Yep I'm talking to you.

Post a reply

:
In an effort to prevent automatic submissions, we require that you enter both of the words displayed into the text field underneath.
Smilies
:pray: :sleep: :D :alien51: :) :mrgreen: :wink: :love: :obsessed: :| :( :twisted: :evil: :scary: :o :dunno: :? 8-) :hmmm: :shock: :flop: :top: :x :P :oops: :cry: :?: :idea: :arrow: :!: :nails: :look: :rtft: :roll: :ohno: :hell: :vomit: :lol: :think: :headscratch: :clapper: :bang; :censored: :badair: :help: :owned: :nope: :nwo: :geek: :ugeek: :robot: :alien: :mrcool: :ghost: :sunny: :peep: :yell: :banana: :dancing: :hugging: :bullshit: :cheers: :shooting: :hiho:
View more smilies
BBCode is ON
[img] is OFF
[flash] is OFF
[url] is ON
Smilies are ON
Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: Yep I'm talking to you.

Re: Yep I'm talking to you.

Post by Cambay411 » Sat Jun 22, 2013 7:47 pm

Icarium wrote:I give the fossil record a lot more credence than you do and also the amount of people that a piece of disinfo reaches is irrelevant, even if only 1 person hears it it is still disinfo. And saying that evolution says it can change one species to another is a classic creationist straw man argument, any off spring of any animal is clearly not a different species and no evolutionist claims this. A series of tiny iterations carried out over 100's of thousands of years accumulate to create a drastically different creature, that is simply not saying that species trans form and is playing with semantics.
Creationism is typical of the kind of superstition that has held mankinds' development back for so many dark years and id also typical of the anti-science movement that is so prevalent in the US.
Any evolutionist science is held to a level of examination that creationism simply does not receive, it has to be peer reviewed and there is a Nobel prize waiting for anyone who makes any discovery that can be ascertained to disprove any major element of this theory, it would be career making. Admittedly the very slowness that typifies evolutionary effects is a problem when it comes to verification of theory. And whereas there is dishonesty in science (you really should read the interview I posted under "The dogmatic nature of modern science" it is a truly fascinating interview with an absolute top scientist) it tends to arise under special interest areas (e.g. the suppression of LENR science carried out by MIT who even held a party for the death of cold fusion, hardly neutral now) and funding issues and I hardly feel evolution falls in this area.







Nevermind evolving into just a different species. In order for the Theory of Evolution to work a species would have to eventually evolve into a whole different classification of animal in the Animal Kingdom. The Theory of Evolution is based on this.

I dont think anyone, evolutionist or otherwise claims any off spring of any animal is a different species of that offspring. Wording it in this way is a play on semantics, as you say.

And yes they do literally change into a different species and are labeled as such in the fossil record.

Yes, a series of tiny iterations carried out over 100's of thousands of years accumulate to create a drastically different creature IS saying that species transforms. And according to evolution, it can transform all the way from sea creature to a land animal. Or all the way from a microbe to eventually a human being.

Can things evolve in this way? Hell if I know.

Im not arguing against evolution but this "straw man" argument is in fact how evolution is supposed to work.

Re: Yep I'm talking to you.

Post by Icarium » Sat Jun 22, 2013 6:41 pm

I give the fossil record a lot more credence than you do and also the amount of people that a piece of disinfo reaches is irrelevant, even if only 1 person hears it it is still disinfo. And saying that evolution says it can change one species to another is a classic creationist straw man argument, any off spring of any animal is clearly not a different species and no evolutionist claims this. A series of tiny iterations carried out over 100's of thousands of years accumulate to create a drastically different creature, that is simply not saying that species trans form and is playing with semantics.
Creationism is typical of the kind of superstition that has held mankinds' development back for so many dark years and id also typical of the anti-science movement that is so prevalent in the US.
Any evolutionist science is held to a level of examination that creationism simply does not receive, it has to be peer reviewed and there is a Nobel prize waiting for anyone who makes any discovery that can be ascertained to disprove any major element of this theory, it would be career making. Admittedly the very slowness that typifies evolutionary effects is a problem when it comes to verification of theory. And whereas there is dishonesty in science (you really should read the interview I posted under "The dogmatic nature of modern science" it is a truly fascinating interview with an absolute top scientist) it tends to arise under special interest areas (e.g. the suppression of LENR science carried out by MIT who even held a party for the death of cold fusion, hardly neutral now) and funding issues and I hardly feel evolution falls in this area.

Re: Yep I'm talking to you.

Post by Cambay411 » Sat Jun 22, 2013 5:40 pm

Icarium wrote:Exactly where I am at, I am not saying evolution is the complete answer, I am just bemoaning the lack of reasoned or reasonable replies. If you do not get angry about mankind being held back by ignorance and superstition what are you going to get annoyed about?





