The Flat Earth Society
Other Discussion Boards => Philosophy, Religion & Society => Topic started by: Physical Experimenter on May 02, 2017, 12:51:52 AM
-
Evolution is fact. It is only called theory in the sense that anything we know could not be true, however it is a true scientific theory as it is open to question and yet has not been disproved. I am willing to answer any questions you have on this topic.
-
Why is there only a single intelligent species on the planet?
-
Evolution suggests something evolves to better adapt to its environment in an advantageous way.
So answer me this.... What possible purpose are any of these freaks and why did evolution bring them this far. What is the point?
(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSyYxjvVZlTFvZ4jVNe68Wd9ZZA8InNU71pox8cJxk_Tzue2dtuygpbaH0r)
In seriousness I ask anyone who does not believe in evolution to answer the question why are natives to Africa black and Europe white? Bit of a coincidence that both bodies seem perfectly suited to their respective environments....
-
Why is there only a single intelligent species on the planet?
First I should make known that intelligence is relative. An ant may consider itself intelligent and just can't comprehend us. Also intelligence can also be based on survival needs. Octopi and certain birds have been shown to be able to solve problems in order to get food. The difference between us and them, is that we have been able to take ourselves out of the food chain, and so have had the past few thousand years to develop our brains.
We can even observe monkeys who are developing their own tools and using them. This gives us the insight that at some point we were monkeys just learning to use tools. These tools made hunting and shelters much easier to achieve. After generations of monkeys showing their offspring the tools, they began leaving the trees, learning how to stand on two legs and use tools as their main form of survival rather than their hands. They followed the herds of their prey over generations, and when they traveled to cold regions they made clothes. When they returned to warmer regions and still had clothes, there was no need for all their hair.
Hope this answers your question.
-
Evolution suggests something evolves to better adapt to its environment in an advantageous way.
So answer me this.... What possible purpose are any of these freaks and why did evolution bring them this far. What is the point?
(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSyYxjvVZlTFvZ4jVNe68Wd9ZZA8InNU71pox8cJxk_Tzue2dtuygpbaH0r)
In seriousness I ask anyone who does not believe in evolution to answer the question why are natives to Africa black and Europe white? Bit of a coincidence that both bodies seem perfectly suited to their respective environments....
Well obviously its form of survival has suited is for the past thousand years or it would not have survived. Like many other fish that dwell at the bottom of the ocean, it waits for the food to come to him, which apparently works and has suited it. Its ugly appearance has nothing to do with its survival. We are judging it from a human standpoint. To it, we might also be horrifying, not to mention one of the weakest creatures on the earth with the least survival techniques.
-
Why is there only a single intelligent species on the planet?
First I should make known that intelligence is relative. An ant may consider itself intelligent and just can't comprehend us. Also intelligence can also be based on survival needs. Octopi and certain birds have been shown to be able to solve problems in order to get food. The difference between us and them, is that we have been able to take ourselves out of the food chain, and so have had the past few thousand years to develop our brains.
We can even observe monkeys who are developing their own tools and using them. This gives us the insight that at some point we were monkeys just learning to use tools. These tools made hunting and shelters much easier to achieve. After generations of monkeys showing their offspring the tools, they began leaving the trees, learning how to stand on two legs and use tools as their main form of survival rather than their hands. They followed the herds of their prey over generations, and when they traveled to cold regions they made clothes. When they returned to warmer regions and still had clothes, there was no need for all their hair.
Hope this answers your question.
So, just because you realized that monkeys are intelligent, that gave you an insight and assumed we came from monkeys!
Did all other intelligent animals come from monkeys? > I'm sure you'd say no, so why assuming we did?
All animals have their own origins, or some might share the same. So, why couldn't we have our own?
Why do you intelligent people insist on degrading us to a lower level of species?
Listening to this type of thinking gives me an insight that maybe monkeys could've came from some humans with null for brains - those that did not appreciate what God has given them of intelligence!
-
Why is there only a single intelligent species on the planet?
First I should make known that intelligence is relative. An ant may consider itself intelligent and just can't comprehend us. Also intelligence can also be based on survival needs. Octopi and certain birds have been shown to be able to solve problems in order to get food. The difference between us and them, is that we have been able to take ourselves out of the food chain, and so have had the past few thousand years to develop our brains.
We can even observe monkeys who are developing their own tools and using them. This gives us the insight that at some point we were monkeys just learning to use tools. These tools made hunting and shelters much easier to achieve. After generations of monkeys showing their offspring the tools, they began leaving the trees, learning how to stand on two legs and use tools as their main form of survival rather than their hands. They followed the herds of their prey over generations, and when they traveled to cold regions they made clothes. When they returned to warmer regions and still had clothes, there was no need for all their hair.
Hope this answers your question.
So, just because you realized that monkeys are intelligent, that gave you an insight and assumed we came from monkeys!
Did all other intelligent animals come from monkeys? > I'm sure you'd say no, so why assuming we did?
All animals have their own origins, or some might share the same. So, why couldn't we have our own?
Why do you intelligent people insist on degrading us to a lower level of species?
Listening to this type of thinking gives me an insight that maybe monkeys could've came from some humans with null for brains - those that did not appreciate what God has given them of intelligence!
There is no reason to assume that we are any different from any other species. There are, of course, other lines of evidence that show us our relationship with monkeys. We did not necessarily come from monkeys, but we have a common ancestor with monkeys. We have many things in common with monkeys such as opposable thumbs.
We do not want to degrade us or our existence, we only look at what the evidence points to.
-
In seriousness I ask anyone who does not believe in evolution to answer the question why are natives to Africa black and Europe white? Bit of a coincidence that both bodies seem perfectly suited to their respective environments....
RACE IS JUST A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT REEEEE
;).
-
Why is there only a single intelligent species on the planet?
First I should make known that intelligence is relative. An ant may consider itself intelligent and just can't comprehend us. Also intelligence can also be based on survival needs. Octopi and certain birds have been shown to be able to solve problems in order to get food. The difference between us and them, is that we have been able to take ourselves out of the food chain, and so have had the past few thousand years to develop our brains.
We can even observe monkeys who are developing their own tools and using them. This gives us the insight that at some point we were monkeys just learning to use tools. These tools made hunting and shelters much easier to achieve. After generations of monkeys showing their offspring the tools, they began leaving the trees, learning how to stand on two legs and use tools as their main form of survival rather than their hands. They followed the herds of their prey over generations, and when they traveled to cold regions they made clothes. When they returned to warmer regions and still had clothes, there was no need for all their hair.
Hope this answers your question.
So, just because you realized that monkeys are intelligent, that gave you an insight and assumed we came from monkeys!
Did all other intelligent animals come from monkeys? > I'm sure you'd say no, so why assuming we did?
All animals have their own origins, or some might share the same. So, why couldn't we have our own?
Why do you intelligent people insist on degrading us to a lower level of species?
Listening to this type of thinking gives me an insight that maybe monkeys could've came from some humans with null for brains - those that did not appreciate what God has given them of intelligence!
There is no reason to assume that we are any different from any other species. There are, of course, other lines of evidence that show us our relationship with monkeys. We did not necessarily come from monkeys, but we have a common ancestor with monkeys. We have many things in common with monkeys such as opposable thumbs.
We do not want to degrade us or our existence, we only look at what the evidence points to.
Well, following your logic and assuming we share with monkeys some "relationship" - a common ancestor, why not assuming then that monkeys descended from us humans?
First, some humans descended to that common ancestor, then to monkeys! > you could loose some of your genetic properties, but how could you gain.
Since we are just assuming...
-
Why is there only a single intelligent species on the planet?
First I should make known that intelligence is relative. An ant may consider itself intelligent and just can't comprehend us. Also intelligence can also be based on survival needs. Octopi and certain birds have been shown to be able to solve problems in order to get food. The difference between us and them, is that we have been able to take ourselves out of the food chain, and so have had the past few thousand years to develop our brains.
We can even observe monkeys who are developing their own tools and using them. This gives us the insight that at some point we were monkeys just learning to use tools. These tools made hunting and shelters much easier to achieve. After generations of monkeys showing their offspring the tools, they began leaving the trees, learning how to stand on two legs and use tools as their main form of survival rather than their hands. They followed the herds of their prey over generations, and when they traveled to cold regions they made clothes. When they returned to warmer regions and still had clothes, there was no need for all their hair.
Hope this answers your question.
So, just because you realized that monkeys are intelligent, that gave you an insight and assumed we came from monkeys!
Did all other intelligent animals come from monkeys? > I'm sure you'd say no, so why assuming we did?
All animals have their own origins, or some might share the same. So, why couldn't we have our own?
Why do you intelligent people insist on degrading us to a lower level of species?
Listening to this type of thinking gives me an insight that maybe monkeys could've came from some humans with null for brains - those that did not appreciate what God has given them of intelligence!
There is no reason to assume that we are any different from any other species. There are, of course, other lines of evidence that show us our relationship with monkeys. We did not necessarily come from monkeys, but we have a common ancestor with monkeys. We have many things in common with monkeys such as opposable thumbs.
We do not want to degrade us or our existence, we only look at what the evidence points to.
Well, following your logic and assuming we share with monkeys some "relationship" - a common ancestor, why not assuming then that monkeys descended from us humans?
First, some humans descended to that common ancestor, then to monkeys! > you could loose some of your genetic properties, but how could you gain.
Since we are just assuming...
Not sure where I said assuming... (Other than saying that we shouldn't)
At this point, it would be nearly impossible for a monkey to evolve from a human, as we control our environments so efficiently. Let me explain to you why we can say that this is not the case. A monkey would not evolve from a human, it would evolve from a common ancestor of a human. Not to mention (even though I am) the fact that in all the examples of all the transitional fossils found, none have suggested that monkeys have evolved from any type of human.
-
Why is there only a single intelligent species on the planet?
If I may rephrase Crutoniusses question (I think he meant it this way as well):
Why is there only a single self consious species on the planet?
-
Why is there only a single intelligent species on the planet?
If I may rephrase Crutoniusses question (I think he meant it this way as well):
Why is there only a single self consious species on the planet?
Because we are the image of God on earth - we are "creators" of our consciousness!
We are not His image in a physical form; we are His image in a conscious form!
No other species - not even the Angels can create their own consciousness.
We ascend with our conscious and not with our physical earthly body.
And you can only replicate the image of God in you by making the connection with God!
-
Why is there only a single intelligent species on the planet?
First I should make known that intelligence is relative. An ant may consider itself intelligent and just can't comprehend us. Also intelligence can also be based on survival needs. Octopi and certain birds have been shown to be able to solve problems in order to get food. The difference between us and them, is that we have been able to take ourselves out of the food chain, and so have had the past few thousand years to develop our brains.
We can even observe monkeys who are developing their own tools and using them. This gives us the insight that at some point we were monkeys just learning to use tools. These tools made hunting and shelters much easier to achieve. After generations of monkeys showing their offspring the tools, they began leaving the trees, learning how to stand on two legs and use tools as their main form of survival rather than their hands. They followed the herds of their prey over generations, and when they traveled to cold regions they made clothes. When they returned to warmer regions and still had clothes, there was no need for all their hair.
Hope this answers your question.
So, just because you realized that monkeys are intelligent, that gave you an insight and assumed we came from monkeys!
Did all other intelligent animals come from monkeys? > I'm sure you'd say no, so why assuming we did?
All animals have their own origins, or some might share the same. So, why couldn't we have our own?
Why do you intelligent people insist on degrading us to a lower level of species?
Listening to this type of thinking gives me an insight that maybe monkeys could've came from some humans with null for brains - those that did not appreciate what God has given them of intelligence!
There is no reason to assume that we are any different from any other species. There are, of course, other lines of evidence that show us our relationship with monkeys. We did not necessarily come from monkeys, but we have a common ancestor with monkeys. We have many things in common with monkeys such as opposable thumbs.
We do not want to degrade us or our existence, we only look at what the evidence points to.
Well, following your logic and assuming we share with monkeys some "relationship" - a common ancestor, why not assuming then that monkeys descended from us humans?
First, some humans descended to that common ancestor, then to monkeys! > you could loose some of your genetic properties, but how could you gain.
Since we are just assuming...
Not sure where I said assuming... (Other than saying that we shouldn't)
At this point, it would be nearly impossible for a monkey to evolve from a human, as we control our environments so efficiently. Let me explain to you why we can say that this is not the case. A monkey would not evolve from a human, it would evolve from a common ancestor of a human. Not to mention (even though I am) the fact that in all the examples of all the transitional fossils found, none have suggested that monkeys have evolved from any type of human.
You are repeating what I said, then contradicting it!
I didn't say monkeys would directly evolve from humans but from the common ancestor that had descended from humans > if we follow your logic.
-
Why is there only a single intelligent species on the planet?
If I may rephrase Crutoniusses question (I think he meant it this way as well):
Why is there only a single self consious species on the planet?
Lots of other species are self conscious and sentient animals besides us: Bottle nose Dolphins, Chimpanzees, Gorillas, Elephants, orcas, pigs etc..
However we do seem to have a greater mental capacity and IQ than these, but they are still self aware.
-
Why is there only a single intelligent species on the planet?
First I should make known that intelligence is relative. An ant may consider itself intelligent and just can't comprehend us. Also intelligence can also be based on survival needs. Octopi and certain birds have been shown to be able to solve problems in order to get food. The difference between us and them, is that we have been able to take ourselves out of the food chain, and so have had the past few thousand years to develop our brains.
We can even observe monkeys who are developing their own tools and using them. This gives us the insight that at some point we were monkeys just learning to use tools. These tools made hunting and shelters much easier to achieve. After generations of monkeys showing their offspring the tools, they began leaving the trees, learning how to stand on two legs and use tools as their main form of survival rather than their hands. They followed the herds of their prey over generations, and when they traveled to cold regions they made clothes. When they returned to warmer regions and still had clothes, there was no need for all their hair.
Hope this answers your question.
So, just because you realized that monkeys are intelligent, that gave you an insight and assumed we came from monkeys!
Did all other intelligent animals come from monkeys? > I'm sure you'd say no, so why assuming we did?
All animals have their own origins, or some might share the same. So, why couldn't we have our own?
Why do you intelligent people insist on degrading us to a lower level of species?
Listening to this type of thinking gives me an insight that maybe monkeys could've came from some humans with null for brains - those that did not appreciate what God has given them of intelligence!
There is no reason to assume that we are any different from any other species. There are, of course, other lines of evidence that show us our relationship with monkeys. We did not necessarily come from monkeys, but we have a common ancestor with monkeys. We have many things in common with monkeys such as opposable thumbs.
We do not want to degrade us or our existence, we only look at what the evidence points to.
Well, following your logic and assuming we share with monkeys some "relationship" - a common ancestor, why not assuming then that monkeys descended from us humans?
First, some humans descended to that common ancestor, then to monkeys! > you could loose some of your genetic properties, but how could you gain.
Since we are just assuming...
Not sure where I said assuming... (Other than saying that we shouldn't)
At this point, it would be nearly impossible for a monkey to evolve from a human, as we control our environments so efficiently. Let me explain to you why we can say that this is not the case. A monkey would not evolve from a human, it would evolve from a common ancestor of a human. Not to mention (even though I am) the fact that in all the examples of all the transitional fossils found, none have suggested that monkeys have evolved from any type of human.
You are repeating what I said, then contradicting it!
I didn't say monkeys would directly evolve from humans but from the common ancestor that had descended from humans > if we follow your logic.
Well if monkeys had evolved from humans (which they hadn't) then yes, it would be from a common ancestor.
-
Why is there only a single intelligent species on the planet?
First I should make known that intelligence is relative. An ant may consider itself intelligent and just can't comprehend us. Also intelligence can also be based on survival needs. Octopi and certain birds have been shown to be able to solve problems in order to get food. The difference between us and them, is that we have been able to take ourselves out of the food chain, and so have had the past few thousand years to develop our brains.
We can even observe monkeys who are developing their own tools and using them. This gives us the insight that at some point we were monkeys just learning to use tools. These tools made hunting and shelters much easier to achieve. After generations of monkeys showing their offspring the tools, they began leaving the trees, learning how to stand on two legs and use tools as their main form of survival rather than their hands. They followed the herds of their prey over generations, and when they traveled to cold regions they made clothes. When they returned to warmer regions and still had clothes, there was no need for all their hair.
Hope this answers your question.
So, just because you realized that monkeys are intelligent, that gave you an insight and assumed we came from monkeys!
Did all other intelligent animals come from monkeys? > I'm sure you'd say no, so why assuming we did?
All animals have their own origins, or some might share the same. So, why couldn't we have our own?
Why do you intelligent people insist on degrading us to a lower level of species?
Listening to this type of thinking gives me an insight that maybe monkeys could've came from some humans with null for brains - those that did not appreciate what God has given them of intelligence!
There is no reason to assume that we are any different from any other species. There are, of course, other lines of evidence that show us our relationship with monkeys. We did not necessarily come from monkeys, but we have a common ancestor with monkeys. We have many things in common with monkeys such as opposable thumbs.
We do not want to degrade us or our existence, we only look at what the evidence points to.
Well, following your logic and assuming we share with monkeys some "relationship" - a common ancestor, why not assuming then that monkeys descended from us humans?
First, some humans descended to that common ancestor, then to monkeys! > you could loose some of your genetic properties, but how could you gain.
Since we are just assuming...
Not sure where I said assuming... (Other than saying that we shouldn't)
At this point, it would be nearly impossible for a monkey to evolve from a human, as we control our environments so efficiently. Let me explain to you why we can say that this is not the case. A monkey would not evolve from a human, it would evolve from a common ancestor of a human. Not to mention (even though I am) the fact that in all the examples of all the transitional fossils found, none have suggested that monkeys have evolved from any type of human.
You are repeating what I said, then contradicting it!
I didn't say monkeys would directly evolve from humans but from the common ancestor that had descended from humans > if we follow your logic.
Well if monkeys had evolved from humans (which they hadn't) then yes, it would be from a common ancestor.
So, you're confirming it's possible a common ancestor could've descended from humans and some monkeys/ apes were the result of that descentigration!
Wouldn't that also confirm the archaeological discoveries that linked us to that common ancestor, which scientists used to link us to apes?
So, it could've happened the other way around and not the Darwinian way! Couldn't it? > D-evolution?
-
Why is there only a single intelligent species on the planet?
First I should make known that intelligence is relative. An ant may consider itself intelligent and just can't comprehend us. Also intelligence can also be based on survival needs. Octopi and certain birds have been shown to be able to solve problems in order to get food. The difference between us and them, is that we have been able to take ourselves out of the food chain, and so have had the past few thousand years to develop our brains.
We can even observe monkeys who are developing their own tools and using them. This gives us the insight that at some point we were monkeys just learning to use tools. These tools made hunting and shelters much easier to achieve. After generations of monkeys showing their offspring the tools, they began leaving the trees, learning how to stand on two legs and use tools as their main form of survival rather than their hands. They followed the herds of their prey over generations, and when they traveled to cold regions they made clothes. When they returned to warmer regions and still had clothes, there was no need for all their hair.
Hope this answers your question.
So, just because you realized that monkeys are intelligent, that gave you an insight and assumed we came from monkeys!
Did all other intelligent animals come from monkeys? > I'm sure you'd say no, so why assuming we did?
All animals have their own origins, or some might share the same. So, why couldn't we have our own?
Why do you intelligent people insist on degrading us to a lower level of species?
Listening to this type of thinking gives me an insight that maybe monkeys could've came from some humans with null for brains - those that did not appreciate what God has given them of intelligence!
There is no reason to assume that we are any different from any other species. There are, of course, other lines of evidence that show us our relationship with monkeys. We did not necessarily come from monkeys, but we have a common ancestor with monkeys. We have many things in common with monkeys such as opposable thumbs.
We do not want to degrade us or our existence, we only look at what the evidence points to.
Well, following your logic and assuming we share with monkeys some "relationship" - a common ancestor, why not assuming then that monkeys descended from us humans?
First, some humans descended to that common ancestor, then to monkeys! > you could loose some of your genetic properties, but how could you gain.
Since we are just assuming...
Not sure where I said assuming... (Other than saying that we shouldn't)
At this point, it would be nearly impossible for a monkey to evolve from a human, as we control our environments so efficiently. Let me explain to you why we can say that this is not the case. A monkey would not evolve from a human, it would evolve from a common ancestor of a human. Not to mention (even though I am) the fact that in all the examples of all the transitional fossils found, none have suggested that monkeys have evolved from any type of human.
You are repeating what I said, then contradicting it!
I didn't say monkeys would directly evolve from humans but from the common ancestor that had descended from humans > if we follow your logic.
Well if monkeys had evolved from humans (which they hadn't) then yes, it would be from a common ancestor.
So, you're confirming it's possible a common ancestor could've descended from humans and some monkeys/ apes were the result of that descentigration!
Wouldn't that also confirm the archaeological discoveries that linked us to that common ancestor, which scientists used to link us to apes?
So, it could've happened the other way around and not the Darwinian way! Couldn't it? > D-evolution?
No. This could be thought, if it weren't for the ages of the rocks that the fossils were found. There are many ways of finding the age of rocks such as radiometric dating and uranium lead dating. Because fossils are not the actual remains, but impressions of the remains of the organisms. This means that these impressions were made at the age of the rock. This shows us a progression of the common ancestor of monkeys and men, through the ages, to the modern homo sapien.
-
Why is there only a single intelligent species on the planet?
If I may rephrase Crutoniusses question (I think he meant it this way as well):
Why is there only a single self consious species on the planet?
Lots of other species are self conscious and sentient animals besides us: Bottle nose Dolphins, Chimpanzees, Gorillas, Elephants, orcas, pigs etc..
However we do seem to have a greater mental capacity and IQ than these, but they are still self aware.
They are somewhat intelligent yes. But the difference between our intelligence and theirs is like the difference between throwing a bullet and shooting it. Maybe dolphins are a lot smarter than us. But they're not nuking us from orbit any time soon.
Please note I'm not anti evolution at all. I just haven't heard a good explanation on this intelligence gap yet.
Evolution does support intelligence as a survival strategy but have you ever seen such a singular disparity of this magnitude in all the animal kingdom? It would be like if spiders evolved the capability of producing venom. But one single species of spider evolved to hunt its prey with tomahawk missiles.
-
In seriousness I ask anyone who does not believe in evolution to answer the question why are natives to Africa black and Europe white? Bit of a coincidence that both bodies seem perfectly suited to their respective environments....
RACE IS JUST A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT REEEEE
;).
check your privilege shitlord
-
I saw an evolution thread and was moderately excited...Yet this is the first sentence.
Evolution is fact.
You lost me here ::)
-
Why is there only a single intelligent species on the planet?
If I may rephrase Crutoniusses question (I think he meant it this way as well):
Why is there only a single self consious species on the planet?
Lots of other species are self conscious and sentient animals besides us: Bottle nose Dolphins, Chimpanzees, Gorillas, Elephants, orcas, pigs etc..
However we do seem to have a greater mental capacity and IQ than these, but they are still self aware.
They are somewhat intelligent yes. But the difference between our intelligence and theirs is like the difference between throwing a bullet and shooting it. Maybe dolphins are a lot smarter than us. But they're not nuking us from orbit any time soon.
Please note I'm not anti evolution at all. I just haven't heard a good explanation on this intelligence gap yet.
Evolution does support intelligence as a survival strategy but have you ever seen such a singular disparity of this magnitude in all the animal kingdom? It would be like if spiders evolved the capability of producing venom. But one single species of spider evolved to hunt its prey with tomahawk missiles.
Being able to recognize ones self in a mirror ( which a dolphin supposedly can) is much different that being sentient or "self aware".
There is no need for intelligence in evolution, the supposed process itself has no intelligence, no desire to create or anything of the such.
In all reality what species would you rather be for survival? Humans or cockroaches? Evolution would choose a cockroach...Breeds faster, body is almost indestructible, can eat anything and everything etc etc etc. Simply physical traits trumps mental all day long if the evolution story were true.
However, with that said, why would evolution choose to push a single celled organism further? There is no purpose..
Plus what wrote the laws on evolution? It didn't just exist or appear...
I see code that was already written, and is made to adhere to a plethora of laws. Seeing we cannot produce anything further than adaptions, and ever time we see information added it is degenerative, I feel solace in my decision.
People want to have faith, no problem...Just don't pass it as fact, it confuses people who won't research or think for themselves
-
Being able to recognize ones self in a mirror ( which a dolphin supposedly can) is much different that being sentient or "self aware".
@Bhs and @Hannibal
How would you guys define "sentient" and "consciousness"?
IF all our thoughts etc. were created in our brain by neural cells - would consciousness be possible?
There is no need for intelligence in evolution, the supposed process itself has no intelligence, no desire to create or anything of the such.
You wrote this in the other thread already, but seemingly you missed my answer:
Evolution has no "need" or "desire". Evolution is a process; it has no desire to create intelligence neither has it a desire to not create intelligence.
In all reality what species would you rather be for survival? Humans or cockroaches? Evolution would choose a cockroach...Breeds faster, body is almost indestructible, can eat anything and everything etc etc etc. Simply physical traits trumps mental all day long if the evolution story were true.
Looking around, I'm pretty sure we humans are doing really well at surviving currently. Anyway, evolution is not as simple as you may think, it has a lot to do with niches, coincidence and natural selection.
However, with that said, why would evolution choose to push a single celled organism further? There is no purpose..
As I have said, evolution does not "choose", it's a process that just happens and is limited by physical boundaries but not by "purpose" or "choice".
Plus what wrote the laws on evolution? It didn't just exist or appear...
I'm not sure what you mean with that, but I think "laws on evolution" would just be made by humans to describe a natural process.
If you want to go deep, you're getting into philosophy (why is gravitation attracting? Why are our physical laws true?).
I see code that was already written, and is made to adhere to a plethora of laws. Seeing we cannot produce anything further than adaptions, and ever time we see information added it is degenerative, I feel solace in my decision.
Source?
E.g. in the metabolic cycle we do have enzymes that are very simlair to those in "simpler" organisms, but ours are a bit more complex and thus efficient. How would you explain that, except for added information?
(Right now I cannot give you a source on that, but I'm sure you can find stuff about it on google. Or maybe I'll search for it later if you want and if I find time for doing so)
Some super simple change of DNA that results in an evolutionary advantage would be sickle cell anemia.
-
Being able to recognize ones self in a mirror ( which a dolphin supposedly can) is much different that being sentient or "self aware".
@Bhs and @Hannibal
How would you guys define "sentient" and "consciousness"?
IF all our thoughts etc. were created in our brain by neural cells - would consciousness be possible?
Sentience is the ability to feel, perceive, and to have subjective experiences. > Awareness is then developed - sense data can be confirmed by a being without necessarily implying understanding. > Consciousness – an ignited, robust, internally stable awareness of one's own sense of values derived through abstract thought processes that are capable of adapting to and integrating with functionally similar processes in a wider range.
Reaching that level of awareness, one have become a creator of his own consciousness – you are no longer just a sentient being – you have evolved to have become a conscious being; capable of processing your experiences and not being subjective to it.
Instincts are God given abilities to all sentient beings to give them awareness, while consciousness is our acceptance and appreciation to what God has given us of abilities and values!
-
Time to cut through all the bullshit. Here is direct proof of evolution. You can see it in action over the course of 11 days.
1. A large petri dish is coated with various doses of antibiotics. The outside edge has no antibiotics. The lethality of the antibiotics progresses as it gets near the center of the petri dish.
2. The bacteria is placed on the edges of the petri dish without antibiotics.
3. Over the course of 11 days, you can watch the antibiotics progress to the middle of the dish as it evolves resistance to the antibiotics. You can even directly observe the little tree of life that it creates.
-
Why is there only a single intelligent species on the planet?
If I may rephrase Crutoniusses question (I think he meant it this way as well):
Why is there only a single self consious species on the planet?
Lots of other species are self conscious and sentient animals besides us: Bottle nose Dolphins, Chimpanzees, Gorillas, Elephants, orcas, pigs etc..
However we do seem to have a greater mental capacity and IQ than these, but they are still self aware.
They are somewhat intelligent yes. But the difference between our intelligence and theirs is like the difference between throwing a bullet and shooting it. Maybe dolphins are a lot smarter than us. But they're not nuking us from orbit any time soon.
Please note I'm not anti evolution at all. I just haven't heard a good explanation on this intelligence gap yet.
Evolution does support intelligence as a survival strategy but have you ever seen such a singular disparity of this magnitude in all the animal kingdom? It would be like if spiders evolved the capability of producing venom. But one single species of spider evolved to hunt its prey with tomahawk missiles.
I'm no biology expert, but these were an interesting read. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_human_intelligence#Models
My take on it is that the capacity for complex language, and the opportunity to pass down knowledge to successive generations is what makes our intelligence truly unique. If you take away those two things, are we really that much more intelligent than some other animals like dolphins, chimps, and octopi (octopuses... octopussies... octopeds...)?
-
Evolution suggests something evolves to better adapt to its environment in an advantageous way.
So answer me this.... What possible purpose are any of these freaks and why did evolution bring them this far. What is the point?
(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSyYxjvVZlTFvZ4jVNe68Wd9ZZA8InNU71pox8cJxk_Tzue2dtuygpbaH0r)
In seriousness I ask anyone who does not believe in evolution to answer the question why are natives to Africa black and Europe white? Bit of a coincidence that both bodies seem perfectly suited to their respective environments....
Well obviously its form of survival has suited is for the past thousand years or it would not have survived. Like many other fish that dwell at the bottom of the ocean, it waits for the food to come to him, which apparently works and has suited it. Its ugly appearance has nothing to do with its survival. We are judging it from a human standpoint. To it, we might also be horrifying, not to mention one of the weakest creatures on the earth with the least survival techniques.
The poor fish doesn't actually look like that. It only gets that way when it is taken away from its high pressure environment. Don't be so judgmental ;D
-
Why is there only a single intelligent species on the planet?
If I may rephrase Crutoniusses question (I think he meant it this way as well):
Why is there only a single self consious species on the planet?
Lots of other species are self conscious and sentient animals besides us: Bottle nose Dolphins, Chimpanzees, Gorillas, Elephants, orcas, pigs etc..
However we do seem to have a greater mental capacity and IQ than these, but they are still self aware.
