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.

 

Two pics from Oilantaytambo that 100% defy evolution

page: 13
39
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 21 2014 @ 10:01 AM
link   
a reply to: luciddream

Right. We agree.
By attacking instead of defending you do agree with me also.

edit on Ram52114v022014u53 by randyvs because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 21 2014 @ 10:03 AM
link   
a reply to: randyvs

You just effectively agreed with me that the bible if a load of myths. Interesting #2.



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 10:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Quadrivium

As well as a basic course in science, I would suggest trying to hone your reading comprehension skills.


lol hilarious!


When someone says something like "Only a Sith lord deal in absolutes" basically they are saying "there are no absolutes"


Wrong.......again.....it just says that only a Sith lord deal in absolutes, and we can assume Obi-wan rejects them for the same reason science and well anybody else doesn't use them, they're not very useful in any way. It is not the statement or claim that absolutes do not exist. You don't see many Jedi around do you? (hint; the Sith killed them all, mostly)


To suggest that Evolution has moved past a theory is to say it is ABSOLUTELY true. We know all there is to know.
This type of thinking is ABSOLUTELY wrong.


Explanations of phenomena are not absolutes....


Now do you see that Evolution is a theory? It has not nor will it be anything other than a theory until we know all there is to know.
I don't know about you but I don't see that happening anytime soon.





posted on May, 21 2014 @ 10:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Prezbo369

I don't equate the two. There is no juxtaposition in what I say.

I simply stated that the two concepts don't inherently oppose each other.

God can create life and use a process we can study to change it. I still think that life existing at all is not as random as we would like to think. I see the argument of "oops life exists by random chance" as an over simplification of the subject.

I see design. Occam's razor leads us to the possibility, though seemingly impossible, that an intelligence is responsible for the presence of life by virtue of its near perfect and functional design.

Call me crazy, but I see the process of evolution as complimenting the concept of intelligent design.

The origin of life at the very least leads one to deduce that the proteins that formed those first single celled organisms were arranged by an intelligence into a complex design. Even the simplest of life has a vastly complex and role specific design that could not have formed randomly.

Abiogenesis aside, the evolution does not negate God at all.




edit on 5 21 2014 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 10:11 AM
link   
Gawd I love controversy!


Bubble bubble toil the trouble
Stir the pot forget me not.
edit on Ram52114v13201400000022 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 10:19 AM
link   
a reply to: tadaman




God can create life and use a process we can study to change it. I still think that life existing at all is not as random as we would like to think. I see the argument of "oops life exists by random chance" as an over simplification of the subject.


I think what you have to offer is quite astute really.
I could possibly see my way to agreeing with it.
I hesitate.

Alright in the interest of justice and the curing of massive
pain my thread is causing. I'm going to admit that
if science were to try not to negate my Father in Heaven
or the only viable word we have from him.
I would be far more open to its points of affirmation.
That's the absolute best I can offer you peeps.

But ultimately I believe science is just a continuance
of an age old attempt by man to be God.



And that just isn't going to happen.

Maybe that should be my next thread.

edit on Ram52114v372014u24 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 10:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: Prezbo369

I don't equate the two. There is no juxtaposition in what I say.


I see, so you only include intelligent design in regards to a-biogenesis and not evolution by natural selection? Seems a little convenient..


God can create life and use a process we can study to change it. I still think that life existing at all is not as random as we would like to think. I see the argument of "oops life exists by random chance" as an over simplification of the subject.


And you think throwing in assumptions and making the issue more complicated is the best way to explain it? or anything?


I see design. Occam's razor leads us to the possibility, though seemingly impossible, that an intelligence is responsible for the presence of life by virtue of its near perfect and functional design.


While its possible, its incredibly unlikely. But I'd be very interested to see how you can use occam's razor in that respect...


Call me crazy, but I see the process of evolution as complimenting the concept of intelligent design.


Natural selection does of all the 'designing', no need for a god and thus no need for 'intelligent design'.


The origin of life at the very least leads one to deduce that the proteins that formed those first single celled organisms were arranged by an intelligence into a complex design. Even the simplest of life has a vastly complex and role specific design that could not have formed randomly.



“God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance that's getting smaller and smaller and smaller as time moves on.”


