It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

evolution, where is the evidence???!!! I see none

page: 25
6
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 11:13 AM
link   
There are holes so big in ID that you could throw Java-Man through them.




posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 11:40 AM
link   
evolution, where's the evidence...i see none!!!

1) you're either unwillinging to go out there and find the evidence yourself and want someone to put it on a plate for you, only then for you to deny it still.

2) you're plain stupid and blind to the reality of evolution and cannot bring yourself to believe it as your confined to the bible.

3) you haven't got the intelligence or common sense to come to terms with evolution, let alone understand or comprehend it.

more intelligent people tend to not believe in a devine creator. 93% of scientists are atheist or agnostics, with only 7% admiting to a personal belief in god, hence why more intelligent people tend to not believe in god.

it's not by coincidence that most people in muslim countries are muslim, and that most people in christian countries are christian, and most people in countries of islamic beliefs belong to islam, and so on. most people in religion wouldn't even have got to that point in their lives if they had not grown up with it. growing up with it just means 'that's all they know' and if it's all they know...why would they believe anything else.

the problem here is not with lack of evidence on evolution's behalf, it lies with religious people, their closed minds and their unwillingness to open their minds to new ideas, as they've been brainwashed with religious balderdash, and they actually believe it all. these are the stupid people of the world...they even run countries...'george bush'. quite frankly a stupid christian red neck american. religious people are not as intelligent as the rest of the world. sure that won't be universal, but on the whole, from what i've seen, from what i've read... that's the general concensus of religious people.



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 11:52 AM
link   
You say you "looked at" Carbon 14 testing. What exactly does that mean? Unless you have a personal belief that you think requires you to reject evolution, there's no way that a serious person could refute the theory of evolution. There may be disagreement over the way it worked, some bits of detail that can be argued, but there isn't a serious scientist in the world today that really believes that the theory of evolution is bogus. The only people who are criticizing the theory of evolution today are those that are pushing some pseudo-Christian agenda which they think somehow doesn't allow for species to evolve.

They are wrong on all counts. There's absolutely nothing about evolution that refutes Christianity or the existence of God, or faith.

The story about Darwin's death-bed conversion is completely mythical. Darwin was a faithful Christian all his life. He never recanted evolution because he never believed it was in conflict with his faith. That story was made up by some phoney Christian publicity-hungry preacher, probably from South Carolina. That state is filthy with these bible-totin' whoremongerin' goons who think they're gonna get rich by having stupid people send them money to protect America from Satan. By the way, if you look under the toupees of these hop'n'holler preachers, you'll find a pair of horns. Just sayin'..



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 04:47 PM
link   
Here here!!

Well said Shaunybaby. Of course you know that you are going to be attacked by every Christian out there, but I agree completely.



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 04:49 PM
link   
why do people not understand carbon14?

it's only used for relatively "young" organic material. for much older stuff KArgon testing is used.

wow, i haven't been on in a while, it's good to be back!



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 11:48 AM
link   
They say sharing is caring...so here goes:




posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 11:58 AM
link   
and the second computer replies...

"well if we could actually get jiggy and produce little baby PDA's that grew up to be PC's then your comment would be valid"




[edit on 28-3-2006 by melatonin]



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 12:01 PM
link   
Sharing is caring indeed! Thanks for the idea.






posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 12:04 PM
link   
As with computers and their binary code, humans have a finite code, called Deoxyribonucleic Acid. This DNA has similar limitations. Gregory Mendel explored how this programming works. Watson and Crick discovered that code in detail. This is one of the reasons why I say that Genetics and Ecology, though both taught at college, are in conflict.

One more for kicks...





[edit on 28-3-2006 by saint4God]



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Prot0n
Sharing is caring indeed! Thanks for the idea.


I don't get it. That one is not funny at all.


[edit on 28-3-2006 by saint4God]



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
why do people not understand carbon14?

it's only used for relatively "young" organic material. for much older stuff KArgon testing is used.


Good point. I've always heard that 40,000 years is the accepted max range for C14 dating.

The official C14 website says it's a bit longer, but still pretty "young".

www.c14dating.com...

At about 50 - 60 000 years, then, the limit of the technique is reached (beyond this time, other radiometric techniques must be used for dating).


[edit on 28/3/2006 by SportyMB]



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 12:09 PM
link   
ProtOn, I have no idea what you are saying.



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 12:11 PM
link   
Something that should be done to every bible, unless we like dirtying the minds of young impressionable children who learn from example. What was HE thinking?






posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by Prot0n
Sharing is caring indeed! Thanks for the idea.


I don't get it. That one is not funny at all.