But its not creationism fault if man is being held back by ignorance. Lack of knowledge and information defines ignorance.

While some of the disinfo on the internet (from the evolution and creation side) can cause confusion and maybe ignorance, the real science behind both can expand knowledge.

Re: Yep I'm talking to you.

Post by Cambay411 » Sat Jun 22, 2013 5:35 pm

Constabul wrote:
Cambay411 wrote:Constabul and Icarum, I understand you stand on the evolution side of things but no need to get angry when others question it. Especially with all the holes in the Theory of Evolution.


Havent been angry with anyone. This is a reoccurring discussion here at DTV, that ive participated in a number of times. Truth and I may get nippy at one another, but ive no animosity towards him in the slightest.
As for other posters, well a couple of them i called morons recently in another thread, so any chance to inflate their own egos is a gang bang situation.
I can not battle self induced ignorance, or Attention deficit disorder. That is not an insult it is an observation. I made a comment to truth that some just do not have the mind to follow the science so it is easier to attack it for them as they really lack the understanding in the first place.
It's like me trying to pigeon hole quantum equations without any real understanding of the math behind it.

I will readily admit that those trying to use the methods and findings of science to further a philosophical debate about the "origin of life" ( meaning the spark / breath of god) are no different then the creationist. Both are warping information to suit a egotistical agenda. (ergo atheist pushing an agenda, which is what this conversation is really about when it comes down to it. Creation vs atheism)

Measurements are what they are, as too are observations. Many of the advances in medical science are the same sciences that are the foundation of evolutionary science. As i seem to having to keep pointing out, notice the term Evolutionary science vs the theory of evolution. They are different.
So while peeps can warp the findings to suit whatever agenda.. as peoples do. The data is the data. Nothing ultimately conclusive, but a piece of a larger puzzle.
To demand a finished product for a self admittedly changing on going process is intellectually devoid of understanding. Not meant to be an insult, but it is the nature of the position of creationism in 'having' all the answers already (already written book). To compete the two is utter uselessness and full of misconceptions of subjective reasoning. As science is an on going book with a lot of edits and continuing edits. People call that a flaw, that is really tho honesty.

I have not paid attention to what icarum's position or the material they are posting. I made a broad address post, meant to provide for those who would be open to, information on the subject that is not long winded, and covers most all topics that are often pointed to. That was it.
(7 to 10 min videos on the specific material rather then a 30+min broad video on the theory, Not the science. My connection sucks and is limited on DL allowance so i rarely watch any videos anymore. Is just the easier to follow format for others.)


I am not arguing the the theory of evolution. As a theory of a man who's been dead over one hundred years means little to me, seem to be continuing to have to point this out. Understandable as the philosophical argument is based on the theory premise. So for the others to be right, I would have to be operating from there. I am not, and that is what they do not get.

There are plenty of scientists who use the science of evolution to demonstrate the plausibility of intelligent design. At which that point, the science is good for them again. You drop a name like Stephen Meyer, and the dimwits that argue against science start nodding their heads in agreement.

Only thing I am arguing is there is a fields of study that make up evolutionary science, proven over and over again via data collected to the point of being able to predict outcomes using the mechanisms of that data to postulate outcome. It is a simple concept that is used time and time again.

I better stop as some cant even make it through a post this long.. lol
I should just post pictures, claim victory throw about a repeating lol and haha and high five other peeps via the magical land of DTV..
Sorry. My posts are a product of articulation.
Yes i can discuss the science, I do not argue the theory, I'm not playing the there is/there isnt a god. It matters not to me.

whatever. like i said i could pull up a number of posts in my past history here discussing this topic. Nothing new, or earth shattering has been posted..







I think the Creation vs Evolution competition is good for science. Let them bring any findings they have to the table and weed out what is fiction.

I think a lot of the evidence on the table can prove adaptation between species. To say the evidence proves the Theory of Evolution as a whole is almost as pseudo science as creationism.

There is evidence that a species can adapt and evolve within its own species, but no evidence that a species can evolve into another species.

The closest evidence we have of a species evolving into another species is the Common Ancestor theory, in which all living things have the same DNA code. So the assumption is made all living things originated from the first living organism which had this DNA code originally written in it. While this does make sense its still a huge assumption. Does this DNA code mean everything is from the same ancestor? Or does it just mean all living things are written with the same code? Obviously there are still a lot of unknowns to reach any real conclusion.

Evolutionary Algorithms, you spoke of, which are used to make predictions, are based off of adaptation or evolution within a species. They can not and have not predicted one species turning into another or anything close.

