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.

 

Prove Evolution Is False - Even Without the Bible

page: 12
15
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 30 2015 @ 10:01 PM
link   
a reply to: noonebutme

Oh stop it will you!
I coined a scripted line from a movie to show my disdain for
people who torture animals without accusation. And with
the hope of lightening you up at any measure. You know
what, nevermind. Have fun in your life that ends and means
nothing to anyone full of as much hope as a bag o crap.
Merry Christmas ?




My mummy and my daddy did. Through hot, rampant sex. Full of sin and seduction! All the things that make good Christians wince and pull the covers over the heads.


No wonder, you're not supposed to watch Ma and Pa guy!
It turns people into atheists.

edit on Rpm103015v16201500000018 by randyvs because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 30 2015 @ 10:09 PM
link   
a reply to: randyvs
Happy Halloween??



posted on Oct, 30 2015 @ 10:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
a reply to: randyvs
Happy Halloween??



What can I say? I'm in the mood this year!



posted on Oct, 30 2015 @ 10:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
a reply to: randyvs
Happy Halloween??



What can I say? I'm in the mood this year!

I strung the Christmas lights on Labor Day. Celebrating Easter tomorrow. I am missing the placement of Halloween, Thanksgiving perhaps. I know what you mean.



posted on Oct, 31 2015 @ 03:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: hudsonhawk69

There are many forces that contribute to cause an organism to evolve. Environment, natural disasters, mutations, climate change, etc. As for what causes it, I couldn't tell you. Science doesn't presume to answer all questions. It just answers the questions that it built the evidence for. If you are trying to try me in a gotcha question here by saying that evolution is false because -I- can't answer your one nagging question about evolution then you are doing it wrong.


While it would be extremely satisfying to catch you out in a 'Gotcha ya' question it would be extremely naive of me to believe that this would prove evolution false.
I do however appreciate the underlying honesty of your response.
If we are going to all gentlemanly about it and # then I am prepared to admit that arguing with people like you on ATS has given me cause to reassess my understanding of evolution. While at times I may express very valid concerns about the short comings of Modern Evolutionary Syntheses I can now see that within the particular constraints of the science, evolution presents compelling... Let's say 'evidences' to support what IS provable and measurable within the theory.
I think that one of the reasons that this topic causes such heated responses among those brave enough to discuss it, is because while it may remain unsaid and unasked it still begs us to question ourselves such things as;
Why are we here? What is life all about? Is there a creator? Is there a god? Is this all just happenstance? And I think the more frightening questions embody such question as 'If it all happened over again... Would Humans or something resembling humans or some sentient higher life form or being as we tend to view ourselves, evolve at all?'



posted on Oct, 31 2015 @ 06:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
It was no where near millions of years (3 at best at its first discovery), the hominid creature suspected human prototype. The last 40,000 years of human evolution could compete with the 170 Kennel Club (recognized dog breeds) created by SOMEONE. Am I to believe humans did this all by themselves (of course they did) just as a higher being manipulated human DNA.


Sigh. Do I really need to explain that bit?

"Millions of years" was referring to not just "humans" but our earlier ancestors and the early animal-type that we eventually became.

My argument against creationism/God is : if there was a designer, why go through such a crap process to have eyes which are still very inefficient? Why not just create us "perfect" ?

And comparing a Kennel Club to our evolution isn't the same.



posted on Oct, 31 2015 @ 06:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
Oh stop it will you!
I coined a scripted line from a movie to show my disdain for
people who torture animals without accusation. And with
the hope of lightening you up at any measure. You know
what, nevermind. Have fun in your life that ends and means
nothing to anyone full of as much hope as a bag o crap.
Merry Christmas ?


Hmm. Interesting attempt at humour -- indirectly accusing me of torturing animals and then threatening to harm people in my neighbourhood.

The Power of Christ is strong with this one....



posted on Oct, 31 2015 @ 11:57 AM
link   
a reply to: noonebutme

Last word freak





posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 11:04 AM
link   
a reply to: randyvs

Not quite. When Jesus preached understanding and compassion, I don't think he meant that you should be graciously condescending. You make halfhearted attempts to conceal your contempt, but they often only serve to underline it.

You are not superior and I'm sure it would sadden your savior to see you act like it, especially if its for his benefit.



posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 01:08 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm




I'm sure it would sadden your savior to see you act like it, especially if its for his benefit.


Superiority has nothing to do with it.
Niether his benefit, nor mine.
But your just to shallow to understand that.
Human beings weren't meant to obsess over facts
and logic only. For if we were, we wouldn't be capable
of imagining beyond them. And God would of had a much
easier time, if we were mechanized as you seem to wish.
But I already told you what to do with your wishes.



posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 01:45 PM
link   
a reply to: randyvs

the neighborly love just drips from your posts, randy.



posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 03:22 PM
link   
originally posted by: [post=19981073]noonebutme[/post
originally posted by: vethumanbeing

vhb: It was no where near millions of years (3 at best at its first discovery), the hominid creature suspected human prototype. The last 40,000 years of human evolution could compete with the 170 Kennel Club (recognized dog breeds) created by SOMEONE. Am I to believe humans did this all by themselves (of course they did) just as a higher being manipulated human DNA.



noonebutme: Sigh. Do I really need to explain that bit?
"Millions of years" was referring to not just "humans" but our earlier ancestors and the early animal-type that we eventually became.
My argument against creationism/God is : if there was a designer, why go through such a crap process to have eyes which are still very inefficient? Why not just create us "perfect" ?
And comparing a Kennel Club to our evolution isn't the same.

