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: 44
12
<< 41  42  43    45  46  47 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 17 2014 @ 09:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t


Does it make you upset that I won't let that slide? It must because of this post. Oh well, as long as this thread exists and stays active, I won't let people forget. It is after all a travesty and VERY ignorant of reality.


No it doesnt bother me that you want to keep posting mish mash or gish gallop, whatever.

Just seems a little sad that you cant accept that I have a different opinion and just get on with your life.
Just seems sad that you cant live your life accepting others dont believe, bow down to your authority or even those who you give your permission to have authority over you.

Really, after all this do you think I really mind what you think of me.
Think about it.




posted on Sep, 17 2014 @ 09:57 AM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch

Of course I know you don't care what I think of you. That's why I was talking to soylentgreenispeople and not you. I've also accepted that you have a different opinion (that is wrong). You are free to believe lies all you want, but make no mistake they ARE lies.



posted on Sep, 17 2014 @ 10:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: mikefougnie
a reply to: borntowatch

Natural Selection and Evolution
When discussing natural selection as a possible mechanism for evolution, it is important to define both terms. Evolutionists and biblical creationists view these terms differently, but it comes down to how we interpret the evidence in light of our foundation. Do we view natural selection using God’s Word as our foundation, or do we use man’s truth as our foundation?

4. Organic Evolution: The origin of Life.
I honestly believe that this is what the bible speaks of when it talks about the Deception which will be spread in the end times. Even the elect and the intelligent among us have been fooled by theses lies.

5. Macro-Evolution: The changing from one kind of species to another kind of species.
This is what I have learned as Speciation. This explains where we get the different species of animals from. This also explains how the Ark which Noah built could hold all Kinds of animals, in not having to hold all species.


AIG has some more information on the subject.
answersingenesis.org...


confirmation bias. try using a site that doesnt have th conclusion written down before the first piece of evidence is gathered. that is to say, gathering evidence to make the predesignated conclusion look a little less like an (ass)umption. simply stated, there is no evidence to indicate that your quoted selections reflect truth in a more direct manner than piggy backing on more respected sciences to boost your own brand of superstition. its funny how people dissect science for props to hold up their own unscientific theories.



posted on Sep, 17 2014 @ 10:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: borntowatch

Of course I know you don't care what I think of you. That's why I was talking to soylentgreenispeople and not you. I've also accepted that you have a different opinion (that is wrong). You are free to believe lies all you want, but make no mistake they ARE lies.



I am sorry I butted in, honest mistake.
I think that you believe the lies,
But thats ok, its your choice and I am not bitter about it
Please enjoy your life and your beliefs,



posted on Sep, 17 2014 @ 10:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm

confirmation bias.


Yeah I know, though have seen scientists do exactly the same thing, even admitting they fit the pieces to the theory, not the theory to the pieces.
They openly admit it, how strange.



posted on Sep, 17 2014 @ 11:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: TzarChasm

confirmation bias.


Yeah I know, though have seen scientists do exactly the same thing, even admitting they fit the pieces to the theory, not the theory to the pieces.
They openly admit it, how strange.


they read what the evidence tells them and adjust the theory accordingly until such a point as the theory is complete or it is disproven. theres nothing strange about admitting that a theory still requires improvement because thats the only way improvement happens. thats why some things have yet to be improved even after decades of wear and tear.
edit on 17-9-2014 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2014 @ 12:46 PM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch

I'm just here to clear up misunderstandings that you have about science for others that may be following the thread but not posting. I'm not saying that I'm right or wrong. I'm saying that your understanding of the subject can be improved. You take this as a personal attack, or me being close minded when that is not the case. Opinions can be wrong. In this case your opinion is completely unfounded because biological evolution stands on its own as a fact without abiogenesis and the other things you listed. I'm not trying to get you to change your worldview, I'm defending science from your irrational attacks based on a faulty premise.

If somebody tells me that their opinion is that the earth is flat, am I supposed to just agree to disagree and move on? Absolutely not, because that's spreading ignorance. Agreeing to disagree is something that pertains to personal opinions only, not scientific facts. For example I like blue, you like green, neither of us can say for sure that one is better than the other, it's just personal preference. Evolution is not personal preference, it's based on facts, like every other process that you pigeonholed under the "evolution" title.