As for alternatives to the Theory of Evolution being disinfo, causing ignorance and holding back man kind, how could these alternatives be disinfo if most are swept under the rug and 90% of people have no clue they exist?

As far as disinfo, this goes for both sides. There is evolution disinfo out there as well. For example the disinfo that evolutionary algorithms can predict evolution from one species to another, in which it cant. And disinfo that the fossil record details evolution, in which it doesn't.

And as for the real evidence, isn't the definition of ignorance the lack of knowledge on a certain subject? So the less info out there the more ignorance.

Re: Yep I'm talking to you.

Post by Icarium » Sat Jun 22, 2013 5:52 am

Exactly where I am at, I am not saying evolution is the complete answer, I am just bemoaning the lack of reasoned or reasonable replies. If you do not get angry about mankind being held back by ignorance and superstition what are you going to get annoyed about?

Re: Yep I'm talking to you.

Post by Constabul » Sat Jun 22, 2013 5:38 am

Cambay411 wrote:Constabul and Icarum, I understand you stand on the evolution side of things but no need to get angry when others question it. Especially with all the holes in the Theory of Evolution.


Havent been angry with anyone. This is a reoccurring discussion here at DTV, that ive participated in a number of times. Truth and I may get nippy at one another, but ive no animosity towards him in the slightest.
As for other posters, well a couple of them i called morons recently in another thread, so any chance to inflate their own egos is a gang bang situation.
I can not battle self induced ignorance, or Attention deficit disorder. That is not an insult it is an observation. I made a comment to truth that some just do not have the mind to follow the science so it is easier to attack it for them as they really lack the understanding in the first place.
It's like me trying to pigeon hole quantum equations without any real understanding of the math behind it.

I will readily admit that those trying to use the methods and findings of science to further a philosophical debate about the "origin of life" ( meaning the spark / breath of god) are no different then the creationist. Both are warping information to suit a egotistical agenda. (ergo atheist pushing an agenda, which is what this conversation is really about when it comes down to it. Creation vs atheism)

Measurements are what they are, as too are observations. Many of the advances in medical science are the same sciences that are the foundation of evolutionary science. As i seem to having to keep pointing out, notice the term Evolutionary science vs the theory of evolution. They are different.
So while peeps can warp the findings to suit whatever agenda.. as peoples do. The data is the data. Nothing ultimately conclusive, but a piece of a larger puzzle.
To demand a finished product for a self admittedly changing on going process is intellectually devoid of understanding. Not meant to be an insult, but it is the nature of the position of creationism in 'having' all the answers already (already written book). To compete the two is utter uselessness and full of misconceptions of subjective reasoning. As science is an on going book with a lot of edits and continuing edits. People call that a flaw, that is really tho honesty.

I have not paid attention to what icarum's position or the material they are posting. I made a broad address post, meant to provide for those who would be open to, information on the subject that is not long winded, and covers most all topics that are often pointed to. That was it.
(7 to 10 min videos on the specific material rather then a 30+min broad video on the theory, Not the science. My connection sucks and is limited on DL allowance so i rarely watch any videos anymore. Is just the easier to follow format for others.)


I am not arguing the the theory of evolution. As a theory of a man who's been dead over one hundred years means little to me, seem to be continuing to have to point this out. Understandable as the philosophical argument is based on the theory premise. So for the others to be right, I would have to be operating from there. I am not, and that is what they do not get.

There are plenty of scientists who use the science of evolution to demonstrate the plausibility of intelligent design. At which that point, the science is good for them again. You drop a name like Stephen Meyer, and the dimwits that argue against science start nodding their heads in agreement.

Only thing I am arguing is there is a fields of study that make up evolutionary science, proven over and over again via data collected to the point of being able to predict outcomes using the mechanisms of that data to postulate outcome. It is a simple concept that is used time and time again.

I better stop as some cant even make it through a post this long.. lol
I should just post pictures, claim victory throw about a repeating lol and haha and high five other peeps via the magical land of DTV..
Sorry. My posts are a product of articulation.
Yes i can discuss the science, I do not argue the theory, I'm not playing the there is/there isnt a god. It matters not to me.

whatever. like i said i could pull up a number of posts in my past history here discussing this topic. Nothing new, or earth shattering has been posted..

Re: Yep I'm talking to you.

