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.

 

What is evolution, not what some think

page: 25
12
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 10:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

That is how science works, it builds on the information it has to create a better understanding of things. I'm not sure why you consider that a bad thing. It starts with the premise that we assume nothing then builds the theories around the evidence we have. If the evidence says one thing then later new evidence says something different, we modify the theory to fit. The modification though still takes into account the old evidence and still explains why the old evidence is true. It is just more rounded out, more questions answered.

These two statements contradict each other.

I can accept that, but I find it a rather dumb reason for doing so. The better question is, why are you content to believe in something that claims to have all the answers?




Firstly let me start at the end of your post.
The Bible has all the answers??? You make this assumption based on what you have heard me say, other Christians?
The bible leaves us with as many questions as the ToE does.

I accept why people believe in evolution, have no issues with their choice and accept why many detest the bible.

The synapse of the bible is love God and love each other, thats my answer to everything and I am working hard on both those requests

Maybe my explanation in relation to the contradiction was caused by my poor penmanship
Evolution science is always being revised, but many of the arguments for evolution are based on dated science that is no longer accepted by the majority of the scientific community.
Yet they still stand as evidence, take Darwins work, he never imagined the complexity of DNA




posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 10:51 AM
link   
How complexity of DNA invalidates Darwin's work?

It actually supports it, and gives us better view of relationship between different species that evolved separately due to continent shifts for example...



posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 10:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

It's pointless to debate you because you refuse to admit that you are wrong. There are no 'gaping holes' in the theory of Evolution - but you continue to insist that there are, because this is what you think.



I think scientists are working furiously to prove evolution because its not proven, working furiously to fill gaping holes.
www.evolutionnews.org...

www.nature.com...
not to mention the fossil record

If you can answer the questions in my OP please do, I would like to hear the answers.
If you cant I respectfully disagree, sorry.



posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 11:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: SuperFrog
How complexity of DNA invalidates Darwin's work?

It actually supports it, and gives us better view of relationship between different species that evolved separately due to continent shifts for example...


You wont believe or accept anything I say...so
start from here

scienceandscientist.org...

then maybe search How complexity of DNA invalidates Darwin's work



posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 11:29 AM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch

Let me try to explain to you how theories develop and evolve with an analogy. Let's say that the theory of evolution is an unknown shape that scientists are trying to discover the area and dimensions for. Let's say that when the TOE was first theorized, they were able to determine a rough idea of what the shape looked like. Say a square. Now let's say in reality that the shape is really a circle. So scientists work to rough out the edges. Eventually they add more sides and angles to the square and we have a octogon. Well that still isn't a circle, but it's closer. So scientists continue to rough out the edges and more and more angles are added. Now if you've studied calculus, you'd know that the only way to make a circle out of the square is to repeat this process an infinite amount of times, making the edges ever smaller and adding new angles and edges every time you repeat. However, eventually the object will look very similar to a circle meaning that the theory is mostly correct with what is true in reality. Keep in mind that most of the original area from the square is intact, only the edges have been redrawn. Meaning that the core part of the theory remains the same, while the shape changed and smoothed out as more things were understood about it.

Theory development works similarly to this, so when you say that the TOE has gaping holes in it like it is a bad thing, you are wrong. There are always going to be gaping holes in any theory, but they are just an angle that we are trying to smooth out from our polygon. We can continually try to smooth the angles out to shrink the size of those holes. And unless something comes along that COMPLETELY contradicts the theory, the bulk of the original idea remains intact.



posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 11:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch
I think scientists are working furiously to prove evolution because its not proven, working furiously to fill gaping holes.
www.evolutionnews.org...

www.nature.com...
not to mention the fossil record

If you can answer the questions in my OP please do, I would like to hear the answers.
If you cant I respectfully disagree, sorry.


Just for your info - evolution is proven working theory. There is huge amount of evidence that support ToE and it is fact that even late Pope acknowledged that evolution is not mere hypothesis back in 1996.

I am sorry that your education wasn't covering everything it should... but it's still not late to learn what is pretty much accepted in whole world...



posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 07:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: SuperFrog


Just for your info - evolution is proven working theory. There is huge amount of evidence that support ToE and it is fact that even late Pope acknowledged that evolution is not mere hypothesis back in 1996.