It is the same; as we are the re-designers of many living things (dog breeds the most obvious, corn hybrids). We mimic our designers as we are our designers and cannot help ourselves in manipulating other beings. I have a problem with imperfect sight, not having the nose of a bloodhound. Perhaps it would have overwhelmed human sensibility (or our creator did not want us to have superpowers/impact an already inflated ego identity). Do not forget the brilliance of human ingenuity: creation of the Liger and the Zedonk .
edit on 2-11-2015 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 3 2015 @ 08:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: vethumanbeing

Who is Science. Those that created the 'Science Oven' (microwave). You realize Abiogenesis as a hypothesis and Evolution as a 'theory' is unproven just as creationism is a 'wild guess' faith based. Back to square one as it is a little bit of all of these ideas that no one will consider. One has to appreciate the actual power of polarizing factions which seem always to result in the negative result of non-communication.


You realize that this paragraph doesn't make any sense?
edit on 3-11-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 3 2015 @ 08:51 AM
link   
a reply to: hudsonhawk69

Well evolution only presumes to answer the questions it has the evidence for. I understand that innately, humans ask these questions, but it isn't the theory of evolution's fault that these questions remain unanswered.

To me, I think many religious have problems with science because it doesn't answer as many questions as religion presumes to answer. But scientists performing science would rather answer the questions they CAN answer as opposed to questions that we are lacking in evidence for. When we guess, we are usually wrong. Therefore science is only as correct as the evidence it has collected.



posted on Nov, 3 2015 @ 10:37 AM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

You aren't my neighbor and I don't care for your posts
at all. Sorry about that cheif but you only post crap.
And I'm not the one trying to cause trouble all the
time by replying to you. In fact I never reply to you.
Something you might do for me? Or stop being a typical
hateful atheist. Stop being so fascinated with Randy.

You follow me around like some lost pup.
edit on Ram110315v49201500000034 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 3 2015 @ 06:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: vethumanbeing

Who is Science. Those that created the 'Science Oven' (microwave). You realize Abiogenesis as a hypothesis and Evolution as a 'theory' is unproven just as creationism is a 'wild guess' faith based. Back to square one as it is a little bit of all of these ideas that no one will consider. One has to appreciate the actual power of polarizing factions which seem always to result in the negative result of non-communication.


You realize that this paragraph doesn't make any sense?

To whom or what needs justifying that makes no sense; I do not know your mind as you do not know mine and I don't exist to confuse/confound or cause you an instance of levity.
edit on 3-11-2015 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 4 2015 @ 06:54 AM
link   
a reply to: vethumanbeing

I mean you use a bunch of words, but when I read it those words aren't used correctly. Example: Calling a theory as unproven as a hypothesis. That is just straight up wrong. Then you say back to square one. No, we aren't back to square one. You just have the wrong idea about science.

PS: Science isn't a person. It is a process used to define the universe. Playing tedious semantics games like "Who is science?" is childish.
edit on 4-11-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 4 2015 @ 05:33 PM
link   
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: vethumanbeing


Krazyshot: I mean you use a bunch of words, but when I read it those words aren't used correctly. Example: Calling a theory as unproven as a hypothesis. That is just straight up wrong. Then you say back to square one. No, we aren't back to square one. You just have the wrong idea about science.

Bunches of words strung together to illustrate ones thought process (ingenious language device). There is no elegance or imagination within your idea of "science" (its a [just] pave the earth attitude).


Krazyshot: PS: Science isn't a person. It is a process used to define the universe. Playing tedious semantics games like "Who is science?" is childish.

