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: 8
12
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 31 2014 @ 10:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Prezbo369

Atheist is the accurate description for someone who isn't a theist. When someone says that they're neither, I explain why impossible through basic logical deduction.
Again with the appeal to etymology. Yes, it can mean what you say, but it can also mean someone who believes there is no God.


originally posted by: Prezbo369
People can describe themselves however they want to, but it doesn't change the fact that they're doing it wrong.
If a definition is in the dictionary it cannot be considered wrong.


originally posted by: Prezbo369
You seem to have an irrational hatred for the word 'atheist'.....is not being one of you really that distasteful?

Seems a lot of theists hate that word, maybe thats why many people choose not to use it to describe themselves....
Why is it that you people always argue with accusations that 'seem to be'? Can't you just stick with what the person has actually said? You're always blaming people for things they never said. Stop that crap. And no I don't hate the word atheist. I can't have hatred for words since they are simply used as a method of communication.
Revenge mode: You people on the other hand really seem to hate the word creationist and/or theist.


originally posted by: Prezbo369
It's an accurate description and i've explained and showed why.
I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying your argument is irrelevant. Because your arguments require that only your definition be used.
edit on 31-5-2014 by vasaga because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 31 2014 @ 11:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: vasaga
Again with the appeal to etymology. Yes, it can mean what you say, but it can also mean someone who believes there is no God.

If a definition is in the dictionary it cannot be considered wrong.


Dictionaries do not give words meanings. They only give usages and common usage does not = Correct definition. If the word "murder" gets a new common usage of "Partying until you pass out" and this becomes far more common than the traditional usage, when we are talking about killing sentient beings without good reason (i.e. self defense, protecting an innocent from harm etc.) then the 'traditional' definition/usage is the correct one.


Why is it that you people always argue with accusations that 'seem to be'? Can't you just stick with what the person has actually said? You're always blaming people for things they never said. Stop that crap.


Youre using the word 'seem' incorrectly, it refers to an impression, appearance, not an accusation. Seems you've never really gotten the hang of this....

And no I don't hate the word atheist. I can't have hatred for words since they are simply used as a method of communication.

Many christians have and still do, hence the eating babies propaganda.

And why refer to anybody by 'you people'? it betrays your true feelings.......luke


Revenge mode: You people on the other hand really seem to hate the word creationist and/or theist.


I do have a level of contempt for creationists, but not the word. Theists on the other hand I find fascinating tbh.




i'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying your argument is irrelevant. Because your arguments require that only your definition be used.


It's not my definition, see here



posted on May, 31 2014 @ 11:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Prezbo369

Right. So someone who's Gay is simply happy, not homosexual.


Gay is a term that primarily refers to a homosexual person or the trait of being homosexual. The term was originally used to refer to feelings of being "carefree", "happy", or "bright and showy".

Source



posted on May, 31 2014 @ 12:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: vasaga
a reply to: Prezbo369

Right. So someone who's Gay is simply happy, not homosexual.


Gay is a term that primarily refers to a homosexual person or the trait of being homosexual. The term was originally used to refer to feelings of being "carefree", "happy", or "bright and showy".

Source


Le sigh........we've already been through this

Just as 'agnostic' was originally coined to refer to to something other than it is today, so was the term 'gay'.



posted on May, 31 2014 @ 01:14 PM
link   
I didn't bother to read through all the replies because I am confident that the "issue" has been adressed by others before me already.

It seems that quite often people tend to get things confused.

Evolution is how organisms change over time. Biogenesis is how biology began. Seperate things.

At least that's how I understand it. I know it's frustrating but that's the reality we have to deal with.

Oh, and it's not necessarily necessary to be an atheist just because you acknowledge that the theory of evolution is true. There are lots of people who accept evolution and still believe that the universe and life were created (or at least got started) by a higher power. It's totally fine to believe in that sort of thing too.
edit on 31-5-2014 by ABeing because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2014 @ 05:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: borntowatch

www.hngn.com... ideo.htm

Link to big so here is the search its the top article.

www.hngn.com...


Yup.

Look at dolphins they came from the sea (like all life) walked on land and evolved again to go back into the sea.

understanddolphins.tripod.com...
A

Thats fine if you want to believe that.
I dont, yours is just the most popular theory at this time.