I am sorry that your education wasn't covering everything it should... but it's still not late to learn what is pretty much accepted in whole world...


Proven to those who believe it, I cant understand why you cant see the evidence or better the lack of evidence. I cant believe you dont have questions, that you can accept it as fact when you admit it still doesnt fit.
Is your faith so strong that you cant imagine a day when the square becomes a circle?
I guess it comes down to what you want to believe.

From my study, anybody who doesnt accept the failures in evolution science is denying the evidence

You dont have to be sorry for my education, I am a bit surprised you can be so unchallenged.

As I stated over and over, the evidence isnt at a point that evolution remains unchallenged for millions

As for the pope, so what, he can believe what he wants, it has no bearing on me.
Remember he stated that al atheists are redeemed through Jesus, like it or not, you are a Christian....according to him.

Thank you Krazyshot I appreciate the lesson, however disagree.
Scientists have been making a square fit into a round hole, it wont go.
There are millions of pages on google listing the problems of evolution and the science that contradicts it

I am sure you will appreciate me not linking any



posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 03:20 AM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch

Ern, the vast majority of biologists think that the theory of Evolution is scientifically viable. Will that do you?



posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 06:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch
Proven to those who believe it, I cant understand why you cant see the evidence or better the lack of evidence. I cant believe you dont have questions, that you can accept it as fact when you admit it still doesnt fit.
Is your faith so strong that you cant imagine a day when the square becomes a circle?
I guess it comes down to what you want to believe.


You really don't understand - do you? You don't have to be top scientist to be able to verify evolution as proven theory. There is no belief if you work with data that is testable. You don't have to trust someone else, you can verify data being correct, over and over. It has been done, especially on ToE and every time it was proven as correct theory.



originally posted by: borntowatch
From my study, anybody who doesnt accept the failures in evolution science is denying the evidence

Your study? Care to elaborate?

Anyone who bases his study on belief and not on evidence can't disprove evolution - it's quite simple...



originally posted by: borntowatch
You dont have to be sorry for my education, I am a bit surprised you can be so unchallenged.

As I stated over and over, the evidence isnt at a point that evolution remains unchallenged for millions

Anyone who scientifically tested theory of evolution got to the same conclusion, except rare scientist who got their degree on questionable thesis... Dr. Tyson identified 7% of top scientist who believe in God as people on whom scientist should focus - to explain how someone who understand that light from some starts and galaxies has to travel millions of years to earth - yet some of them believe earth being much younger and created... those people have issue to distinguish between reality and imaginary...



originally posted by: borntowatch
As for the pope, so what, he can believe what he wants, it has no bearing on me.
Remember he stated that al atheists are redeemed through Jesus, like it or not, you are a Christian....according to him.

That is different pope... and if pope as spiritual leader acknowledges theory of evolution as undeniable scientific fact - how that has no bearing on you?

True, you can be ignorant and continue to live in your fantasy world... but even Pope understands how science works...


originally posted by: borntowatch
Thank you Krazyshot I appreciate the lesson, however disagree.
Scientists have been making a square fit into a round hole, it wont go.
There are millions of pages on google listing the problems of evolution and the science that contradicts it

I am sure you will appreciate me not linking any

LOL.... since when number of pages on internet made by people like you counts as evidence???

Seriously?
edit on 20-6-2014 by SuperFrog because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 11:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: borntowatch

Ern, the vast majority of biologists think that the theory of Evolution is scientifically viable. Will that do you?



The vast majority???.

I will let you think about your question and my answer



posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 11:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: SuperFrog

originally posted by: borntowatch
Proven to those who believe it, I cant understand why you cant see the evidence or better the lack of evidence. I cant believe you dont have questions, that you can accept it as fact when you admit it still doesnt fit.
Is your faith so strong that you cant imagine a day when the square becomes a circle?
I guess it comes down to what you want to believe.


You really don't understand - do you? You don't have to be top scientist to be able to verify evolution as proven theory. There is no belief if you work with data that is testable. You don't have to trust someone else, you can verify data being correct, over and over. It has been done, especially on ToE and every time it was proven as correct theory.



originally posted by: borntowatch
From my study, anybody who doesnt accept the failures in evolution science is denying the evidence

Your study? Care to elaborate?