Post by Icarium » Sat Jun 22, 2013 5:05 am

The Mysterious Origins of Man was a television special that originally aired on NBC on February 25, 1996. Hosted by Charlton Heston, the program argued that mankind has lived on the Earth for tens of millions of years, and that mainstream scientists have suppressed the fossil evidence for this. Some material included was based on the controversial Forbidden Archeology, a book written by Hindu creationists Michael Cremo and Richard L. Thompson about anomalous archeological finds reported mainly in early scientific journals.[1] It also included interviews with the following people: creationist Carl Baugh on the Paluxy tracks; Richard Milton, author of Shattering the Myths of Darwinism, on Lucy; Neil Steede on Incan ruins; and Graham Hancock, author of Fingerprints of the Gods, on Atlantis. It was produced by B. C. Video Inc.
The program was widely criticized by the scientific community. Donald Johanson said it was "absolutely shameful, and it sort of sets us back 100 years".[2] Jim Foley of TalkOrigins called it a "pseudo-scientific mishmash of discredited claims and crackpot ideas".[3] However, the criticism did not prevent NBC from re-broadcasting the special on June 8, 1996. In response, John Carman wrote in the San Francisco Chronicle, "You'd think the NBC brass would be a touch embarrassed by the program, and eager to let the little furor fritter away into oblivion. But then you really would be a simpleton. NBC, a subsidiary of the science giant General Electric, does not exist to sharpen minds. Science, schmience. If there was money to be made from it, NBC would tell you the Earth is flat because of repeated indentations from space aliens on pogo sticks."[4] Dave Thomas wrote in Skeptical Briefs that "quality science was nowhere to be found" in the program, as it had people of questionable credentials interviewed and failed to interview the leading researchers in their respective fields.[5] Thomas further explained the show failed to challenge the extraordinary claims.[5]
Creationist Ken Ham criticized the production in the February 1996 Answers in Genesis newsletter in a review titled "Hollywood's 'Moses' Undermines Genesis."[5] Ham attacked fellow creationist Baugh's claims, saying, "According to leading creationist researchers, this evidence is open to much debate and needs much more intensive research. One wonders how much of the information in the program can really be trusted!"[5]

See, even your creationist chum Ken Ham thinks it is a load of bollocks, I really can not say enough what pointless drivel that video is.

Re: Yep I'm talking to you.

Post by Icarium » Sat Jun 22, 2013 5:02 am

I watched the video long enough to realise it was nonsensical tosh, it is called critical thinking and saves a lot of time. I have watched enough charlatans to spot the signs and that guy is just a full on bullshit, very, very easy to spot bullshit at that. Any annoyance was caused by such shit being presented as a serious rebuttal when it so clearly is not. One side is using reasoning here, the other, sadly, is not.

Re: Yep I'm talking to you.

Post by Icarium » Sat Jun 22, 2013 4:55 am

I am detecting a massive lack of self awareness and school yard ganging up, I know a threatened paradigm reaction when I see one. No anger involved just frustration. Creationism is belief without evidence and as such is eminently unscientific. I would also suggest it is not us being close minded, I posted just today an interesting article on scientific dogma elsewhere in this forum. So no I do not accept I am being the close minded one. I am not the one not reading an article but still proclaiming a stand, no offence meant Ram, just an observation. We all have paradigms and can get itchy when they are threatened, a paradigm relying on nonsense is particularly pernicious as it introduces an element of faith which we all know leads to trouble when faced with its' dismantling. The person would rather listen to nonsense that agrees with him rather than scientific argument which doesn't.

Re: Yep I'm talking to you.

Post by RATRODROB » Sat Jun 22, 2013 4:26 am

Opalserpent wrote:I'm glad noone could argue points made in the video. Thanks for proving my point.

Image

Just one video with logical arguments tares down all your mainstream bs in one foul swoop.

Here it is again just incase you didn't watch it which you didn't since no counter arguments were made.

Ohwell.


ufotv


Upload to Disclose.tv




hahahaah, please show me some hate again and not try to argue the video. Try watching it first so I know
you have something to stand on besides mainstream bs. Thanks.




Oh by the way since you are so smart, the above video the man tells you why for example
that the cockroaches that "Mainstream Science" recently says evolved and now avoids
sugar is true.

You know Why? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.


Because all the cochroaches that don't have an aversion to sugar are dead!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

leaving only the cochroaches that don't like sugar.

They didn't evolve shit. hahahahaahahhahahahahahaha wake up. :dancing:



A BIG thumbs up to you OPAL, I find it amusing how constable and icarium can often give but cant take.
when their posts are questioned in an orderly way by pretty much anyone, their tails go up and the length of their replys to defend their stance gets longer and longer with each post without really saying anything except blah blah blah.
dont get me wrong, i dont dislike either of them, just gets a little tedious trying to debate with them cause their posts get sooooooooooooo long with out any real content that i cant be bothered in the end :cheers:

Top

Visit Disclose.tv on Facebook