They are somewhat intelligent yes. But the difference between our intelligence and theirs is like the difference between throwing a bullet and shooting it. Maybe dolphins are a lot smarter than us. But they're not nuking us from orbit any time soon.
Please note I'm not anti evolution at all. I just haven't heard a good explanation on this intelligence gap yet.
Evolution does support intelligence as a survival strategy but have you ever seen such a singular disparity of this magnitude in all the animal kingdom? It would be like if spiders evolved the capability of producing venom. But one single species of spider evolved to hunt its prey with tomahawk missiles.
Why are elephants so big compared to other land animals?
"It would be like if spiders evolved the capability of producing venom. But one single species of spider evolved to hunt its prey with tomahawk missiles."
What?
"Maybe dolphins are a lot smarter than us. But they're not nuking us from orbit any time soon."
What can a dolphin MAKE? What would you be able to make if you were a dolphin? It's not just intelligence, it's a combination of numerous other factors as well.
"have you ever seen such a singular disparity of this magnitude in all the animal kingdom?"
Sort of. But the thing is, if it hadn't happened, would you be here wondering why it happened?
That being said, there are many proposed models. Some scientists think that after humans reached a level of intelligence high enough to make a big difference to their struggle for survival (being able to make sophisticated tools), it took off from there, because of how great the benefits were.
-
Time to cut through all the bullshit. Here is direct proof of evolution. You can see it in action over the course of 11 days.
Yes, adaptation...Micro evolution whatever you want to call it. But you don't need highly educated scientist to tell you this. Any "old Farmers" can tell you the same... As well as a sheep is a sheep and a duck is a duck.
Can keep trying to loop macro evolution with adaptation all you want, but there is simply a belief for such thing, not evidence.
Believe what you want, just don't claim it as fact
-
Time to cut through all the bullshit. Here is direct proof of evolution. You can see it in action over the course of 11 days.
Yes, adaptation...Micro evolution whatever you want to call it. But you don't need highly educated scientist to tell you this. Any "old Farmers" can tell you the same... As well as a sheep is a sheep and a duck is a duck.
Can keep trying to loop macro evolution with adaptation all you want, but there is simply a belief for such thing, not evidence.
Believe what you want, just don't claim it as fact
Don't do that. It's annoying. Even speciation through natural selection has been observed, but creationists don't like that either. "I don't care if they can't interbreed, looks like a fly to me, I won't believe you unless you show me a chicken turning into a flying triple headed hydra over the span of a few weeks! Btw, don't you dare show me some dumb shit like a porcupine turning into a majestic 15 meter sea horse, I repeat, I will only believe you if you show me A CHICKEN TURNING INTO A FLYING TRIPLE HEADED HYDRA!!!".
-
^^^LOL^^^
As I said to you "evolutionists" since we are throwing everyone in a box like that.
Believe what you want , but don't claim it as fact.
Fyi, I have said it before, my issue with evolution has nothing to do with my beliefs elsewhere
-
^^^LOL^^^
As I said to you "evolutionists" since we are throwing everyone in a box like that.
Believe what you want , but don't claim it as fact.
Fyi, I have said it before, my issue with evolution has nothing to do with my beliefs elsewhere
I'm not throwing YOU in a box, I said that it's a common thing creationists say. I hate this categorization thing. I'm not sure what your issue with evolution is if speciation through natural selection has been directly observed, and if evolution is backed up by an extensive fossil record.
-
Evolution suggests something evolves to better adapt to its environment in an advantageous way.
So answer me this.... What possible purpose are any of these freaks and why did evolution bring them this far. What is the point?
(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSyYxjvVZlTFvZ4jVNe68Wd9ZZA8InNU71pox8cJxk_Tzue2dtuygpbaH0r)
In seriousness I ask anyone who does not believe in evolution to answer the question why are natives to Africa black and Europe white? Bit of a coincidence that both bodies seem perfectly suited to their respective environments....
The book of Mormon has the answers you seek my friend. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamanite
-
Time to cut through all the bullshit. Here is direct proof of evolution. You can see it in action over the course of 11 days.
Yes, adaptation...Micro evolution whatever you want to call it.
So tell me. What is the difference between micro evolution and evolution?
But you don't need highly educated scientist to tell you this. Any "old Farmers" can tell you the same... As well as a sheep is a sheep and a duck is a duck.
And a dog is a dog, and a wolf is a wolf, and coyote is a coyote, and a chihuahua is a chihuahua, and a great dane is a great dane. Right? Or... wait... hmmm...
Can keep trying to loop macro evolution with adaptation all you want, but there is simply a belief for such thing, not evidence.
Believe what you want, just don't claim it as fact
Request denied. It is a fact.
-
Why is there only a single intelligent species on the planet?
If I may rephrase Crutoniusses question (I think he meant it this way as well):
Why is there only a single self consious species on the planet?
Lots of other species are self conscious and sentient animals besides us: Bottle nose Dolphins, Chimpanzees, Gorillas, Elephants, orcas, pigs etc..
However we do seem to have a greater mental capacity and IQ than these, but they are still self aware.
They are somewhat intelligent yes. But the difference between our intelligence and theirs is like the difference between throwing a bullet and shooting it. Maybe dolphins are a lot smarter than us. But they're not nuking us from orbit any time soon.
Please note I'm not anti evolution at all. I just haven't heard a good explanation on this intelligence gap yet.
Evolution does support intelligence as a survival strategy but have you ever seen such a singular disparity of this magnitude in all the animal kingdom? It would be like if spiders evolved the capability of producing venom. But one single species of spider evolved to hunt its prey with tomahawk missiles.
I'm no biology expert, but these were an interesting read. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_human_intelligence#Models
My take on it is that the capacity for complex language, and the opportunity to pass down knowledge to successive generations is what makes our intelligence truly unique. If you take away those two things, are we really that much more intelligent than some other animals like dolphins, chimps, and octopi (octopuses... octopussies... octopeds...)?
Wrestling with the spell checker huh? I do that too. I know I'm right even when the squiggly line says otherwise.
I'm aware of those factors. Dogs have all of that going for them as well as humans actually forcing evolution on them through selective breeding. It's possible that the difference in intelligence between us and dolphins seems far greater than it really is, that there's a tipping point in brain power where a society pops up. To add more weirdness to this is the fact that primates have actually spawned several subspecies that were probably on their way to intelligence. Then they just vanished. There's lots of reasons for a species to go extinct. In a few cases people have theorized that they lost a war to us Homo Sapiens. I wonder if there's something in us that makes us rage out at something intelligent that doesn't look quite like us? Maybe anytime some other animal with intelligence pops us we try to exterminate it?
Evolution has been a polarizing topic for quite a while now. So I want to reiterate that I'm not a creationist. I'm not railing against evolution here. The theory is very elegant.
It's just this one aspect seems less than intuitive to me. It could easily be something I'm not getting.
-
Evolution has been a polarizing topic for quite a while now. So I want to reiterate that I'm not a creationist. I'm not railing against evolution here. The theory is very elegant.
Lol....You should be in politics with an answer like that.
Don't worry, we shall make a public marker for you, so no one confuses you for a creationist, and you have a golden stamp of approval for evolution.
You will get to be considered intelligent, advanced...And...Get to go to their cool parties.
Rock on.
Request denied. It is a fact.
Lol....You heard le capitaine..
You forgot to stomp your foot chief...Or maybe you did and I missed it.
-
Bhs is mad ::)
-
Why is there only a single intelligent species on the planet?
If I may rephrase Crutoniusses question (I think he meant it this way as well):
Why is there only a single self consious species on the planet?
Lots of other species are self conscious and sentient animals besides us: Bottle nose Dolphins, Chimpanzees, Gorillas, Elephants, orcas, pigs etc..
However we do seem to have a greater mental capacity and IQ than these, but they are still self aware.
They are somewhat intelligent yes. But the difference between our intelligence and theirs is like the difference between throwing a bullet and shooting it. Maybe dolphins are a lot smarter than us. But they're not nuking us from orbit any time soon.
Please note I'm not anti evolution at all. I just haven't heard a good explanation on this intelligence gap yet.
Evolution does support intelligence as a survival strategy but have you ever seen such a singular disparity of this magnitude in all the animal kingdom? It would be like if spiders evolved the capability of producing venom. But one single species of spider evolved to hunt its prey with tomahawk missiles.
I'm no biology expert, but these were an interesting read. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_human_intelligence#Models
My take on it is that the capacity for complex language, and the opportunity to pass down knowledge to successive generations is what makes our intelligence truly unique. If you take away those two things, are we really that much more intelligent than some other animals like dolphins, chimps, and octopi (octopuses... octopussies... octopeds...)?
Wrestling with the spell checker huh? I do that too. I know I'm right even when the squiggly line says otherwise.
Rage against the machine! Ain't no squiggly line gonna tell me what to do.
I'm aware of those factors. Dogs have all of that going for them as well as humans actually forcing evolution on them through selective breeding. It's possible that the difference in intelligence between us and dolphins seems far greater than it really is, that there's a tipping point in brain power where a society pops up.
We tend to compare the collective accomplishments of thousands of generations of humans with the accomplishments of one generation of dolphins. Dolphins can't pass down knowledge to the next generation to the same sophisticated extent that we can. I'd argue that that is the key difference. If you raised a generation of humans in complete isolation to the knowledge of the modern world and of previous generations, how much more intelligent than animals would they look?
To add more weirdness to this is the fact that primates have actually spawned several subspecies that were probably on their way to intelligence. Then they just vanished. There's lots of reasons for a species to go extinct. In a few cases people have theorized that they lost a war to us Homo Sapiens. I wonder if there's something in us that makes us rage out at something intelligent that doesn't look quite like us? Maybe anytime some other animal with intelligence pops us we try to exterminate it?
Evolution has been a polarizing topic for quite a while now. So I want to reiterate that I'm not a creationist. I'm not railing against evolution here. The theory is very elegant.
It's just this one aspect seems less than intuitive to me. It could easily be something I'm not getting.
I agree. It is rather mysterious. I would argue that this opens the door to belief in a deity guiding evolution to produce humans, if you are so inclined.
-
Time to cut through all the bullshit. Here is direct proof of evolution. You can see it in action over the course of 11 days.
Yes, adaptation...Micro evolution whatever you want to call it. But you don't need highly educated scientist to tell you this. Any "old Farmers" can tell you the same... As well as a sheep is a sheep and a duck is a duck.
Can keep trying to loop macro evolution with adaptation all you want, but there is simply a belief for such thing, not evidence.
Believe what you want, just don't claim it as fact
you do not believe in evolution because you claim there is no evidence for that.
first you are wrong, look up the fossil record.
and my question is for you, why do you believe in a being that created everything?
what evidence do you have for that believe?
-
Evolution suggests something evolves to better adapt to its environment in an advantageous way.
So answer me this.... What possible purpose are any of these freaks and why did evolution bring them this far. What is the point?
(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSyYxjvVZlTFvZ4jVNe68Wd9ZZA8InNU71pox8cJxk_Tzue2dtuygpbaH0r)
In seriousness I ask anyone who does not believe in evolution to answer the question why are natives to Africa black and Europe white? Bit of a coincidence that both bodies seem perfectly suited to their respective environments....
you claim that the skincolor of the humans is created by god?
where in you holy book is that written down?
where is the text where the creater made the different skincolors?
-
Request denied. It is a fact.
Lol....You heard le capitaine..
You forgot to stomp your foot chief...Or maybe you did and I missed it.
I'll have a discussion about evolution if you want. But I'm not going to pretend it isn't already a settled matter. If I am foot-stomping, then so are you, claiming that evolution isn't a fact. The difference is that you are foot-stomping in the face of the entire scientific community and tons of evidence. Evolution hasn't been a controversial topic outside of religiously motivated denialists for decades.
-
Evolution has been a polarizing topic for quite a while now. So I want to reiterate that I'm not a creationist. I'm not railing against evolution here. The theory is very elegant.
Lol....You should be in politics with an answer like that.
Don't worry, we shall make a public marker for you, so no one confuses you for a creationist, and you have a golden stamp of approval for evolution.
You will get to be considered intelligent, advanced...And...Get to go to their cool parties.
Rock on.
Overly diplomatic? Possibly. I prefer discussions to fist fights though. In a topic that's typically all or nothing it's important to make it known that you're in it for the nuance, the subtle shades of gray.
-
Why is there only a single intelligent species on the planet?
First I should make known that intelligence is relative. An ant may consider itself intelligent and just can't comprehend us. Also intelligence can also be based on survival needs. Octopi and certain birds have been shown to be able to solve problems in order to get food. The difference between us and them, is that we have been able to take ourselves out of the food chain, and so have had the past few thousand years to develop our brains.
We can even observe monkeys who are developing their own tools and using them. This gives us the insight that at some point we were monkeys just learning to use tools. These tools made hunting and shelters much easier to achieve. After generations of monkeys showing their offspring the tools, they began leaving the trees, learning how to stand on two legs and use tools as their main form of survival rather than their hands. They followed the herds of their prey over generations, and when they traveled to cold regions they made clothes. When they returned to warmer regions and still had clothes, there was no need for all their hair.
Hope this answers your question.
So, just because you realized that monkeys are intelligent, that gave you an insight and assumed we came from monkeys!
Did all other intelligent animals come from monkeys? > I'm sure you'd say no, so why assuming we did?
All animals have their own origins, or some might share the same. So, why couldn't we have our own?
Why do you intelligent people insist on degrading us to a lower level of species?
Listening to this type of thinking gives me an insight that maybe monkeys could've came from some humans with null for brains - those that did not appreciate what God has given them of intelligence!
Let's clear this one up...we did not evolve from monkeys....ok
We share a common ancestor.
How do we know this?...through the study of genetics. We share 98% of our DNA with them, so we are a close relative, but did not evolve from them.
-
In seriousness I ask anyone who does not believe in evolution to answer the question why are natives to Africa black and Europe white? Bit of a coincidence that both bodies seem perfectly suited to their respective environments....
you claim that the skincolor of the humans is created by god?
where in you holy book is that written down?
where is the text where the creater made the different skincolors?
No. I claim our appearances and characteristics are a product of our environment over many thousands of years / generations. Africans have black skin because of the much more sunny and hot climate. Europeans have white skin because it has far less sun and less melanin is better suited to obtain Vitamin D3 through sunlight. The 'Asian eyes' are even said to be a product of their environment due to dealing with very cold winters and very hot summers together.
You totally missed my point
-
Lets take a look at a few things to see if we share anything in common with our 'alleged' ancestors
(http://www.motherjones.com/files/HumanChimpGenomes630.jpg)
From Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee_genome_project (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee_genome_project)
Human and chimpanzee chromosomes are very similar. The primary difference is that humans have one fewer pair of chromosomes than do other great apes. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes and other great apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes. In the human evolutionary lineage, two ancestral ape chromosomes fused at their telomeres, producing human chromosome
Why cant creationists be imaginative enough to have it both ways? You can believe we descended from Apes and in a God at the same time. Maybe God took an Ape and played around with its chromosomes a little and put it back to begin what we know is Human. In the way we both were evolved and created at the same time! ;D
Remember at some point, going back far enough, we all began from a single cell.
-
Why is there only a single intelligent species on the planet?
First I should make known that intelligence is relative. An ant may consider itself intelligent and just can't comprehend us. Also intelligence can also be based on survival needs. Octopi and certain birds have been shown to be able to solve problems in order to get food. The difference between us and them, is that we have been able to take ourselves out of the food chain, and so have had the past few thousand years to develop our brains.
We can even observe monkeys who are developing their own tools and using them. This gives us the insight that at some point we were monkeys just learning to use tools. These tools made hunting and shelters much easier to achieve. After generations of monkeys showing their offspring the tools, they began leaving the trees, learning how to stand on two legs and use tools as their main form of survival rather than their hands. They followed the herds of their prey over generations, and when they traveled to cold regions they made clothes. When they returned to warmer regions and still had clothes, there was no need for all their hair.
Hope this answers your question.
So, just because you realized that monkeys are intelligent, that gave you an insight and assumed we came from monkeys!
Did all other intelligent animals come from monkeys? > I'm sure you'd say no, so why assuming we did?
All animals have their own origins, or some might share the same. So, why couldn't we have our own?
Why do you intelligent people insist on degrading us to a lower level of species?
Listening to this type of thinking gives me an insight that maybe monkeys could've came from some humans with null for brains - those that did not appreciate what God has given them of intelligence!
Let's clear this one up...we did not evolve from monkeys....ok
We share a common ancestor.
How do we know this?...through the study of genetics. We share 98% of our DNA with them, so we are a close relative, but did not evolve from them.
You read my opening questions but you did not read the following ones!
The other question was; did we evolve from that common ancestor or did some humans descend to such species (d-evolved)?
-
Being able to recognize ones self in a mirror ( which a dolphin supposedly can) is much different that being sentient or "self aware".
@Bhs and @Hannibal
How would you guys define "sentient" and "consciousness"?
IF all our thoughts etc. were created in our brain by neural cells - would consciousness be possible?
Sentience is the ability to feel, perceive, and to have subjective experiences. > Awareness is then developed - sense data can be confirmed by a being without necessarily implying understanding. > Consciousness – an ignited, robust, internally stable awareness of one's own sense of values derived through abstract thought processes that are capable of adapting to and integrating with functionally similar processes in a wider range.
Reaching that level of awareness, one have become a creator of his own consciousness – you are no longer just a sentient being – you have evolved to have become a conscious being; capable of processing your experiences and not being subjective to it.
Instincts are God given abilities to all sentient beings to give them awareness, while consciousness is our acceptance and appreciation to what God has given us of abilities and values!
How do you know that other animals aren't conscious? Remember Koko? The gorilla that was taught how to speak sign language, not just copy hand movements, but actually learn the language and use it. She knows up to 1000 words and can speak at the level of a 3 year old child. She can process her surrounding and make decisions on what she wants to say to her caregivers. Her first sign she used was "queen" because she knew that she was getting more special attention than any of the other gorillas. She even became sad when she was told of Robin William's death, as she remembered the time they had met.
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/08/koko-the-talking-gorilla-sign-language-francine-patterson/402307/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2723584/She-extremely-sad-Sign-language-gorilla-Koko-close-tears-following-news-Robin-Williams-death-13-years-video-captured-two-fast-friends.html
(Sorry for only giving two sources, I'm sure if you care you can find many more examples)
-
Being able to recognize ones self in a mirror ( which a dolphin supposedly can) is much different that being sentient or "self aware".
@Bhs and @Hannibal
How would you guys define "sentient" and "consciousness"?
IF all our thoughts etc. were created in our brain by neural cells - would consciousness be possible?
Sentience is the ability to feel, perceive, and to have subjective experiences. > Awareness is then developed - sense data can be confirmed by a being without necessarily implying understanding. > Consciousness – an ignited, robust, internally stable awareness of one's own sense of values derived through abstract thought processes that are capable of adapting to and integrating with functionally similar processes in a wider range.
Reaching that level of awareness, one have become a creator of his own consciousness – you are no longer just a sentient being – you have evolved to have become a conscious being; capable of processing your experiences and not being subjective to it.
Instincts are God given abilities to all sentient beings to give them awareness, while consciousness is our acceptance and appreciation to what God has given us of abilities and values!
How do you know that other animals aren't conscious? Remember Koko? The gorilla that was taught how to speak sign language, not just copy hand movements, but actually learn the language and use it. She knows up to 1000 words and can speak at the level of a 3 year old child. She can process her surrounding and make decisions on what she wants to say to her caregivers. Her first sign she used was "queen" because she knew that she was getting more special attention than any of the other gorillas. She even became sad when she was told of Robin William's death, as she remembered the time they had met.
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/08/koko-the-talking-gorilla-sign-language-francine-patterson/402307/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2723584/She-extremely-sad-Sign-language-gorilla-Koko-close-tears-following-news-Robin-Williams-death-13-years-video-captured-two-fast-friends.html
(Sorry for only giving two sources, I'm sure if you care you can find many more examples)
Oh, I've seen many intelligent creatures in aqua park - they even taught them to kiss you on the cheek! ;D
But, what does that have to do with consciousness?
The "Animal Consciousness" debate has been going on for ever, and different scientists have different opinions on the subject!
A New York University neuro-scientist Joe LeDoux, one of the most vocal of a group of researchers who think non-human animal consciousness isn’t relevant in experiments or even scientifically resolvable, once said, “The basic idea is about how many assumptions scientists are willing to make about consciousness.”
To dive in a deep field where famous scientists and philosophers have failed to conclude, is like blowing in a hollow object!
The way I see it, though;-
Animals are subjective to their instincts, and follow a law that secures their needs.
Humans can evolve and develop a conscious that can free them from being subjective to their instincts, and become in control of their needs, feelings and behavior.
When a man doesn't have control over his sexual and feeding activities > they say he's an animal or eats like a pig!
When a person doesn't have control over his life; he lives in chaos, which leads to destruction. - How can you develop a consciousness in a chaotic state of awareness?
Consciousness is the highest state of awareness and without consciousness we'd go back to the jungle and live with the animals by our instincts and by the jungle law!
-
Just some random thoughts after reading your post @Hannibaal:
The way I see it, though;-
Animals are subjective to their instincts, and follow a law that secures their needs.
Actually, humans do that, too, pretty much all of the time.
If you think about it, most things you do happen unconsious (e.g. walking, driving, eating, etc. It all does not require active thinking (--> you can think about totally different stuff while doing such activities)).
Humans can evolve and develop a conscious that can free them from being subjective to their instincts, and become in control of their needs, feelings and behavior.
I understand what you mean, but most of the time I'd say when we think we're "free" from our instincts it's mostly an advanced conditioning due to our enviroment (society). People generally behave/dress... in the way they get the most positive response / least negative.
When a man doesn't have control over his sexual and feeding activities > they say he's an animal or eats like a pig!
When a person doesn't have control over his life; he lives in chaos, which leads to destruction. - How can you develop a consciousness in a chaotic state of awareness?
Consciousness is the highest state of awareness and without consciousness we'd go back to the jungle and live with the animals by our instincts and by the jungle law!
Aren't we just living by an advanced jungle law? You behave bad, the alpha male (police/government) punishes you--> you learn what to do and what not to do (=advanced conditioning). Well, we're probably better in balancing pros and cons of our actions, yes.
-
Oh, I've seen many intelligent creatures in aqua park - they even taught them to kiss you on the cheek! ;D
But, what does that have to do with consciousness?
the gorilla that was mention in the one post was only trained in sign language and not in the way how to communicate in a certain way.
that has a lot to do with consciousness
The "Animal Consciousness" debate has been going on for ever, and different scientists have different opinions on the subject!
A New York University neuro-scientist Joe LeDoux, one of the most vocal of a group of researchers who think non-human animal consciousness isn’t relevant in experiments or even scientifically resolvable, once said, “The basic idea is about how many assumptions scientists are willing to make about consciousness.”
To dive in a deep field where famous scientists and philosophers have failed to conclude, is like blowing in a hollow object!
The way I see it, though;-
Animals are subjective to their instincts, and follow a law that secures their needs.
Humans can evolve and develop a conscious that can free them from being subjective to their instincts, and become in control of their needs, feelings and behavior.
When a man doesn't have control over his sexual and feeding activities > they say he's an animal or eats like a pig!
When a person doesn't have control over his life; he lives in chaos, which leads to destruction. - How can you develop a consciousness in a chaotic state of awareness?
Consciousness is the highest state of awareness and without consciousness we'd go back to the jungle and live with the animals by our instincts and by the jungle law!
if animals are only controlled by their instincts, how do you explain the behaviour of pets like dogs and cats.
if you really observe them you will find out that they not at all only controlled by their instincts, especially cats.
you think the humans are higher evolved than the animals are.
How do you than explain that only the humans destroy their environment that they are living in and killing each other for minor reasons?
-
There are many animals which are capable of self awareness and thinking for themselves beyond primitive instinct and there are many that run purely on instinct, much like a computer program.
My way of discerning between them is pretty rough and probably has some bad examples in it but I think if an animal can dream, it may have the intellectual capacity for free thinking. This doesn't mean with enough time you could teach them speech and calculus. It just means they aren't mindless drones running on pure instinct.
If you put 2 dogs together and have them grow up in the exact same environment and given the exact same stimulus, you will still be able to recognise 2 distinct personalities. Same with many animals.
-
I see reason to what you are all saying, but isn't there no physically possible way to categorize the cognitive functions of different species?
Humans, as a species, have the innate instinct to sort and categorize. This is being seen when all of you want to sort species into their cognitive function categories. So by doing this, aren't we all returning to our most basic brain functions? Are we any better than our primate ancestors?
-
I see reason to what you are all saying, but isn't there no physically possible way to categorize the cognitive functions of different species?
Sure. You can test their memory, problem solving, focus, etc. Consciousness or sentience is anyone's guess though. My personal theory is that I am the only person in the world that is conscious of its own existence. Everyone else is just a glorified biological automaton. I have never seen evidence that contradicts this theory.
Humans, as a species, have the innate instinct to sort and categorize.
The state of my closet says otherwise.
-
Of course it is possible to test cognitive ability, but whether the results give a full picture on what a species can or can't do is up for debate.
As far as your theory, simply fascinating. I haven't met anybody that thinks in quite the way you do. I'm going to remain neutral as far as my reaction to it, but it is very interesting.
-
I see reason to what you are all saying, but isn't there no physically possible way to categorize the cognitive functions of different species?
Sure. You can test their memory, problem solving, focus, etc. Consciousness or sentience is anyone's guess though. My personal theory is that I am the only person in the world that is conscious of its own existence. Everyone else is just a glorified biological automaton. I have never seen evidence that contradicts this theory.
Humans, as a species, have the innate instinct to sort and categorize.
The state of my closet says otherwise.
Are you into a form of Solipsism?
-
That would be quite interesting. I personally have never met a solipsist before, and I'm wondering how their type of mind frame works. As in, are solipsists so doubtful of the world around them that they think existence is false? Like a matrix sort of deal, but on a realistic level.
-
My personal theory is that I am the only person in the world that is conscious of its own existence. Everyone else is just a glorified biological automaton. I have never seen evidence that contradicts this theory.
I get it now.
I still don't understand your interpretation of "evidence."
-
Guys... it was a joke...
I was trying to point out the difficulty of scientifically studying the idea of consciousness/sentience/awareness. How can we say that an animal is or isn't self aware when we can't even be sure humans other than ourselves are self aware. How would you test for it?
It's fun to discuss, but it isn't very useful as an argument for or against evolution.
-
Guys... it was a joke...
I was trying to point out the difficulty of scientifically studying the idea of consciousness/sentience/awareness. How can we say that an animal is or isn't self aware when we can't even be sure humans other than ourselves are self aware. How would you test for it?
It's fun to discuss, but it isn't very useful as an argument for or against evolution.
That's akin to saying although we can see and measure the suns orbit we can't prove it's up there.
Actually it's behind a cloud now, I will hazard the assumption it's still there even though I can't see it directly atm.
-
Guys... it was a joke...
I was trying to point out the difficulty of scientifically studying the idea of consciousness/sentience/awareness. How can we say that an animal is or isn't self aware when we can't even be sure humans other than ourselves are self aware. How would you test for it?
It's fun to discuss, but it isn't very useful as an argument for or against evolution.
I don't know. Sounds suspiciously similar to something one of those qualia hoarding humans might say to distract the p-zombies.
-
Humour proves consciousness and intelligence imo. As crutonius demonstrates.
Also this.
-
Guys... it was a joke...
I was trying to point out the difficulty of scientifically studying the idea of consciousness/sentience/awareness. How can we say that an animal is or isn't self aware when we can't even be sure humans other than ourselves are self aware. How would you test for it?
It's fun to discuss, but it isn't very useful as an argument for or against evolution.
That's akin to saying although we can see and measure the suns orbit we can't prove it's up there.
Actually it's behind a cloud now, I will hazard the assumption it's still there even though I can't see it directly atm.
Yes, we can infer that other people are self aware, since we are self aware. But that logic isn't very useful for determining if animals are self aware. So how would you test for it?
I don't know. Sounds suspiciously similar to something one of those qualia hoarding humans might say to distract the p-zombies.
I... um.......
(http://i.imgur.com/ju7qV1c.gif)
-
Being able to recognize ones self in a mirror ( which a dolphin supposedly can) is much different that being sentient or "self aware".
@Bhs and @Hannibal
How would you guys define "sentient" and "consciousness"?
IF all our thoughts etc. were created in our brain by neural cells - would consciousness be possible?
Sentience is the ability to feel, perceive, and to have subjective experiences. > Awareness is then developed - sense data can be confirmed by a being without necessarily implying understanding. > Consciousness – an ignited, robust, internally stable awareness of one's own sense of values derived through abstract thought processes that are capable of adapting to and integrating with functionally similar processes in a wider range.
Reaching that level of awareness, one have become a creator of his own consciousness – you are no longer just a sentient being – you have evolved to have become a conscious being; capable of processing your experiences and not being subjective to it.
Instincts are God given abilities to all sentient beings to give them awareness, while consciousness is our acceptance and appreciation to what God has given us of abilities and values!
How do you know that other animals aren't conscious? Remember Koko? The gorilla that was taught how to speak sign language, not just copy hand movements, but actually learn the language and use it. She knows up to 1000 words and can speak at the level of a 3 year old child. She can process her surrounding and make decisions on what she wants to say to her caregivers. Her first sign she used was "queen" because she knew that she was getting more special attention than any of the other gorillas. She even became sad when she was told of Robin William's death, as she remembered the time they had met.
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/08/koko-the-talking-gorilla-sign-language-francine-patterson/402307/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2723584/She-extremely-sad-Sign-language-gorilla-Koko-close-tears-following-news-Robin-Williams-death-13-years-video-captured-two-fast-friends.html
(Sorry for only giving two sources, I'm sure if you care you can find many more examples)
Oh, I've seen many intelligent creatures in aqua park - they even taught them to kiss you on the cheek! ;D
But, what does that have to do with consciousness?
The "Animal Consciousness" debate has been going on for ever, and different scientists have different opinions on the subject!
A New York University neuro-scientist Joe LeDoux, one of the most vocal of a group of researchers who think non-human animal consciousness isn’t relevant in experiments or even scientifically resolvable, once said, “The basic idea is about how many assumptions scientists are willing to make about consciousness.”