Anyone who bases his study on belief and not on evidence can't disprove evolution - it's quite simple...



originally posted by: borntowatch
You dont have to be sorry for my education, I am a bit surprised you can be so unchallenged.

As I stated over and over, the evidence isnt at a point that evolution remains unchallenged for millions

Anyone who scientifically tested theory of evolution got to the same conclusion, except rare scientist who got their degree on questionable thesis... Dr. Tyson identified 7% of top scientist who believe in God as people on whom scientist should focus - to explain how someone who understand that light from some starts and galaxies has to travel millions of years to earth - yet some of them believe earth being much younger and created... those people have issue to distinguish between reality and imaginary...



originally posted by: borntowatch
As for the pope, so what, he can believe what he wants, it has no bearing on me.
Remember he stated that al atheists are redeemed through Jesus, like it or not, you are a Christian....according to him.

That is different pope... and if pope as spiritual leader acknowledges theory of evolution as undeniable scientific fact - how that has no bearing on you?

True, you can be ignorant and continue to live in your fantasy world... but even Pope understands how science works...


originally posted by: borntowatch
Thank you Krazyshot I appreciate the lesson, however disagree.
Scientists have been making a square fit into a round hole, it wont go.
There are millions of pages on google listing the problems of evolution and the science that contradicts it

I am sure you will appreciate me not linking any

LOL.... since when number of pages on internet made by people like you counts as evidence???

Seriously?



Why are you continuing to preach at me, its clear I dont believe in evolution but you continue your evangelising.
You are as bad as some crazy Christians, seriously.
If I choose not to accept the evidence as satisfactory why cant you accept my choice.
get more evidence, make me believe with proof not characterisations
Answer the questions in the OP or get some clever scientist to do it

As for the pope, I dont care, am I supposed to follow who you choose me to follow. Thats a ridiculous logic. Because the pope says so, really?
And he is the spiritual leader of what exactly? I am not Catholic, I dont answer to your pope.

I am happy in my fantasy world, thanks



posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 11:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch
The vast majority???.

I will let you think about your question and my answer


You really should at least use Google to find answers to such a simple questions...

Finding Evolution in Medicine

Edwards v. Aguillard: Amicus Curiae Brief of 72 Nobel Laureates".

List of scientific bodies explicitly rejecting Intelligent design

....

a reply to: borntowatch

Preach? LOL

At least you can't blame anyone for your ignorance... except yourself...

See, that is biggest difference between us - people believing in science and people who ignore all facts to preserve their belief.

I would, even I would feel ashamed, acknowledge if scientifically we prove that there is a God, hell and paradise... It would be something I would accept if evidence is provided, but as we all know, there was NEVER any evidence in any of this.

On the other hand, you know you are wrong, but by your choice you decide to blindly follow book that we all know is not what is told to everyone back 2k years ago...

Just like Ken Ham and Bill the science guy, the same once asked this question...

Good luck with your fairy tales and fantasy world... btw, that is where pope also belongs, that is why I mentioned him... even if not your pope, it represents huge number of followers or should we say sheep...
edit on 20-6-2014 by SuperFrog because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 12:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: SuperFrog

You really should at least use Google to find answers to such a simple questions...

Finding Evolution in Medicine

Edwards v. Aguillard: Amicus Curiae Brief of 72 Nobel Laureates".

List of scientific bodies explicitly rejecting Intelligent design

....

a reply to: borntowatch

Preach? LOL

At least you can't blame anyone for your ignorance... except yourself...

See, that is biggest difference between us - people believing in science and people who ignore all facts to preserve their belief.

I would, even I would feel ashamed, acknowledge if scientifically we prove that there is a God, hell and paradise... It would be something I would accept if evidence is provided, but as we all know, there was NEVER any evidence in any of this.

On the other hand, you know you are wrong, but by your choice you decide to blindly follow book that we all know is not what is told to everyone back 2k years ago...

Just like Ken Ham and Bill the science guy, the same once asked this question...

Good luck with your fairy tales and fantasy world... btw, that is where pope also belongs, that is why I mentioned him... even if not your pope, it represents huge number of followers or should we say sheep...


I will take sheep, cool.

I should use google hey? Let me use your own words if I might "since when number of pages on internet made by people like you counts as evidence??? "

Its funny, you are preaching, trying to sway me (patronising people doesnt work) in to your belief, thats preaching.
And NO I dont think I am wrong, I think you are, but I am not here to sway (preach at) you

Just simply explain the problems I have with any of the types of evolution aforementioned, then I might believe, evidence speaks louder than belittling some one.