If not dolphins, what about whales with legs as proof evolution has occurred.



posted on May, 31 2014 @ 08:09 PM
link   
evolution
ˌiːvəˈluːʃ(ə)n,ˈɛv-/Submit
noun
1.
the process by which different kinds of living organism are believed to have developed from earlier forms during the history of the earth.
synonyms: Darwinism, natural selection More
2.
the gradual development of something.
"the forms of written languages undergo constant evolution"
synonyms: development, advancement, growth, rise, progress, progression, expansion, extension, unfolding; More



posted on May, 31 2014 @ 09:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch
evolution
ˌiːvəˈluːʃ(ə)n,ˈɛv-/Submit
noun
1.
the process by which different kinds of living organism are believed to have developed from earlier forms during the history of the earth.
synonyms: Darwinism, natural selection More
2.
the gradual development of something.
"the forms of written languages undergo constant evolution"
synonyms: development, advancement, growth, rise, progress, progression, expansion, extension, unfolding; More


The simple fact is that biological copying is imperfect. It's pretty damn astonishingly accurate, but not perfect. With this simple knowledge, there are only two outcomes, death or evolution.



posted on May, 31 2014 @ 09:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: engvbany

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: borntowatch

www.hngn.com... ideo.htm

Link to big so here is the search its the top article.

www.hngn.com...

borntowatch *wants* reality to be different. his entire outlook on life requires reality to be different. He/she is incapable of examining other viewpoints. It's very sad, but true of many people.


Yup.

Look at dolphins they came from the sea (like all life) walked on land and evolved again to go back into the sea.

understanddolphins.tripod.com...
A

Thats fine if you want to believe that.
I dont, yours is just the most popular theory at this time.


If not dolphins, what about whales with legs as proof evolution has occurred.




posted on May, 31 2014 @ 09:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch
I am a creationist so let me first apologise for my stupidity.


Not forgiven. You're not stupid, you're deliberately, awkwardly stupid.



posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 01:18 AM
link   
Why are people still using Kent Hovind arguments? It's funny how you try to break evolution into cosmic, chemical, stellar, micro etc etc to try to debunk biological evolution, the only evolution that people are talking about.


Sorry, abiogenesis is a reason I dont accept evolution, organic evolution or abiogenesis is a reason.


Sorry, but photosynthesis is the reason I don't accept gravity.


Cosmic evolution is another, stellar and planetary evolution as well, yes even chemical evolution.
I dont take these aspects of evolution as separate issues

That's your problem then. Each one is completely different.


Cosmic evolution is the ground the house is built on, stellar evolution the foundation of the house, organic, the walls and finally the roof is your pet subject macro evolution.

Probably the worst analogy I've ever heard, but yeah sure, let's roll with it.


Now this isnt an argument just explanations of the types of evolution.

Unfortunately, your explanations are flat out wrong and drastically over simplified. I love the scientific term "kinds". Like totally, that's how the scientists define those terms.
edit on 1-6-2014 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 04:39 AM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch

You have been shown proof of evolution again and again, in various forms, on both this and other threads. But you keep demanding more proof. Either you're unable to understand what's being provided or you're wilfully stirring things up.



posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 07:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: borntowatch

You have been shown proof of evolution again and again, in various forms, on both this and other threads. But you keep demanding more proof. Either you're unable to understand what's being provided or you're wilfully stirring things up.



Meh
Get over it, I have made a choice based on faith
I dont believe in the big bang or life forming from nothing just as an initial issue

Get over it, i can accept others belief in evolution in any of its disguises,
if you want to I think thats great. You CANT accept mine, whos the problem with?

I am over your choice, why cant you just accept I have a different belief.

I have given my reasons.

Its like arguing with petulant children.
I disagree but you want to beat me over and over to make me accept evolution.....
religiously like....Hell I reckon an inquisition against creationists is in order

edit on b2014Sun, 01 Jun 2014 07:12:39 -050063020140am302014-06-01T07:12:39-05:00 by borntowatch because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 07:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: borntowatch

You have been shown proof of evolution again and again, in various forms, on both this and other threads. But you keep demanding more proof. Either you're unable to understand what's being provided or you're wilfully stirring things up.