To dive in a deep field where famous scientists and philosophers have failed to conclude, is like blowing in a hollow object!
The way I see it, though;-
Animals are subjective to their instincts, and follow a law that secures their needs.
Humans can evolve and develop a conscious that can free them from being subjective to their instincts, and become in control of their needs, feelings and behavior.
When a man doesn't have control over his sexual and feeding activities > they say he's an animal or eats like a pig!
When a person doesn't have control over his life; he lives in chaos, which leads to destruction. - How can you develop a consciousness in a chaotic state of awareness?
Consciousness is the highest state of awareness and without consciousness we'd go back to the jungle and live with the animals by our instincts and by the jungle law!
Um, your also diving in deep on this subject so..
You should get a pet, when an animal has all of their needs taken care of, like us, they start having lives that aren't dictated by instincts that are there to keep them alive. They are very interesting to watch. Not to mention the fact that lots of animals have dreams. I'm not sure how something with no consciousness can have a dream. What would be the point?
Also we are animals, so be more specific when you say animals are subject to instincts.
-
I personally have a dog, and I've seen the innate instincts that would have kept him alive in the wild fade away quickly as we provided his every need. He now knows where the food is kept, and tries to constantly get at it. In addition, the second somebody fed him food off the counter, he knew what was up there, and begs to try and get it. Which, I suppose, brings me back to the point that you can only measure cognitive activity for the current moment, because brains are not static. They evolve and change as the species does, so data collected one day wouldn't be relevant, say, one year later when the species has learned more from its surroundings and how to react to it.
-
I personally have a dog, and I've seen the innate instincts that would have kept him alive in the wild fade away quickly as we provided his every need. He now knows where the food is kept, and tries to constantly get at it.
Survival instinct.
In addition, the second somebody fed him food off the counter, he knew what was up there, and begs to try and get it.
Survival instinct.
Which, I suppose, brings me back to the point that you can only measure cognitive activity for the current moment, because brains are not static. They evolve and change as the species does, so data collected one day wouldn't be relevant, say, one year later when the species has learned more from its surroundings and how to react to it.
Learning new things or methods of operation =/= evolution.
-
Um, your also diving in deep on this subject so..
You should get a pet, when an animal has all of their needs taken care of, like us, they start having lives that aren't dictated by instincts that are there to keep them alive. They are very interesting to watch. Not to mention the fact that lots of animals have dreams. I'm not sure how something with no consciousness can have a dream. What would be the point?
Also we are animals, so be more specific when you say animals are subject to instincts.
Oh, I love animals – pets in particular!
I had an Alaskan Husky once, when I was in college – pets in general are wonderful companions and fun to be around, especially with the kids.
Instincts, intelligence, dreaming, self and environmental awareness are properties all sentient beings possess, including animals.
The misconception of the term consciousness had led people to think and believe it’s something we were born with or maybe a genetic property and trait!
Consciousness in short is creating the “god” in us – the highest state and peak of our awareness - the faith that gives balance to our lives, that makes us appreciate our values and properties, and how to put them into action for our benefit and the benefit of the all.
Consciousness is developed and achieved when we become the judges of our actions and behavior, which could negatively affect us and others around us if not under control.
Consciousness can be reached when we use our intelligence in the development and the prosperity of mankind, and not in selfishness, in evilness and in the destruction of man and morals.
Would you call a criminal with intent a conscious man – would a murderer have a conscious?
Two wealthy men; one made his wealth from running an honest family business and hard work, and used it in good deed, and the other made it from theft and fraudulence, and used it in lechery, bawdiness and in satisfying his whims > whom should we say has developed a consciousness in his life?
You have to be aware of your state of a sentient being, in control of your instincts and the judge of your behavior and actions to reach the conscious state of mind!
Could animals reach that state > I don’t think so!
-
I understand that's not necessarily evolution, it takes millions of years for a species to truly evolve as a result of natural selection. What I'm talking about is simple stimuli and reaction, or the ability for a species to respond to its environment. Its response changes based off its environment, which is what I'm trying to point out in my dog example. I'm not trying to say my dog is evolving in such a short time period, that's not physically possible, just that his reactions are changing because his environment is too.
-
Um, your also diving in deep on this subject so..
You should get a pet, when an animal has all of their needs taken care of, like us, they start having lives that aren't dictated by instincts that are there to keep them alive. They are very interesting to watch. Not to mention the fact that lots of animals have dreams. I'm not sure how something with no consciousness can have a dream. What would be the point?
Also we are animals, so be more specific when you say animals are subject to instincts.
Oh, I love animals – pets in particular!
I had an Alaskan Husky once, when I was in college – pets in general are wonderful companions and fun to be around, especially with the kids.
Instincts, intelligence, dreaming, self and environmental awareness are properties all sentient beings possess, including animals.
The misconception of the term consciousness had led people to think and believe it’s something we were born with or maybe a genetic property and trait!
Consciousness in short is creating the “god” in us – the highest state and peak of our awareness - the faith that gives balance to our lives, that makes us appreciate our values and properties, and how to put them into action for our benefit and the benefit of the all.
Consciousness is developed and achieved when we become the judges of our actions and behavior, which could negatively affect us and others around us if not under control.
Consciousness can be reached when we use our intelligence in the development and the prosperity of mankind, and not in selfishness, in evilness and in the destruction of man and morals.
Would you call a criminal with intent a conscious man – would a murderer have a conscious?
Two wealthy men; one made his wealth from running an honest family business and hard work, and used it in good deed, and the other made it from theft and fraudulence, and used it in lechery, bawdiness and in satisfying his whims > whom should we say has developed a consciousness in his life?
You have to be aware of your state of a sentient being, in control of your instincts and the judge of your behavior and actions to reach the conscious state of mind!
Could animals reach that state > I don’t think so!
Ah, I didn't realize we were talking about a conscious like Jiminy Cricket. My idea of consciousness being aware and able to process one's surroundings. Are we talking about animal's ability to feel guilt and know they are harming their surroundings and try to refrain from it? Because animals have been shown to feel guilt. You must have seen when a dog has trashed the house, and the owner comes home and the dog looks guilty. You may be able to say this is fear, but if it were fear the dog would attack or run away, but instead the dog just sits there looking sideways at there owner, with their head down.
Also, there were these elephants who's parents were killed by poachers, so they grew up not knowing what was right and wrong. They beat up and killed rhinos for no reason. So some researchers brought in some elder elephants and the elders got the younger ones in order immediately.
Again we return to empathy, giving us the want to help others. It is mostly taught and can be easily manipulated, but is nearly impossible to teach yourself it.
-
I suppose being "self-aware" is up to interpretation, whether it's simply what a species is able to do, or what it feels or thinks. And what's to say if even humans are truly self-aware? How would we know if we only have less intelligent species to compare ourselves to?
-
Not to mention the fact that lots of animals have dreams. I'm not sure how something with no consciousness can have a dream. What would be the point?
Also we are animals, so be more specific when you say animals are subject to instincts.
The point of dreaming might be practicing real-life situations in a "simulator" where no harm is possible, also dreaming helps for muscle memory. I'd generally say dreams (in humans) happen unconcious; except maybe for lucid dreams.
Would you call a criminal with intent a conscious man – would a murderer have a conscious?
I think you use a weird definition of consciousness, or else I don't see your point here. Why would he not be conscious? Consciousness and free will include the choice between good and bad, what decides which track you go are your morals (+some other stuff).
I suppose being "self-aware" is up to interpretation, whether it's simply what a species is able to do, or what it feels or thinks. And what's to say if even humans are truly self-aware? How would we know if we only have less intelligent species to compare ourselves to?
Interesting thoughts; it's especially interesting if you consider the brain as the cause of our consciousness; theoretically this could mean we can create consciousness, in a way that humans possess it, in robots.
-
If you define consciousness as simply detecting your surroundings and responding to them, then according to that definition, robots are conscious. In my opinion, to be conscious is to not only detect and respond to surroundings, but to form opinions about them, and use these opinions and observations to their advantage in the future.
-
if you consider the brain as the cause of our consciousness; theoretically this could mean we can create consciousness, in a way that humans possess it, in robots.
I think it's impossible personally.
Do you know how and why captcha works?
-
if you consider the brain as the cause of our consciousness; theoretically this could mean we can create consciousness, in a way that humans possess it, in robots.
I think it's impossible personally.
Do you know how and why captcha works?
More or less, yes. I though do not see that as a reason for why (full) AI/consciousness couldn't be possible.
Reasons why it though might be impossible are - in my opinon:
> Brain works different in comparision to rather static CPUs
Solution might be to "simulate" a brain, not actually build one.
> Brain is, due to long evolution, incredibly efficient. It might be generally impossible to replicate something like the human brain with computers, since it's not possible to achieve the same efficiency with something non-biological.
> Even if it was theoretically possible, it might just be impossible for us humans to do it, since it's just too complex.
-
Um, your also diving in deep on this subject so..
You should get a pet, when an animal has all of their needs taken care of, like us, they start having lives that aren't dictated by instincts that are there to keep them alive. They are very interesting to watch. Not to mention the fact that lots of animals have dreams. I'm not sure how something with no consciousness can have a dream. What would be the point?
Also we are animals, so be more specific when you say animals are subject to instincts.
Oh, I love animals – pets in particular!
I had an Alaskan Husky once, when I was in college – pets in general are wonderful companions and fun to be around, especially with the kids.
Instincts, intelligence, dreaming, self and environmental awareness are properties all sentient beings possess, including animals.
The misconception of the term consciousness had led people to think and believe it’s something we were born with or maybe a genetic property and trait!
Consciousness in short is creating the “god” in us – the highest state and peak of our awareness - the faith that gives balance to our lives, that makes us appreciate our values and properties, and how to put them into action for our benefit and the benefit of the all.
Consciousness is developed and achieved when we become the judges of our actions and behavior, which could negatively affect us and others around us if not under control.
Consciousness can be reached when we use our intelligence in the development and the prosperity of mankind, and not in selfishness, in evilness and in the destruction of man and morals.
Would you call a criminal with intent a conscious man – would a murderer have a conscious?
Two wealthy men; one made his wealth from running an honest family business and hard work, and used it in good deed, and the other made it from theft and fraudulence, and used it in lechery, bawdiness and in satisfying his whims > whom should we say has developed a consciousness in his life?
You have to be aware of your state of a sentient being, in control of your instincts and the judge of your behavior and actions to reach the conscious state of mind!
Could animals reach that state > I don’t think so!
Ah, I didn't realize we were talking about a conscious like Jiminy Cricket. My idea of consciousness being aware and able to process one's surroundings. Are we talking about animal's ability to feel guilt and know they are harming their surroundings and try to refrain from it? Because animals have been shown to feel guilt. You must have seen when a dog has trashed the house, and the owner comes home and the dog looks guilty. You may be able to say this is fear, but if it were fear the dog would attack or run away, but instead the dog just sits there looking sideways at there owner, with their head down.
Also, there were these elephants who's parents were killed by poachers, so they grew up not knowing what was right and wrong. They beat up and killed rhinos for no reason. So some researchers brought in some elder elephants and the elders got the younger ones in order immediately.
Again we return to empathy, giving us the want to help others. It is mostly taught and can be easily manipulated, but is nearly impossible to teach yourself it.
You're either not reading what I post or my English is not good enough to express what I mean!
Your idea of consciousness is EXACTLY what I've been talking about since the opening - to be aware and able to process is what consciousness all about - a criminal is a sentient being in the state of awareness of his surroundings, by he has NOT developed a conscious to judge what's right and what's wrong;he is fully aware of that, but he did not process it and analyzed the consequences of his acts if he goes in either direction of right and wrong.
We all know what's right and what's wrong - even some animals do to some extent, but only those with conscious that are able to analyze and process the consequences of our next decision - a rapist knows and is aware he's committing an awful act, but still do it because he has no conscious to judge his acts with.
Awareness is totally different from consciousness > awareness qualifies us to become conscious beings, and we have the free will to activate our consciousness and make it stronger; each time we make the right decision.
-
I think your idea about consciousness makes 0 sense.
As I said: Consciousness and free will include the choice between good and bad, what decides which track you go are your morals (+some other stuff like laws (which are based on moral tho)).
-
I think your idea about consciousness makes 0 sense.
As I said: Consciousness and free will include the choice between good and bad, what decides which track you go are your morals (+some other stuff like laws (which are based on moral tho)).
Well, don't underestimate the power of Zero!
I went over all 73 replies in this thread and I didn't see you give a definition or opinion on consciousness (at least I did) - would you care to shed some light from your perspective on the subject?
-
Consciousness is such a broad and undefined topic that it truly is mostly up to opinion. I'm willing to accept any answer, and I wouldn't be going around telling people their opinions make 0 sense.
-
Consciousness is such a broad and undefined topic that it truly is mostly up to opinion. I'm willing to accept any answer, and I wouldn't be going around telling people their opinions make 0 sense.
When someone writes
"a rapist knows and is aware he's committing an awful act, but still do it because he has no conscious to judge his acts with"
then I do think that it is bullshit, makes 0 sense and thus I tell him.
Anyway, I recommend watching "a clockwork orange", it's about what is better - free will (including deciding to to something bad) or not being able to do something bad (and thus not having free will)
-
Um, your also diving in deep on this subject so..
You should get a pet, when an animal has all of their needs taken care of, like us, they start having lives that aren't dictated by instincts that are there to keep them alive. They are very interesting to watch. Not to mention the fact that lots of animals have dreams. I'm not sure how something with no consciousness can have a dream. What would be the point?
Also we are animals, so be more specific when you say animals are subject to instincts.
Oh, I love animals – pets in particular!
I had an Alaskan Husky once, when I was in college – pets in general are wonderful companions and fun to be around, especially with the kids.
Instincts, intelligence, dreaming, self and environmental awareness are properties all sentient beings possess, including animals.
The misconception of the term consciousness had led people to think and believe it’s something we were born with or maybe a genetic property and trait!
Consciousness in short is creating the “god” in us – the highest state and peak of our awareness - the faith that gives balance to our lives, that makes us appreciate our values and properties, and how to put them into action for our benefit and the benefit of the all.
Consciousness is developed and achieved when we become the judges of our actions and behavior, which could negatively affect us and others around us if not under control.
Consciousness can be reached when we use our intelligence in the development and the prosperity of mankind, and not in selfishness, in evilness and in the destruction of man and morals.
Would you call a criminal with intent a conscious man – would a murderer have a conscious?
Two wealthy men; one made his wealth from running an honest family business and hard work, and used it in good deed, and the other made it from theft and fraudulence, and used it in lechery, bawdiness and in satisfying his whims > whom should we say has developed a consciousness in his life?
You have to be aware of your state of a sentient being, in control of your instincts and the judge of your behavior and actions to reach the conscious state of mind!
Could animals reach that state > I don’t think so!
Ah, I didn't realize we were talking about a conscious like Jiminy Cricket. My idea of consciousness being aware and able to process one's surroundings. Are we talking about animal's ability to feel guilt and know they are harming their surroundings and try to refrain from it? Because animals have been shown to feel guilt. You must have seen when a dog has trashed the house, and the owner comes home and the dog looks guilty. You may be able to say this is fear, but if it were fear the dog would attack or run away, but instead the dog just sits there looking sideways at there owner, with their head down.
Also, there were these elephants who's parents were killed by poachers, so they grew up not knowing what was right and wrong. They beat up and killed rhinos for no reason. So some researchers brought in some elder elephants and the elders got the younger ones in order immediately.
Again we return to empathy, giving us the want to help others. It is mostly taught and can be easily manipulated, but is nearly impossible to teach yourself it.
You're either not reading what I post or my English is not good enough to express what I mean!
Your idea of consciousness is EXACTLY what I've been talking about since the opening - to be aware and able to process is what consciousness all about - a criminal is a sentient being in the state of awareness of his surroundings, by he has NOT developed a conscious to judge what's right and what's wrong;he is fully aware of that, but he did not process it and analyzed the consequences of his acts if he goes in either direction of right and wrong.
We all know what's right and what's wrong - even some animals do to some extent, but only those with conscious that are able to analyze and process the consequences of our next decision - a rapist knows and is aware he's committing an awful act, but still do it because he has no conscious to judge his acts with.
Awareness is totally different from consciousness > awareness qualifies us to become conscious beings, and we have the free will to activate our consciousness and make it stronger; each time we make the right decision.
Right, but your idea of consciousness suggests that knowing what is right and wrong are a part of it. Knowing what right and wrong can be taught and are based on perspective. One person may think that Hitler was the most awful person ever, and another may think that what he was doing was right (I am not advocating that what Hitler did was right in any way, only pointing out different perspectives). Animals can be taught what is right and wrong, they can learn and understand the consequences of their actions. I don't understand why you think this is unique to humans.
-
Um, your also diving in deep on this subject so..
You should get a pet, when an animal has all of their needs taken care of, like us, they start having lives that aren't dictated by instincts that are there to keep them alive. They are very interesting to watch. Not to mention the fact that lots of animals have dreams. I'm not sure how something with no consciousness can have a dream. What would be the point?
Also we are animals, so be more specific when you say animals are subject to instincts.
Oh, I love animals – pets in particular!
I had an Alaskan Husky once, when I was in college – pets in general are wonderful companions and fun to be around, especially with the kids.
Instincts, intelligence, dreaming, self and environmental awareness are properties all sentient beings possess, including animals.
The misconception of the term consciousness had led people to think and believe it’s something we were born with or maybe a genetic property and trait!
Consciousness in short is creating the “god” in us – the highest state and peak of our awareness - the faith that gives balance to our lives, that makes us appreciate our values and properties, and how to put them into action for our benefit and the benefit of the all.
Consciousness is developed and achieved when we become the judges of our actions and behavior, which could negatively affect us and others around us if not under control.
Consciousness can be reached when we use our intelligence in the development and the prosperity of mankind, and not in selfishness, in evilness and in the destruction of man and morals.
Would you call a criminal with intent a conscious man – would a murderer have a conscious?
Two wealthy men; one made his wealth from running an honest family business and hard work, and used it in good deed, and the other made it from theft and fraudulence, and used it in lechery, bawdiness and in satisfying his whims > whom should we say has developed a consciousness in his life?
You have to be aware of your state of a sentient being, in control of your instincts and the judge of your behavior and actions to reach the conscious state of mind!
Could animals reach that state > I don’t think so!
Ah, I didn't realize we were talking about a conscious like Jiminy Cricket. My idea of consciousness being aware and able to process one's surroundings. Are we talking about animal's ability to feel guilt and know they are harming their surroundings and try to refrain from it? Because animals have been shown to feel guilt. You must have seen when a dog has trashed the house, and the owner comes home and the dog looks guilty. You may be able to say this is fear, but if it were fear the dog would attack or run away, but instead the dog just sits there looking sideways at there owner, with their head down.
Also, there were these elephants who's parents were killed by poachers, so they grew up not knowing what was right and wrong. They beat up and killed rhinos for no reason. So some researchers brought in some elder elephants and the elders got the younger ones in order immediately.
Again we return to empathy, giving us the want to help others. It is mostly taught and can be easily manipulated, but is nearly impossible to teach yourself it.
You're either not reading what I post or my English is not good enough to express what I mean!
Your idea of consciousness is EXACTLY what I've been talking about since the opening - to be aware and able to process is what consciousness all about - a criminal is a sentient being in the state of awareness of his surroundings, by he has NOT developed a conscious to judge what's right and what's wrong;he is fully aware of that, but he did not process it and analyzed the consequences of his acts if he goes in either direction of right and wrong.
We all know what's right and what's wrong - even some animals do to some extent, but only those with conscious that are able to analyze and process the consequences of our next decision - a rapist knows and is aware he's committing an awful act, but still do it because he has no conscious to judge his acts with.
Awareness is totally different from consciousness > awareness qualifies us to become conscious beings, and we have the free will to activate our consciousness and make it stronger; each time we make the right decision.
Right, but your idea of consciousness suggests that knowing what is right and wrong are a part of it. Knowing what right and wrong can be taught and are based on perspective. One person may think that Hitler was the most awful person ever, and another may think that what he was doing was right (I am not advocating that what Hitler did was right in any way, only pointing out different perspectives). Animals can be taught what is right and wrong, they can learn and understand the consequences of their actions. I don't understand why you think this is unique to humans.
No - knowing is part of awareness!
Making the right choice, taking the right decision and understanding the consequences is consciousness!
A circus lion; trained well, fed well & treated well from everybody around it, then all of the sudden turns back on its trainer and kills him! > Did its teaching, treatment and awareness prevent it from being subjective to its instinct and put it in complete understanding of the consequences of its action?
Only humans can do that and develop a conscious - and if they fail to achieve that throughout their lives, then they could become worse than animals and even worse than demons!
A man with no conscious is a graduate with no degree!
-
Making the right choice, taking the right decision and understanding the consequences is consciousness!
That's bullshit again, you mix together "consciousness" with "moral".
-
Making the right choice, taking the right decision and understanding the consequences is consciousness!
That's bullshit again, you mix together "consciousness" with "moral".
Again; learning morals in church and at home is part of awareness > applying them into your life is consciousness.
We all know what morals are, but not all go by them!
When you build a conscious, it becomes and acts like your defensive system - like a magnetic field around you that gives and attracts positiveness and rejects negativeness.
You are not born with it and you don't learn it > you create it inside you and it expands bigger.
It gives you wisdom - it opens up your third eye and you rely less on your physical senses when taking decisions and judging situations.
Conscious beings are enlightened beings.
-
Making the right choice, taking the right decision and understanding the consequences is consciousness!
That's bullshit again, you mix together "consciousness" with "moral".
Again; learning morals in church and at home is part of awareness > applying them into your life is consciousness.
We all know what morals are, but not all go by them!
When you build a conscious, it becomes and acts like your defensive system - like a magnetic field around you that gives and attracts positiveness and rejects negativeness.
You are not born with it and you don't learn it > you create it inside you and it expands bigger.
It gives you wisdom - it opens up your third eye and you rely less on your physical senses when taking decisions and judging situations.
Conscious beings are enlightened beings.
Being conscious means to be able to make "bad" decisions, too.
-
Making the right choice, taking the right decision and understanding the consequences is consciousness!
That's bullshit again, you mix together "consciousness" with "moral".
Again; learning morals in church and at home is part of awareness > applying them into your life is consciousness.
We all know what morals are, but not all go by them!
When you build a conscious, it becomes and acts like your defensive system - like a magnetic field around you that gives and attracts positiveness and rejects negativeness.
You are not born with it and you don't learn it > you create it inside you and it expands bigger.
It gives you wisdom - it opens up your third eye and you rely less on your physical senses when taking decisions and judging situations.
Conscious beings are enlightened beings.
Dude. You are confusing conscious with conscience.
-
Making the right choice, taking the right decision and understanding the consequences is consciousness!
That's bullshit again, you mix together "consciousness" with "moral".
Again; learning morals in church and at home is part of awareness > applying them into your life is consciousness.
We all know what morals are, but not all go by them!
When you build a conscious, it becomes and acts like your defensive system - like a magnetic field around you that gives and attracts positiveness and rejects negativeness.
You are not born with it and you don't learn it > you create it inside you and it expands bigger.
It gives you wisdom - it opens up your third eye and you rely less on your physical senses when taking decisions and judging situations.
Conscious beings are enlightened beings.
Dude. You are confusing conscious with conscience.
No I'm not! I know exactly what both words mean - its those that confuse awareness with consciousness that are wrong.
Your conscience is you - your identity that you have built in the conscious state. You can't have a conscience just in the awareness state of mind. An animal has a self awareness and that of its surroundings, but it doesn't feel guilt and shame for its actions, because it didn't cross from the awareness state to the conscious state of mind.
With the intent to evolve from your state of awareness to a higher state of consciousness, you'd be building your conscious identity, which is your conscience.
-
Dude. You are confusing conscious with conscience.
No I'm not! I know exactly what both words mean - its those that confuse awareness with consciousness that are wrong.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consciousness:
"1 a : the quality or state of being aware especially of something within oneself"
Your conscience is you - your identity that you have built in the conscious state.
I suspect many people don't agree with this premise. Perhaps offer some justification for this idea?
You can't have a conscience just in the awareness state of mind. An animal has a self awareness and that of its surroundings, but it doesn't feel guilt and shame for its actions, because it didn't cross from the awareness state to the conscious state of mind.
How do you know any of this?
With the intent to evolve from your state of awareness to a higher state of consciousness, you'd be building your conscious identity, which is your conscience.
In a thread labelled "evolution", you should probably be more careful with your usage of the word "evolve". This isn't the "evolve" that everyone else is talking about.
-
if you consider the brain as the cause of our consciousness; theoretically this could mean we can create consciousness, in a way that humans possess it, in robots.
I think it's impossible personally.
Do you know how and why captcha works?
More or less, yes. I though do not see that as a reason for why (full) AI/consciousness couldn't be possible.
Reasons why it though might be impossible are - in my opinon:
> Brain works different in comparision to rather static CPUs
Solution might be to "simulate" a brain, not actually build one.
> Brain is, due to long evolution, incredibly efficient. It might be generally impossible to replicate something like the human brain with computers, since it's not possible to achieve the same efficiency with something non-biological.
> Even if it was theoretically possible, it might just be impossible for us humans to do it, since it's just too complex.
Quantum computing might change things.
My point about captcha is even now we can't teach computers how to reason or be logical.
You could teach a computer what a chair is until it could recognise one, then tip the chair on its side and the computer has absolutely no idea what it is. This process can be repeated forever at the moment.
I can tell you this is a question mark.
?
Just from that you can tell me what this is.
¿
It's just a question mark rotated 180°.
Anything we want a computer to be able to do at the moment we have to program and script.
I do think it's possible for consiousness to exist, we're here after all. Probably just not possible for us to make it. Not saying we can't have very useful AI, I use gps all the time. I just don't believe we will be able to create consciousness. (Except for the old fashioned way.)
-
Quantum computing might change things.
My point about captcha is even now we can't teach computers how to reason or be logical.
You could teach a computer what a chair is until it could recognise one, then tip the chair on its side and the computer has absolutely no idea what it is. This process can be repeated forever at the moment.
I can tell you this is a question mark.
?
Just from that you can tell me what this is.
¿
It's just a question mark rotated 180°.
Anything we want a computer to be able to do at the moment we have to program and script.
I do think it's possible for consiousness to exist, we're here after all. Probably just not possible for us to make it. Not saying we can't have very useful AI, I use gps all the time. I just don't believe we will be able to create consciousness. (Except for the old fashioned way.)
I think you underestimate currently possible AI.
I recomment watching this:
-
Anything we want a computer to be able to do at the moment we have to program and script.
-
Anything we want a computer to be able to do at the moment we have to program and script.
Right now we can't program "true" AI/consciousness. But that's not to say we will never be able to.
-
Making a code that not only learns from its environment, but forms opinions on it as well, is excessively complex. I'm not sure if we will ever have that kind of tech.
-
Making a code that not only learns from its environment, but forms opinions on it as well, is excessively complex. I'm not sure if we will ever have that kind of tech.
Why?
-
Um, your also diving in deep on this subject so..
You should get a pet, when an animal has all of their needs taken care of, like us, they start having lives that aren't dictated by instincts that are there to keep them alive. They are very interesting to watch. Not to mention the fact that lots of animals have dreams. I'm not sure how something with no consciousness can have a dream. What would be the point?
Also we are animals, so be more specific when you say animals are subject to instincts.
Oh, I love animals – pets in particular!
I had an Alaskan Husky once, when I was in college – pets in general are wonderful companions and fun to be around, especially with the kids.
Instincts, intelligence, dreaming, self and environmental awareness are properties all sentient beings possess, including animals.
The misconception of the term consciousness had led people to think and believe it’s something we were born with or maybe a genetic property and trait!
Consciousness in short is creating the “god” in us – the highest state and peak of our awareness - the faith that gives balance to our lives, that makes us appreciate our values and properties, and how to put them into action for our benefit and the benefit of the all.
Consciousness is developed and achieved when we become the judges of our actions and behavior, which could negatively affect us and others around us if not under control.
Consciousness can be reached when we use our intelligence in the development and the prosperity of mankind, and not in selfishness, in evilness and in the destruction of man and morals.
Would you call a criminal with intent a conscious man – would a murderer have a conscious?
Two wealthy men; one made his wealth from running an honest family business and hard work, and used it in good deed, and the other made it from theft and fraudulence, and used it in lechery, bawdiness and in satisfying his whims > whom should we say has developed a consciousness in his life?
You have to be aware of your state of a sentient being, in control of your instincts and the judge of your behavior and actions to reach the conscious state of mind!
Could animals reach that state > I don’t think so!
Ah, I didn't realize we were talking about a conscious like Jiminy Cricket. My idea of consciousness being aware and able to process one's surroundings. Are we talking about animal's ability to feel guilt and know they are harming their surroundings and try to refrain from it? Because animals have been shown to feel guilt. You must have seen when a dog has trashed the house, and the owner comes home and the dog looks guilty. You may be able to say this is fear, but if it were fear the dog would attack or run away, but instead the dog just sits there looking sideways at there owner, with their head down.
Also, there were these elephants who's parents were killed by poachers, so they grew up not knowing what was right and wrong. They beat up and killed rhinos for no reason. So some researchers brought in some elder elephants and the elders got the younger ones in order immediately.
Again we return to empathy, giving us the want to help others. It is mostly taught and can be easily manipulated, but is nearly impossible to teach yourself it.
You're either not reading what I post or my English is not good enough to express what I mean!
Your idea of consciousness is EXACTLY what I've been talking about since the opening - to be aware and able to process is what consciousness all about - a criminal is a sentient being in the state of awareness of his surroundings, by he has NOT developed a conscious to judge what's right and what's wrong;he is fully aware of that, but he did not process it and analyzed the consequences of his acts if he goes in either direction of right and wrong.
We all know what's right and what's wrong - even some animals do to some extent, but only those with conscious that are able to analyze and process the consequences of our next decision - a rapist knows and is aware he's committing an awful act, but still do it because he has no conscious to judge his acts with.
Awareness is totally different from consciousness > awareness qualifies us to become conscious beings, and we have the free will to activate our consciousness and make it stronger; each time we make the right decision.