There's nothing wrong with not understanding something, but when you continuously make invalid claims about it with no attempt whatsoever to improve your knowledge on the subject, it exemplifies your stubbornness in creating this false dilemma between religion and science. This isn't a matter of your personal opinion, you are trying to claim science is a belief system like religion, when it's not even close to the same thing. You won't believe evolution until people have 100% proved every single one of those things, yet for something like god you accept it unwaveringly with no scrutiny whatsoever. You are preaching. It's obvious.


Just seems a little sad that you cant accept that I have a different opinion and just get on with your life.

Yet you can't do the same? You left this thread for well over a month maybe longer and then revived it out of nowhere. This isn't simply you giving your opinion. This is you preaching, despite the fact that you try to pretend you are not. If it's just your opinion, then why are you arguing so vehemently for it? Why not take your own advice? Nobody's buying what you're selling, sorry.

Deny ignorance.
edit on 17-9-2014 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2014 @ 05:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch


I could ask a similar question to you but it would be pointless, I know your answer, I can see your logic, I wont deny that what you believe makes some sense.
I just dont see it as fact, something completed


I don't think there's a scientist on earth who would claim that the TOE is a complete, 100% factual answer to everything. You're perceiving it that way because you disagree with it and it is defended, sometimes poorly, by those who see the validity of it. Quite frankly, religion tends to deal in absolutes, science rarely does. The difference is, religions say "it's this way because the bible says so." Scientists say "it seems to be this way because we observe it as such." That's why you won't hear 100% solid confirmations from scientists because there are very few things that they can be completely sure about and the door is always left open for future discoveries. Do not take this as a sign of uncertainty or guessing. They're simply humble enough to admit that future discoveries could change the status quo... as they have throughout history.

There are many questions that science does not pretend to know the answer to, like the origin of all matter in our universe. If you want to fill in the unknowns with your own answer, by all means feel free. Science deals in observable, repeatable phenomena and applies logical answers to the cause of said phenomena. No scientist is out to disprove god or religion because there is no evidence to investigate. They want answers to the same questions you want answers to so they investigate the clues available to them. Your answers come from a different source and you have chosen that path because you weren't able to reconcile your own doubts. There's nothing wrong with that but if you want people to stop presenting facts and trying to "convert you" as you put it, you should stop spitting on every piece of evidence that's presented as though you're looking for something more convincing.



posted on Sep, 18 2014 @ 01:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: Answer
The difference is, religions say "it's this way because the bible says so." Scientists say "it seems to be this way because we observe it as such." That's why you won't hear 100% solid confirmations from scientists because there are very few things that they can be completely sure about and the door is always left open for future discoveries. Do not take this as a sign of uncertainty or guessing. They're simply humble enough to admit that future discoveries could change the status quo... as they have throughout history.


I disagree, I think science and the TOE has evolved in to its own religion to the point where some think it cant be questioned any longer.
Thats not science.

Strangely enough I have come across very few in this forum (ats) who are humble, contrarily they are arrogant, ignorant and complacent.
In fact I have not met a single proponent to the theory, who has also studied creationists beliefs, tried to understand the positions of the opposition and tackled the issues forwarded. Thats not science either.

Yet I am expected not just to have a basic understanding of evolution (wrong according to some and right according to others), but understand every detail every proponent to evolution has here.

See I am not interested in every detail, I am interested in the details I dont understand

Spit on your evidence, no.
I look to the proponents of science, your Dawkins, Hitchens and the many others who clearly hate the thought of a Creator.
Too many scientists say "it's this way because I hate religion."


One of my favourite lies

Yes, NOMA is wrong, but is a good first tool for gaining trust.
You have to bring them over to your side,
gain their trust, and then hold their hands and help them step by step.
… Better NOMA-believers than Creationists,
don’t you think?—
Evolutionist Bora Zivkovic


edit on b2014Thu, 18 Sep 2014 01:25:16 -050093020144am302014-09-18T01:25:16-05:00 by borntowatch because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2014 @ 09:24 AM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch

I've skimmed over the past 44 pages trying to distill out of them what specific issues you have with the Theory of Evolution, but I was having a difficult time of it.

Could you please succinctly spell out the reasons you feel the Theory of Evolution is wrong? And I'm talking about the standard idea of "The Theory of Evolution" as it pertains to characteristics of successive generations of living organisms changing over time due to the mechanisms of mutation and natural selection.

I realize that the word "evolution" has other uses (as you mentioned in your OP), but if were are specifically taking about origins of species from other species, and the way those species inherit characteristics, and how those characteristics could change over generations, then I would like to simply concentrate on this one usage for that word.