I know!! and just can't help myself as I am by nature playful. Have you ever put aluminum foil in your science oven and turned it on? Just to see if that foil disappears into a space time continuum? Microwaves are a huge yet to be discovered tool. Everyone knows Science isn't a person; it just wants to be: (ego-inflated and what it tries to disprove at every turn-GODLIKE). Humorous Genetics Class 301 (not exactly hard science) more to my interest.
edit on 4-11-2015 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2015 @ 10:21 AM
link   
Well, first of all, I do believe in God, and that has absolutely nothing to do with what we're talking about here. Basically, we're talking about the missing link between what we are and what we were. I think that one article is a little off, because we do have certain remnants of DNA left over from that time, to the extent all humans can trace their lineage to a single female hominid, Lucy.
However there is a missing link and its not understood how we managed to make such a leap from basically animal, to having abstract thought and language. I strongly believe in the ancient aliens theory.
Don't mix me up, I believe our genetics was tampered with by the "star people" that several ancient cultures documented. This is not to be confused with God or gods. Spirituality is something entirely different.
To me its clear that these ancients were DOCUMENTING, not making outlandish myths. Maybe it did seem like magic to them, but we know enough about technology now to know that when extremely advanced, it seems like magic.
To summarize, evolution exists, just like Darwin said it did and we have examples such as the creatures of the Galopogus islands (sp). BUT I do not believe that is how we came to be sentient beings rather than animals.
There's other plausible theories... Maybe we began eating hallucinagins... Maybe it was a virus... But I think it's very clear that the ancients knew how they came to be and clearly stated, it was the star people, the annunaki, the "gods" that created us.
I agree that natural selection did not apply to us. Evidence is abundant that our brain and DNA are capable of much more than we've needed to survive this far... Much more than we've ever needed to tap into...
So there yah have it. I'm not going into the whole ancient aliens arguement, you've seen the history channel. I will say though, our society is really big on writing ideas off because they're "impossible" even though in many cases there's several witnesses. In this case I think it's safe to say that many cultures have witnessed and documented this. Simple as that.
Opinions and questions always welcome!
Thank you
Sara



posted on Nov, 24 2015 @ 10:29 AM
link   
a reply to: NaughtyLibrarian

There is no missing link. That is a fallacy. Human ancestry is actually pretty thoroughly mapped out. I wouldn't say it is complete, but if you still think the missing link is a valid rebuttal to evolution, then you are seriously out of date with the science.

There also aren't any other plausible theories about how we became who we are. There are hypotheses, but most of them have more holes than evolution, with many being contradictory to the archaeological record (your annunaki hypothesis being one of them).

Human evolution is pretty nicely mapped out on the Human Evolution wiki page actually:
Human evolution

Also here is a wiki page on Transitional Fossils (what you are labeling as Missing Links)
Transitional fossil


Missing Link

The term "missing link" refers back to the originally static pre-evolutionary concept of the great chain of being, a deist idea that all existence is linked, from the lowest dirt, through the living kingdoms to angels and finally to God.[49] The idea of all living things being linked through some sort of transmutation process predates Darwin's theory of evolution. Jean-Baptiste Lamarck envisioned that life is generated in the form of the simplest creatures constantly, and then strive towards complexity and perfection (i.e. humans) through a series of lower forms.[50] In his view, lower animals were simply newcomers on the evolutionary scene.[51]

After On the Origin of Species, the idea of "lower animals" representing earlier stages in evolution lingered, as demonstrated in Ernst Haeckel's figure of the human pedigree.[52] While the vertebrates were then seen as forming a sort of evolutionary sequence, the various classes were distinct, the undiscovered intermediate forms being called "missing links."

The term was first used in a scientific context by Charles Lyell in the third edition (1851) of his book Elements of Geology in relation to missing parts of the geological column, but it was popularized in its present meaning by its appearance on page xi of his book Geological Evidences of the Antiquity of Man of 1863. By that time it was generally thought that the end of the last glacial period marked the first appearance of humanity, but Lyell drew on new findings in his Antiquity of Man to put the origin of human beings much further back in the deep geological past. Lyell wrote that it remained a profound mystery how the huge gulf between man and beast could be bridged.[53] Lyell's vivid writing fired the public imagination, inspiring Jules Verne's Journey to the Center of the Earth (1864) and Louis Figuier's 1867 second edition of La Terre avant le déluge ("Earth before the Flood"), which included dramatic illustrations of savage men and women wearing animal skins and wielding stone axes, in place of the Garden of Eden shown in the 1863 edition.[54]

The idea of a "missing link" between humans and so-called "lower" animals remains lodged in the public imagination.[55] The search for a fossil showing transitional traits between apes and humans, however, was fruitless until the young Dutch geologist Eugène Dubois found a skullcap, a molar and a femur on the banks of Solo River, Java in 1891. The find combined a low, ape-like skull roof with a brain estimated at around 1000 cc, midway between that of a chimpanzee and an adult human. The single molar was larger than any modern human tooth, but the femur was long and straight, with a knee angle showing that "Java Man" had walked upright.[56] Given the name Pithecanthropus erectus ("erect ape-man"), it became the first in what is now a long list of human evolution fossils. At the time it was hailed by many as the "missing link," helping set the term as primarily used for human fossils, though it is sometimes used for other intermediates, like the dinosaur-bird intermediary Archaeopteryx.[57][58]

"Missing link" is still a popular term, well recognized by the public and often used in the popular media.[59] It is, however, avoided in the scientific press, as it relates to the concept of the great chain of being and to the notion of simple organisms being primitive versions of complex ones, both of which have been discarded in biology.[citation needed] In any case, the term itself is misleading, as any known transitional fossil, like Java Man, is no longer missing. While each find will give rise to new gaps in the evolutionary story on each side, the discovery of more and more transitional fossils continues to add to our knowledge of evolutionary transitions.[4][60]

edit on 24-11-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
15
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join