Right, but your idea of consciousness suggests that knowing what is right and wrong are a part of it. Knowing what right and wrong can be taught and are based on perspective. One person may think that Hitler was the most awful person ever, and another may think that what he was doing was right (I am not advocating that what Hitler did was right in any way, only pointing out different perspectives). Animals can be taught what is right and wrong, they can learn and understand the consequences of their actions. I don't understand why you think this is unique to humans.
No - knowing is part of awareness!
Making the right choice, taking the right decision and understanding the consequences is consciousness!
A circus lion; trained well, fed well & treated well from everybody around it, then all of the sudden turns back on its trainer and kills him! > Did its teaching, treatment and awareness prevent it from being subjective to its instinct and put it in complete understanding of the consequences of its action?
Only humans can do that and develop a conscious - and if they fail to achieve that throughout their lives, then they could become worse than animals and even worse than demons!
A man with no conscious is a graduate with no degree!
The circus lion does not think what it is doing is wrong. It is part of its survival and what it is doing is right. You can say that this is not knowing what is right and wrong, but the lion would say otherwise.
Also the examples of animals you left out, that saved their owners from fires, protected them from other animals and sometimes people.
Right and wrong is completely based on perspective, it is part of survival. We say that what the lion does is wrong because it keeps us alive. The lion says what it does is right to keep it alive.
If having a conscience is a God given ability, then why does it need to be taught by other humans? Its because the difference between good and bad is subjective.
Also I'm not sure your using the correct definition of consciousness:
conscious
ˈkɒnʃəs/
adjective
1.
aware of and responding to one's surroundings.
"although I was in pain, I was conscious"
synonyms: aware, awake, wide awake, compos mentis, alert, responsive, reactive, feeling, sentient More
"the patient was barely conscious"
2.
having knowledge of something.
"we are conscious of the extent of the problem"
-
Making a code that not only learns from its environment, but forms opinions on it as well, is excessively complex. I'm not sure if we will ever have that kind of tech.
Why?
Because this type of technology would be essentially programming a brain, which I don't think we are able to do yet. And if we end up doing it, robots that think for themselves could be dangerous, and end in a matrix-type scenario or worse.
-
Making a code that not only learns from its environment, but forms opinions on it as well, is excessively complex. I'm not sure if we will ever have that kind of tech.
Why?
Because this type of technology would be essentially programming a brain, which I don't think we are able to do yet. And if we end up doing it, robots that think for themselves could be dangerous, and end in a matrix-type scenario or worse.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_neural_network
-
Making a code that not only learns from its environment, but forms opinions on it as well, is excessively complex. I'm not sure if we will ever have that kind of tech.
Why?
Because this type of technology would be essentially programming a brain, which I don't think we are able to do yet. And if we end up doing it, robots that think for themselves could be dangerous, and end in a matrix-type scenario or worse.
You say you don't think we're able to do that yet. I agree. But that's not what you said originally, you said that you don't think we'll ever have that tech.
-
Yes, because in the big picture, I wasn't sure humanity would be able to attain that due to other priorities for money and research
-
Yes, because in the big picture, I wasn't sure humanity would be able to attain that due to other priorities for money and research
There are (hopefully) many milleniums left for humanity to develop. That's a lot of time.
-
Surely that is a large amount of time, but also, many things can change throughout that period. Another world war, depletion of natural resources, raising of the ocean, etc. can all impact the ability to do scientific research on coding a true robotic brain. Suddenly, funding sciences may not be a priority anymore.
-
Some interesting takes on the idea of consciousness that I've read or thought about myself--all are things humans do that other animals do not:
1. The ability to "think about thought". This leads into the ability to think in the hypothetical. We are the only species that can make decisions based on what could happen, as opposed to just what is happening. Perhaps more tragically we are the only ones who can be afraid of things that might happen to us.
2. This requires a different kind of headspace--thinking in hypotheticals--and I think it is also closely tied into language. Consciousness seems to be in many ways a semiotic system. We can attach symbols (or words, or any given image or concept) to a web of other things. Have you ever tried to go about life without "talking to yourself" in your head? It is basically impossible. We need language to process thought on the level of consciousness. (The Bicameral Mind theory mentioned in 'Westworld', though not entirely taken seriously, has a fascinating take on this wherein ancient man supposedly literally did not understand that the voice in their head was their own--the running verbal thought processes were taken to be "commands" from an outside entity...i.e. "gods". Again, it's not a very accepted theory but it shows the extent to which internal monologue is key to the idea of consciousness).
3. From this we branch out into the idea of "meaning". That anything can "mean" something else. I read somewhere that "man is doomed to context". Context is also a key aspect of consciousness. Nothing we do or experience is isolated--it is all inescapably tied into the semiotic web of "meaning" that we internalize over our lives. Further, the contextual nature of our awareness grounds us as no other animal in a place and time. We are the only ones who know that there was a world before us, and that there will be a world after us. We are the only ones who know that we will die. I believe that even an animal that is running for its life from a predator does not "know" why it's doing so, or is aware that it is about to die or what that means. It is a base fear response.
Animals, and very small children, live in a context-free existence. Children eventually grow out of it. Incidentally, if you read the book of Genesis as a metaphorical treatment of this process, it is incredibly fascinating. I.e. when God says "eat not of that tree (of knowledge) for in that day you shall surely die"...it is not that they literally die, it is that they become aware that they will die, thus understanding as no other animal does that their experience is not the totality of reality.
Incidentally, it's also telling that God's first task for Adam was to name all of the animals--in other words, to begin to create that sign system I referred to before.
Just some things I have thought about on the subject...consciousness perhaps can never be fully understood but I like to get these blurry glimpses at it.
As for evolution--I think it's pretty undeniable.
Edit--just a quick note on Koko the gorilla. Her accomplishments have been mostly accepted to have been "embellished" at the very least. In any case, I do not believe for a second that she could understand who or what Robin Williams was, or that he had died, or what that would mean/
-
1. The ability to "think about thought". This leads into the ability to think in the hypothetical. We are the only species that can make decisions based on what could happen, as opposed to just what is happening. Perhaps more tragically we are the only ones who can be afraid of things that might happen to us.
I'm sure that's bs. What makes you think that animals are not making predictions? How would it even work if animals were not making predictions?!
I'm sure aswell that animals can be afraid of things that might happen to them.
Edit
It is a base fear response.
It's the same with humans. We have no idea, what death means, we just imagine something (based on our believes).
-
Animals have the innate ability to be afraid of things, but they surely aren't aware that the world will end and everybody will die. Only humans understand that.
-
Very interesting conversations going on here, but we are getting a bit off topic. Does anyone have questions regarding the evidence supporting evolution?
-
That question on the first page "Why is there only one single intelligent life form on this planet?" really assumes too much.
Shaved apes do not count as an intelligent life form.
But keep banging those rocks together, boys, and someday the monolith will show up in our midst.
If this planet is flat, is it possible that there are entirely unfamiliar life forms (including maybe an intelligent one) living beyond The Edge, along the sides of the planet?
-
I already pointed this out earlier in this thread....
(http://www.motherjones.com/files/HumanChimpGenomes630.jpg)
From Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee_genome_project (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee_genome_project)
Human and chimpanzee chromosomes are very similar. The primary difference is that humans have one fewer pair of chromosomes than do other great apes. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes and other great apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes. In the human evolutionary lineage, two ancestral ape chromosomes fused at their telomeres, producing human chromosome
Also, quite frankly, you don't get something as complex as a human being or any other plant or animal just 'pop' into existence someday. Every living thing started off as a single cell which over the billions of years developed into more and more complex organisms and took many divergent paths.
It is reasonable to assume that what we know of as human beings, diverged from a 'lower' ape. In fact, many of us share a small amount of our DNA from Neanderthals. With millions of years of reproduction and introduction of new DNA into gene pools and mutations why couldn't a new kind of species branch off from another?
Og but that's right. Plenty of people who don't believe in evolution believe in the 'Young Earth Theory' where the entire universe is only 6000 years old and Earth just went 'poof!' out of nowhere. Yep, real logic in that theory over the one of evolution! ;D
-
Earth just went 'poof!' out of nowhere. Yep, real logic in that theory
To be fair the Big Bang Theory is pretty much exactly that. Just replace "earth" with "everything."
-
The big bang theory can really only be dependable back to about 380,000 years after the "bang" since that is the earliest detectable information (CMB). Anything earlier than that had to be inferred by making a educated guess - basically running a simulation of how things unfolded afterwards, but in reverse. Anyone who tells you they know exactly what happened before that probably also has a bridge for sale. Which also has parallels to evolution, I guess... In both cases, the beginning is still a mystery, but the aftermath is pretty traceable.
-
But even with the Big Bang, for many millions of years the universe started out as a Hydrogen/Helium soup. To get the heavier elements required stars to be born, live and die. To get all the things we see today that aren't Hydrogen or Helium was a long process that took billions of years.
There are 'plausible' theories that the universe could 'come from nothing' if you throw words like 'quantum' around lol but there is nothing that could explain how you could get an entire planet with a diverse flora/fauna out of nothingness
-
Of course, but where all the laws and materials that built our universe came from is still a bit of a mystery.
-
I find the mystery more exciting than assuming "God did it", because it leaves so much more to explore. And if it turns out God DID do it, finding a way to arrive at that conclusion based on fact and observation would be pretty monumental.
Almost everything mankind has attributed to a god because it seemed magical at one time has been found to have a natural explanation (natural meaning it can be explained by rules that govern the universe; nothing supernatural required). I'm reasonably confident abiogenesis will be found to have a natural mechanism that could have played out resulting in the diversity of life we see today. If there is a god, I think it would make sense that the beginning of the universe (or multiverse) would be where it showed it's hand. And I wouldn't assert that it didn't go down like that. But I also wouldn't assume it.
-
Of course.
The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named is not the eternal name
The nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth
The named is the mother of myriad things
Thus, constantly free of desire
One observes its wonders
Constantly filled with desire
One observes its manifestations
These two emerge together but differ in name
The unity is said to be the mystery
Mystery of mysteries, the door to all wonders
-
But even with the Big Bang, for many millions of years the universe started out as a Hydrogen/Helium soup. To get the heavier elements required stars to be born, live and die. To get all the things we see today that aren't Hydrogen or Helium was a long process that took billions of years.
There are 'plausible' theories that the universe could 'come from nothing' if you throw words like 'quantum' around lol but there is nothing that could explain how you could get an entire planet with a diverse flora/fauna out of nothingness
Out of all the questions about origins, how the earth was formed is the easiest, at least in broad terms.
Stuff like how the universe was formed and why it even exists are unanswered, even in broad terms.
-
Evolution tells us that at some future date, although it cannot be predicted with any precision, an intelligent life form can be expected to appear on this planet. Until then we'll just keep flinging our turds at each other.
-
Evolution tells us that at some future date, although it cannot be predicted with any precision, an intelligent life form can be expected to appear on this planet. Until then we'll just keep flinging our turds at each other.
If you think that, you do not understand evolution.
-
Evolution is fact. It is only called theory in the sense that anything we know could not be true, however it is a true scientific theory as it is open to question and yet has not been disproved. I am willing to answer any questions you have on this topic.
Cool. Been awhile since I've been in one of these. If evolution is true, then how come we find fossils that supposedly evolved later from another animal below the actual animal it supposedly evolved from in the geologic column.
-
Evolution is fact. It is only called theory in the sense that anything we know could not be true, however it is a true scientific theory as it is open to question and yet has not been disproved. I am willing to answer any questions you have on this topic.
Cool. Been awhile since I've been in one of these. If evolution is true, then how come we find fossils that supposedly evolved later from another animal below the actual animal it supposedly evolved from in the geologic column.
Are you trolling or just dumb?
Well, gun as profile pic; so you're most likely 'murican and thus the second assumption is probably correct.
-
Evolution is fact. It is only called theory in the sense that anything we know could not be true, however it is a true scientific theory as it is open to question and yet has not been disproved. I am willing to answer any questions you have on this topic.
Cool. Been awhile since I've been in one of these. If evolution is true, then how come we find fossils that supposedly evolved later from another animal below the actual animal it supposedly evolved from in the geologic column.
An example would be nice.
-
Evolution is fact. It is only called theory in the sense that anything we know could not be true, however it is a true scientific theory as it is open to question and yet has not been disproved. I am willing to answer any questions you have on this topic.
Cool. Been awhile since I've been in one of these. If evolution is true, then how come we find fossils that supposedly evolved later from another animal below the actual animal it supposedly evolved from in the geologic column.
An example would be nice.
Maybe he refers to distortions due to mountain formation. By that process older layers can end up above newer ones. Creationists often qucite such examples as proof against evolution.
-
Evolution is fact. It is only called theory in the sense that anything we know could not be true, however it is a true scientific theory as it is open to question and yet has not been disproved. I am willing to answer any questions you have on this topic.
Evolution is a religion, not a science.
It was created by the devil to trick man to defy GOD.
What did the snake say to Eve, if you eat the fruit, you will become GOD. In other words, you will evolve into a GOD. It is amazing that the historical book of the Bible was written centuries before the idea of evolution came up, and it describes the same pattern as back in the garden of Eden.
What does evolution say, that we will become better and better as time passes, The only difference is now the devil added time to the equation,
-
No. Just no. A person does not evolve into anything. You aren't using the word correctly. And evolution says nothing about becoming better and better. It is simply change over time. You may want to spend more time understanding the concept before dismissing it for reasons that are disconnected from reality.
-
Evolution is fact. It is only called theory in the sense that anything we know could not be true, however it is a true scientific theory as it is open to question and yet has not been disproved. I am willing to answer any questions you have on this topic.
Evolution is a religion, not a science.
It was created by the devil to trick man to defy GOD.
What did the snake say to Eve, if you eat the fruit, you will become GOD. In other words, you will evolve into a GOD. It is amazing that the historical book of the Bible was written centuries before the idea of evolution came up, and it describes the same pattern as back in the garden of Eden.
What does evolution say, that we will become better and better as time passes, The only difference is now the devil added time to the equation,
You really seem to not understand anything.
-
Evolution is fact. It is only called theory in the sense that anything we know could not be true, however it is a true scientific theory as it is open to question and yet has not been disproved. I am willing to answer any questions you have on this topic.
Evolution is a religion, not a science.
It was created by the devil to trick man to defy GOD.
What did the snake say to Eve, if you eat the fruit, you will become GOD. In other words, you will evolve into a GOD. It is amazing that the historical book of the Bible was written centuries before the idea of evolution came up, and it describes the same pattern as back in the garden of Eden.
What does evolution say, that we will become better and better as time passes, The only difference is now the devil added time to the equation,
Ridiculous!
-
No. Just no. A person does not evolve into anything. You aren't using the word correctly. And evolution says nothing about becoming better and better. It is simply change over time. You may want to spend more time understanding the concept before dismissing it for reasons that are disconnected from reality.
Survival of the fittest.
Only the better adapters get to survive, actually evolution is about killing everything that can't change, so only the best survive.
-
Evolution is fact. It is only called theory in the sense that anything we know could not be true, however it is a true scientific theory as it is open to question and yet has not been disproved. I am willing to answer any questions you have on this topic.
Evolution is a religion, not a science.
It was created by the devil to trick man to defy GOD.
What did the snake say to Eve, if you eat the fruit, you will become GOD. In other words, you will evolve into a GOD. It is amazing that the historical book of the Bible was written centuries before the idea of evolution came up, and it describes the same pattern as back in the garden of Eden.
What does evolution say, that we will become better and better as time passes, The only difference is now the devil added time to the equation,
Ridiculous!
Why, because it goes against your values or your beliefs?
-
No. Just no. A person does not evolve into anything. You aren't using the word correctly. And evolution says nothing about becoming better and better. It is simply change over time. You may want to spend more time understanding the concept before dismissing it for reasons that are disconnected from reality.
Survival of the fittest.
Only the better adapters get to survive, actually evolution is about killing everything that can't change, so only the best survive.
Survival of the "fittest" doesn't mean survival of the "better". It means survival of the fittest to survive in a certain context. If a degenerate blob that doesn't do anything is better suited for a specific environment then that's the "fittest". Killing stuff has little to do with this, it's about who produces more offspring that survive to have offspring themselves. "Better" is your notion.
-
No. Just no. A person does not evolve into anything. You aren't using the word correctly. And evolution says nothing about becoming better and better. It is simply change over time. You may want to spend more time understanding the concept before dismissing it for reasons that are disconnected from reality.
Survival of the fittest.
Only the better adapters get to survive, actually evolution is about killing everything that can't change, so only the best survive.
Survival of the "fittest" doesn't mean survival of the "better". It means survival of the fittest to survive in a certain context. If a degenerate blob that doesn't do anything is better suited for a specific environment then that's the "fittest". Killing stuff has little to do with this, it's about who produces more offspring that survive to have offspring themselves. "Better" is your notion.
Evolution is a myth used to trick people in that they are worthless and insignificant. God has a different plan for us, all we have to do it to accept it.
-
No. Just no. A person does not evolve into anything. You aren't using the word correctly. And evolution says nothing about becoming better and better. It is simply change over time. You may want to spend more time understanding the concept before dismissing it for reasons that are disconnected from reality.
Survival of the fittest.
Only the better adapters get to survive, actually evolution is about killing everything that can't change, so only the best survive.
Survival of the "fittest" doesn't mean survival of the "better". It means survival of the fittest to survive in a certain context. If a degenerate blob that doesn't do anything is better suited for a specific environment then that's the "fittest". Killing stuff has little to do with this, it's about who produces more offspring that survive to have offspring themselves. "Better" is your notion.
Evolution is a myth used to trick people in that they are worthless and insignificant. God has a different plan for us, all we have to do it to accept it.
That was pretty irrelevant. I'm sorry if evolution makes you feel worthless and insignificant, it's not a problem for most people. But what it makes you feel like has no effect on the facts.
-
Evolution does not threaten me or make me feel small.
Just like watching a crime movie of TV, I know that a gun shot from the movie will not come out and kill me. It is all made up in fantasy land and it has no effect on me.
-
Evolution does not threaten me or make me feel small.
Just like watching a crime movie of TV, I know that a gun shot from the movie will not come out and kill me. It is all made up in fantasy land and it has no effect on me.
That's irrelevant as well. People who accept evolution don't necessarily feel insignificant because of that and it definitely wasn't the intent. As I said, what it makes you feel like has no bearing on the facts. Maybe you're different, but I don't like to go around believing stuff just to feel more special.
-
Evolution does not threaten me or make me feel small.
Just like watching a crime movie of TV, I know that a gun shot from the movie will not come out and kill me. It is all made up in fantasy land and it has no effect on me.
That's irrelevant as well. People who accept evolution don't necessarily feel insignificant because of that and it definitely wasn't the intent. As I said, what it makes you feel like has no bearing on the facts. Maybe you're different, but I don't like to go around believing stuff just to feel more special.
The whole consent of Evolution is that we were an accident because of the Big Bang. If the Big Bang happened a microsecond latter, we would have not been created.
-
Evolution does not threaten me or make me feel small.
Just like watching a crime movie of TV, I know that a gun shot from the movie will not come out and kill me. It is all made up in fantasy land and it has no effect on me.
That's irrelevant as well. People who accept evolution don't necessarily feel insignificant because of that and it definitely wasn't the intent. As I said, what it makes you feel like has no bearing on the facts. Maybe you're different, but I don't like to go around believing stuff just to feel more special.
The whole consent of Evolution is that we were an accident because of the Big Bang. If the Big Bang happened a microsecond latter, we would have not been created.
That's not the concept of evolution, you're conflating things, but I get what you mean. Yes, if you don't believe in God but believe in modern cosmology, evolution and abiogenesis (belief in God and belief in all these thinds are not necessarily incompatible) you don't believe any of it was intentional, so it was an "accident" as you call it. That doesn't necessarily mean you have to feel insignificant or something.
-
Evolution does not threaten me or make me feel small.
Just like watching a crime movie of TV, I know that a gun shot from the movie will not come out and kill me. It is all made up in fantasy land and it has no effect on me.
That's irrelevant as well. People who accept evolution don't necessarily feel insignificant because of that and it definitely wasn't the intent. As I said, what it makes you feel like has no bearing on the facts. Maybe you're different, but I don't like to go around believing stuff just to feel more special.
The whole consent of Evolution is that we were an accident because of the Big Bang. If the Big Bang happened a microsecond latter, we would have not been created.
Huh?? I get that you have your beliefs, but you clearly do NOT understand evolution. Biological evolution has nothing to do with where the universe came from.
Evolution and cosmology are both neat fields. You might enjoy spending some time learning about them.
-
Evolution does not threaten me or make me feel small.
Just like watching a crime movie of TV, I know that a gun shot from the movie will not come out and kill me. It is all made up in fantasy land and it has no effect on me.
That's irrelevant as well. People who accept evolution don't necessarily feel insignificant because of that and it definitely wasn't the intent. As I said, what it makes you feel like has no bearing on the facts. Maybe you're different, but I don't like to go around believing stuff just to feel more special.
The whole consent of Evolution is that we were an accident because of the Big Bang. If the Big Bang happened a microsecond latter, we would have not been created.
That's not the concept of evolution, you're conflating things, but I get what you mean. Yes, if you don't believe in God but believe in modern cosmology, evolution and abiogenesis (belief in God and belief in all these thinds are not necessarily incompatible) you don't believe any of it was intentional, so it was an "accident" as you call it. That doesn't necessarily mean you have to feel insignificant or something.
Their was a movie called October Baby, its the story of a girl that has tremendous health problems, finds out while she is in college that she was adopted and her birth mother tried to abort her and failed. Look how insignificant she felts.
It is the same with evolution, if we were an unwanted accident, then we have no value.
The idea of Evolution was created by the devil to disprove God and in the last days, he will bring his demons as extra terrestrials. Thank God we will be long dead by them.
-
Evolution does not threaten me or make me feel small.
Just like watching a crime movie of TV, I know that a gun shot from the movie will not come out and kill me. It is all made up in fantasy land and it has no effect on me.
That's irrelevant as well. People who accept evolution don't necessarily feel insignificant because of that and it definitely wasn't the intent. As I said, what it makes you feel like has no bearing on the facts. Maybe you're different, but I don't like to go around believing stuff just to feel more special.
The whole consent of Evolution is that we were an accident because of the Big Bang. If the Big Bang happened a microsecond latter, we would have not been created.
Huh?? I get that you have your beliefs, but you clearly do NOT understand evolution. Biological evolution has nothing to do with where the universe came from.
Evolution and cosmology are both neat fields. You might enjoy spending some time learning about them.
Its is all connected. If their was no Big Bang, then their will be no Biological evolution.
In order to have Biological Evolution, you need to have a Big Bang.
Lets assume the earth is flat,
Could we have evolution, starting from the first single cell organism till man? Or would people disregard it as nonsense.
I'm not talking about adaptation, long beck, short beck, I'm talking of a Fish becoming a Bird, and of the common ancestor between the Cat, the Dog, the Bear, Man.
By the way do we have a common ancestor, did we ever find the missing link between the Cat, Dog, Bear, and Man or are they all independent "trees"?
-
Evolution does not threaten me or make me feel small.
Just like watching a crime movie of TV, I know that a gun shot from the movie will not come out and kill me. It is all made up in fantasy land and it has no effect on me.
That's irrelevant as well. People who accept evolution don't necessarily feel insignificant because of that and it definitely wasn't the intent. As I said, what it makes you feel like has no bearing on the facts. Maybe you're different, but I don't like to go around believing stuff just to feel more special.
The whole consent of Evolution is that we were an accident because of the Big Bang. If the Big Bang happened a microsecond latter, we would have not been created.
That's not the concept of evolution, you're conflating things, but I get what you mean. Yes, if you don't believe in God but believe in modern cosmology, evolution and abiogenesis (belief in God and belief in all these thinds are not necessarily incompatible) you don't believe any of it was intentional, so it was an "accident" as you call it. That doesn't necessarily mean you have to feel insignificant or something.
Their was a movie called October Baby, its the story of a girl that has tremendous health problems, finds out while she is in college that she was adopted and her birth mother tried to abort her and failed. Look how insignificant she felts.
It is the same with evolution, if we were an unwanted accident, then we have no value.
The idea of Evolution was created by the devil to disprove God and in the last days, he will bring his demons as extra terrestrials. Thank God we will be long dead by them.
Ok, I'll have to say this again:
1) What it makes you feel like has no bearing on the facts
2) There's a shit ton of philosophy that deals with the subject of "significance" of humans, the point being that just because we weren't created by a sentient entity does NOT necessarily mean we have to feel insignificant or worthless or meaningless or anything.
Extraterrestrials lol... How do you even know what's going to happen? Let me guess, an elder told you. How did that elder know then? ;D ;D ;D
-
Evolution does not threaten me or make me feel small.
Just like watching a crime movie of TV, I know that a gun shot from the movie will not come out and kill me. It is all made up in fantasy land and it has no effect on me.
That's irrelevant as well. People who accept evolution don't necessarily feel insignificant because of that and it definitely wasn't the intent. As I said, what it makes you feel like has no bearing on the facts. Maybe you're different, but I don't like to go around believing stuff just to feel more special.
The whole consent of Evolution is that we were an accident because of the Big Bang. If the Big Bang happened a microsecond latter, we would have not been created.
Huh?? I get that you have your beliefs, but you clearly do NOT understand evolution. Biological evolution has nothing to do with where the universe came from.
Evolution and cosmology are both neat fields. You might enjoy spending some time learning about them.
Its is all connected. If their was no Big Bang, then their will be no Biological evolution.
In order to have Biological Evolution, you need to have a Big Bang.
Lets assume the earth is flat,
Could we have evolution, starting from the first single cell organism till man? Or would people disregard it as nonsense.
I'm not talking about adaptation, long beck, short beck, I'm talking of a Fish becoming a Bird, and of the common ancestor between the Cat, the Dog, the Bear, Man.
By the way do we have a common ancestor, did we ever find the missing link between the Cat, Dog, Bear, and Man or are they all independent "trees"?
No, no, no, you don't need Big Bang to have biological evolution and you don't need evolution to have Big Bang. They're not even incompatible with God, you're just confused.
Yes we did have a common ancestor. We have found many of the "missing links", not all of course because that would be impossible, since there are so many.
-
you don't need Big Bang to have biological evolution
if their was no Big Bang, then how was the earth created in order to have evolution?
-
you don't need Big Bang to have biological evolution
if their was no Big Bang, then how was the earth created in order to have evolution?
You mean how the universe was created. The creation of Earth also has nothing to do with the Big Bang.
The universe may have been created by God or some divine entity. Or it could have been created by some way other than the Big Bang (which is more specific than you think). But personally I think Big Bang is probably very close to the truth and it is supported by evidence. It may have been caused by some sort of God but I don't know about that.
-
you don't need Big Bang to have biological evolution
if their was no Big Bang, then how was the earth created in order to have evolution?
You mean how the universe was created. The creation of Earth also has nothing to do with the Big Bang.
The universe may have been created by God or some divine entity. Or it could have been created by some way other than the Big Bang (which is more specific than you think). But personally I think Big Bang is probably very close to the truth and it is supported by evidence. It may have been caused by some sort of God but I don't know about that.
"The creation of Earth also has nothing to do with the Big Bang." - WHAT???
If GOD was so powerful and smart to create the earth, then why could he not created life?
Evolution needs a spinning ball to be made believable. It will not be believable on a Flat Earth
-
you don't need Big Bang to have biological evolution
if their was no Big Bang, then how was the earth created in order to have evolution?
You mean how the universe was created. The creation of Earth also has nothing to do with the Big Bang.
The universe may have been created by God or some divine entity. Or it could have been created by some way other than the Big Bang (which is more specific than you think). But personally I think Big Bang is probably very close to the truth and it is supported by evidence. It may have been caused by some sort of God but I don't know about that.
"The creation of Earth also has nothing to do with the Big Bang." - WHAT???
If GOD was so powerful and smart to create the earth, then why could he not created life?
Evolution needs a spinning ball to be made believable. It will not be believable on a Flat Earth
God could have made the universe so that life would come naturally without further intervention from God. It is consistent with the idea that God does not micromanage stuff.
The origin of the universe, the origin of earth and the origin of life are not connected in the way you think they are. Any of them could have happened one way or the other and it wouldn't gave affected the rest.
-
So you are telling me, that God, took the time to make universe, but did not take the time to create life?
It sound to me that he would not be GOD,
Also, in the bible it state that death came to this world because of the sin of Adam and Eve, so this God that you are talking about would not be the Christian God, but a demonic god.
-
So you are telling me, that God, took the time to make universe, but did not take the time to create life?
It sound to me that he would not be GOD,
Also, in the bible it state that death came to this world because of the sin of Adam and Eve, so this God that you are talking about would not be the Christian God, but a demonic god.
Did you even read my last post? Is this what I said?
What demonic God? What are you talking about?
I know many religious people who still believe in evolution and mostly view Gennesis as allegorical. Everything is not literal anyways.
-
So you are telling me, that God, took the time to make universe, but did not take the time to create life?
It sound to me that he would not be GOD,
Also, in the bible it state that death came to this world because of the sin of Adam and Eve, so this God that you are talking about would not be the Christian God, but a demonic god.
Did you even read my last post? Is this what I said?
What demonic God? What are you talking about?
I know many religious people who still believe in evolution and mostly view Gennesis as allegorical. Everything is not literal anyways.
Are they Orthodox Christians or Messianic Jews ?
The bible is a historical book. Just because we don't like the history, does not mean that it is wrong.
It is like the Germans stating that the history books are wrong about their war crimes in WWII
-
It is like the Germans stating that the history books are wrong about their war crimes in WWII
Hint: They don't.
You're such a retard, seriously.
-
It is like the Germans stating that the history books are wrong about their war crimes in WWII
Hint: They don't.
You're such a retard, seriously.
Is that what they are going to say 200 years from now?
or 1000 years from now?
How old is the bible about 6500 years
-
It is like the Germans stating that the history books are wrong about their war crimes in WWII
Hint: They don't.
You're such a retard, seriously.
Is that what they are going to say 200 years from now?
or 1000 years from now?
How old is the bible about 6500 years
Don't try to justify your lie, you son of satan.
Anyway, the point your making actually goes right in the other direction than you planned. But whatever, contradicting yourself is something I'm used to see in your posts.