So, please specify which ideas about the TOE that you disagree with, and please indicate a reason for your disagreement.

Thanks in advance.


edit on 9/18/2014 by Box of Rain because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2014 @ 06:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Box of Rain
a reply to: borntowatch

I've skimmed over the past 44 pages trying to distill out of them what specific issues you have with the Theory of Evolution, but I was having a difficult time of it.



Thanks Box of Rain for your question, it shows me that you at least want to understand my position.

I am glad that your distillation process failed, that you couldnt find a specific issue, see there isnt just one, there are many.

All I am asking is that we can agree to disagree and move forward without all the rhetoric, anger and bitterness...I may come across as stupid, ignorant and a ranting creationist, but I am not as dumb as believing in creationism makes me sound.

My one issue, why cant evolutionists accept creationists have a different pov and just move on



posted on Sep, 18 2014 @ 07:12 PM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch


My one issue, why cant evolutionists accept creationists have a different pov and just move on


because they are teaching our kids. and our kids are our future. i dont want my kid voting for someone who believes humans lived with dinosaurs.



posted on Sep, 18 2014 @ 07:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: borntowatch


My one issue, why cant evolutionists accept creationists have a different pov and just move on


because they are teaching our kids. and our kids are our future. i dont want my kid voting for someone who believes humans lived with dinosaurs.


Yeah I get that YOU WANT
I believe that dinosaurs and humans coexisted
news.nationalgeographic.com.au...


Though I understand you dont want these people to be voted for by your kids, I vote sometimes and I vote for people who dont believe what I believe re creation, I can accept their view without the bitterness and the want you have.

I am also happy that my kids are free to vote for conservatives or whatever party THEY choose.

You have control issues



posted on Sep, 18 2014 @ 08:08 PM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch

How the holy he** do you get humans coexisting with dinosaurs out of early primates the size of chipmunks and squirrels coming into existence 80 MYA ? That's one of the largest stretches of reality I've seen in this thread and that's saying a lot.



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 02:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: Answer
The difference is, religions say "it's this way because the bible says so." Scientists say "it seems to be this way because we observe it as such." That's why you won't hear 100% solid confirmations from scientists because there are very few things that they can be completely sure about and the door is always left open for future discoveries. Do not take this as a sign of uncertainty or guessing. They're simply humble enough to admit that future discoveries could change the status quo... as they have throughout history.


I disagree, I think science and the TOE has evolved in to its own religion to the point where some think it cant be questioned any longer.
Thats not science.

That's how you perceive it because you don't believe it. You aren't "questioning" the TOE, you're refusing to acknowledge evidence, cherry-picking information to ridicule, and using your own incorrect understanding of the information as validation that you're right and that frustrates the hell out of any logical person.

Strangely enough I have come across very few in this forum (ats) who are humble, contrarily they are arrogant, ignorant and complacent. You've made us that way because you're impossible to deal with. Your way of discussing an issue is unbearable and we've grown increasingly impatient with it. You pretend to want evidence and when it's presented, you say you weren't looking for evidence and won't be convinced... and sometimes try to belittle the person offering the evidence. You're quite the jerk in many of your responses but you apparently can't see it so you play the victim.

In fact I have not met a single proponent to the theory, who has also studied creationists beliefs, tried to understand the positions of the opposition and tackled the issues forwarded. Thats not science either. There's more of that selective reading. I was raised in a Christian household and educated in a Christian school from grades 1-12 and I mentioned this earlier in the thread. Evolution was not taught in my school and was downright ridiculed as the "idea that we came from monkeys." I know what sort of mindset you've been surrounded by and why you doubt the TOE. Simple fact is, you have closed your mind to the possibility that the TOE may be valid because it conflicts with your faith in the creation story. No amount of evidence will convince you because you will ALWAYS find a way to discredit the evidence. That's what creationists do... when the evidence disagrees with your beliefs, you explain it away. THAT is the main reason you're frustrating so many people... you've started this thread just to belittle any evidence presented. You're not here for any sort of serious discussion, you're here to ridicule science.

Yet I am expected not just to have a basic understanding of evolution (wrong according to some and right according to others), but understand every detail every proponent to evolution has here. It's easy to ridicule something you don't understand. Most people in this thread have assumed, incorrectly, that if you had a better understanding of the TOE, you would be able to see the logic behind it. I know that you will never have an understanding of the TOE because you have decided that it's all hokey and nothing will change your mind so you're not interested in understanding it. That's your choice but I think people participating in this thread are confused as to why you're here if you have no interest in understanding the TOE... it just doesn't make sense.

