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.

 

Faith VS Science & Athiests

page: 13
8
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 08:37 AM
link   

Krazysh0t
reply to post by 168617
 


This is the only kind of observable evidence for evolution which you've already said isn't good enough (because again, what you are demanding doesn't happen).

Viral evolution

Influenza, an ever-evolving target for vaccine development

Swine Flu Is Evolution in Action


Anyone who thinks evolution is for the birds should not be afraid of swine flu. Because if there's no such thing as evolution, then there's no such thing as a new strain of swine flu infecting people.

For the rest of the population, concern is justified.

The rapid evolution of the influenza virus is an example of Nature at her most opportunistic. Viruses evolve by the same means as humans, plus they use tricks such as stealing genetic code from other viruses.


Like I said, schooled.


No, that bacteria is still only bacteria.. It's like a bird's beak getting larger, it's still a bird though. If that's what you call schooled OK.
edit on 15-4-2014 by 168617 because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 08:40 AM
link   

168617
They are still all dogs, what's your point?

Argh ...

All the different breeds of dogs and wolves ... all CANINES.
Humans and Apes ... both are PRIMATES

Wolf to Poodle or Shepard = Natural selective breeding.
Ape to human = Natural selection.
Same/same.

Seriously finished. /OUT



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 08:49 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


The concept of natural selection was originally developed by natural theologians, who thought that it worked to preserve distinct created types. Darwin argued that natural selection, if given enough time of course, could actually create new types. However field and laboratory observations of natural selection in action confirm that it only changes the relative abundance of certain already existing characteristics, and doesn't create new ones. For example, Darwin observed that the average beak size of finches increased in dry years, but later observers noted that this trend reversed in wet years. This is very different than the kind of changes that would be required to transform a finch beak into some other structure or a finch into a completely different kind of animal. In other words, scientific studies of natural selection demonstrate, without exception that Darwin was wrong.



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 08:50 AM
link   

FlyersFan

168617
They are still all dogs, what's your point?

Argh ...

All the different breeds of dogs and wolves ... all CANINES.
Humans and Apes ... both are PRIMATES

Wolf to Poodle or Shepard = Natural selective breeding.
Ape to human = Natural selection.
Same/same.

Seriously finished. /OUT


That 1.2% difference is a big one. So you cannot provide evidence that the essence of evolution has been observed right before someone's eyes? Bit of blind faith goes into this ideology, doesn't it?
edit on 15-4-2014 by 168617 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 09:05 AM
link   

168617

Krazysh0t
reply to post by 168617
 


This is the only kind of observable evidence for evolution which you've already said isn't good enough (because again, what you are demanding doesn't happen).

Viral evolution

Influenza, an ever-evolving target for vaccine development

Swine Flu Is Evolution in Action


Anyone who thinks evolution is for the birds should not be afraid of swine flu. Because if there's no such thing as evolution, then there's no such thing as a new strain of swine flu infecting people.

For the rest of the population, concern is justified.

The rapid evolution of the influenza virus is an example of Nature at her most opportunistic. Viruses evolve by the same means as humans, plus they use tricks such as stealing genetic code from other viruses.


Like I said, schooled.


No, that bacteria is still only bacteria.. It's like a bird's beak getting larger, it's still a bird though. If that's what you call schooled OK.
edit on 15-4-2014 by 168617 because: (no reason given)


See this is what I'm talking about. You didn't even read those links. You just wrote them off saying that it wasn't good enough. You refuse to educate yourself and demand a silly amount of evidence that doesn't exist. If you knew anything about biology, you'd know that this evidence is more than good enough.

This was your original demand:

168617
Hey, can anyone give me observable proof that Darwin's theory of Evolution is in fact correct? I look forward to the bs answer's you provide.


We gave you the observable proof of evolution. Yet you keep moving the goal posts back by saying that proof isn't good enough. You need to see a horse change into an ant, like a silly request like that is even a feasible request. Disregarding that one is a mammal and the other is an insect, it's just stupid. If you go back far enough in the past, they both have the same ancestor though.
edit on 15-4-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 09:10 AM
link   

168617

FlyersFan

168617
They are still all dogs, what's your point?

Argh ...