-
So you are telling me, that God, took the time to make universe, but did not take the time to create life?
It sound to me that he would not be GOD,
Also, in the bible it state that death came to this world because of the sin of Adam and Eve, so this God that you are talking about would not be the Christian God, but a demonic god.
Did you even read my last post? Is this what I said?
What demonic God? What are you talking about?
I know many religious people who still believe in evolution and mostly view Gennesis as allegorical. Everything is not literal anyways.
Are they Orthodox Christians or Messianic Jews ?
The bible is a historical book. Just because we don't like the history, does not mean that it is wrong.
It is like the Germans stating that the history books are wrong about their war crimes in WWII
Yes they are orthodox christians, just like almost everyone else I know. You seem disconnected, where are you from?
Christians don't even claim the Bible is a history book. If you can't understand the difference between the historical knowledge of WWII and history books and the Bible I can't help you.
-
It is like the Germans stating that the history books are wrong about their war crimes in WWII
Hint: They don't.
You're such a retard, seriously.
Is that what they are going to say 200 years from now?
or 1000 years from now?
How old is the bible about 6500 years
Don't try to justify your lie, you son of satan.
Anyway, the point your making actually goes right in the other direction than you planned. But whatever, contradicting yourself is something I'm used to see in your posts.
Please provide quote where I have contradicted my self.
-
So you are telling me, that God, took the time to make universe, but did not take the time to create life?
It sound to me that he would not be GOD,
Also, in the bible it state that death came to this world because of the sin of Adam and Eve, so this God that you are talking about would not be the Christian God, but a demonic god.
Did you even read my last post? Is this what I said?
What demonic God? What are you talking about?
I know many religious people who still believe in evolution and mostly view Gennesis as allegorical. Everything is not literal anyways.
Are they Orthodox Christians or Messianic Jews ?
The bible is a historical book. Just because we don't like the history, does not mean that it is wrong.
It is like the Germans stating that the history books are wrong about their war crimes in WWII
Yes they are orthodox christians, just like almost everyone else I know. You seem disconnected, where are you from?
Christians don't even claim the Bible is a history book. If you can't understand the difference between the historical knowledge of WWII and history books and the Bible I can't help you.
Most Greek Orthodox Christians have never even read the Bible, they are too busy being separated from Good.
You know, we are very lucky, that the worst politician that God could find was our prime minister. Because of our turning our back to God, if their was a worst one, he would of put him as our leader, because that is who we deserve...
-
For the people that believe in evolution, I only have one question, is this your ancestor???
-
You contradict yourself in the other thread at least once, probably multiple times already. Your logic is as flawed as the bible.
-
You contradict yourself in the other thread at least once, probably multiple times already. Your logic is as flawed as the bible.
Documentation please.
-
You contradict yourself in the other thread at least once, probably multiple times already. Your logic is as flawed as the bible.
Documentation please.
Request dismissed. God will tell you.
-
You contradict yourself in the other thread at least once, probably multiple times already. Your logic is as flawed as the bible.
Documentation please.
Request dismissed. God will tell you.
Thank you to accepting that their is a God, so I guess this topic is over!!!!
-
Evolution does not threaten me or make me feel small.
Just like watching a crime movie of TV, I know that a gun shot from the movie will not come out and kill me. It is all made up in fantasy land and it has no effect on me.
That's irrelevant as well. People who accept evolution don't necessarily feel insignificant because of that and it definitely wasn't the intent. As I said, what it makes you feel like has no bearing on the facts. Maybe you're different, but I don't like to go around believing stuff just to feel more special.
The whole consent of Evolution is that we were an accident because of the Big Bang. If the Big Bang happened a microsecond latter, we would have not been created.
That's not the concept of evolution, you're conflating things, but I get what you mean. Yes, if you don't believe in God but believe in modern cosmology, evolution and abiogenesis (belief in God and belief in all these thinds are not necessarily incompatible) you don't believe any of it was intentional, so it was an "accident" as you call it. That doesn't necessarily mean you have to feel insignificant or something.
Their was a movie called October Baby, its the story of a girl that has tremendous health problems, finds out while she is in college that she was adopted and her birth mother tried to abort her and failed. Look how insignificant she felts.
It is the same with evolution, if we were an unwanted accident, then we have no value.
The idea of Evolution was created by the devil to disprove God and in the last days, he will bring his demons as extra terrestrials. Thank God we will be long dead by them.
Unwanted by whom? If someone doesn't believe in God then they are not unwanted by anyone. Do you see my point? It's like asking an atheist why they hate God. They don't, no more than you hate the Easter Bunny.
How can you feel unwanted by a God you don't believe exists?
-
For the people that believe in evolution, I only have one question, is this your ancestor???
<video of a chimp>
No, more like a distant cousin separated by several hundred thousand generations.
(Not me of course, I'm totally a reptile.)
-
You contradict yourself in the other thread at least once, probably multiple times already. Your logic is as flawed as the bible.
Documentation please.
Request dismissed. God will tell you.
Thank you to accepting that their is a God, so I guess this topic is over!!!!
You HAVE to be a troll...
-
You contradict yourself in the other thread at least once, probably multiple times already. Your logic is as flawed as the bible.
Documentation please.
Request dismissed. God will tell you.
Thank you to accepting that their is a God, so I guess this topic is over!!!!
No; to show that god told you where you contradicted yourself you will first have to post where you contradicted yourself. Else your god is disproven 100% :)
-
You contradict yourself in the other thread at least once, probably multiple times already. Your logic is as flawed as the bible.
Documentation please.
Request dismissed. God will tell you.
Thank you to accepting that their is a God, so I guess this topic is over!!!!
No; to show that god told you where you contradicted yourself you will first have to post where you contradicted yourself. Else your god is disproven 100% :)
You are a perfect clone of the person you killed and thus are a murder. To prove that you are not a murder, you have to prove that you are not a clone.
-
You contradict yourself in the other thread at least once, probably multiple times already. Your logic is as flawed as the bible.
Documentation please.
Request dismissed. God will tell you.
Thank you to accepting that their is a God, so I guess this topic is over!!!!
No; to show that god told you where you contradicted yourself you will first have to post where you contradicted yourself. Else your god is disproven 100% :)
You are a perfect clone of the person you killed and thus are a murder. To prove that you are not a murder, you have to prove that you are not a clone.
Oh, so your god didn't tell you?
Guess it's because he doesn't exists. Sucks for you :(
-
You contradict yourself in the other thread at least once, probably multiple times already. Your logic is as flawed as the bible.
Documentation please.
Request dismissed. God will tell you.
Thank you to accepting that their is a God, so I guess this topic is over!!!!
No; to show that god told you where you contradicted yourself you will first have to post where you contradicted yourself. Else your god is disproven 100% :)
You are a perfect clone of the person you killed and thus are a murder. To prove that you are not a murder, you have to prove that you are not a clone.
Oh, so your god didn't tell you?
Guess it's because he doesn't exists. Sucks for you :(
You have not proven that you are not a murder!!!
-
You contradict yourself in the other thread at least once, probably multiple times already. Your logic is as flawed as the bible.
Documentation please.
Request dismissed. God will tell you.
Thank you to accepting that their is a God, so I guess this topic is over!!!!
No; to show that god told you where you contradicted yourself you will first have to post where you contradicted yourself. Else your god is disproven 100% :)
You are a perfect clone of the person you killed and thus are a murder. To prove that you are not a murder, you have to prove that you are not a clone.
Oh, so your god didn't tell you?
Guess it's because he doesn't exists. Sucks for you :(
You have not proven that you are not a murder!!!
In dubio pro reo.
-
Evolution is pure bullshit and below I will prove it mathematically:
Evolution is to have taken billions of years to happen and life on earth set foot some 300 million years. I believe that this is what “Scientist” say?
In order for Evolution to happen, you need the Earth to also be at least 300 million years old
Let’s do the math
Have you heard of leap year, every 4 years we add a date to the calendar (February 29).
There is also something called leap second.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leap_second (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leap_second)
Since this system of correction was implemented in 1972, 27 leap seconds have been inserted, the most recent on December 31, 2016 at 23:59:60 UTC
So the rate that the leap second is added is
27 seconds / 44 years = 0.613636364 seconds/year
What does that actually means?
Last year the earth needed 0.614 seconds more to complete it’s revolution.
Than in turn means that last year was spinning faster than this year.
Let extrapolate the math:
(https://preview.ibb.co/nG00h5/Leap_second.jpg) (https://ibb.co/miPRN5)
We see that in the bible timeline, the earth rotation is very close to our about 23 hours in a day, but at 140,800 years, the earth spins at 60 RPM, that is 60 revolutions per minute.
At 1 million years ago, the earth rotated at a rate of about 480 RPM
At 100 million years ago, the earth rotated at a rate of 42,613.6 RPM
But let me guess, gravity was much stronger back them and kept everything in place…
Busted!!!
-
As I have already mentioned, your trolling sometimes gets too obvious.
Unless you're really that retarded and think everything is a linear function f(x)=mx+q.
-
As I have already mentioned, your trolling sometimes gets too obvious.
Unless you're really that retarded and think everything is a linear function f(x)=mx+q.
Oh, its an e^x function?
Why not, the "retards" that do dating of samples take it to be linear???
Are they wrong!!!
-
As I have already mentioned, your trolling sometimes gets too obvious.
Unless you're really that retarded and think everything is a linear function f(x)=mx+q.
Oh, its an e^x function?
Why not, the "retards" that do dating of samples take it to be linear???
Are they wrong!!!
Motherf**** are you dumb.
Or a good troll, who knows.
-
As I have already mentioned, your trolling sometimes gets too obvious.
Unless you're really that retarded and think everything is a linear function f(x)=mx+q.
Oh, its an e^x function?
Why not, the "retards" that do dating of samples take it to be linear???
Are they wrong!!!
Motherf**** are you dumb.
Or a good troll, who knows.
I just busted your evolution with a simple linear equation!
The math does not lie.
If you have a mathematical model that proves that I'm wrong, post it!!!!
-
Evolution is pure bullshit and below I will prove it mathematically:
Evolution is to have taken billions of years to happen and life on earth set foot some 300 million years. I believe that this is what “Scientist” say?
In order for Evolution to happen, you need the Earth to also be at least 300 million years old
Let’s do the math
Have you heard of leap year, every 4 years we add a date to the calendar (February 29).
There is also something called leap second.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leap_second (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leap_second)
Since this system of correction was implemented in 1972, 27 leap seconds have been inserted, the most recent on December 31, 2016 at 23:59:60 UTC
So the rate that the leap second is added is
27 seconds / 44 years = 0.613636364 seconds/year
What does that actually means?
Last year the earth needed 0.614 seconds more to complete it’s revolution.
Than in turn means that last year was spinning faster than this year.
Let extrapolate the math:
(https://preview.ibb.co/nG00h5/Leap_second.jpg) (https://ibb.co/miPRN5)
We see that in the bible timeline, the earth rotation is very close to our about 23 hours in a day, but at 140,800 years, the earth spins at 60 RPM, that is 60 revolutions per minute.
At 1 million years ago, the earth rotated at a rate of about 480 RPM
At 100 million years ago, the earth rotated at a rate of 42,613.6 RPM
But let me guess, gravity was much stronger back them and kept everything in place…
Busted!!!
You could have at least read the page you linked that said that the length of the day becomes about 1.7ms every century. Which, assuming it is stable, means that 300.000.000 years ago, one solar day would be shorter than it is now by 1.41 hours approximately. Lol. I'm assuming so many leap seconds had to be added because a day wasn't exactly 86400 seconds when the counting started either, so leap seconds would still have to be added even if the rotation of the earth wasn't slowing down. Besides, the Wiki page states that since 1971 the rotation has sped up a bit. Try to look a bit more carefully into the sources you're quoting next time.
-
That is pure speculation to excuse the fact that their theory is wrong.
Also almost a half a century has passed and we have not added a second.
Below is the data that I have until 2007
Year 30-Jun 31-Dec
1972 +1 second +1 second
1973 none +1 second
1974 none +1 second
1975 none +1 second
1976 none +1 second
1977 none +1 second
1979 none +1 second
1980 none none
1981 +1 second none
1982 +1 second none
1983 +1 second none
1984 none none
1985 +1 second none
1986 none none
1987 none +1 second
1988 none none
1989 none +1 second
1990 none +1 second
1991 none none
1992 +1 second none
1993 +1 second none
1994 +1 second none
1995 none +1 second
1996 none none
1997 +1 second none
1998 none +1 second
1999 none none
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005 none +1 second
2006 none none
2007 none none
Are we going to add seconds in the second half of the century. The 44 year trend says NO
-
Learn to read, noob.
-
Learn to do basic angular deceleration problems!!!
-
That is pure speculation to excuse the fact that their theory is wrong.
It's not speculation, the wiki page says that 86400 seconds was close to the length of a day in like 1750. So a day is inherently a few milliseconds longer than 86400 seconds. Do you even read your sources?
Also almost a half a century has passed and we have not added a second.
[cites a table that shows all the times a second has been added]
WTF?
-
Learn to do basic angular deceleration problems!!!
When did you do an angular deceleration problem?
-
the first time I did angular accelerations problems was in 7th Grade. When did you see it the first time as a Senior in High school or a senior in college in order to fill your science requirement to graduate?
-
the first time I did angular accelerations problems was in 7th Grade. When did you see it the first time as a Senior in High school or a senior in college in order to fill your science requirement to graduate?
No you idiot, I meant when did you do an angular deceleration problem HERE, IN THIS THREAD. What you did did not really require any knowledge of mechanics.
Are you going to ignore my previous post?
-
Since this thread deals with evolution, I would like to change the subject and talk about the ancestors that believe in evolution.
I guess this was the way people acted 10 million years ago at work.
-
Since this thread deals with evolution, I would like to change the subject and talk about the ancestors that believe in evolution.
Of course you want to change the subject. You fucked up.
-
Since this thread deals with evolution, I would like to change the subject and talk about the ancestors that believe in evolution.
Of course you want to change the subject. You fucked up.
No, I just found the video and I needed a reason to post it on the Thread, but come on, you do find the video to be funny, be honest...
-
Since this thread deals with evolution, I would like to change the subject and talk about the ancestors that believe in evolution.
Of course you want to change the subject. You fucked up.
No, I just found the video and I needed a reason to post it on the Thread, but come on, you do find the video to be funny, be honest...
Not very much, the punchline came kinda awkward. It was ok.
But...
I'm waiting...
-
yes, try this thread for size for angular deceleration.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71415.0
-
That is pure speculation to excuse the fact that their theory is wrong.
Also almost a half a century has passed and we have not added a second.
Below is the data that I have until 2007
Year 30-Jun 31-Dec
1972 +1 second +1 second
1973 none +1 second
1974 none +1 second
1975 none +1 second
1976 none +1 second
1977 none +1 second
1979 none +1 second
1980 none none
1981 +1 second none
1982 +1 second none
1983 +1 second none
1984 none none
1985 +1 second none
1986 none none
1987 none +1 second
1988 none none
1989 none +1 second
1990 none +1 second
1991 none none
1992 +1 second none
1993 +1 second none
1994 +1 second none
1995 none +1 second
1996 none none
1997 +1 second none
1998 none +1 second
1999 none none
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005 none +1 second
2006 none none
2007 none none
Are we going to add seconds in the second half of the century. The 44 year trend says NO
I'm pretty sure we added a second either this year or 2016. Also your own chart says we added one in 2005 so you are lying when you said it's been 44 years, at least according to you.
-
That is pure speculation to excuse the fact that their theory is wrong.
Also almost a half a century has passed and we have not added a second.
Below is the data that I have until 2007
Year 30-Jun 31-Dec
1972 +1 second +1 second
1973 none +1 second
1974 none +1 second
1975 none +1 second
1976 none +1 second
1977 none +1 second
1979 none +1 second
1980 none none
1981 +1 second none
1982 +1 second none
1983 +1 second none
1984 none none
1985 +1 second none
1986 none none
1987 none +1 second
1988 none none
1989 none +1 second
1990 none +1 second
1991 none none
1992 +1 second none
1993 +1 second none
1994 +1 second none
1995 none +1 second
1996 none none
1997 +1 second none
1998 none +1 second
1999 none none
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005 none +1 second
2006 none none
2007 none none
Are we going to add seconds in the second half of the century. The 44 year trend says NO
I'm pretty sure we added a second either this year or 2016. Also your own chart says we added one in 2005 so you are lying when you said it's been 44 years, at least according to you.
Please read before you write!
i said
Below is the data that I have until 2007
Yes and in 2006 and 2007 they did not add any seconds.
And from 1972 till 2016, since 2017 is not over, is how many years?
If you can't do basic arithmetic, go back to school.
In December 31 2016 they added a leap second
citation - http://earthsky.org/human-world/leap-second-june-30-december-31-why-need-controversy
They add leap year on June 30 and December 31 of each year.
If they subtracted a leap second in June 30, 2017, please post the link!
-
That is pure speculation to excuse the fact that their theory is wrong.
Also almost a half a century has passed and we have not added a second.
Below is the data that I have until 2007
Year 30-Jun 31-Dec
1972 +1 second +1 second
1973 none +1 second
1974 none +1 second
1975 none +1 second
1976 none +1 second
1977 none +1 second
1979 none +1 second
1980 none none
1981 +1 second none
1982 +1 second none
1983 +1 second none
1984 none none
1985 +1 second none
1986 none none
1987 none +1 second
1988 none none
1989 none +1 second
1990 none +1 second
1991 none none
1992 +1 second none
1993 +1 second none
1994 +1 second none
1995 none +1 second
1996 none none
1997 +1 second none
1998 none +1 second
1999 none none
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005 none +1 second
2006 none none
2007 none none
Are we going to add seconds in the second half of the century. The 44 year trend says NO
I'm pretty sure we added a second either this year or 2016. Also your own chart says we added one in 2005 so you are lying when you said it's been 44 years, at least according to you.
Please read before you write!
i said
Below is the data that I have until 2007
Yes and in 2006 and 2007 they did not add any seconds.
And from 1972 till 2016, since 2017 is not over, is how many years?
If you can't do basic arithmetic, go back to school.
In December 31 2016 they added a leap second
citation - http://earthsky.org/human-world/leap-second-june-30-december-31-why-need-controversy
They add leap year on June 30 and December 31 of each year.
If they subtracted a leap second in June 30, 2017, please post the link!
I was confused by the fact that you said a half century had passed without adding a second. Then showed a bunch of times in the past have century where they had added one.
My mistake.
-
I was wrong in my calculations, I admit it after studding the problem again. You can go to the below thread to read all about it
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71415.msg1935352#msg1935352
but now a new problems arises, the conservation of angular momentum, since the earth was only spinning 5 times today's rate.
-
Evolution is fact. It is only called theory in the sense that anything we know could not be true, however it is a true scientific theory as it is open to question and yet has not been disproved. I am willing to answer any questions you have on this topic.
Cool. Been awhile since I've been in one of these. If evolution is true, then how come we find fossils that supposedly evolved later from another animal below the actual animal it supposedly evolved from in the geologic column.
Are you trolling or just dumb?
Well, gun as profile pic; so you're most likely 'murican and thus the second assumption is probably correct.
So rather than debate you lower yourself to insults. Nice.
-
Evolution is fact. It is only called theory in the sense that anything we know could not be true, however it is a true scientific theory as it is open to question and yet has not been disproved. I am willing to answer any questions you have on this topic.
Cool. Been awhile since I've been in one of these. If evolution is true, then how come we find fossils that supposedly evolved later from another animal below the actual animal it supposedly evolved from in the geologic column.
An example would be nice.
They found a human fossil in the KBS tuff which was originally dated far older than what the theory stated humans came into being.
https://answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/the-pigs-took-it-all/
https://answersingenesis.org/human-evolution/cavemen/stone-axes-push-anthropological-view-humans-back-time/
-
Evolution is fact. It is only called theory in the sense that anything we know could not be true, however it is a true scientific theory as it is open to question and yet has not been disproved. I am willing to answer any questions you have on this topic.
Cool. Been awhile since I've been in one of these. If evolution is true, then how come we find fossils that supposedly evolved later from another animal below the actual animal it supposedly evolved from in the geologic column.
Are you trolling or just dumb?
Well, gun as profile pic; so you're most likely 'murican and thus the second assumption is probably correct.
So rather than debate you lower yourself to insults. Nice.
Comparing it to your level, insults appear to be rather sophisticated.
Anyway, did you even read the article you've posted?
Also, noone said the current model of evolution has to be 100% accurate. New research that gives newer (better) results might lead to small adaptions within the model. That's how science works.
So, what do you believe in? Are you a creationist?
And, since your from the land of freedom: are there actually schools that do not teach evolution? Are really that many people not believing in evolution?
-
Evolution is fact. It is only called theory in the sense that anything we know could not be true, however it is a true scientific theory as it is open to question and yet has not been disproved. I am willing to answer any questions you have on this topic.
Cool. Been awhile since I've been in one of these. If evolution is true, then how come we find fossils that supposedly evolved later from another animal below the actual animal it supposedly evolved from in the geologic column.
An example would be nice.
They found a human fossil in the KBS tuff which was originally dated far older than what the theory stated humans came into being.
https://answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/the-pigs-took-it-all/
https://answersingenesis.org/human-evolution/cavemen/stone-axes-push-anthropological-view-humans-back-time/
That's not what I see at all in these links.
In the first link it is stated that the date was found to be incorrect and later corrected. How the date was found to be incorrect is not stated, it is AiG's own interpretation that it was because it didn't fit the evolutionary model, so it really isn't evidence of anything. It's just that AiG is a dusgusting cesspool of misinformation and fallacies that have been debunked multiple times that is hell bent on twisting everything to fit its agenda.
The second link is a pretty desperate attempt. It seems like the author decided that an axe that seems modern for its age is a fundamental contradiction that can't be explained.
It's pretty funny how for all the whining about carbon and radiometric dating, no creationist has been able to demonstrate they are incorrect.
-
Try to answer this, you evolutionary High Priest.
How could dinosaur tissue survive 70 millions years?
All the fossil were created by Noah's flood as it is written in Genesis.
Time 2:53
-
Your trolling is once again getting too obvious, inflatearth.
-
Your trolling is once again getting too obvious, inflatearth.
Your Religion just got busted, again and all you have to say is that I'm a troll?
Why don't you comment on the fact that Dinosaur tissue has been found and you can see it in the video?
Go to your high priest and ask them, what should I say to overcome this? Maybe they can give you some advice on the matter.
-
Your trolling is once again getting too obvious, inflatearth.
Your Religion just got busted, again and all you have to say is that I'm a troll?
Why don't you comment on the fact that Dinosaur tissue has been found and you can see it in the video?
Go to your high priest and ask them, what should I say to overcome this? Maybe they can give you some advice on the matter.
Still too obvious.
-
Your trolling is once again getting too obvious, inflatearth.
Your Religion just got busted, again and all you have to say is that I'm a troll?
Why don't you comment on the fact that Dinosaur tissue has been found and you can see it in the video?
Go to your high priest and ask them, what should I say to overcome this? Maybe they can give you some advice on the matter.
Still too obvious.
Tissue from a dinosaur that died 70 million years ago... How about they died in the flood...
-
Try to answer this, you evolutionary High Priest.
How could dinosaur tissue survive 70 millions years?
All the fossil were created by Noah's flood as it is written in Genesis.
Time 2:53
I believe they are talking about a few cells. Where is the evidence of this world wide flood?
-
I believe they are talking about a few cells. Where is the evidence of this world wide flood?
(https://img1.picload.org/image/rwdlarlr/1.png)
-
Try to answer this, you evolutionary High Priest.
How could dinosaur tissue survive 70 millions years?
All the fossil were created by Noah's flood as it is written in Genesis.
Time 2:53
I believe they are talking about a few cells. Where is the evidence of this world wide flood?
Not just a few cells, but a substantial amount of tissue. Look at time 2:59 and see the size of the instruments that stretch the tissue.
This tissue did not survive 70 million years. This sample came from the flood about 5000 years ago.
-
Try to answer this, you evolutionary High Priest.
How could dinosaur tissue survive 70 millions years?
All the fossil were created by Noah's flood as it is written in Genesis.
Time 2:53
I believe they are talking about a few cells. Where is the evidence of this world wide flood?
Not just a few cells, but a substantial amount of tissue. Look at time 2:59 and see the size of the instruments that stretch the tissue.
This tissue did not survive 70 million years. This sample came from the flood about 5000 years ago.
They are looking at it under a microscope.
Still waiting for that evidence of a worldwide flood.
-
Why do you keep asking questions without doing any effort to research beforehand?
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=how+is+dinosaur+soft+tissue+preserved%3F
None of your questions are insightful or original or anything. They're all pretty obvious and have been asked and answered before, and yet every time you think you've got a real "gotcha!".
-
She found amino acids in the tissue.
68 Millions years old or the dating system is wrong?
Which sounds more reasonable?
But, if the dating system is found to be wrong, then their goes Evolution, so that can't be it, and if it is, then we will through stupid explanations in order to keep our religion.
-
Every aspect of the Evolution fairy tale is based on assumptions and circular reasoning. It's not science and no believer in the religion of evolution will ever accept that. I wouldn't bother with them. I've seen professors go red and then spout anger when anything of their evolution religion is brought into question with actual science. Let the public tax dollars continue to fund this religion coz until then, it's not going away.
“I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially to the extent to which it has been applied, will be one of the greatest jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity it has.”
-Malcolm Muggeridge
-
Every aspect of the Evolution fairy tale is based on assumptions and circular reasoning. It's not science and no believer in the religion of evolution will ever accept that. I wouldn't bother with them. I've seen professors go red and then spout anger when anything of their evolution religion is brought into question with actual science. Let the public tax dollars continue to fund this religion coz until then, it's not going away.
“I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially to the extent to which it has been applied, will be one of the greatest jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity it has.”
-Malcolm Muggeridge
Example for actual science "bringing the theory of evolution in to question" is required.
-
Every aspect of the Evolution fairy tale is based on assumptions and circular reasoning. It's not science and no believer in the religion of evolution will ever accept that. I wouldn't bother with them. I've seen professors go red and then spout anger when anything of their evolution religion is brought into question with actual science. Let the public tax dollars continue to fund this religion coz until then, it's not going away.
“I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially to the extent to which it has been applied, will be one of the greatest jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity it has.”
-Malcolm Muggeridge
Example for actual science "bringing the theory of evolution in to question" is required.
Actual science and common sense debunks the dating system used to justify evolution. You can't have 68 million year old tissue in an environment that is cold -hot -cold - hot - cold - hot. The bonds break with temperature change
-
Actual science and common sense debunks the dating system used to justify evolution. You can't have 68 million year old tissue in an environment that is cold -hot -cold - hot - cold - hot. The bonds break with temperature change
That's a wrong assumption which makes your whole point invalid.
-
She found amino acids in the tissue.
68 Millions years old or the dating system is wrong?
Which sounds more reasonable?
But, if the dating system is found to be wrong, then their goes Evolution, so that can't be it, and if it is, then we will through stupid explanations in order to keep our religion.
Ok, I think you missed something:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=how+is+dinosaur+soft+tissue+preserved%3F
-
Actual science and common sense debunks the dating system used to justify evolution. You can't have 68 million year old tissue in an environment that is cold -hot -cold - hot - cold - hot. The bonds break with temperature change
That's a wrong assumption which makes your whole point invalid.
You refuse to see the light and that is why you will be in eternal darkness...
-
She found amino acids in the tissue.
68 Millions years old or the dating system is wrong?
Which sounds more reasonable?
But, if the dating system is found to be wrong, then their goes Evolution, so that can't be it, and if it is, then we will through stupid explanations in order to keep our religion.
Ok, I think you missed something:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=how+is+dinosaur+soft+tissue+preserved%3F
What is more logical, that the tissue was preserved for 68,000,000 years or that the tissue was preserved for 5,000 years?
With math you can get wild thing, like creating an hand cream at 10,000 Kelvin. Actual problem in Batch Reactor Design exam, where the formal had trigonometry in it and you got two values at 0 Degrees = 10,000 Kelvin and at 180 Degrees = 320 Kelvin.
-
She found amino acids in the tissue.
68 Millions years old or the dating system is wrong?
Which sounds more reasonable?
But, if the dating system is found to be wrong, then their goes Evolution, so that can't be it, and if it is, then we will through stupid explanations in order to keep our religion.
Ok, I think you missed something:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=how+is+dinosaur+soft+tissue+preserved%3F
What is more logical, that the tissue was preserved for 68,000,000 years or that the tissue was preserved for 5,000 years?
<gibberish snipped>
Did you read the first article returned from that search? https://www.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html
Makes your whole hypothesis invalid. I vote 68,000,000 years as more consistent with all other evidence.
-
Actual science and common sense debunks the dating system used to justify evolution. You can't have 68 million year old tissue in an environment that is cold -hot -cold - hot - cold - hot. The bonds break with temperature change
That's a wrong assumption which makes your whole point invalid.
You refuse to see the light and that is why you will be in eternal darkness...
You probably looked into the light for too long, so that your visuon is gone, leaving you incapable of reading.
-
She found amino acids in the tissue.
68 Millions years old or the dating system is wrong?
Which sounds more reasonable?
But, if the dating system is found to be wrong, then their goes Evolution, so that can't be it, and if it is, then we will through stupid explanations in order to keep our religion.
Ok, I think you missed something:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=how+is+dinosaur+soft+tissue+preserved%3F
What is more logical, that the tissue was preserved for 68,000,000 years or that the tissue was preserved for 5,000 years?
With math you can get wild thing, like creating an hand cream at 10,000 Kelvin. Actual problem in Batch Reactor Design exam, where the formal had trigonometry in it and you got two values at 0 Degrees = 10,000 Kelvin and at 180 Degrees = 320 Kelvin.
What is more logical, that it was preserved for 5,000 years or 1 year? I conclude that last year T-Rexes sprawled the Earth.
Or maybe it was preserved for 10,000 years, in which case you are wrong.
Your logic is so stupid. The most logical answer is that it was preserved for 68 million years because of all the evidence that points to it.
Maybe you should re-read the articles the Google search yields.
-
The most logical answer is that it was preserved for 68 million years because of all the evidence that points to it.