If a-biogenesis is the last hiding place for a god, the last best chance creationists have of actually having a leg to stand on, their time is coming to an end.


Abiogenesis aside, the evolution does not negate God at all.


Evolution explains why we are what we are, and how we got here without having to make huge jumps and claims of magic and creation.

If evolution is true, there was no adam, no original sin, and thus no Jesus. Game over.
edit on 21-5-2014 by Prezbo369 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 10:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: AngryCymraeg




I see. So, you prefer a book of Bronze and Iron age myths over actual science. Interesting.



Ya I absolutely do. And it is far more interesting than
a pack of lying ass human beings with agenda to fill as
AnuTyr has so perfectly pointed out in the Loyd Pye video he
provided.

AI
I don't see the mods having to close a thread because
it's unpopular with the science committee. If it hurts
you? Quit adding to the pain.


Oh, my concern is not that it's unpopular. My concern is that your premise is full of crap, and everyone here knows it.
edit on 21-5-2014 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 10:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: AfterInfinity

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: AngryCymraeg




I see. So, you prefer a book of Bronze and Iron age myths over actual science. Interesting.



Ya I absolutely do. And it is far more interesting than
a pack of lying ass human beings with agenda to fill as
AnuTyr has so perfectly pointed out in the Loyd Pye video he
provided.

AI
I don't see the mods having to close a thread because
it's unpopular with the science committee. If it hurts
you? Quit adding to the pain.


Oh, my concern is not that it's unpopular. My concern is that you are full of crap and everyone knows it.


No not really.
And the pot calling the kettle black will never suffice.
edit on Ram52114v542014u11 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 10:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs

originally posted by: AfterInfinity

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: AngryCymraeg




I see. So, you prefer a book of Bronze and Iron age myths over actual science. Interesting.



Ya I absolutely do. And it is far more interesting than
a pack of lying ass human beings with agenda to fill as
AnuTyr has so perfectly pointed out in the Loyd Pye video he
provided.

AI
I don't see the mods having to close a thread because
it's unpopular with the science committee. If it hurts
you? Quit adding to the pain.


Oh, my concern is not that it's unpopular. My concern is that you are full of crap and everyone knows it.


No not really.


Yes, I think so. I have three things to point out here before I vacate this waste of virtual space:

1. Your premise is crap. Which would be okay, if you weren't so blindly insisting on the exact opposite.

2. Your thread flies in the face of everything we are struggling to accomplish here on ATS. I know, it's the internet, but this website is here for a specific reason. That reason is not to push your personal agenda.

3. You are pushing an agenda. Just like the scientists you're all angsty about. It's actually a common symptom with people facing denial. It is everyone else's fault before it is ever theirs. Unless, of course, admitting it is their fault favors the denial they are facing.

But yes, this is what I call "pushing an agenda". Taking evidence and making it fit the story that suits your purposes. And that's exactly what you're doing.

And that's why I'm outta here. This is a waste of time for everyone.


And the pot calling the kettle black will never suffice.


I'm here to provide balance and due examination where I can. I am capable of admitting I was wrong. Are you? I suppose we shall see. But if it happens in this thread, I won't be around to witness it.
edit on 21-5-2014 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 11:03 AM
link   
a reply to: AfterInfinity




Are you?


Yes and you've seen it before.
I don't see where that has been shown
in this case. It's only been refuted by pure speculation
and that will not suffice. I can still see how the two pics
defy, defy, defy evolution. Altho they don't disprove anything.
So how does that make me full of crap in your judgemental
mind?
edit on Ram52114v172014u07 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 11:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Prezbo369




I see, so you only include intelligent design in regards to a-biogenesis and not evolution by natural selection? Seems a little convenient..


I actually said something completely different. I argue that intelligent design is not negated by evolution including natural selection and /or genetic mutations producing more favorable traits OR abiogenesis. I include intelligent design into the whole process. I see it as not being random. How is that even at odds with evolution? I never said evolution wasnt valid. Unlike you who try to force us into your limited view that somehow evolution is an argument against organized religion...lol You dont even understand evolution if you think that.




And you think throwing in assumptions and making the issue more complicated is the best way to explain it? or anything?