All the different breeds of dogs and wolves ... all CANINES.
Humans and Apes ... both are PRIMATES

Wolf to Poodle or Shepard = Natural selective breeding.
Ape to human = Natural selection.
Same/same.

Seriously finished. /OUT


That 1.2% difference is a big one. So you cannot provide evidence that the essence of evolution has been observed right before someone's eyes? Bit of blind faith goes into this ideology, doesn't it?
edit on 15-4-2014 by 168617 because: (no reason given)


That's a dumb claim, not a single thing in existence is 100% proven, but we have more than enough proof to explain how things very likely occur (like 90% probability).



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 09:11 AM
link   

168617
Bit of blind faith goes into this ideology, doesn't it?

You are talking about the blind faith required for literally believing in the Adam and Eve myth, even though it's been proven wrong. Correct? Seriously dude .. look HERE and ask the same question of yourself about blind faith.

Really .. i'm done. This is going no where. OUT/ (hopefully for good this time)



edit on 4/15/2014 by FlyersFan because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 09:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 


You're talking to someone who is convinced that it is not only feasible, but entirely reasonable, that the laws of physics be broken on a regular basis - and with little to no adverse repercussions - by an entity presumed to exist outside all known dimensions of space-time. Any other process is inferior by lack of association with said entity.
edit on 15-4-2014 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 09:30 AM
link   

168617
Bacteria never evolved into human beings otherwise we would be able to observe bacteria at different stages of the evolutionary process doing this and therefore we should also be able to observe this natural wonder before our very eyes. Or did the process all happen at once never to happen again? Concerning bacteria/animals and humans of course? This idea is ridiculously stupid.


Erm, no. You have massively failed to grasp the entire concept. That or you are wilfully twisting things. Ancient bacteria existed. Indeed, some of the oldest known fossils were prokaryotes. All life on Earth evolved from what might be described as primordial slime. Differences in that early life resulted in different influences, resulting in evolution. Saying that modern bacteria can evolve into a human is to misunderstood things. The distant ancestors of that bacteria evolved into us. They also evolved into trees, dogs, sharks and dinosaurs. Again, you are failing to understand the time involved in this process.



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 09:56 AM
link   
If you think about it like this, scientists and religious fanatics are, in my opinion, both the same. Yes I know we can scientifically prove stuff so I don't need examples. What I am saying is that some of both are so obnoxious in believing something that hasn't been proven that their arrogance excels them past the point of reality.
Science: The tv programs that are based on theories, yes theories, get it ? theories, are so speculative that I cant even watch most of them, nothing but pure speculation ,for example "the big bang theory, prove it? . How many times has science proven itself wrong? many many many, yet (not all, there are rational ones) arrogant scientists surpass a theory with an even wider theory based on a theory. Don't get me wrong, I love outside of the box, its just that they are so "matter of fact" and so sure and positive that they are right, like religious fanatics.
Religions: Personally, off topic, I wish people would keep that stuff to themselves. Religious fanatics do the same thing, for example, one day I mentioned that jesus (if he even existed), AS IT WAS WRITTEN,,was anti rich ,radical kinda guy that said the rich would have a hard time getting to heaven and as it was written he did say that stuff. My aunt exploded on me, she assured me with every fiber in her body that rich people will go to heaven , I could see in her eyes that she believes everything she was saying and is so confident that she would bet her life on it. Using the tired old "its the LOVE of money" not being rich. Like that one thing negates all of the other stuff that was written. The whole time disregarding my preface that I don't believe in any of it , Ive noticed that Christians get really disrespectful in that way, they totally disregard your beleifs and make it all about theirs. Its not just my aunt, unfortunately.
To me , this doesn't apply to all of either side. Without science, we wouldn't have any of these convenient technologies that we have. Without religion we wouldn't have, ummmm, ummm, Im thinking hold on, ummm, cant think of anything . Oh, fighting, arguing, condemnation, death, murder, absurd numbers of child molestation. I do like the new pope though. One last thing Id like to add is , why does it have to be creation vs evolution ? Even if you aren't on either side, couldn't it be both. And yes we have seen proof of evolution, iguanas have grown gills and can breathe underwater, adapting to the environment they ended up in.
edit on 15-4-2014 by lotusfoot because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-4-2014 by lotusfoot because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Krazysh0t
That's a dumb claim, not a single thing in existence is 100% proven, but we have more than enough proof to explain how things very likely occur (like 90% probability).