What "evidence"? You mean the evidence based on assumptions like carbon dating? The one categorically proven to be inaccurate and would never hold up in an actual court case if used as evidence for a crime?
In school, college and uni, ALL I remember being repeated was "the overwhelming evidence" "evidence" "evidence" "evidence" but then when you dig deep into the "evidence" all hell breaks loose. But it looks like it clearly worked on you so those tax dollars did not go to waste. The evolution religion, based on pure beliefs is rampant and ANYONE trying to get a message through to these hardcore Darwinian evolutionists might as well have evolved from monkeys.
-
The most logical answer is that it was preserved for 68 million years because of all the evidence that points to it.
What "evidence"? You mean the evidence based on assumptions like carbon dating? The one categorically proven to be inaccurate and would never hold up in an actual court case if used as evidence for a crime?
In school, college and uni, ALL I remember being repeated was "the overwhelming evidence" "evidence" "evidence" "evidence" but then when you dig deep into the "evidence" all hell breaks loose. But it looks like it clearly worked on you so those tax dollars did not go to waste. The evolution religion, based on pure beliefs is rampant and ANYONE trying to get a message through to these hardcore Darwinian evolutionists might as well have evolved from monkeys.
When exactly was carbon dating proven to be wrong? Must have missed that one.
Also no, carbon dating isn't used for samples that old. There are other methods of radiometric dating that work.
-
The most logical answer is that it was preserved for 68 million years because of all the evidence that points to it.
What "evidence"? You mean the evidence based on assumptions like carbon dating? The one categorically proven to be inaccurate and would never hold up in an actual court case if used as evidence for a crime?
In school, college and uni, ALL I remember being repeated was "the overwhelming evidence" "evidence" "evidence" "evidence" but then when you dig deep into the "evidence" all hell breaks loose. But it looks like it clearly worked on you so those tax dollars did not go to waste. The evolution religion, based on pure beliefs is rampant and ANYONE trying to get a message through to these hardcore Darwinian evolutionists might as well have evolved from monkeys.
When exactly was carbon dating proven to be wrong? Must have missed that one.
Also no, carbon dating isn't used for samples that old. There are other methods of radiometric dating that work in these cases.
-
I was going to post about how literally no one argues about the inaccuracy of carbon dating dinosaur fossils except people who don't know what they are talking about. But DNO nailed it.
-
The most logical answer is that it was preserved for 68 million years because of all the evidence that points to it.
What "evidence"? You mean the evidence based on assumptions like carbon dating? The one categorically proven to be inaccurate and would never hold up in an actual court case if used as evidence for a crime?
In school, college and uni, ALL I remember being repeated was "the overwhelming evidence" "evidence" "evidence" "evidence" but then when you dig deep into the "evidence" all hell breaks loose. But it looks like it clearly worked on you so those tax dollars did not go to waste. The evolution religion, based on pure beliefs is rampant and ANYONE trying to get a message through to these hardcore Darwinian evolutionists might as well have evolved from monkeys.
When exactly was carbon dating proven to be wrong? Must have missed that one.
Also no, carbon dating isn't used for samples that old. There are other methods of radiometric dating that work.
No radiometric dating method is an exact Science. It's all based on assumptions to begin with. The "methods of reading" are indeed accurate but using that to date a rock/fossil is pure fantasy being based on assumptions which is impossible to know Scientifically such as starting points and variable rates. Keep trying, you're not fooling anyone but yourselves.
-
What reason do you have to believe that the half life of any/all radioactive isotopes ever change?
-
The most logical answer is that it was preserved for 68 million years because of all the evidence that points to it.
What "evidence"? You mean the evidence based on assumptions like carbon dating? The one categorically proven to be inaccurate and would never hold up in an actual court case if used as evidence for a crime?
In school, college and uni, ALL I remember being repeated was "the overwhelming evidence" "evidence" "evidence" "evidence" but then when you dig deep into the "evidence" all hell breaks loose. But it looks like it clearly worked on you so those tax dollars did not go to waste. The evolution religion, based on pure beliefs is rampant and ANYONE trying to get a message through to these hardcore Darwinian evolutionists might as well have evolved from monkeys.
When exactly was carbon dating proven to be wrong? Must have missed that one.
Also no, carbon dating isn't used for samples that old. There are other methods of radiometric dating that work.
No radiometric dating method is an exact Science. It's all based on assumptions to begin with. The "methods of reading" are indeed accurate but using that to date a rock/fossil is pure fantasy being based on assumptions which is impossible to know Scientifically such as starting points and variable rates. Keep trying, you're not fooling anyone but yourselves.
Just because you said it, it doesn't mean it's true. I'm waiting, when was it proven to be wrong and how?
-
The most logical answer is that it was preserved for 68 million years because of all the evidence that points to it.
What "evidence"? You mean the evidence based on assumptions like carbon dating? The one categorically proven to be inaccurate and would never hold up in an actual court case if used as evidence for a crime?
In school, college and uni, ALL I remember being repeated was "the overwhelming evidence" "evidence" "evidence" "evidence" but then when you dig deep into the "evidence" all hell breaks loose. But it looks like it clearly worked on you so those tax dollars did not go to waste. The evolution religion, based on pure beliefs is rampant and ANYONE trying to get a message through to these hardcore Darwinian evolutionists might as well have evolved from monkeys.
When exactly was carbon dating proven to be wrong? Must have missed that one.
Also no, carbon dating isn't used for samples that old. There are other methods of radiometric dating that work.
No radiometric dating method is an exact Science. It's all based on assumptions to begin with. The "methods of reading" are indeed accurate but using that to date a rock/fossil is pure fantasy being based on assumptions which is impossible to know Scientifically such as starting points and variable rates. Keep trying, you're not fooling anyone but yourselves.
Just because you said it, it doesn't mean it's true. I'm waiting, when was it proven to be wrong and how?
And just because you said makes it true? When was it proven to be accurate and an exact science not based on assumptions and wild number range to conclude its associated theories as "FACT"?
-
The most logical answer is that it was preserved for 68 million years because of all the evidence that points to it.
What "evidence"? You mean the evidence based on assumptions like carbon dating? The one categorically proven to be inaccurate and would never hold up in an actual court case if used as evidence for a crime?
In school, college and uni, ALL I remember being repeated was "the overwhelming evidence" "evidence" "evidence" "evidence" but then when you dig deep into the "evidence" all hell breaks loose. But it looks like it clearly worked on you so those tax dollars did not go to waste. The evolution religion, based on pure beliefs is rampant and ANYONE trying to get a message through to these hardcore Darwinian evolutionists might as well have evolved from monkeys.
When exactly was carbon dating proven to be wrong? Must have missed that one.
Also no, carbon dating isn't used for samples that old. There are other methods of radiometric dating that work.
No radiometric dating method is an exact Science. It's all based on assumptions to begin with. The "methods of reading" are indeed accurate but using that to date a rock/fossil is pure fantasy being based on assumptions which is impossible to know Scientifically such as starting points and variable rates. Keep trying, you're not fooling anyone but yourselves.
Just because you said it, it doesn't mean it's true. I'm waiting, when was it proven to be wrong and how?
And just because you said makes it true? When was it proven to be accurate and an exact science not based on assumptions and wild number range to conclude its associated theories as "FACT"?
Why are you answering me with a question?
You're the one who claims the whole of paleontology and big chunks of geology and archeology are wrong. You're the one who claimed it's been proven to be wrong. When?
-
The most logical answer is that it was preserved for 68 million years because of all the evidence that points to it.
What "evidence"? You mean the evidence based on assumptions like carbon dating? The one categorically proven to be inaccurate and would never hold up in an actual court case if used as evidence for a crime?
In school, college and uni, ALL I remember being repeated was "the overwhelming evidence" "evidence" "evidence" "evidence" but then when you dig deep into the "evidence" all hell breaks loose. But it looks like it clearly worked on you so those tax dollars did not go to waste. The evolution religion, based on pure beliefs is rampant and ANYONE trying to get a message through to these hardcore Darwinian evolutionists might as well have evolved from monkeys.
When exactly was carbon dating proven to be wrong? Must have missed that one.
Also no, carbon dating isn't used for samples that old. There are other methods of radiometric dating that work.
No radiometric dating method is an exact Science. It's all based on assumptions to begin with. The "methods of reading" are indeed accurate but using that to date a rock/fossil is pure fantasy being based on assumptions which is impossible to know Scientifically such as starting points and variable rates. Keep trying, you're not fooling anyone but yourselves.
Just because you said it, it doesn't mean it's true. I'm waiting, when was it proven to be wrong and how?
And just because you said makes it true? When was it proven to be accurate and an exact science not based on assumptions and wild number range to conclude its associated theories as "FACT"?
You claimed carbon dating was proven wrong. Why can't you show us when and how?
-
Why are you answering me with a question?
You're the one who claims the whole of paleontology and big chunks of geology and archeology are wrong. You're the one who claimed it's been proven to be wrong. When?
Actually, I simply reject it based on real Science. The dating methods have never proven to be 100% accurate beyond a few thousand years. Then that's used for giving wild numbers like 4.2 million years. The only numbers published are those which match the religion of evolution. So it's not even about being proven wrong, it's never been proven right to begin with in order to challenge it.
Take your own web site for example: https://debunkingdenialism.com/2011/08/12/refuting-radiometric-dating-methods-makes-untenable-assumptions/
While you see 100% Science and answers to defend your beliefs, I see many issues in almost every section there.
The fact remains, radiometric dating is based on assumptions to prove evolution.
-
You claimed carbon dating was proven wrong. Why can't you show us when and how?
It was never right to begin with. Prove it's right on millions/billions of years then I have a reason to provide proof. Until then, you can continue to believe in your pseudoscience
-
What reason does one have to believe that half lives of a particular isotope change over time? I don't believe that has ever been witnessed. Very fine measurements of half lives of many isotopes have been measured, repeatedly, and the same isotopes all have the same half life, all the time.
-
You claimed carbon dating was proven wrong. Why can't you show us when and how?
It was never right to begin with. Prove it's right on millions/billions of years then I have a reason to provide proof. Until then, you can continue to believe in your pseudoscience
Then why did you say it was proven wrong?
-
All dating methods have given wild numbers many times... I think what observer is trying to communicate is we are relying on decay and amount actually injected by the sun being static from the beginning of time...that is one hell of an assumption. It seems to really just be needed conformational bias over true curiosity and science.
Even just a 1 percent change for any given amount of time in the past could effect tests by millions of years depending on when the change happened and how long. Very long term changes of extreme changes (example say a 20 percent change) could effect results by billions.
Want to see true accurate dating (as much as you can ask for) just follow the money not fluff. Look at what oil companies use, they don't give a shit about agenda, evolution or anything of the such...just money and finding oil, so it must work. Their system is accurate for around 500-1500 years...this is a system I can agree with.
-
BHS what system do they use? Honest question. Admittedly I'm asking instead of googling. But I'm more interested in your take than Google's anyway.
-
Why are you answering me with a question?
You're the one who claims the whole of paleontology and big chunks of geology and archeology are wrong. You're the one who claimed it's been proven to be wrong. When?
Actually, I simply reject it based on real Science. The dating methods have never proven to be 100% accurate beyond a few thousand years. Then that's used for giving wild numbers like 4.2 million years. The only numbers published are those which match the religion of evolution. So it's not even about being proven wrong, it's never been proven right to begin with in order to challenge it.
Take your own web site for example: https://debunkingdenialism.com/2011/08/12/refuting-radiometric-dating-methods-makes-untenable-assumptions/
While you see 100% Science and answers to defend your beliefs, I see many issues in almost every section there.
The fact remains, radiometric dating is based on assumptions to prove evolution.
"Our own" website? I have no idea what that website is, I've never visited it in my life, and you never said what is wrong with it.
I'm still waiting. What are these assumptions and why are they wrong?
-
All dating methods have given wild numbers many times... I think what observer is trying to communicate is we are relying on decay and amount actually injected by the sun being static from the beginning of time...that is one hell of an assumption. It seems to really just be needed conformational bias over true curiosity and science.
Even just a 1 percent change for any given amount of time in the past could effect tests by millions of years depending on when the change happened and how long. Very long term changes of extreme changes (example say a 20 percent change) could effect results by billions.
Want to see true accurate dating (as much as you can ask for) just follow the money not fluff. Look at what oil companies use, they don't give a shit about agenda, evolution or anything of the such...just money and finding oil, so it must work. Their system is accurate for around 500-1500 years...this is a system I can agree with.
I think you are forgetting that paleontology has no "agenda". No one is trying to prove evolution to you, because no scientist takes young earth creationism seriously any more. Every time a fossil is dated, no one rubs his hands and says "Yeah, that's gonna prove them YECs wrong! Wooohooo!". They just date a fossil. If there is someone with an agenda it's all the YECs desperate to disprove everything they don't like. Every time I check an article in Answers in Genesis purporting to disprove radiometric dating I look at the footnotes and it's always some "Creationist Science Institute" research published in a creationist journal.
No, radiometric dating isn't ALWAYS right and it does occasionally give wild numbers. That's because you have to know what you're doing when you're dating things and be careful not to fall in the various traps that exist. Of course real geologists know what those traps are and how to avoid them, but every time a creationist attempts to "disprove" dating methods he intentionally falls into them so that it gives him a wrong result. It's not the dating method that is wrong but the way he used it.
Saying that we don't know if the decay rates were always the same is akin to saying we don't know if Newton's laws were always right, or doubting the superposition principle. There is absolutely no reason why the decay rate should vary, and it doesn't explain why results from all dating methods fit together just fine. I don't know what you are referring to by "amount injected by the sun". I've seen many researches proving the assumptions, but can't give you citations to them right now because I'm on my phone, I'll see what I can do later.
-
You claimed carbon dating was proven wrong. Why can't you show us when and how?
It was never right to begin with. Prove it's right on millions/billions of years then I have a reason to provide proof. Until then, you can continue to believe in your pseudoscience
Then why did you say it was proven wrong?
True. Well spotted. But the fact remains. Radiometric dating is not an exact Science and the results cannot be classed as "fast" beyond doubt the way evolutionists state it as fact.
-
You claimed carbon dating was proven wrong. Why can't you show us when and how?
It was never right to begin with. Prove it's right on millions/billions of years then I have a reason to provide proof. Until then, you can continue to believe in your pseudoscience
Then why did you say it was proven wrong?
True. Well spotted. But the fact remains. Radiometric dating is not an exact Science and the results cannot be classed as "fast" beyond doubt the way evolutionists state it as fact.
Still waiting for your objections to it.
-
You claimed carbon dating was proven wrong. Why can't you show us when and how?
It was never right to begin with. Prove it's right on millions/billions of years then I have a reason to provide proof. Until then, you can continue to believe in your pseudoscience
Then why did you say it was proven wrong?
True. Well spotted. But the fact remains. Radiometric dating is not an exact Science and the results cannot be classed as "fast" beyond doubt the way evolutionists state it as fact.
Do you have any scientific data, or a link to a study to back that up?
-
You claimed carbon dating was proven wrong. Why can't you show us when and how?
It was never right to begin with. Prove it's right on millions/billions of years then I have a reason to provide proof. Until then, you can continue to believe in your pseudoscience
Then why did you say it was proven wrong?
True. Well spotted. But the fact remains. Radiometric dating is not an exact Science and the results cannot be classed as "fast" beyond doubt the way evolutionists state it as fact.
So, basically that's just your opinion, without any underlying logic, scientific explanation or let alone some actual research.
-
You claimed carbon dating was proven wrong. Why can't you show us when and how?
It was never right to begin with. Prove it's right on millions/billions of years then I have a reason to provide proof. Until then, you can continue to believe in your pseudoscience
Then why did you say it was proven wrong?
True. Well spotted. But the fact remains. Radiometric dating is not an exact Science and the results cannot be classed as "fast" beyond doubt the way evolutionists state it as fact.
So, basically that's just your opinion, without any underlying logic, scientific explanation or let alone some actual research.
Nope, it's a Scientific "FACT" that radiometric dating is inaccurate and based on assumptions. Why does a "fact" like this need research? What is there to research about this fact?
-
You claimed carbon dating was proven wrong. Why can't you show us when and how?
It was never right to begin with. Prove it's right on millions/billions of years then I have a reason to provide proof. Until then, you can continue to believe in your pseudoscience
Then why did you say it was proven wrong?
True. Well spotted. But the fact remains. Radiometric dating is not an exact Science and the results cannot be classed as "fast" beyond doubt the way evolutionists state it as fact.
So, basically that's just your opinion, without any underlying logic, scientific explanation or let alone some actual research.
Nope, it's a Scientific "FACT" that radiometric dating is inaccurate and based on assumptions. Why does a "fact" like this need research? What is there to research about this fact?
I'll ask again. Do you have anything to support that statement? Because it very much looks like an opinion.
-
You claimed carbon dating was proven wrong. Why can't you show us when and how?
It was never right to begin with. Prove it's right on millions/billions of years then I have a reason to provide proof. Until then, you can continue to believe in your pseudoscience
Then why did you say it was proven wrong?
True. Well spotted. But the fact remains. Radiometric dating is not an exact Science and the results cannot be classed as "fast" beyond doubt the way evolutionists state it as fact.
So, basically that's just your opinion, without any underlying logic, scientific explanation or let alone some actual research.
Nope, it's a Scientific "FACT" that radiometric dating is inaccurate and based on assumptions. Why does a "fact" like this need research? What is there to research about this fact?
I'll ask again. Do you have anything to support that statement? Because it very much looks like an opinion.
Unfortunately for you it's not an opinion. There's plenty of research available but the Scientific research is no good to you because it's from Scientists who believe in God. According to Darwinians aka Evolutionists, any Scientist who believes in God is not a Scientist although the belief in God is absolutely unrelated to Science. So any source I provide will instantly be dismissed as is the norm on these type of forums. Both parties provide information, both parties dismiss each other on grounds that are unrelated to the problem at hand and like it or not but Atheists have a tendency to dismiss EVERYTHING that opposes their religion. Yes, Christians do the same but they dismiss it on belief/faith, Darwinians dismiss it in the name of Science when it's Science that's debunking the very core of their belief.
-
I hate to break it to you, but plenty of scientists believe in God. Why is it so hard to believe that your God set off the big bang and let the universe unfold with the physical laws and parameters he instilled it with.
-
You claimed carbon dating was proven wrong. Why can't you show us when and how?
It was never right to begin with. Prove it's right on millions/billions of years then I have a reason to provide proof. Until then, you can continue to believe in your pseudoscience
Then why did you say it was proven wrong?
True. Well spotted. But the fact remains. Radiometric dating is not an exact Science and the results cannot be classed as "fast" beyond doubt the way evolutionists state it as fact.
So, basically that's just your opinion, without any underlying logic, scientific explanation or let alone some actual research.
Nope, it's a Scientific "FACT" that radiometric dating is inaccurate and based on assumptions. Why does a "fact" like this need research? What is there to research about this fact?
I'll ask again. Do you have anything to support that statement? Because it very much looks like an opinion.
Unfortunately for you it's not an opinion. There's plenty of research available but the Scientific research is no good to you because it's from Scientists who believe in God. According to Darwinians aka Evolutionists, any Scientist who believes in God is not a Scientist although the belief in God is absolutely unrelated to Science. So any source I provide will instantly be dismissed as is the norm on these type of forums. Both parties provide information, both parties dismiss each other on grounds that are unrelated to the problem at hand and like it or not but Atheists have a tendency to dismiss EVERYTHING that opposes their religion. Yes, Christians do the same but they dismiss it on belief/faith, Darwinians dismiss it in the name of Science when it's Science that's debunking the very core of their belief.
That's bullshit. I know respected scientists who believe in god.
Now how about you link us to some of that research that supports your statement? Because so far you are just making claims with nothing to back it. I'm not even saying you're wrong, I'm just asking you to show the evidence you are basing it on.
-
You claimed carbon dating was proven wrong. Why can't you show us when and how?
It was never right to begin with. Prove it's right on millions/billions of years then I have a reason to provide proof. Until then, you can continue to believe in your pseudoscience
Then why did you say it was proven wrong?
True. Well spotted. But the fact remains. Radiometric dating is not an exact Science and the results cannot be classed as "fast" beyond doubt the way evolutionists state it as fact.
So, basically that's just your opinion, without any underlying logic, scientific explanation or let alone some actual research.
Nope, it's a Scientific "FACT" that radiometric dating is inaccurate and based on assumptions. Why does a "fact" like this need research? What is there to research about this fact?
I'll ask again. Do you have anything to support that statement? Because it very much looks like an opinion.
Unfortunately for you it's not an opinion. There's plenty of research available but the Scientific research is no good to you because it's from Scientists who believe in God. According to Darwinians aka Evolutionists, any Scientist who believes in God is not a Scientist although the belief in God is absolutely unrelated to Science. So any source I provide will instantly be dismissed as is the norm on these type of forums. Both parties provide information, both parties dismiss each other on grounds that are unrelated to the problem at hand and like it or not but Atheists have a tendency to dismiss EVERYTHING that opposes their religion. Yes, Christians do the same but they dismiss it on belief/faith, Darwinians dismiss it in the name of Science when it's Science that's debunking the very core of their belief.
That's bullshit. I know respected scientists who believe in god.
Now how about you link us to some of that research that supports your statement? Because so far you are just making claims with nothing to back it. I'm not even saying you're wrong, I'm just asking you to show the evidence you are basing it on.
I wish it was bullshit. But we both know deep down it's not bullshit. Anyway, here's one link http://www.icr.org/creation-radiometric
-
I wish it was bullshit. But we both know deep down it's not bullshit. Anyway, here's one link http://www.icr.org/creation-radiometric
Follow up studies to the "Solar influence on decay rate" study concluded that the original study used detectors that were influenced by outside disturbances. Follow up studies show no correlation between decay rate and seasonal cycles.
https://phys.org/news/2014-10-textbook-knowledge-reconfirmed-radioactive-substances.html
It is telling of ICR's bias that they haven't bothered to update their conclusions with these follow up studies. ICR's approach to "research" is fundamentally flawed. Their entire purpose is to push a particular worldview, not scientific knowledge in general, and they tend to ignore any study that contradicts that worldview.
-
Faint young sun paradox is a real thing.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faint_young_Sun_paradox
It shows we don't understand as much as some people think we do.
(https://s27.postimg.org/5w6c7nac3/images-30.jpg)
-
Faint young sun paradox is a real thing.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faint_young_Sun_paradox
It shows we don't understand as much as some people think we do.
"We don't know everything therefore we don't know anything" is not a good argument.
-
"We don't know everything therefore we don't know anything" is not a good argument.
It's a good thing that wasn't my argument then isn't it?
It shows we don't understand as much as some people think we do.
The more we discover the more we realise how much more there is to understand.
-
"We don't know everything therefore we don't know anything" is not a good argument.
It's a good thing that wasn't my argument then isn't it?
That's what it looked like to me. If that's not the case, then I don't have the foggiest idea of what point you are trying to make.
-
Here it is again for the comprehension challenged.
It shows we don't understand as much as some people think we do.
The more we discover the more we realise how much more there is to understand.
-
Here it is again for the comprehension challenged.
It shows we don't understand as much as some people think we do.
The more we discover the more we realise how much more there is to understand.
Ok, we can all agree there is much to learn, captain Obvious, but did you actually have a point to make, or are you just going to spout the obvious.
-
Here it is again for the comprehension challenged.
It shows we don't understand as much as some people think we do.
The more we discover the more we realise how much more there is to understand.
Um... ok. Great platitude, but what does that have to do with this thread?
-
Anyway, here's one link http://www.icr.org/creation-radiometric
Finally, SOMETHING!
But it's from ICR. Totes said it better. They don't give a fuck if it's right, they just want it to fit their agenda. So they cite a bunch of "creationist research institutes", like RATE etc. Why do these institites never publish their results in respected journals?
No, samples of known age aren't "always dated wrong". The experiment has been performed thousands of times and it gives accurate results. Of course there are restrictions, and creationists deliberately go outside them to prove it wrong.
-
what does that have to do with this thread?
did you actually have a point to make.
That evolution is the best theory we have however it might turn out to be totally incorrect. FYS paradox throws a bit of a spanner in the works.
Brainlets.
-
That evolution is the best theory we have however it might turn out to be totally incorrect. FYS paradox throws a bit of a spanner in the works.
Brainlets.
How you came to that conclusion is a bit of a mystery. I suspect you don't understand evolution.
Brainlet indeed.
-
The more we discover the more we realise how much more there is to understand.
Wow, you're like sooooooooooo smart.
-
I'll ask again. Do you have anything to support that statement? Because it very much looks like an opinion.
Unfortunately for you it's not an opinion. There's plenty of research available but the Scientific research is no good to you because it's from Scientists who believe in God. According to Darwinians aka Evolutionists, any Scientist who believes in God is not a Scientist although the belief in God is absolutely unrelated to Science. So any source I provide will instantly be dismissed as is the norm on these type of forums. Both parties provide information, both parties dismiss each other on grounds that are unrelated to the problem at hand and like it or not but Atheists have a tendency to dismiss EVERYTHING that opposes their religion. Yes, Christians do the same but they dismiss it on belief/faith, Darwinians dismiss it in the name of Science when it's Science that's debunking the very core of their belief.
That's bullshit. I know respected scientists who believe in god.
Now how about you link us to some of that research that supports your statement? Because so far you are just making claims with nothing to back it. I'm not even saying you're wrong, I'm just asking you to show the evidence you are basing it on.
I provide a link...
Finally, SOMETHING!
But it's from ICR. Totes said it better. They don't give a fuck if it's right, they just want it to fit their agenda.
Dismissed exactly as I predicted a few posts before. That's how Darwinians works. Fantasy and pseudoscience complete deluded into thinking it's actual real science. Anyway, you believe in your religion as Science and I'll stick to Science as Science and religion as religion.
-
You might not be smart, but at least you're entertaining.
Edit: Better read this instead of your icr propaganda: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html
-
I'll ask again. Do you have anything to support that statement? Because it very much looks like an opinion.
Unfortunately for you it's not an opinion. There's plenty of research available but the Scientific research is no good to you because it's from Scientists who believe in God. According to Darwinians aka Evolutionists, any Scientist who believes in God is not a Scientist although the belief in God is absolutely unrelated to Science. So any source I provide will instantly be dismissed as is the norm on these type of forums. Both parties provide information, both parties dismiss each other on grounds that are unrelated to the problem at hand and like it or not but Atheists have a tendency to dismiss EVERYTHING that opposes their religion. Yes, Christians do the same but they dismiss it on belief/faith, Darwinians dismiss it in the name of Science when it's Science that's debunking the very core of their belief.
That's bullshit. I know respected scientists who believe in god.
Now how about you link us to some of that research that supports your statement? Because so far you are just making claims with nothing to back it. I'm not even saying you're wrong, I'm just asking you to show the evidence you are basing it on.
I provide a link...
Finally, SOMETHING!
But it's from ICR. Totes said it better. They don't give a fuck if it's right, they just want it to fit their agenda.
Dismissed exactly as I predicted a few posts before. That's how Darwinians works. Fantasy and pseudoscience complete deluded into thinking it's actual real science. Anyway, you believe in your religion as Science and I'll stick to Science as Science and religion as religion.
Both me and Totes provided reasons why what the link says is wrong, but you ignored that. He pointed out that a research it sites is outdated, I explained to you why what they're claiming about dating samples of known age giving wrong results is nonsense.
Here's a nice link: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/radiometric-dating-of-items-with-a-known-age.610772/
You're the one conflating science and religion. All these creationist institutes are created with the express purpose of proving something wrong because they don't like it. They've already reached their conclusion BEFORE their experiments and use all sorts of dishonest tactics and cherry picking to serve their agenda.
-
They've already reached their conclusion BEFORE their experiments and use all sorts of dishonest tactics and cherry picking to serve their agenda.
I've always said Atheists are rampant liars and always attributing their own lies to the opposition. The above is a perfect example. This is EXACTLY what evolutionists do with radiometric dating. Tests based on predefined results using assumptions as the calculating factor. BILLIONS of years lol
-
I'll ask again. Do you have anything to support that statement? Because it very much looks like an opinion.
Unfortunately for you it's not an opinion. There's plenty of research available but the Scientific research is no good to you because it's from Scientists who believe in God. According to Darwinians aka Evolutionists, any Scientist who believes in God is not a Scientist although the belief in God is absolutely unrelated to Science. So any source I provide will instantly be dismissed as is the norm on these type of forums. Both parties provide information, both parties dismiss each other on grounds that are unrelated to the problem at hand and like it or not but Atheists have a tendency to dismiss EVERYTHING that opposes their religion. Yes, Christians do the same but they dismiss it on belief/faith, Darwinians dismiss it in the name of Science when it's Science that's debunking the very core of their belief.
That's bullshit. I know respected scientists who believe in god.
Now how about you link us to some of that research that supports your statement? Because so far you are just making claims with nothing to back it. I'm not even saying you're wrong, I'm just asking you to show the evidence you are basing it on.
I provide a link...
Finally, SOMETHING!
But it's from ICR. Totes said it better. They don't give a fuck if it's right, they just want it to fit their agenda.
Dismissed exactly as I predicted a few posts before. That's how Darwinians works. Fantasy and pseudoscience complete deluded into thinking it's actual real science. Anyway, you believe in your religion as Science and I'll stick to Science as Science and religion as religion.
You provided a link to someone making a lot of claims. Where are the peer reviewed studies to support it?
-
They've already reached their conclusion BEFORE their experiments and use all sorts of dishonest tactics and cherry picking to serve their agenda.
I've always said Atheists are rampant liars and always attributing their own lies to the opposition. The above is a perfect example. This is EXACTLY what evolutionists do with radiometric dating. Tests based on predefined results using assumptions as the calculating factor. BILLIONS of years lol
Do you have the ability to read? If yes, there were links provided for you, to enlighten your stupidity.
If you have already read those links, you might have some reading-comprehension issues. Which sucks, but hey, it could be worse!
-
They've already reached their conclusion BEFORE their experiments and use all sorts of dishonest tactics and cherry picking to serve their agenda.