See I am not interested in every detail, I am interested in the details I dont understand The reason you don't understand those details is because you don't understand the rest. It's like complaining that you don't understand Trigonometry when you never bothered to learn Arithmetic. We can't make you understand if you don't want to grasp the basics.

Spit on your evidence, no.
I look to the proponents of science, your Dawkins, Hitchens and the many others who clearly hate the thought of a Creator.
Too many scientists say "it's this way because I hate religion." They don't outright hate religion. The take issue with religion because religion inspires ignorance. They don't hate the idea of a creator... they hate that religion has so often restricted science. Scientists want to know the answers to all of our questions. Religions think they already have the answers so they deem it unnecessary to keep looking. In addition to that, religions are not based on any form of observable evidence so they are the antithesis of science.


One of my favourite lies

Yes, NOMA is wrong, but is a good first tool for gaining trust.
You have to bring them over to your side,
gain their trust, and then hold their hands and help them step by step.
… Better NOMA-believers than Creationists,
don’t you think?—
Evolutionist Bora Zivkovic




posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 07:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: Box of Rain
a reply to: borntowatch

I've skimmed over the past 44 pages trying to distill out of them what specific issues you have with the Theory of Evolution, but I was having a difficult time of it.



Thanks Box of Rain for your question, it shows me that you at least want to understand my position.

I am glad that your distillation process failed, that you couldnt find a specific issue, see there isnt just one, there are many.

All I am asking is that we can agree to disagree and move forward without all the rhetoric, anger and bitterness...I may come across as stupid, ignorant and a ranting creationist, but I am not as dumb as believing in creationism makes me sound.

My one issue, why cant evolutionists accept creationists have a different pov and just move on

Can't you even give me a brief synopsis of the issues you have with the Theory of Evolution? It seems to me that if you don't think the theory has any validity, then you should be able to tell me why (even if there are multiple reasons).

Again, I'm not talking about all of the other uses for the word "evolution" you used in your OP (those are not relevant to my question); I'm just talking about the standard Theory of Evolution as it pertains to (1) characteristics of species of organisms that are passed down to subsequent generations, (2) the changes in those characteristics due to mutation, and (3) the part that natural selection plays in allowing those mutations to continue being carried forward.

You seem to be adamantly against the theory of Evolution, but I can't discern why.


edit on 9/19/2014 by Box of Rain because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 08:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Box of Rain
Can't you even give me a brief synopsis of the issues you have with the Theory of Evolution?


It contradicts literal the interpretation of Genesis. That's it.



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 08:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: Box of Rain
Can't you even give me a brief synopsis of the issues you have with the Theory of Evolution?


It contradicts literal the interpretation of Genesis. That's it.


If that's his reason, then it's not good enough for this discussion board.

I could say I don't believe in the Biblical creation "simply because it contradicts the Theory of Evolution...Period.", but that would not be a good enough reason to not believe in creation, either. Discussions on this board usually go beyond simply saying "because it's my personal belief"; usually the discussions on ATS include WHY people hold those personal beliefs (i.e., evidence supporting those beliefs).

I'm not saying it is wrong for a person to believe in biblical creation over evolution. However, if that person is going to make an ATS thread stating that evolution is wrong, then I expect to see some evidence telling me why it's wrong. I don't mind discussing why a person may believe in creation over evolution, but there needs to be fodder for that discussion.


edit on 9/19/2014 by Box of Rain because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 09:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: borntowatch

How the holy he** do you get humans coexisting with dinosaurs out of early primates the size of chipmunks and squirrels coming into existence 80 MYA ? That's one of the largest stretches of reality I've seen in this thread and that's saying a lot.


Its a stretch only in so much as they were out by so much in the original guess.

They redefined it because their figures were so wrong.

What if they redefine it again and again and again as new evidence comes to the surface.
If they can be so wrong the first time, why not a second.

Yes I know that just doesnt fit your theory, I know thats unimaginable, but.....



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 09:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Box of Rain

You seem to be adamantly against the theory of Evolution, but I can't discern why.



Why, so you can correct me/

I just dont care, the issue isnt correcting me, the issue is accepting I have a different opinion.

I dont accept the Big bang model, I dont see how the elemental table can evolve, I dont see how life can spontaneously generate and all you can do is shove your TOE down my throat.
No




top topics



 
12
<< 41  42  43    45  46  47 >>

log in

join