Meh
Get over it, I have made a choice based on faith
I dont believe in the big bang or life forming from nothing just as an initial issue

Get over it, i can accept others belief in evolution in any of its disguises,
if you want to I think thats great. You CANT accept mine, whos the problem with?

I am over your choice, why cant you just accept I have a different belief.

I have given my reasons.

Its like arguing with petulant children.
I disagree but you want to beat me over and over to make me accept evolution.....
religiously like....Hell I reckon an inquisition against creationists is in order


Fine, it's your choice. If you want to believe in a book of myths, then that's your choice. But don't say that there's no evidence for evolution. The facts are out there. The science is there. It's verifiable, it's testable.



posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 07:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch

Meh
Get over it, I have made a choice based on faith


*Gullibility


edit on 1-6-2014 by Prezbo369 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 09:48 AM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch

If your arguments were honest, then people wouldn't be criticizing you in this thread, but you bring up absolutely no valid points against evolution and zero evidence to support your faith. LOL at evolution disguises. Do genetic mutations happen every single time a child is born? Do changes in environments cause creatures to die out? There you have it. If you could stop straw manning evolution with your own made up definitions, and actually bring up a valid point against the theory itself based on the science, then folks MIGHT start taking you seriously. No offense but a Kent Hovind argument from 15+ years ago doesn't cut it and furthermore it is not even your argument. You read it on a site and decided it was worth promoting. Where is the scrutiny?
edit on 1-6-2014 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 10:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Prezbo369

originally posted by: vasaga
a reply to: Prezbo369

Right. So someone who's Gay is simply happy, not homosexual.


Gay is a term that primarily refers to a homosexual person or the trait of being homosexual. The term was originally used to refer to feelings of being "carefree", "happy", or "bright and showy".

Source


Le sigh........we've already been through this

Just as 'agnostic' was originally coined to refer to to something other than it is today, so was the term 'gay'.
Yeah. And you said that the original one is supposedly the correct one;


originally posted by: Prezbo369
If the word "murder" gets a new common usage of "Partying until you pass out" and this becomes far more common than the traditional usage, when we are talking about killing sentient beings without good reason (i.e. self defense, protecting an innocent from harm etc.) then the 'traditional' definition/usage is the correct one.

So that means that you actually believe that the correct definition of the word 'gay' is someone who's carefree or happy, and that when you call someone gay, you actually mean they are carefree or happy.

If you say no, you're contradicting yourself.
And if you say yes, you're being dishonest because I know you use the word gay to refer to homosexuals.



posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 10:49 AM
link   
So the OP does not believe in abiogenesis, therefore does not believe in evolution? I also read the op believes the "that something could not have come from nothing" theory.

But believes that God created everything from nothing, in 6 days instead?
Creating all life from nothing in one sitting?

Seems legit.

Where did God come from?



posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 11:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Demoncreeper
Where did God come from?


Based on the atrocities that guy committed in the bible, he must have come from hell.
edit on 1-6-2014 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 03:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: tsingtao
how convenient.

i'm talking about the 1/2 wing/leg type of thing.


You do realize that things like penguins, emus, ostriches, and other birds that have wings and can't fly exist on the planet correct?


is there anything that just needs a couple more generations to turn into something else?


Probably, though it would be tough to say, since the changes are gradual over time, it is hard to point to a specific time that a species stops being one species and becomes another. Right now because our fossil record is incomplete there looks like there are transitional points where a species stops being one species and becomes another. But if our fossil record was WAY more complete it would just look like a gradual development in changes. Kind of like how a person ages. There isn't a certain age where someone becomes an adult. It's not like the government says and once you are 18 you are an adult. In reality humans just sort of develop until you look at them and realize that they are an adult. Same thing for how evolution works, a species just changes over time until you step back and realize that it has become a different one.


yeah, gators and sharks kinda put a dent in evolution. how bout the nautilus? centipedes and dragon fly's?

they just seemed to get smaller.


So how about you explain to me how a species becoming smaller overall over millions of years isn't changes over time? That is clearly examples of evolution. Just because not every alligator in the world evolved into another species doesn't mean that they aren't being subjected to evolution. Their adaptations are still just the best ones they've evolved for their environmental niches. As you just pointed out, they are still changing over time.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join