I've always said Atheists are rampant liars and always attributing their own lies to the opposition. The above is a perfect example. This is EXACTLY what evolutionists do with radiometric dating. Tests based on predefined results using assumptions as the calculating factor. BILLIONS of years lol
You haven't provided an example, you gave us a link full of inane ramblings. Just pick a piece of rambling you like and present it to us. For example you may want to explain to us how the rate of radioactive decay changes over time, or why dating samples of known age gives the correct date, even though radiometric dating is wrong. Give us something, all you ever say is "ITS INAKOORATE SAIENS, IS BEYSD ON ASSAMPSIONS, ATHIESTS ARE LAING!".
Oh btw, many scientists are religious, so give up that shtick.
-
Finally, SOMETHING!
But it's from ICR. Totes said it better. They don't give a fuck if it's right, they just want it to fit their agenda.
Dismissed exactly as I predicted a few posts before. That's how Darwinians works. Fantasy and pseudoscience complete deluded into thinking it's actual real science. Anyway, you believe in your religion as Science and I'll stick to Science as Science and religion as religion.
Why do you think ICR ignored the follow-up studies that contradicted the point they were trying to make? Why do you think they still rely on a source that has been shown to be wrong?
-
Finally, SOMETHING!
But it's from ICR. Totes said it better. They don't give a fuck if it's right, they just want it to fit their agenda.
Dismissed exactly as I predicted a few posts before. That's how Darwinians works. Fantasy and pseudoscience complete deluded into thinking it's actual real science. Anyway, you believe in your religion as Science and I'll stick to Science as Science and religion as religion.
Why do you think ICR ignored the follow-up studies that contradicted the point they were trying to make? Why do you think they still rely on a source that has been shown to be wrong?
Simple, they didn't.
That's just the evolutionists method of dismissing research and Scientific facts to prolong their dying Darwinian religion. No matter how many verified Scientific facts are thrown at you, it'll be flogged back with pseudoscience.
-
Why do you think ICR ignored the follow-up studies that contradicted the point they were trying to make? Why do you think they still rely on a source that has been shown to be wrong?
Simple, they didn't.
Are you denying that the follow up studies exist? If so, I would like to direct your attention to my previous post where I linked to an article describing them.
Or are you denying that ICR didn't ignore them? If so, feel free to cite where ICR addressed the follow up studies.
That's just the evolutionists method of dismissing research and Scientific facts to prolong their dying Darwinian religion. No matter how many verified Scientific facts are thrown at you, it'll be flogged back with pseudoscience.
Poe's law is a doozy.
-
Finally, SOMETHING!
But it's from ICR. Totes said it better. They don't give a fuck if it's right, they just want it to fit their agenda.
Dismissed exactly as I predicted a few posts before. That's how Darwinians works. Fantasy and pseudoscience complete deluded into thinking it's actual real science. Anyway, you believe in your religion as Science and I'll stick to Science as Science and religion as religion.
Why do you think ICR ignored the follow-up studies that contradicted the point they were trying to make? Why do you think they still rely on a source that has been shown to be wrong?
Simple, they didn't.
That's just the evolutionists method of dismissing research and Scientific facts to prolong their dying Darwinian religion. No matter how many verified Scientific facts are thrown at you, it'll be flogged back with pseudoscience.
Oh this is amazing. If a mainstream study approves what you're saying, it's perfectly acceptable. If it disagrees with you, it's pseudoscience. Way to go.
-
Finally, SOMETHING!
But it's from ICR. Totes said it better. They don't give a fuck if it's right, they just want it to fit their agenda.
Dismissed exactly as I predicted a few posts before. That's how Darwinians works. Fantasy and pseudoscience complete deluded into thinking it's actual real science. Anyway, you believe in your religion as Science and I'll stick to Science as Science and religion as religion.
Why do you think ICR ignored the follow-up studies that contradicted the point they were trying to make? Why do you think they still rely on a source that has been shown to be wrong?
Simple, they didn't.
That's just the evolutionists method of dismissing research and Scientific facts to prolong their dying Darwinian religion. No matter how many verified Scientific facts are thrown at you, it'll be flogged back with pseudoscience.
Oh this is amazing. If a mainstream study approves what you're saying, it's perfectly acceptable. If it disagrees with you, it's pseudoscience. Way to go.
If actual Science disproves the evolution religion in any way, it's dismissed as "unqualified", "religious", "outdated" (even though it's not)... "rambling" "peer reviews" (lol @ expecting atheists to review it)... there's no limits to the dumb excuses given by Darwinians to dismiss facts with pseudoscience. The above was the perfect example earlier. You asked for source, I gave one and it was dismissed with "rambing", "follow-up studies" etc. Nothing from the link itself was actually answered, just baseless claims and dismissals. Yes very forward thinking (pseudo)scientific of you
-
Finally, SOMETHING!
But it's from ICR. Totes said it better. They don't give a fuck if it's right, they just want it to fit their agenda.
Dismissed exactly as I predicted a few posts before. That's how Darwinians works. Fantasy and pseudoscience complete deluded into thinking it's actual real science. Anyway, you believe in your religion as Science and I'll stick to Science as Science and religion as religion.
Why do you think ICR ignored the follow-up studies that contradicted the point they were trying to make? Why do you think they still rely on a source that has been shown to be wrong?
Simple, they didn't.
That's just the evolutionists method of dismissing research and Scientific facts to prolong their dying Darwinian religion. No matter how many verified Scientific facts are thrown at you, it'll be flogged back with pseudoscience.
Oh this is amazing. If a mainstream study approves what you're saying, it's perfectly acceptable. If it disagrees with you, it's pseudoscience. Way to go.
If actual Science disproves the evolution religion in any way, it's dismissed as "unqualified", "religious", "outdated" (even though it's not)... "rambling" "peer reviews" (lol @ expecting atheists to review it)... there's no limits to the dumb excuses given by Darwinians to dismiss facts with pseudoscience. The above was the perfect example earlier. You asked for source, I gave one and it was dismissed with "rambing", "follow-up studies" etc. Nothing from the link itself was actually answered, just baseless claims and dismissals. Yes very forward thinking (pseudo)scientific of you
Stop ignoring everything. Just copy something you like from the link and tell us. You obviously can't expect us to answer EVERYTHING from your link at once, there's pages of stuff there. Pick a point you like.
Totes showed you that the research it cites was later found to be incorrect. Why did you accept the first result, but you did not accept the follow up checks? Same big bad atheist scientists. It's clear that it was because you're biased.
Oh, and for the last time, there are many, many, MANY religious scientists. Not every christian is a nut like you.
-
radiometric dating
Why are creationists so obsessed with carbon dating. It is something archeologists use. in paleontology it would be mostly useless. Does he think they try to carbon date fossils?
-
radiometric dating
Why are creationists so obsessed with carbon dating. It is something archeologists use. in paleontology it would be mostly useless. Does he think they try to carbon date fossils?
Radiometric dating also refers to K-Ar dating etc., which are very frequently used to date fossils. They conveniently ignore that other dating methods give the same results. Also carbon dating gives dates greater than 6000 years, and young earth creationists are pretty convinced that it's how old the earth is.
-
radiometric dating
Why are creationists so obsessed with carbon dating. It is something archeologists use. in paleontology it would be mostly useless. Does he think they try to carbon date fossils?
It's the same as Flat Earthers needing to dismiss all space travel, and especially photos from space, it's their achilles heel. Admit that and their argument is lost.
So likewise, the "Young Earth Creationists" can't admit to an earth that's 4 billion years old, because it make evolution possible. 6000 years is the bible literalist position. It's not just radioactive decay half life that get their motors running, it's also tectonic plate movements, mid atlantic ridge spreading, the Hawaii hot spot cell movement and on and on it goes.
So they invest considerable resources into trying to find something wrong with carbon dating in particular, since it covers their time range. And yes they are in fact trying to carbon date fossils. The OP in this thread was on about carbon dating soft tissue in 65 million year old triceratops bones.
If they admit that carbon dating works, then their world view starts to collapse.
-
radiometric dating
Why are creationists so obsessed with carbon dating. It is something archeologists use. in paleontology it would be mostly useless. Does he think they try to carbon date fossils?
It's the same as Flat Earthers needing to dismiss all space travel, and especially photos from space, it's their achilles heel. Admit that and their argument is lost.
So likewise, the "Young Earth Creationists" can't admit to an earth that's 4 billion years old, because it make evolution possible. 6000 years is the bible literalist position. It's not just radioactive decay half life that get their motors running, it's also tectonic plate movements, mid atlantic ridge spreading, the Hawaii hot spot cell movement and on and on it goes.
So they invest considerable resources into trying to find something wrong with carbon dating in particular, since it covers their time range. And yes they are in fact trying to carbon date fossils. The OP in this thread was on about carbon dating soft tissue in 65 million year old triceratops bones.
If they admit that carbon dating works, then their world view starts to collapse.
??? There is no 65 million year old soft tissue. There are not even 65 million year old bones. And why should a sane person try to carbon date a fossil? ???
-
radiometric dating
Why are creationists so obsessed with carbon dating. It is something archeologists use. in paleontology it would be mostly useless. Does he think they try to carbon date fossils?
It's the same as Flat Earthers needing to dismiss all space travel, and especially photos from space, it's their achilles heel. Admit that and their argument is lost.
So likewise, the "Young Earth Creationists" can't admit to an earth that's 4 billion years old, because it make evolution possible. 6000 years is the bible literalist position. It's not just radioactive decay half life that get their motors running, it's also tectonic plate movements, mid atlantic ridge spreading, the Hawaii hot spot cell movement and on and on it goes.
So they invest considerable resources into trying to find something wrong with carbon dating in particular, since it covers their time range. And yes they are in fact trying to carbon date fossils. The OP in this thread was on about carbon dating soft tissue in 65 million year old triceratops bones.
If they admit that carbon dating works, then their world view starts to collapse.
??? There is no 65 million year old soft tissue. There are not even 65 million year old bones. And why should a sane person try to carbon date a fossil? ???
Surprisingly enough there is http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur-shocker-115306469/
Explained here https://www.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html
That's what's got the YEC's knickers in a twist about carbon dating fossils.
Here is the abstract from one of Schweitzer's papers http://science.sciencemag.org/content/307/5717/1952
Abstract
Soft tissues are preserved within hindlimb elements of Tyrannosaurus rex (Museum of the Rockies specimen 1125). Removal of the mineral phase reveals transparent, flexible, hollow blood vessels containing small round microstructures that can be expressed from the vessels into solution. Some regions of the demineralized bone matrix are highly fibrous, and the matrix possesses elasticity and resilience. Three populations of microstructures have cell-like morphology. Thus, some dinosaurian soft tissues may retain some of their original flexibility, elasticity, and resilience.
-
radiometric dating
Why are creationists so obsessed with carbon dating. It is something archeologists use. in paleontology it would be mostly useless. Does he think they try to carbon date fossils?
It's the same as Flat Earthers needing to dismiss all space travel, and especially photos from space, it's their achilles heel. Admit that and their argument is lost.
So likewise, the "Young Earth Creationists" can't admit to an earth that's 4 billion years old, because it make evolution possible. 6000 years is the bible literalist position. It's not just radioactive decay half life that get their motors running, it's also tectonic plate movements, mid atlantic ridge spreading, the Hawaii hot spot cell movement and on and on it goes.
So they invest considerable resources into trying to find something wrong with carbon dating in particular, since it covers their time range. And yes they are in fact trying to carbon date fossils. The OP in this thread was on about carbon dating soft tissue in 65 million year old triceratops bones.
If they admit that carbon dating works, then their world view starts to collapse.
??? There is no 65 million year old soft tissue. There are not even 65 million year old bones. And why should a sane person try to carbon date a fossil? ???
Surprisingly enough there is http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur-shocker-115306469/
Explained here https://www.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html
That's what's got the YEC's knickers in a twist about carbon dating fossils.
Here is the abstract from one of Schweitzer's papers http://science.sciencemag.org/content/307/5717/1952
Abstract
Soft tissues are preserved within hindlimb elements of Tyrannosaurus rex (Museum of the Rockies specimen 1125). Removal of the mineral phase reveals transparent, flexible, hollow blood vessels containing small round microstructures that can be expressed from the vessels into solution. Some regions of the demineralized bone matrix are highly fibrous, and the matrix possesses elasticity and resilience. Three populations of microstructures have cell-like morphology. Thus, some dinosaurian soft tissues may retain some of their original flexibility, elasticity, and resilience.
Wow. The Bible must be right then.
-
radiometric dating
Why are creationists so obsessed with carbon dating. It is something archeologists use. in paleontology it would be mostly useless. Does he think they try to carbon date fossils?
It's the same as Flat Earthers needing to dismiss all space travel, and especially photos from space, it's their achilles heel. Admit that and their argument is lost.
So likewise, the "Young Earth Creationists" can't admit to an earth that's 4 billion years old, because it make evolution possible. 6000 years is the bible literalist position. It's not just radioactive decay half life that get their motors running, it's also tectonic plate movements, mid atlantic ridge spreading, the Hawaii hot spot cell movement and on and on it goes.
So they invest considerable resources into trying to find something wrong with carbon dating in particular, since it covers their time range. And yes they are in fact trying to carbon date fossils. The OP in this thread was on about carbon dating soft tissue in 65 million year old triceratops bones.
If they admit that carbon dating works, then their world view starts to collapse.
??? There is no 65 million year old soft tissue. There are not even 65 million year old bones. And why should a sane person try to carbon date a fossil? ???
Surprisingly enough there is http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur-shocker-115306469/
Explained here https://www.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html
That's what's got the YEC's knickers in a twist about carbon dating fossils.
Here is the abstract from one of Schweitzer's papers http://science.sciencemag.org/content/307/5717/1952
Abstract
Soft tissues are preserved within hindlimb elements of Tyrannosaurus rex (Museum of the Rockies specimen 1125). Removal of the mineral phase reveals transparent, flexible, hollow blood vessels containing small round microstructures that can be expressed from the vessels into solution. Some regions of the demineralized bone matrix are highly fibrous, and the matrix possesses elasticity and resilience. Three populations of microstructures have cell-like morphology. Thus, some dinosaurian soft tissues may retain some of their original flexibility, elasticity, and resilience.
Wow. The Bible must be right then.
LOL. The YEC's would like to think so. Pity about the facts.
-
Totes showed you that the research it cites was later found to be incorrect. Why did you accept the first result, but you did not accept the follow up checks?
No he didn't. He provided this link: https://phys.org/news/2014-10-textbook-knowledge-reconfirmed-radioactive-substances.html which does NOT answer the link I provided. The link he provided is even refuted on the very same page lol. Besides, that does NOT change the outcome and conclusion of the article. Dating methods are still based on ASSUMPTIONS. That's never changed. It's always been that way and cannot be proven until there's 5000+ years of records. Until then, it's ASSUMPTIONS. Get over it already.
Oh, and for the last time, there are many, many, MANY religious scientists. Not every christian is a nut like you.
Once again, this is an evolutionists only defense. When there's no answer, instantly attack "Chritianity" "God" "Faith" - that's great Scientific rebuttal you guys have in your arsenal. I've made many posts here, find me a single post where I quote or mention the bible in opposition to Science or to prove any point. Go on. You'll probably say you don't have time for this which is complete bull because you're on an online forum of Flat Earthers, time is the only thing you have if you're here. But you won't check as you won't find it because religion cannot disprove the stupidity of Evolution. Only science can prove how ridiculous evolution really is and how it's ALL based on faith. The evolution religion is weak and surviving due to being funded by taxes. These are all facts that hurt you no doubt but I won't apologise for your beliefs.
-
Kinda thought science had to be observable & repeatable....
Evolution is neither.
Therefore it ain't science.
We done here yet?
-
I agree with this ^^
That is two things papa and I have agreed about on this site
-
Kinda thought science had to be observable & repeatable....
Evolution is neither.
Therefore it ain't science.
We done here yet?
So you never heard of DNA?
-
I agree with this ^^
That is two things papa and I have agreed about on this site
We've been over this before. Every time someone gives you an example of evolution that has been observed, even speciation, you complain that it's not a T-Rex turning into a chicken. The issue is not with the theory, it is that you ask for impossible stuff to demonstrate. You're being like Heiwa, who wants you to blow a hydrogen bomb in his face to believe you.
Oh btw, I guess archeology isn't a science either by your definition. Interesting.
-
Totes showed you that the research it cites was later found to be incorrect. Why did you accept the first result, but you did not accept the follow up checks?
No he didn't. He provided this link: https://phys.org/news/2014-10-textbook-knowledge-reconfirmed-radioactive-substances.html which does NOT answer the link I provided. The link he provided is even refuted on the very same page lol. Besides, that does NOT change the outcome and conclusion of the article. Dating methods are still based on ASSUMPTIONS. That's never changed. It's always been that way and cannot be proven until there's 5000+ years of records. Until then, it's ASSUMPTIONS. Get over it already.
Oh, and for the last time, there are many, many, MANY religious scientists. Not every christian is a nut like you.
Once again, this is an evolutionists only defense. When there's no answer, instantly attack "Chritianity" "God" "Faith" - that's great Scientific rebuttal you guys have in your arsenal. I've made many posts here, find me a single post where I quote or mention the bible in opposition to Science or to prove any point. Go on. You'll probably say you don't have time for this which is complete bull because you're on an online forum of Flat Earthers, time is the only thing you have if you're here. But you won't check as you won't find it because religion cannot disprove the stupidity of Evolution. Only science can prove how ridiculous evolution really is and how it's ALL based on faith. The evolution religion is weak and surviving due to being funded by taxes. These are all facts that hurt you no doubt but I won't apologise for your beliefs.
Blah blah blah... I didn't even attack christianity, I just said you're a fucking nut.
Oh, and no, I don't have the time or will to refute the entirety of your shitty link, I'm on a phone a lot of the time and there's tons of stuff in your link, I'd have to write a book. Do you want me to start dropping links to you refuting creationist arguments and proving evolution? That would be really easy and you would never be able to address all of that.
For the last time, is it really that hard for you to pick SOMETHING from your link to debate?
Where is what Totes provided even refuted in your link? Why is it so hard for you to copy and paste the interesting part?
-
Like I said, evolution is neither observable nor repeatable & therefore it is not science...
Deaf Dick has a lot of difficulty with science though - he thinks the Universe is Flat you know!
-
Like I said, evolution is neither observable nor repeatable & therefore it is not science...
Deaf Dick has a lot of difficulty with science though - he thinks the Universe is Flat you know!
You forgot to misquote me.
-
Like I said, evolution is neither observable nor repeatable & therefore it is not science...
Deaf Dick has a lot of difficulty with science though - he thinks the Universe is Flat you know!
You forgot to misquote me.
No need to...
You're doing a mighty fine job of making yourself look stupid already.
You always do.
Evolution is unobservable, unrepeatable & therefore unscientific.
Unless you own a time machine, perhaps?
Do you own a time machine, Deaf Dick?
You know, like Doctor Who's TARDIS?
Of course, in your case it would be a RE-TARDIS, would it not?
Lol.
-
I'm doing a mighty fine job of making myself look stupid already.
I always do.
But I feel like I have to make my stupidity even more obvious, so I'm gonna make an unoriginal, childish, unfunny and worn out RE-TARDIS joke.
Lol.
You shouldn't have gone through all that effort. It's obvious enough, I believe you.
Toodle-fucking-pip dimwit.
-
I'm doing a mighty fine job of making myself look stupid already.
I always do.
But I feel like I have to make my stupidity even more obvious, so I'm gonna make an unoriginal, childish, unfunny and worn out RE-TARDIS joke.
Lol.
You shouldn't have gone through all that effort. It's obvious enough, I believe you.
Toodle-fucking-pip dimwit.
Your chimp-out in defense of your unscientific religion of evolution is noted, as is your autism & terminal butthurt.
I will leave you to enjoy your Nihilism & perma-virgin status in peace...
-
I'm doing a mighty fine job of making myself look stupid already.
I always do.
But I feel like I have to make my stupidity even more obvious, so I'm gonna make an unoriginal, childish, unfunny and worn out RE-TARDIS joke.
Lol.
You shouldn't have gone through all that effort. It's obvious enough, I believe you.
Toodle-fucking-pip dimwit.
Your chimp-out in defense of your unscientific religion of evolution is noted, as is your autism & terminal butthurt.
I will leave you to enjoy your Nihilism & perma-virgin status in peace...
Υou mean, you don't want me to give you attention? Hmmm I don't really believe that ::)
-
I'm doing a mighty fine job of making myself look stupid already.
I always do.
But I feel like I have to make my stupidity even more obvious, so I'm gonna make an unoriginal, childish, unfunny and worn out RE-TARDIS joke.
Lol.
You shouldn't have gone through all that effort. It's obvious enough, I believe you.
Toodle-fucking-pip dimwit.
Your chimp-out in defense of your unscientific religion of evolution is noted, as is your autism & terminal butthurt.
I will leave you to enjoy your Nihilism & perma-virgin status in peace...
Υou mean, you don't want me to give you attention? Hmmm I don't really believe that ::)
I'd rather you gave me observable & repeatable evidence for your unscientific & nihilistic religion of evolution...
But we all know you will never do that, so I'm just gonna laugh at you.
This happens to you every single time, Deaf Dick; are you actually DE-volving or what?
-
I'm doing a mighty fine job of making myself look stupid already.
I always do.
But I feel like I have to make my stupidity even more obvious, so I'm gonna make an unoriginal, childish, unfunny and worn out RE-TARDIS joke.
Lol.
You shouldn't have gone through all that effort. It's obvious enough, I believe you.
Toodle-fucking-pip dimwit.
Your chimp-out in defense of your unscientific religion of evolution is noted, as is your autism & terminal butthurt.
I will leave you to enjoy your Nihilism & perma-virgin status in peace...
Υou mean, you don't want me to give you attention? Hmmm I don't really believe that ::)
I'd rather you gave me observable & repeatable evidence for your unscientific & nihilistic religion of evolution...
But we all know you will never do that, so I'm just gonna laugh at you.
This happens to you every single time, Deaf Dick; are you actually DE-volving or what?
https://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Douglas-J-Futuyma/dp/1605356050/ref=pd_sbs_14_3?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=1605356050&pd_rd_r=6S0R8QHKWCPABQSBB2BW&pd_rd_w=kk24S&pd_rd_wg=9Q56v&psc=1&refRID=6S0R8QHKWCPABQSBB2BW
There, it has lots of evidence and explanations inside it. It is very complete and only costs 110$ new. Satisfied? ::) ::) ::)
-
I'm doing a mighty fine job of making myself look stupid already.
I always do.
But I feel like I have to make my stupidity even more obvious, so I'm gonna make an unoriginal, childish, unfunny and worn out RE-TARDIS joke.
Lol.
You shouldn't have gone through all that effort. It's obvious enough, I believe you.
Toodle-fucking-pip dimwit.
Your chimp-out in defense of your unscientific religion of evolution is noted, as is your autism & terminal butthurt.
I will leave you to enjoy your Nihilism & perma-virgin status in peace...
Υou mean, you don't want me to give you attention? Hmmm I don't really believe that ::)
I'd rather you gave me observable & repeatable evidence for your unscientific & nihilistic religion of evolution...
But we all know you will never do that, so I'm just gonna laugh at you.
This happens to you every single time, Deaf Dick; are you actually DE-volving or what?
https://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Douglas-J-Futuyma/dp/1605356050/ref=pd_sbs_14_3?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=1605356050&pd_rd_r=6S0R8QHKWCPABQSBB2BW&pd_rd_w=kk24S&pd_rd_wg=9Q56v&psc=1&refRID=6S0R8QHKWCPABQSBB2BW
There, it has lots of evidence and explanations inside it. It is very complete and only costs 110$ new. Satisfied? ::) ::) ::)
So I have to spend $110 to find out you have no observable & repeatable evidence for your unscientific religion of evolutionarianism?
Wow - you really are a conman aintcha, Deaf Dick?
Oh, wait, we already knew that didn't we?
Thing is, did you start out in life as a lying scumbag conman, or did you evolvulate into one?
-
I'm doing a mighty fine job of making myself look stupid already.
I always do.
But I feel like I have to make my stupidity even more obvious, so I'm gonna make an unoriginal, childish, unfunny and worn out RE-TARDIS joke.
Lol.
You shouldn't have gone through all that effort. It's obvious enough, I believe you.
Toodle-fucking-pip dimwit.
Your chimp-out in defense of your unscientific religion of evolution is noted, as is your autism & terminal butthurt.
I will leave you to enjoy your Nihilism & perma-virgin status in peace...
Υou mean, you don't want me to give you attention? Hmmm I don't really believe that ::)
I'd rather you gave me observable & repeatable evidence for your unscientific & nihilistic religion of evolution...
But we all know you will never do that, so I'm just gonna laugh at you.
This happens to you every single time, Deaf Dick; are you actually DE-volving or what?
https://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Douglas-J-Futuyma/dp/1605356050/ref=pd_sbs_14_3?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=1605356050&pd_rd_r=6S0R8QHKWCPABQSBB2BW&pd_rd_w=kk24S&pd_rd_wg=9Q56v&psc=1&refRID=6S0R8QHKWCPABQSBB2BW
There, it has lots of evidence and explanations inside it. It is very complete and only costs 110$ new. Satisfied? ::) ::) ::)
So I have to spend $110 to find out you have no observable & repeatable evidence for your unscientific religion of evolutionarianism?
Wow - you really are a conman aintcha, Deaf Dick?
Oh, wait, we already knew that didn't we?
Thing is, did you start out in life as a lying scumbag conman, or did you evolvulate into one?
Now you're getting back to form, I'm glad!
You don't have to spend 110$, you can get it used for 45$ ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
-
Lol only $45 to find out you have no observable & repeatable evidence for your unscientific & nihilistic religion of evolvulationarianism now?
What a conman!
BTW, you probably didn't evolvulate into a lying scumbag charlatan....
No, it's more likely just an adaptation to compensate for your massive autism, ignorance, fundamental dishonesty & lack of personal hygiene/morality.
Oh & BTW your last two posts just proved you are a shill to anyone with discernment...
Good work, retard!
-
Lol only $45 to find out you have no observable & repeatable evidence for your unscientific & nihilistic religion of evolvulationarianism now?
What a conman!
BTW, you probably didn't evolvulate into a lying scumbag charlatan....
No, it's more likely just an adaptation to compensate for your massive autism, ignorance, fundamental dishonesty & lack of personal hygiene/morality.
Oh & BTW your last two posts just proved you are a shill to anyone with discernment...
Good work, retard!
You don't have to pay 45$ either if you're that much of a cheapo, you can pirate it for free: www.b-ok.org
Learn how to internet ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
-
So you were trying to get me to spend $110 on something you knew I could get for free all along?
Conman confirmed.
Are we done yet you mental motherfucker?
-
So you were trying to get me to spend $110 on something you knew I could get for free all along?
Conman confirmed.
Are we done yet you mental motherfucker?
Well I thought you'd want to take the legal route, of course you could pirate it for free ::) ::) ::) This is the internet ::) ::) ::)
-
Thanks for confirming you are yet another of markjos 39,000 sockpuppets.
What a fucking loser!
::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
-
Thanks for confirming you are yet another of markjos 39,000 sockpuppets.
What a fucking loser!
::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
Well I gave you a way to get a 110$ book for free, and this is how you thank me for that? What an ungrateful asshole... But of course you won't get it, anything above 100 words is TL;DR for you
::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
-
Thanks for confirming you are yet another of markjos 39,000 sockpuppets.
What a fucking loser!
::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
Well I gave you a way to get a 110$ book for free, and this is how you thank me for that? What an ungrateful asshole... But of course you won't get it, anything above 100 words is TL;DR for you
::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
STFU markjo.
Come out from behind the sockpuppet & face the music for your catastrophic Newton-fail...
Be a man for once in your shitty miserable existence eh?
Just for once.
LOL!!!
As if...
You are, above all things markjo, a rotten coward to the core.
That's the one thing about you of which I am absolutely certain.
Toodle-pip, Coward!
-
Random question to the anti evolutionists:
What do you think about m. plantaris and m.palmaris?
-
I agree with this ^^
That is two things papa and I have agreed about on this site
We've been over this before. Every time someone gives you an example of evolution that has been observed, even speciation, you complain that it's not a T-Rex turning into a chicken. The issue is not with the theory, it is that you ask for impossible stuff to demonstrate. You're being like Heiwa, who wants you to blow a hydrogen bomb in his face to believe you.
Oh btw, I guess archeology isn't a science either by your definition. Interesting.
Nope...nice deflection though.
I simply want one repeatable test I can perform in a controlled setting that will show me macro evolution...if it is part of science and can be considered a "fact" then this will be easy correct?
Otherwise we are simply a religion or belief....
-
I simply want one repeatable test I can perform in a controlled setting that will show me macro evolution...if it is part of science and can be considered a "fact" then this will be easy correct?
Yeah, it's no big deal to perform that experiment. You just have to life for a few thousands or millions of years :)
-
I simply want one repeatable test I can perform in a controlled setting that will show me macro evolution...if it is part of science and can be considered a "fact" then this will be easy correct?
Yeah, it's no big deal to perform that experiment. You just have to life for a few thousands or millions of years :)
Or you can study how bacteria evolve immunity to anti-bacterial drugs.
-
Or you can study how bacteria evolve immunity to anti-bacterial drugs.
I said macro not micro or adaption. Any farmer with limited education and recourses could tell me the same thing.
Yeah, it's no big deal to perform that experiment. You just have to life for a few thousands or millions of years :)
Translation...it's a belief
-
@BHS:
No, it means you don't understand the concept of macro evolution.
But that's no big deal, as an engineer you don't have to know that stuff.
Anyway
What do you think about m. plantaris and m.palmaris?
-
I agree with this ^^
That is two things papa and I have agreed about on this site
We've been over this before. Every time someone gives you an example of evolution that has been observed, even speciation, you complain that it's not a T-Rex turning into a chicken. The issue is not with the theory, it is that you ask for impossible stuff to demonstrate. You're being like Heiwa, who wants you to blow a hydrogen bomb in his face to believe you.
Oh btw, I guess archeology isn't a science either by your definition. Interesting.
Nope...nice deflection though.
I simply want one repeatable test I can perform in a controlled setting that will show me macro evolution...if it is part of science and can be considered a "fact" then this will be easy correct?
Otherwise we are simply a religion or belief....
Oh ok. So we call archeology a religion, or a belief. That's good to know.