I dont think making assumptions either way does a service in either case. Evolution assumes much as well. YET we have to choose something in order to continue down a path of reason. I am sorry my choice is not to your liking. LOL
I think arguing unexplained random happenings is an over complication considering the obvious design and pattern to life. A pattern is a sign of intelligence in most cases. Especially if it repeats itself and is dynamic to a situation.

Again sorry you dont agree with me. LOL



While its possible, its incredibly unlikely. But I'd be very interested to see how you can use occam's razor in that respect...

I just did. I dont know what you were responding to or if you were just responding to every point I made with a counter point, leaving you to make something up for this section of my reply. Saying that there is not intelligence to the design of life in favor of arguing a yet unknown /undiscovered "random" process is an over complication. There is NO evidence to infer it is random. None. Should we just take your word on it in GOOD FAITH? We know intelligence produces patterns and designs things according to a specific function, EX: long stick to get ants out of a hole in a tree or long tube to get ants out of a tree or what have you. The pattern is a tool similar in design being fashioned for the specific purpose of getting ants out of a hole in a tree. Assuming that some random process is causing sticks to fall into holes and for ants to crawl out and into an animal´ss belly is silly. Thats what you are doing here without any evidence to even send you down that train of thought in the first place.

Life has design to serve its purpose and a discernable pattern to that function....hence intelligence. Again...SORRY..lol



Natural selection does of all the 'designing', no need for a god and thus no need for 'intelligent design'.


Again I see that as an over complication of the process so as to justify a view already held in which variables are plugged into an equation in order to form an already reached outcome, in essence making the equation on the fly to to justify a convenient answer.

Natural selection may allow the better suited traits to surface in a species and for those genes to be more expressed in a population out of survivability but to assume that random happenings are responsible for the mutations that happen to come about and suit the environment they are required for is silly. Also natural selection doesnt always work. Sometimes certain traits develop and are preserved even though they dont suit the environment the species is in until much later when the variables change, hence the design anticipated the change before natural selection bred it into the species. It could just be a robust design or a redundancy to the design, but again, pretty good design no? Random happenings cant account for that level of precision. Think to the peppered moth for example.




“God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance that's getting smaller and smaller and smaller as time moves on.”
If a-biogenesis is the last hiding place for a god, the last best chance creationists have of actually having a leg to stand on, their time is coming to an end.



Ok my little crusader.....lol

How about you use science to enhance our understanding and mastery of the natural world instead of "moby dicking" this into a war on organized religion...

Also abiogenesis is only embraced by fringe or out of touch members of the scientific community. It has long been abandoned by competent people due to its sheer improbability and its reliance on faith based assumptions with no rational evidence to infer such a claim. You obviously read something a while back and havent kept up to date or are being guided by a mentor who did such and cant let go after investing countless arguments and his reputation and hinging it all onto the theory of abiogenesis. Its a mathematical impossibility. A natural process may exist but its certainly not WITHOUT design and purpose.




Evolution explains why we are what we are, and how we got here without having to make huge jumps and claims of magic and creation.

If evolution is true, there was no adam, no original sin, and thus no Jesus. Game over.


Game over? lol

evolution explains the PROCESS for change and variety to life. Thats about it. It DOES NOT EXPLAIN how we got here. You dont even understand evolution from what I can tell after that statement.

I never made a claim of "magical creation". That is an insult you smugly apply to people who see the complexity to something and dont over simplify it like you (dumb it down out of sloth or ignorance)...or over complicate it so as to make everything fit into their neat little faith based assumptions on how it all works out.

Original sin? What the hell are you talking about? Are you high? How does that even relate to the argument at hand?

Jesus? same... You need to read up on the historicity of the bible. Are you arguing that none of the people in it ever existed? Please say yes so I can school you a little on archeology and anthropology...lol Youre pretty arrogant.

Anything else dear?

edit on 5 21 2014 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 11:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: luciddream
a reply to: Quadrivium

Did you know gravity is also a theory? "Theory Of Gravity".. Some fake stuff scientist made up? an idea?

When are you gonna jump off a building to prove them wrong?





edit: A scientific theory is more than just an idea.... the "theory" you are thinking about is the one you learn in high school... where they tell you a theory is an idea. Sadly many people don't go past the high school thinking.

Something that is lablled as a scientific theory is because it cannot be proven 100%... for example, gravity is there but cannot be seen, but it can be tested but someone can come along and say, nope its not there because there is no way to see it.