The strawman of me not believing is science is ludicrous, I dont believe in evolution, thats a big difference.

The questions still remain unanswered, guess what would win me over.....answers

Mentioning the pope is grasping at straws, "look I have no evidence but I will use the pope as a scientific answer' is what I hear from you
"Look Ken Ham and Bill the science guy they said something" is not science, its not an answer to a question I asked, its fluff and stuffing

and finally, if evolution was proven true, I wouldnt feel ashamed, I would feel my disbelief pushed scientists to prove their theory

I can live with that, sorry its to much for you
edit on b2014Fri, 20 Jun 2014 13:05:47 -050063020145pm302014-06-20T13:05:47-05:00 by borntowatch because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 06:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: rnaa
The Jonah and the Whale story IS an allegory.

Stienberg is clearly NOT a credible source.

Anyone that tells you that all Scripture is allegory is completely out of touch with reality, period.

The Bible is to be taken literally unless the text in question is obviously symbolic.

The Bible DOES frequently employ allegory, such as in Gal.4:21-24.

But it also makes it perfectly clear when doing so.

Jesus spoke of Jonah as a real event:


"For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth" ~ Matthew 12:40

"For as Jonah was a sign unto the Ninevites, so shall also the Son of Man be to this generation." ~ Luke 11:30

If the story of Jonah is not true, then the story of Christ is not true.

If the story of Jonah is fiction, then the story of Christ is fiction.

The Golden Rule of Biblical interpretation is:


When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every word, at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise.

The Golden Rule of Interpretation

Those holding to an allegorical interpretation of the Bible point to a variety of scriptures and use them as proof-texts for the claim that God intended for His Word to be interpreted allegorically, and as we shall see, many of these verses have been taken out of context or redefined so as to give the appearance of supporting the false allegorical mode of interpretation. www.scribd.com...




edit on 20-6-2014 by Murgatroid because: I felt like it..



posted on Jun, 21 2014 @ 01:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Murgatroid

Jesus spoke of Jonah as a real event:

It is unlikely he ever uttered a word, more likely Jesus is every bit as fictional.


If the story of Jonah is not true, then the story of Christ is not true.

Agreed.


If the story of Jonah is fiction, then the story of Christ is fiction.

Agreed, again.


The Golden Rule of Biblical interpretation is:

The same rules you would use for Harry Potter interpretations i.e. don't take any of it very seriously, it's fiction.




edit on 21-6-2014 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it



posted on Jun, 21 2014 @ 04:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Murgatroid

originally posted by: rnaa
The Jonah and the Whale story IS an allegory.

Stienberg is clearly NOT a credible source.

Anyone that tells you that all Scripture is allegory is completely out of touch with reality, period.

The Bible is to be taken literally unless the text in question is obviously symbolic.

The Bible DOES frequently employ allegory, such as in Gal.4:21-24.

But it also makes it perfectly clear when doing so.

Jesus spoke of Jonah as a real event:


"For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth" ~ Matthew 12:40

"For as Jonah was a sign unto the Ninevites, so shall also the Son of Man be to this generation." ~ Luke 11:30

If the story of Jonah is not true, then the story of Christ is not true.

If the story of Jonah is fiction, then the story of Christ is fiction.

The Golden Rule of Biblical interpretation is:


When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every word, at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise.

The Golden Rule of Interpretation

Those holding to an allegorical interpretation of the Bible point to a variety of scriptures and use them as proof-texts for the claim that God intended for His Word to be interpreted allegorically, and as we shall see, many of these verses have been taken out of context or redefined so as to give the appearance of supporting the false allegorical mode of interpretation. www.scribd.com...





Can I ask why on earth you think that the bible is a historical document? The Old Testament seems to have been heavily revamped in places (the actual kingdom of David and Solomon seems to have been a hell of a lot smaller than it claims, the Hittites are mysteriously a footnote, the Assyrians seem to have been a brief bunch of thugs, there's no reference to Alexander the Great) and the New Testament appears to be full of suspicious revisions (James vanishes, the fact that Jesus was crucified is a bit odd, because that's a Roman punishment, not a local Jewish punishment, and Paul seems to have done a lot of rewriting).