If I apply a force of 10 quadrillion newtons to an object with a mass of 1 quadrillion kilos, do you feel confident enough that it will accelerate at 10m/s? Or are you going to say it's "macro physics" and Newton's laws don't apply, and that it's a religion because you can't actually demonstrate it?
Similarly, the genetic mechanisms that guide evolution are well understood, but because you can't turn a T-Rex to a chicken in a laboratory environment they will find something to whine about. People will give you examples of speciation but you'll say "they're still rats" or "they're still bacteria" or "they're still moths". Just admit that even if I showed you a rat evolving to a mouse, you'd still complain that it's "still a rodent".
"Macroevolution" is just the same things that cause "microevolution", but applied over a very long span of time.
This is a good link:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
Especially the drosophila flies, which have been part of lab experiments.
I also remember reading about some italian lizzards that have grown an extra intestine muscle in the span of a few decades. I don't think they have speciated yet though.
-
Translation...it's a belief
Nope, it's a mathematical and logical certainty, if you don't survive you don't get to breed. Not that hard to understand.
Populations are dominated by those with the ability to reproduce. Logic dictates it thus.
-
Especially the drosophila flies, which have been part of lab experiments.
Can confirm, those are pretty cool.
-
Observeable and repeatable:
And don't give me any of that micro/macro nonsense. It's the same thing.
-
Observeable and repeatable:
And don't give me any of that micro/macro nonsense. It's the same thing.
LOL
This is the "observable" proof that one "species" changed into another??? So tell me, what did the bacteria become after it evolved in this experiment? Please enlighten us.
NO ONE denies adaptation or natural selection. It's laughable how simple science is labelled with "Evolution" to give this religion some credibility.
-
Observeable and repeatable:
And don't give me any of that micro/macro nonsense. It's the same thing.
LOL
This is the "observable" proof that one "species" changed into another??? So tell me, what did the bacteria become after it evolved in this experiment? Please enlighten us.
NO ONE denies adaptation or natural selection. It's laughable how simple science is labelled with "Evolution" to give this religion some credibility.
But that is evolution.
-
Observeable and repeatable:
And don't give me any of that micro/macro nonsense. It's the same thing.
I'm not very much into bacteria. But I think thise isn't really evolution, it's at best "part wise evolution". I'm not 100% sure but I think the gen for antibiotica resistence is already in a plasmide, but only the bacteria with those plasmide will survive and thus multiply.
When we talk about evolution, we generally mean a change of DNA; whereas for antibiotica resistane the bacterial chromosome is not changed.
-
Observeable and repeatable:
And don't give me any of that micro/macro nonsense. It's the same thing.
I'm not very much into bacteria. But I think thise isn't really evolution, it's at best "part wise evolution". I'm not 100% sure but I think the gen for antibiotica resistence is already in a plasmide, but only the bacteria with those plasmide will survive and thus multiply.
When we talk about evolution, we generally mean a change of DNA; whereas for antibiotica resistane the bacterial chromosome is not changed.
It can be from the plasmids or from bacterial DNA mutations. I'm not sure which is happening in the video. On mobile, so can't look it up right now. I'm sure you all can figure it out ;).
There are also examples of speciation in lizards and flies.
-
No he didn't. He provided this link: https://phys.org/news/2014-10-textbook-knowledge-reconfirmed-radioactive-substances.html which does NOT answer the link I provided. The link he provided is even refuted on the very same page lol.
Bull crap. Feel free to quote the exact place where it refutes itself.
-
Observeable and repeatable:
And don't give me any of that micro/macro nonsense. It's the same thing.
LOL
This is the "observable" proof that one "species" changed into another??? So tell me, what did the bacteria become after it evolved in this experiment? Please enlighten us.
NO ONE denies adaptation or natural selection. It's laughable how simple science is labelled with "Evolution" to give this religion some credibility.
"Bacteria" is not a species. It's a domain, that is extremely large and contains . An example of things that belong in the same domain (eukaryota): a human, an amoeba, a frog, a mushroom and a sequoia.
I'm not sure if speciation has occurred in this video, but I have given links where speciation has occurred, and in animals, not just bacteria.
Evolution is just adaptation, but over a long span of time. The lizard grows an extra gut muscle in the first 50 years, then after 100 years it grows a new lung muscle then after 150 years it grows another asshole and this continues until it can't interbreed with its ancestors and becomes its own thing.
-
Evolution is fact. It is only called theory in the sense that anything we know could not be true, however it is a true scientific theory as it is open to question and yet has not been disproved. I am willing to answer any questions you have on this topic.
Cool. Been awhile since I've been in one of these. If evolution is true, then how come we find fossils that supposedly evolved later from another animal below the actual animal it supposedly evolved from in the geologic column.
Are you trolling or just dumb?
Well, gun as profile pic; so you're most likely 'murican and thus the second assumption is probably correct.
So rather than debate you lower yourself to insults. Nice.
Comparing it to your level, insults appear to be rather sophisticated.
Again with the insults.
Anyway, did you even read the article you've posted?
What's wrong with it?
Also, noone said the current model of evolution has to be 100% accurate.
Neither am I'm claiming such. However there comes a point where a mistake as big as this calls into question the validity of current methods to substantiate evolution.
New research that gives newer (better) results might lead to small adaptions within the model. That's how science works.
Sure.
So, what do you believe in? Are you a creationist?
Yes in fact.
And, since your from the land of freedom: are there actually schools that do not teach evolution? Are really that many people not believing in evolution?
Yes there are schools and this discussion is rather prominent here in the US.
-
Evolution is fact. It is only called theory in the sense that anything we know could not be true, however it is a true scientific theory as it is open to question and yet has not been disproved. I am willing to answer any questions you have on this topic.
Cool. Been awhile since I've been in one of these. If evolution is true, then how come we find fossils that supposedly evolved later from another animal below the actual animal it supposedly evolved from in the geologic column.
An example would be nice.
They found a human fossil in the KBS tuff which was originally dated far older than what the theory stated humans came into being.
https://answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/the-pigs-took-it-all/
https://answersingenesis.org/human-evolution/cavemen/stone-axes-push-anthropological-view-humans-back-time/
That's not what I see at all in these links.
In the first link it is stated that the date was found to be incorrect and later corrected. How the date was found to be incorrect is not stated, it is AiG's own interpretation that it was because it didn't fit the evolutionary model, so it really isn't evidence of anything. It's just that AiG is a dusgusting cesspool of misinformation and fallacies that have been debunked multiple times that is hell bent on twisting everything to fit its agenda.
Ok, then how about this?
http://www.icr.org/article/richard-leakeys-skull-1470/
The second link is a pretty desperate attempt. It seems like the author decided that an axe that seems modern for its age is a fundamental contradiction that can't be explained.
Can you explain in detail or give a specific example?
It's pretty funny how for all the whining about carbon and radiometric dating, no creationist has been able to demonstrate they are incorrect.
That's not true. I only gave two (now three) links. That doesn't represent the entire creation argument.
-
"Bacteria" is not a species. It's a domain, that is extremely large and contains . An example of things that belong in the same domain (eukaryota): a human, an amoeba, a frog, a mushroom and a sequoia.
I'm not sure if speciation has occurred in this video, but I have given links where speciation has occurred, and in animals, not just bacteria.
Evolution is just adaptation, but over a long span of time. The lizard grows an extra gut muscle in the first 50 years, then after 100 years it grows a new lung muscle then after 150 years it grows another asshole and this continues until it can't interbreed with its ancestors and becomes its own thing.
You evolutionists sounds dumber (in the literal sense) the more you try to explain yourself.
"Bacteria" is not a species.
I'm not the one posting videos of bacteria adapting as proof of "evolution"
I'm not sure if speciation has occurred in this video
Then why are you defending it?
but I have given links where speciation has occurred, and in animals, not just bacteria.
No you haven't. You apply other scientific facts as "speciation" just like you apply adaptation or natural selection to be "evolution"
Evolution is just adaptation, but over a long span of time
Then why call it evolution?
The lizard grows an extra gut muscle in the first 50 years, then after 100 years it grows a new lung muscle then after 150 years it grows another asshole and this continues until it can't interbreed with its ancestors and becomes its own thing.
And then lived happily ever after with the princess? Stop making up stories and provide evidence. No guesses, assumptions and "may have" "could have" tales.
-
You evolutionists sounds dumber (in the literal sense) the more you try to explain yourself.
As opposed to no explanation at all from creationists.
-
There were already like a ton of links posted disproofing every point made by creationists.
Or they could google it themselves, but research isn't their thing anyway so...
-
There were already like a ton of links posted disproofing every point made by creationists.
Or they could google it themselves, but research isn't their thing anyway so...
Well, logic isn't their thing either, at it's core evolution simply says if you don't reproduce your genes don't pass on to the next generation.
It's more of a logical certainty, than any kind of belief system.
-
You evolutionists sounds dumber (in the literal sense) the more you try to explain yourself.
It's cute when people call other people dumb while ridiculing themselves.
"Bacteria" is not a species.
I'm not the one posting videos of bacteria adapting as proof of "evolution"
But you are the one making the "they are still bacteria" claims while failing to realize that bacteria is a huge domain.
I'm not sure if speciation has occurred in this video
Then why are you defending it?
Because it still shows a form of evolution, even though there hasn't been enough time for speciation to occur.
but I have given links where speciation has occurred, and in animals, not just bacteria.
No you haven't. You apply other scientific facts as "speciation" just like you apply adaptation or natural selection to be "evolution"
I "apply other scientific facts as speciation"? WTF does that mean? Sort out your word salad. I gave you a link where speciation has been observed either directly or indirectly and in one case recreated in a lab. That proves it is not only possible, but that it actually does happen. Maybe you should re-read the link.
Evolution is just adaptation, but over a long span of time
Then why call it evolution?
Adaptation and natural selection are the mechanisms that guide evolution. A species evolving to another one is the result of it adapting continuously to the point where it becomes much different from the original and can no longer interbreed.
The lizard grows an extra gut muscle in the first 50 years, then after 100 years it grows a new lung muscle then after 150 years it grows another asshole and this continues until it can't interbreed with its ancestors and becomes its own thing.
And then lived happily ever after with the princess? Stop making up stories and provide evidence. No guesses, assumptions and "may have" "could have" tales.
[/quote]
The evidence is the lizards that did grow a new gut structure, a different head, and developed a different diet in a Croatian island within about 50 years:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.html
All I did was explain to you that the same mechanism can further differentiate them in the future to the point of becoming completely different species.
-
You evolutionists sounds dumber (in the literal sense) the more you try to explain yourself.
As opposed to no explanation at all from creationists.
Once again, you geniuses, we're not the ones who call our unprovable religious beliefs "science" - so what's there to explain?
-
You evolutionists sounds dumber (in the literal sense) the more you try to explain yourself.
As opposed to no explanation at all from creationists.
Once again, you geniuses, we're not the ones who call our unprovable religious beliefs "science" - so what's there to explain?
We're not geniuses. At least I'm not.
We're just not as dumb as you creationists.
-
You evolutionists sounds dumber (in the literal sense) the more you try to explain yourself.
I'm not even going to bother quoting your fantasy religious pseudoscience. I'll just post the replies. Much easier, easier than dismantling and shredding the ridiculous evolution fantasy.
1. You post videos showing adaptation and call it evolution. It's like if a person became immune to mosquito bites (which can happen) "evolution" and saying this is how we evolved from a dead rock.
2. Re: "Apply other scientific facts." Okay let me dumb it down for you. After all you do believe we were literally fish and monkeys once. Other scientific facts refers to actual science, the real science as has always been that is repeatable, observable, etc. etc. and then somehow apply those scientific "facts" to your pseudoscientific fantasy and call it "FACT" - was that easier or do I need to dumb it down more?
3. "Adaptation and natural selection are the mechanisms that guide evolution." lol - adaptation/NS guides evolution? No wonder the above number 2 didn't register in your head.
4. "The evidence is the lizards that did grow a new gut structure" how desperate are evolutionists? Humans can grow large guts too. So what did this lizard become? Did the DNA change? Did it grow wings? Did it walk on 2 legs? Here's some basic points for you from that Evolutionist channels web site. NatGeo is a MASSIVE promoter of big bang and evolution. It's not credible to many real scientists.
Genetic testing on the Pod Mrcaru lizards confirmed that the modern population of more than 5,000 Italian wall lizards are all descendants of the original ten lizards left behind in the 1970s
So it wasn't observed at all. Just genetic testing which would have matched on many grounds. Even paternity tests have been proven to be wrong. Even if they were descendants, they're STILL LIZARDS. Same family members who grow up in different parts of the world end up having different features according to the environment. Even brothers. Check it up. So this is evolution to you right? (pointing at number 2 again)
The new species wiped out the indigenous lizard populations...
So they're new species now? Why does that word have so many different meanings?
The transplanted lizards adapted to their new environment...
Oh man, now it's adaptation? I thought they evolved?
...in ways that expedited their evolution physically
ah there's the reference back to evolution. State a fact and squeeze evolution in there (pointing at number 2 again)
It would be akin to humans evolving and growing a new appendix in several hundred years, he said.
Wait wait wait.. so growing muscles and body parts increasing size in lizards is the same as a human growing something brand new? Evolution logic 101
-
You evolutionists sounds dumber (in the literal sense) the more you try to explain yourself.
As opposed to no explanation at all from creationists.
Once again, you geniuses, we're not the ones who call our unprovable religious beliefs "science" - so what's there to explain?
OK at this point I'm becoming more convinced that you're just a troll.
-
No you idiot, it's not adaptation of individuals, it's adaptation of the species as a whole. The bacteria breed, and their offsprings are able to progress, it's not the same individuals.
2. Re: "Apply other scientific facts." Okay let me dumb it down for you. After all you do believe we were literally fish and monkeys once. Other scientific facts refers to actual science, the real science as has always been that is repeatable, observable, etc. etc. and then somehow apply those scientific "facts" to your pseudoscientific fantasy and call it "FACT" - was that easier or do I need to dumb it down more?
You didn't dumb it down, it was already extremely dumb and made no sense. Now it makes... I don't want to say less sense, it just doesn't make sense. What facts do we "apply"? Do you know what "apply" means? Are you trying to say something that makes sense and are unable to, or is this how it was in your mind?
3. "Adaptation and natural selection are the mechanisms that guide evolution." lol - adaptation/NS guides evolution? No wonder the above number 2 didn't register in your head.
Yes, various species adapt to their environments via natural selection, and eventually they evolve to different species. Note, the species as a WHOLE adapts to the environment, not the individuals.
4. "The evidence is the lizards that did grow a new gut structure" how desperate are evolutionists? Humans can grow large guts too. So what did this lizard become? Did the DNA change? Did it grow wings? Did it walk on 2 legs? Here's some basic points for you from that Evolutionist channels web site. NatGeo is a MASSIVE promoter of big bang and evolution. It's not credible to many real scientists.
You do realize that the lizard species developed a new intestinal muscle right? You do realize that it was not the same original individuals that grew the new muscles, but its offsprings via natural selection, right? You do realize that it was not the same original individuals that grew larger intestines, right? You do realize that the changes can only be explained by genetic differences right? You do realize that what you think are "real scientists" are biased YEC dipshits right? You do realize that that has nothing to do with religion, but if you tell to a real scientist about ICR he's going to die laughing, right? You do realize how many sources there are confirming the same lizard experiment, right?
So it wasn't observed at all.
You're getting even more desperate. If by observed you mean "there was a dude looking at them at all times", no, it wasn't observed. Luckily that is not what an observation is in science.
Just genetic testing which would have matched on many grounds. Even paternity tests have been proven to be wrong.
Oh so now you're just hoping that by some insane coincidence all that research was wrong. The desperation! How often are the genetic paternity tests wrong? What kind of evidence do you want to accept something, if you're just going to say it might be wrong, without saying how it could be wrong? Besides, similar species of lizard did not exist at the island before, and it borders on impossible that other lizards would be somehow introduced to the island.
Even if they were descendants, they're STILL LIZARDS.
So? What, did you expect them to turn into dinosaurs in 40 years? According to the modern understanding of biology, it would be impossible, so you're arguing strawmen. Actually I'm sure that even if the lizards turned to alligators you'd still complain that they're still reptiles. "Still lizards" is not an excuse, this is a clear example of the mechanisms of evolution in action.
Same family members who grow up in different parts of the world end up having different features according to the environment.
If you paid attention you'd see that the differences were way larger than that and are due to a different DNA. It's one thing for a sibling to be shorter or darker skinned or with a slimmer nose in one environment, and another thing to grow a different muscle group or a different skull structure.
So they're new species now? Why does that word have so many different meanings?
It has one meaning which you do not understand. The species was new TO THE ISLAND. Speciation has not occurred yet as far as I know, they probably can still breed with the original wall lizard species. Speciation takes a lot more generations to occur. But it's a completely new subspecies.
Oh man, now it's adaptation? I thought they evolved?
They're not the same individuals, THE SPECIES AS A WHOLE ADAPTED. Let's see how many times I have to say this to get it through your head.
Wait wait wait.. so growing muscles and body parts increasing size in lizards is the same as a human growing something brand new?
Yes, because they DID grow something new. They grew cecal valves. Pay attention.
Here's a few more sources that explain the same thing:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080417112433.htm
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/23/still-just-a-lizard/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_wall_lizard#Rapid_adaptation
The relevant papers:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2290806/
You can only read the abstract of this one, unless you have a membership or something: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.0030-1299.2007.15989.x/abstract;jsessionid=1624F57485E8A3C2100974D72D458E13.f04t01
-
No you idiot
You think we came from a non-living material randomly by chance
You think we "evolved" from other currently existing animals
You think the world start when nothing exploded to create everything
You see adaption and scream evolution
So you calling me an idiot means as much to me as your religious believe does. I didn't read beyond your opening 3 words
-
You think we came from a non-living material randomly by chance
Yes, but the way you state it is wrong. The building blocks for DNA have been found elsewhere in the universe, and they aren't uncommon.
You think we "evolved" from other currently existing animals
No, someone is misleading you, we have common ancestry with some currently living animals, if you want to go back a few billion years we have common ancestry with all living things.
You think the world start when nothing exploded to create everything
Yes, except, substitute universe instead of world, and I suspect you aren't up on current cosmology,
You see adaption and scream evolution
Yes. It's same mechanism. If you don't reproduce your genes are lost forever. ( Do you have children? )
I didn't read beyond your opening 3 words
So that's how you approach learning, no wonder you remain ignorant.
-
I didn't read beyond your opening 3 words
Unsurprising. Come back when you learn how to read, and aren't scared that what you're going to read disproves your nonsense.
-
You see adaption and scream evolution
Yes. It's same mechanism. If you don't reproduce your genes are lost forever. ( Do you have children? )
Oh don't say that, you're going to confuse him. He doesn't understand the concept of a species instead of an individual adapting to the environment.
-
You see adaption and scream evolution
Yes. It's same mechanism. If you don't reproduce your genes are lost forever. ( Do you have children? )
Oh don't say that, you're going to confuse him. He doesn't understand the concept of a species instead of an individual adapting to the environment.
Sorry, bout that. :)
Based on the various things he's said I suspect he's not all that hard to confuse. What if I just say,
Populations evolve, individuals don't.
-
Well, adaption and evolution isn't the same mechanism.
(Of course depending on how you define the terms)
-
Well, adaption and evolution isn't the same mechanism.
(Of course depending on how you define the terms)
Yes, point taken. Not that it matters for this discussion.
-
Well, adaption and evolution isn't the same mechanism.
(Of course depending on how you define the terms)
Adaptation of the species, not the individual.
-
You think we came from a non-living material randomly by chance
Yes, but the way you state it is wrong. The building blocks for DNA have been found elsewhere in the universe, and they aren't uncommon.
The way I stated it is exactly what your belief is. It just burns evolutionists because no matter how much you wrap excrement in scented tissues, it's still going to stink inside. You try to make it sound "believable" with "building blocks for DNA" whereas DNA in reality shreds the Darwinian religion to bits. What you stated above means absolutely NOTHING on the origin of life. The fact remains, you believe life came from non-living material randomly by chance and then you call it "Science"
You think we "evolved" from other currently existing animals
No, someone is misleading you, we have common ancestry with some currently living animals, if you want to go back a few billion years we have common ancestry with all living things.
Someone is misleading me? You're telling we have a common ancestry which is based on an interpretation of having similar genetic material. Although this equally proves that the design uses the same "building blocks" which we admit is our BELIEF, your interpretation is shamelessly promoted by tax dollars as "Science" - Even grass, plants and trees have similarities which does NOT prove that once upon a time we were trees. Your belief is based on this and no actual Scientific evidence. It's an interpretation, a belief, a religion. Not science.
You think the world start when nothing exploded to create everything
Yes, except, substitute universe instead of world, and I suspect you aren't up on current cosmology,
Ah, I guess that makes it's Scientifically sound. The world didn't come from NOTHING, that would be daft. The entire physical universe came from an explosion of NOTHING. Yes sure, that makes a lot more sense now. Universe. Got it.
You see adaption and scream evolution
Yes. It's same mechanism. If you don't reproduce your genes are lost forever. ( Do you have children? )
So, genetically adapting to a disease for example is the same mechanism as completely changing genetically into something completely different? That's evolution logic known to common sense as "stupid". It's not Science. It's a belief.
I didn't read beyond your opening 3 words
So that's how you approach learning, no wonder you remain ignorant.
I quote: "No you idiot"
That's probably how you learn Evolution. By cursing and ridiculing. I don't need to do that as I have actual responses. I prefer facts. Not beliefs and interpretations labelled as Scientific FACTS. Let religion be in its place. And you're simply not going to fool me with your ridiculous religious beliefs. I already have a religious belief that makes more common sense than your religion does. So don't call ridiculing "learning" because that's how Evolution professors teach kids. I've heard it and seen it and check any Evolution vs Creationism video on YouTube and see how often the Darwinian resorts to personal attacks because he's getting hammered.
I only reply to make myself feel better as I know Evolution believers follow and worship Darwin and have no intention of following any real Science. Just face it, you got NOTHING. Then again, with your Evolution logic, EVERYTHING came from NOTHING so the fact that you have NOTHING you probably think that you have EVERYTHING. A lost cause.
-
Like I said, evolution is neither observable nor repeatable & therefore it is not science...
Deaf Dick has a lot of difficulty with science though - he thinks the Universe is Flat you know!
You forgot to misquote me.
No need to...
You're doing a mighty fine job of making yourself look stupid already.
You always do.
Evolution is unobservable, unrepeatable & therefore unscientific.
Unless you own a time machine, perhaps?
Do you own a time machine, Deaf Dick?
You know, like Doctor Who's TARDIS?
Of course, in your case it would be a RE-TARDIS, would it not?
Lol.
Papa is right tho.
Like I said evolution is the best theory we have to explain origins. Doesn't make it right.
Like the big bang theory or GR, It's just the best we have at this time.
Inb4 my fan club.
-
Papa is right tho.
Like I said evolution is the best theory we have to explain origins. Doesn't make it right.
Like the big bang theory or GR, It's just the best we have at this time.
Inb4 my fan club.
I don't know why you're saying this. This applies to every theory ever. Including the shape of the Earth. You're just stating the obvious.
-
Yes, but the way you state it is wrong. The building blocks for DNA have been found elsewhere in the universe, and they aren't uncommon
Source?
Also, as far as I know the origin of life is thought to be rna, not dna. Which of course doesn't mean random dna couldn't exist, especially since dna is more stable.
-
Papa is right tho.
Like I said evolution is the best theory we have to explain origins. Doesn't make it right.
Like the big bang theory or GR, It's just the best we have at this time.
Inb4 my fan club.
I don't know why you're saying this. This applies to every theory ever. Including the shape of the Earth. You're just stating the obvious.
Not when we can fly into space and see the shape of the earth. That's an experiment to test your hypothesis on earth shape.
As Bhs and Legba correctly state we haven't done an experiment to test evolution. There's no argument that species adapt to their environment it's obvious.
-
[angry rant snipped]
Lame. You just keep stating things and declaring them wrong or right. Every single one of your questions has already been answered and you ignore the answers. It's funny how you complain that people insult you instead of making a point in a post where all you do is call things stupid to disprove them.
Yes, life came "randomly by chance", whatever that means to you. Just about everything in the universe happens "randomly by chance".
You made no arguments about how DNA "shreds the Darwinian religion".
Yes we did have a common ancestor with trees. It doesn't mean we were trees. I don't know why this is so hard for you to grasp.
No the common ancestry is not only supported by the genetic similarities. But the genetic similarities are very telling.
You clearly don't understand the Big Bang so please give up your arguments from incredulity.
Yes, it's the same mechanism. The population changes genetically. Then changes some more. This keeps happening and at some point it becomes its own thing.
You forgot to address my other post it seems.
-
Yes, but the way you state it is wrong. The building blocks for DNA have been found elsewhere in the universe, and they aren't uncommon
Source?
Also, as far as I know the origin of life is thought to be rna, not dna. Which of course doesn't mean random dna couldn't exist, especially since dna is more stable.
he probably means purine and pyramide bases, they can be found in comets, maybe even in interstellar clouds, certainly phosphoric acids, even amino acids (they are of course no building blocks of DNA or RNA.
-
Papa is right tho.
Like I said evolution is the best theory we have to explain origins. Doesn't make it right.
Like the big bang theory or GR, It's just the best we have at this time.
Inb4 my fan club.
I don't know why you're saying this. This applies to every theory ever. Including the shape of the Earth. You're just stating the obvious.
Not when we can fly into space and see the shape of the earth. That's an experiment to test your hypothesis on earth shape.
As Bhs and Legba correctly state we haven't done an experiment to test evolution. There's no argument that species adapt to their environment it's obvious.
Then why did you mention GR?
People have mentioned quite a few experiments to test evolution on this thread.
Yes, we can fly to space and see the shape of Earth, it looks like a sphere. But there could be some bizarre non-Euclidean thing going on. You've heard about these. Science has quit pretending its theories describe absolute truth, it just makes models of reality that are as accurate as possible, which some people misinterpret but that's irrelevant.
-
Yes, but the way you state it is wrong. The building blocks for DNA have been found elsewhere in the universe, and they aren't uncommon
Source?
Also, as far as I know the origin of life is thought to be rna, not dna. Which of course doesn't mean random dna couldn't exist, especially since dna is more stable.
I'm referring to amino acids and other complex organic molecules.
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2003/aug/11/amino-acid-detected-in-space
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/murchison-meteorite/
https://phys.org/news/2010-02-chemical-snapshot-murchison-meteorite-reveals.html
The Murchison meterorite had dozens of amino acids, and many complex organic compounds.
Some of the amino acids were not previously known. http://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-00693-9
I'm not asserting the panspermia concept, although it's not beyond the realms of possibility.
Yes, but the way you state it is wrong. The building blocks for DNA have been found elsewhere in the universe, and they aren't uncommon
Source?
Also, as far as I know the origin of life is thought to be rna, not dna. Which of course doesn't mean random dna couldn't exist, especially since dna is more stable.
he probably means purine and pyramide bases, they can be found in comets, maybe even in interstellar clouds, certainly phosphoric acids, even amino acids (they are of course no building blocks of DNA or RNA.
I was referring to amino acids specifically, but I take your correction. Lots of complex organics are being discovered in interstellar space.
Reminds me a bit of Fred Hoyle "The Black Cloud"
-
Well, there is basically a unlimited amount of amino acids that could exist.
About this article: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2003/aug/11/amino-acid-detected-in-space
They measured the spectral lines of the clouds - Sagittarius-B2, Orion-KL and W51 - over a four-year period using the 12-metre telescope at the National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO) in Arizona.
The frequencies of certain transitions in glycine, which are known from experiments in the lab, provide a characteristic signature for the molecule. Knowing this spectral "fingerprint", the researchers were able to identify 27 glycine lines at frequencies between 90 and 265 GHz in the clouds
[...]
Observing the spectral lines in these clouds - which are tens of thousand of light-years away - is not easy because the lines are very weak. Moreover, the molecular transitions that cause them can be contaminated by emissions from "interloper" molecules in the surrounding medium.
I'm not saying it's wrong in any way, but to me a few spectral lines seem rather weak evidence for glycin, as spectral lines could be caused by a lot of molecules.
What wiki has to say about that: The detection of glycine outside the solar system in the interstellar medium has been debated.[30] In 2008, the Max Planck Institute for Radio Astronomy discovered the glycine-like molecule aminoacetonitrile in the Large Molecule Heimat, a giant gas cloud near the galactic center in the constellation Sagittarius.[31]
-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycine#Presence_in_space
Also, the presence of glycin on comets and stuff should be seen with a sceptical view. Those molecules are so incredibely small that impurities may easily occure and lead to false-positive results.
But, of course, glycin is a rather simple and stable molecule. So it forming somewhere in space doesn't seem too unlikely.
The Murchison meterorite sounds interesting, I'll have to read further into that. But since it has been found on earth and not harvested in space, contamination is definitely a thing and distinguishing between contamination and non-contamination is most likely more a guessing game than anything else. Especially considering the meteor has fallen on to earth quite a while ago, when technology wasn't as advanced as it is know.
-
I actually agree with you user. That was the best post I've ever seen from you. Bring your A game more often.
-
Life will always find a way. Even when the universe enteres the black hole era where essentially they are the only celestial like objects left, I'm sure life, will still hang somewhere. Even long into the dark era, suggested to start in 10^106 years where even sub atomic particles have decayed, life will find a way.
Even when there is absolutely nothing left in the universe, in 10^10^50 years, a Boltzmann brain may appear. It may not be life as we know it but it will do. And if a new universe is created in 10^10^10^56 years. Well, you know the story. We may be here from such an occurrence. It may have happened an infinite amount of times already.
Just to give you an idea how mind boggling ridiculous 10^10^10^56 years is,
There is only around 10^80 atoms in the observable universe that stretches 93 billion light years
The width of a human hair is approximately 100,000 atoms across
Let that sink in as to how old time itself is, and if you think 13.8 billion years is a long time, just think how much longer this 'incarnation' of the universe still has to go before it starts all over again. And again
-
Let that sink in as to how old time itself is, and if you think 13.8 billion years is a long time, just think how much longer this 'incarnation' of the universe still has to go before it starts all over again. And again
Screw you, now I'm sober. >:(