Many of our modern medicine are made taking evolutionary biology into account, teh fact that these medicine works with our biological systems is proof(but still leaves it in the scope of scientific "theory") that evolution did happen and is happening(which we wont know until future).

It is called a theory because we would need a time machine to make it 100%. which i don't think is possible any time soon, so we will leave it at as theory, which means it could be 99% true.. oh and people that abide by these theories KNOW it will change(things will get added and taken away).

Wrong.
I understand completely what the "theory" in Theory of Evolution means.
It seems that many of the pro-evolutionists are having trouble with it though.
I never said anything about the meaning of theory. Some people ASSUMED they knew what I meant because I disagreed with them.
Firstly let us look at the word "theory" as used in Science.
We will take the Theory of Gravity" as an example.
We know what Gravity does, we even know how it works to a point. We do not know everything about it though.
Some of what we think we know may be wrong. Hence we call it the "theory of Gravity".
That does not mean it does not work. Just that we do not have a complete understanding of it.
Therefore I may disagree with a premise that you may agree with. The data may show in your favor but it still may be wrong.
When you start dealing in absolutes, like some of these yahoos on here, you are basically throwing science right out the window.



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 12:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Quadrivium

You still seem to be tripping up on the scientific definition of the word "theory". Even if we understood a phenomenon 100%, it would still be called a theory. Theories are the highest echelon of understanding, they don't get promoted to anything else once we "know everything about it".



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 02:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: Quadrivium

You still seem to be tripping up on the scientific definition of the word "theory". Even if we understood a phenomenon 100%, it would still be called a theory. Theories are the highest echelon of understanding, they don't get promoted to anything else once we "know everything about it".

Lol
Give me an example of a phenomenon we know absolutely everything about beyond a shadow of a doubt.
This is why they are called "theories", we are always coming to new understanding. We add to or take away from these theories as new data comes to light.
Open your minds.
All because someone tells you it's a theory does that mean you should stop asking questions?
Wow, and people say Creationists are backwards.



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 02:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Quadrivium

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: Quadrivium

You still seem to be tripping up on the scientific definition of the word "theory". Even if we understood a phenomenon 100%, it would still be called a theory. Theories are the highest echelon of understanding, they don't get promoted to anything else once we "know everything about it".

Lol
Give me an example of a phenomenon we know absolutely everything about beyond a shadow of a doubt.
This is why they are called "theories", we are always coming to new understanding. We add to or take away from these theories as new data comes to light.
Open your minds.
All because someone tells you it's a theory does that mean you should stop asking questions?
Wow, and people say Creationists are backwards.


You are correct that a theory is never 100% known and things are added to and taken from it all the time, however I am responding to you about your question at the end of the post. We should never stop asking questions, the problem arises when people keep asking the SAME questions over and over even though they've been shown to be poorly formed, due to misunderstanding of the theory, or already have adequate answers which many Creationists, especially YEC's, do all the time.



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 02:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Examples?



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 02:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Quadrivium

Point me to where I said we know everything about a given phenomenon.

But more to the point, by all means tell me what a scientific theory gets promoted to once we do know everything about it.



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 02:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Quadrivium

"Why does evolution say that life began from a flash of lightning...?" - Evolution doesn't talk about the origin of life (probably the most common ones I've seen)
"Where is the proof for evolution?" - The proof for evolution is everywhere and is well documented. A simple Google search produces it.
"There is no proof of Macroevolution." Yes there is, the historic record through archeology and fossils is the proof.
"Humans didn't evolve from monkeys." Correct, they evolved from Great apes.
"Animal XYZ could never evolve into animal ABC." Evolution is represented by small changes over time and one animal doesn't set out to become another animal, we just label it as a different animal when the differences are so huge that it is nothing like what it was originally.
"Evolution has a lot of holes in it." *when asked to elaborate on the holes, person says one of the questions above*

I can go on, but the ones above are the most common ones I've seen. The first one angers me to no end. How many times do you have to be told that Evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life before you accept that as the case and drop that from your lexicon of reasons why Evolution is flawed? That very reasoning was used in this thread by another poster.
edit on 21-5-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-5-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 03:00 PM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped
I guess we will find out once we get to that point.



new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join