No, claiming evolution is correct without a physical example of it happening is dumb. When I ask for physical observance I want to see two completely different animals coming together to create a new kind of animal and going of modern day logic, that is impossible. So to me the evolution crap started with a lie and is now being pushed as fact though no scientist can prove to the world through physical observance that it actually ever happened in the first place. It is based off blind faith through one man's flawed theory. The bacteria can mutate all it wants, the point is it's still bacteria. Dogs can reproduce through different breed's of dog's, same, they are all still dog's. Now show me if you can where animals have mutated and become different kinds of animals in real life? All of you seem to be struggling with this one, maybe it's bs.



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by lotusfoot
 


Science has forensics, religion has faith. One investigates using a set of tools engineered to eliminate human error, the other does its damnedest to believe without explicit reason other than a desire to.

I see a lot of difference.
edit on 15-4-2014 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 10:04 AM
link   

168617
No, claiming evolution is correct without a physical example of it happening is dumb. When I ask for physical observance I want to see two completely different animals coming together to create a new kind of animal and going of modern day logic, that is impossible. So to me the evolution crap started with a lie and is now being pushed as fact though no scientist can prove to the world through physical observance that it actually ever happened in the first place. It is based off blind faith through one man's flawed theory. The bacteria can mutate all it wants, the point is it's still bacteria. Dogs can reproduce through different breed's of dog's, same, they are all still dog's. Now show me if you can where animals have mutated and become different kinds of animals in real life? All of you seem to be struggling with this one, maybe it's bs.


Aha, I see what the problem is. You have massively failed to understand Evolution. I suggest that you go back, get rid of your misconceptions - which are numerous - and start again.



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


This is the only evidence you have of evolution through history...



A stupid picture which proves that it's real and was created by someone who could only believe the bs lie themselves.



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by AngryCymraeg
 


That's getting to be a pattern. Maybe someone should post a thread - "Beginner's Introduction To The Science of Evolution". That way you can just post the link every time someone demonstrates their lack of understanding.



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 10:08 AM
link   

168617
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


This is the only evidence you have of evolution through history...



A stupid picture which proves that it's real and was created by someone who could only believe the bs lie themselves.


Pretty sure you're missing several hundred pages out of the text book from which that image came. And several dozen more volumes besides. I'm sure Wikipedia would be more than happy to provide a condensed version if you're short on time, complete with a bibliography for hardcore skeptics to peruse at their own leisure.
edit on 15-4-2014 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 10:11 AM
link   
I don't buy into evolution as a whole. There are evidences that animals have changed in "micro evolution" fashion. I have my own original thoughts based on neither.



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


So you think I should read the text books and put my faith into the teachings of someone I have never seen before in my life? That's starting to sound like religion... Does that book teach me how I can turn two animals into another species of animal?
edit on 15-4-2014 by 168617 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 10:19 AM
link   

168617
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


This is the only evidence you have of evolution through history...



A stupid picture which proves that it's real and was created by someone who could only believe the bs lie themselves.


Erm, that picture actually tells the story, so thanks for posting such a great illustration of Evolution! It's backed by fossils on the ground you see. I also note that you seem to be throwing the letters 'bs' around. Can you please tone it down a bit. It's not our fault if you have failed to understand something like evolution.



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 10:20 AM
link   

168617
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


So you think I should read the text books and put my faith into the teachings of someone I have never seen before in my life? That's starting to sound like religion... Does that book teach me how I can turn two animals into another species of animal?
edit on 15-4-2014 by 168617 because: (no reason given)


If you pick the right book then you'll get one that explains evolution to you properly. And it's more a question of information rather than 'faith'.




top topics



 
8
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join