Nazca culture.

You really have a hard time with words, huh?

Originally posted by davesidious
That has nothing to do with the definition of words.

It's evidence if it is appropriate to assign that skull as human or not. You haven't shown you fully consider where did "humans" evolved from, that skull or some other skull.

Also, that skull can quite easily be human. Binding the skull can shape it, for example, which was a common practice in Nazca culture.

Then prove all those anthropologist they are wrong, and then maybe the rest of us might consider your "made-up" association of humans being the same thing as homo-sapiens. They already shown that same guess as you have, so you haven't shown anything new yet except the same old guess: humans might be this or they might be that. Darwin followers say humans are from homo-sapiens, which evolved from monkeys, and so humans are monkeys. That is just a THEORY.

You really have a hard time with words, huh?

You are the one that uses a dictionary like a bible for your so called scientific facts.

Scientist actually put the dictionary aside and check that facts.

Your bible of words is based on Darwin.

reply to post by dzonatas


Which anthropologists? Please show me one reputable anthropologist, with a degree from a reputable non-fly-by-night university (to differentiate them from someone who doesn't know anthropology), who says that skull can't be from a human.

Again, humans are Homo sapiens. There is not a single human being who is not a homo sapiens, and vice-versa. The two words are synonyms. Humans did not evolve from monkeys. No "Darwinist", or "biologist" (as we call them today) would claim that. And, again, you seem to be having difficulty with the word "theory" in a scientific concept. Shock. Horror.