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 11:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum
It is unlikely he ever uttered a word, more likely Jesus is every bit as fictional.... it's fiction.

Fiction does not see into the future.

The fulfillment of prophecy in the Bible is irrefutable proof that the Bible is in fact divinely inspired.


"Perhaps the most compelling of evidences demonstrating that the Bible is the word of God is its unswerving ability to accurately predict future events, often in minute details. Specific prophesies are conspicuously absent from the 26 other religious books that claim to be scripture, including the Muslim's Koran, the Book of Mormon, the Hindu Vedas, and Buddhist writings. This in itself should be a major eye-opener to the honest skeptic. "

Accuracy Of Prophecy


There is more evidence for the existence of Jesus than any other person in all of ancient history.

Nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed.

The historicity of Jesus of Nazareth is practically indisputable and only a fool would argue otherwise.


"If Jesus did not exist, it makes Christianity a much more incredible phenomena than if he did." ~ James Hannam

"Here is a fact: There is far more evidence for the existence of Jesus than for virtually anyone in ancient history. Anyone who peddles that “Christ-myth” theory, does NOT do so on the ground of historical evidence. The fact of Jesus Christ in history is as axiomatic for an unbiased historian as is the fact of Julius Caesar. Get this straight. It is not historians who promote the “Christ-myth” notion. ...his alleged words and actions were documented by numerous people."
LINK

“Contemporary New Testament scholars have typically viewed their [i.e. Jesus-mythers] arguments as so weak or bizarre that they relegate them to footnotes, or often ignore them completely....The theory of Jesus' nonexistence is now effectively dead as a scholarly question....Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted.” ~ Robert Van Voorst

This is a TON of information about the man we know as Jesus and all of it comes from witnesses who were HOSTILE to the truth claims of Christianity!

Is There Any Evidence for Jesus Outside the Bible?

“There is simply nothing intrinsically improbable about a historical Jesus; the New Testament alone (or at least portions of it) are reliable enough to provide evidence of a historical Jesus. On this point, it is important to note that even G.A. Wells, who until recently was the champion of the christ-myth hypothesis, now accepts the historicity of Jesus on the basis of 'Q'.” (Jeffery Jay Lowder of Internet Infidels)



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 09:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Murgatroid

Fiction does not see into the future.

Neither does the bible. It's a bit less reliable than Nostradamus, whose work is also nonsense. It can be reinterpreted in any way you want, if you willing to stretch your imagination enough, always after the fact.



The fulfillment of prophecy in the Bible is irrefutable proof that the Bible is in fact divinely inspired.

Nonsense. The only divine prophet who has had an accurate prediction so far, is John Frum.



There is more evidence for the existence of Jesus than any other person in all of ancient history.

Nonsense, there is actually nothing outside of fable/scripture. There is more to indicate the "Robin Hood and his merry men" story was based on real people.


Nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed.

Nonsense again. It would be more accurate to say that there are no historians (none taken seriously anyway) who believe there was a biblical jesus. Some of them see the possibility of an ordinary man, unremarkable and insignificant enough to be considered not worth a single word by anyone at the time, as forming the kernel for the lies. That's a very different thing (see Monty Python).

Yet others think the whole thing was made up...mythology.



The historicity of Jesus of Nazareth is practically indisputable and only a fool would argue otherwise.

Only to religious pseudo academics (who take themselves far too seriously). Not one scrap to indicate he was any more real than all of the other heroes of mythology.


"If Jesus did not exist, it makes Christianity a much more incredible phenomena than if he did."

I agree. At least John Frum was likely to have been a real person and in this, at least their cult has a genuine historicity and is more understandable.

As to the rest of the religious brainwashing propaganda you provide, it's ridiculous.



edit on 22-6-2014 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 09:18 PM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch




I am a creationist so let me first apologise for my stupidity.

So your brainwashed and aware of it at the same time...is that even possible?



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 10:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Evanzsayz
a reply to: borntowatch




I am a creationist so let me first apologise for my stupidity.

So your brainwashed and aware of it at the same time...is that even possible?


I accept many evolutionists will call me names, I decided to take the front foot and try get the name calling out of the way, the pettiness and the arrogance, the I am better than you attitude over and done with early so this thread wouldnt become full of....I guess posts like the one above.




top topics



 
12
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join