[edit on 28-3-2006 by saint4God]


It wasn't supposed to be funny. That sign was made by a religous person for an anti-gay protest. I hope you wouldn't find it funny. Using 9/11 for such stupidity as hatred towards gays? And Christians are loving good people?


This is a good one too, if you want funny pics.




OK OK, last one... this is really cute!



[edit on 28-3-2006 by Prot0n]



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Prot0n
Something that should be done to every bible, unless we like dirtying the minds of young impressionable children who learn from example. What was HE thinking?


Hm, my Bible didn't come with that warning...and actually that warning conflicts with the Author's notes. Us humans do like to botch things up with our intereference I guess.



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Prot0n
It wasn't supposed to be funny.


Ah good. Thought you were trying to be consistent with cartoons and evolution. *shrug*


Originally posted by Prot0n
That sign was made by a religous person for an anti-gay protest. I hope you wouldn't find it funny.


Glad to oblige.


Originally posted by Prot0n
Using 9/11 for such stupidity as hatred towards gays?


I agree it is stupidity. I mean that in a literal sense. If they read they Book they claim to hold, they should know better yet do so anyway.

"...If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." (John 8:7)

"...for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God..." (Romans 3:23)


Originally posted by Prot0n
And Christians are loving good people?


Indeed. You should meet some of them, not like whatever belief system these people followed pictured here.


Originally posted by Prot0n
This is a good one too, if you want funny pics.



From atheistempire.com... Hm, I need to use this on the Anti-Christian Conspiracy thread. Interesting articles about movies and such. Thanks!
. The cartoon is unfinished. The lady needs to answer him.


Originally posted by Prot0n
OK OK, last one... this is really cute!




Little boy needs to read his Book:

"And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you." (Matthew 5:40-42)

"But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you...If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others?" (Matthew 5:43-47)

Ah, the misguided youth. God have mercy upon them.

If only he could even just follow the oath he took when he joined:

"On my honor I will do my best
To do my duty to God and my country
and to obey the Scout Law;
To help other people at all times;
To keep myself physically strong,
mentally awake, and morally straight."

What was this thread about again?

Oh right. Boyscouts.



[edit on 28-3-2006 by saint4God]



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
As with computers and their binary code, humans have a finite code, called Deoxyribonucleic Acid. This DNA has similar limitations. Gregory Mendel explored how this programming works. Watson and Crick discovered that code in detail. This is one of the reasons why I say that Genetics and Ecology, though both taught at college, are in conflict.


Yeah, I guess if the cartoon stated that it wouldn't be so funny or anti-ToE...

Why are genetics and ecology in conflict?



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 02:48 PM
link   
So...can you tell me where the proof is of creation, then? Besides the Bible, because thats not proof.

Why is it that people tend to think in only black and white?

"Evolution is false...therefore creationism is true!"

You can't prove one side by disproving the other. If you managed to disprove evolution, than it woulden't at the same time prove creationism to be true.

What if there both wrong?

[edit on 28-3-2006 by Kacen]



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
Why are genetics and ecology in conflict?


I'm glad you asked! If we were to put founders into catagories, it would look something like this:

Genetics = Watson & Crick + Gregory Mendel

Ecology = Darwin

I've oversimplified as there are many many more. Genetics talks about the 4 nitrogenous bases that make up DNA and is able to predict percentages of outcome. The nice thing about that is, it's a working, predictable model. You can even go as far as to say there are 0% chances of things happening. Which is nice. A person will never be born with glowing violet eyes. 0%

Ecology is a study of populations, their movements and changes. Now an ecologist may be surprised to see some things "change" in a species. These adaptations aren't much of a surprise to a geneticist and the genecist would be able to give you a percentage to say, "Yes, we knew that was a possibility".

Genetics is starting small, then building up. Ecology is the opposite. Starting big, then trying to reduce to the smallest definable quality. When building a puzzle, the Genetics knows how the pieces fit together to make a larger picture. For and Ecologist, taking the puzzle already formed and breaking it all up leaves a bunch of confusing pieces scattered all over the place. Ecology is great for tagging critters and studying animal psychology, but it won't cure cancer. This is my bias after studying them both.

[edit on 28-3-2006 by saint4God]



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kacen
So...can you tell me where the proof is of creation, then? Besides the Bible, because thats not proof.

Why is it that people tend to think in only black and white?

"Evolution is false...therefore creationism is true!"

You can't prove one side by disproving the other. If you managed to disprove evolution, than it woulden't at the same time prove creationism to be true.


Correct, so why did you ask that first question?


Originally posted by Kacen
What if there both wrong?


There have been other theories mentioned on the thread. I be either we should explore all possibilites in science or do not adopt one to be true without substantiation as is the case at present.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join