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.

 

A question from a Christian

page: 10
10
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 12:22 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

[citation needed]

Support your claims with scientific evidence. Again, "because I said so" doesn't cut it.

Show us the evidence that supports any of what you have said.




posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 12:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: AfterInfinity

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb

a reply to: AfterInfinity

Its in the edit.


Would you mind giving me examples from a website that isn't oriented around confirming its own bias?


If you will never quote Richard Dawkins or Lawrence Krauss or any of the other Scientist that make tons of money off of their anti-theist agenda. The guy that wrote the article is a Scientist just like any of them. The people at ICR all hold degrees in Science just like them. They have been taught just like them. Calling them Bias well I can just call anyone who says evolution happens bias....lets be a bit more mature and get past that. Also Newton was a theist and discovered gravity. You realize theist can do Science and get Science degrees just like anyone else right?



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 12:34 PM
link   
a reply to: AfterInfinity





There is no difference between facts and truth. Look up the definitions.


There are three words we need to discuss here. Knowledge, Fact, and Truth.

Fact

a piece of information used as evidence.

Truth

the quality or state of being true.

Knowledge

Acquired truth

Can we agree on these definitions?



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 03:41 PM
link   
originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: puzzlesphere

Your making a logical flaw here. You arguing hat just because Humans chose to give the prefix Micro and Macro to a word that it makes that fact.

You're the one with the flawed arguement. I think you'll find it wasn't "humans" per se, but a particular group of humans called "creationists" who have arbitrarily applied those prefixes... other creationists just keep regurgitating the meme.

You are applying colloquial terminology to scientific method... and trying to claim victory on your erroneous use of sliding definitions.


Are you really going to try and tell me you don't know why evolution will ever produce completely new organisms?


Um... of course we know why... it's called environmental factors and adaptation. In controlled circumstances we have predicted very accurately how an environment will affect an organism. Uncontrolled circumstances currently have too many factors to account for, for us to accurately predict.


Look at any of the experiments people have done, lets say in Antibiotic resistance, as bacteria evolve to resist a drug they live and become more plentiful as long as the drug is applied, but as soon as the drug is removed those bacteria die off because the mutation doesn't allow other desirable traits to be expressed.

Another major flaw... instantly removing or drastically changing an organisms environment will likely kill it. As an analogy... take oxygen away from humans and we die... but slowly (across generations) reduce the concentration of a chemical, and adaptation will occur. This has been verifiably shown.

... and also a confirmation of evolution in your in own words. You just stated that "as bacteria evolve to resist a drug"... you do realise that a bacteria that has adapted to a new environment, that dies on the abrupt removal of said chemical, very clearly shows evolution at work.

Congratulations on understanding evolution. Now you just have to realise what you most likely inadvertently stated.


I think a guy has been experimenting on fruit flies for 30 years and still not one sign of the morphological changes you are saying are cold hard fact.

You are showing your ignorance. You really don't know much about the field you are arguing against. It's not just one "guy", it's multiple research groups, with established long term experiments and proven results. There are multiple individuals and groups using fruit flies. There are also experiments being conducted on mosquitoes, sand flies, gnats and many other species.

Here's an article from just one of these groups: (peer-reviewed) Genome-wide analysis of a long-term evolution experiment with Drosophila... and yes... there are many other proven examples. As many as 800 generations have been observed in select insect populations, and significant changes have been observed in a relatively short amount of time. Many of these changes have been predicted, and have occurred just like the predictions. It is predicted that 1000's more generations will be required to have a new genus... just as we have seen with 1000's of generations of bacteria.


I mean believe what you want bro.

So derogatory... "bro"... (you sound like an uneducated thug)... nothing I have written has anything to do with "belief", everything I have stated is verifiable, and peer reviewed knowledge.

So what is your alternative scientific theory to evolution?
edit on 17-6-2014 by puzzlesphere because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 05:28 PM
link   
a reply to: puzzlesphere

Oh you have observable evidence of a change of kinds? Please do share.



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 05:40 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

No.


something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence

: a true piece of information


^ this is the definition of a fact. Not "a piece of information used as evidence". Doesn't matter how it is used. It is a fact and cannot be argued with. That's why it's called a fact.
edit on 17-6-2014 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 05:47 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Yes:
Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab

This was from 2008. Since then, they have classified the new species with a different scientific name and description. I have posted the more recent papers in other threads if you care to go through my post history. Though it doesn't matter how much proof I post, you are contradictorily against the idea of evolution by using erroneous definitions and accepting what you call micro evolution, yet arguing against what you call macro evolution without the necessary education to make you actually understand the field.

Oh... and that's your response to my long post? Essentially a sarcastic remark that boils down to "Oh yeah? Prove it."

You also have used loose language ("observable" and "kinds") that leaves a lot of wiggle room, that creationists continually redefine the meaning of.

Putting aside your avoidance of all the other salient points you avoided from my post... How about the big question:

So what is your alternative scientific theory to evolution?



posted on Jun, 18 2014 @ 02:48 PM
link   

however as for things like Apes to Humans, or single cell to multi-cell or even Abiogenesis. These things are vital to an atheistic or even agnostic world view, yet they are something every scientist and person take on faith. There are no hard evidences for these things as far as I am concerned.


Why is every single thread created to "question" evolution, created by folks that haven't even read the very basics of it. That's all I needed to read to understand where this thread is going. It's a very easy google search. It's funny how they start out like they are asking an innocent question, and then when it gets answered, they act all high and mighty like they suddenly KNOW they are right, and it changes drastically from somebody that's curious to somebody that knows it's wrong and can't be convinced otherwise. The confusion between micro and macro evolution, equating science supporters with atheists, using creationist website arguments like "creatures cannot change kinds" without any definition of the word kind or any evidence whatsoever to suggest there is a limit. We get it. You can't wrap your mind around evolution. That doesn't make it wrong.


originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: puzzlesphere

Oh you have observable evidence of a change of kinds? Please do share.


Let me get this straight. You want to see a monkey turn into a human within 1 human lifespan? You want a dog to turn it a cat within just 20 generations? Do you have observable evidence of any creature ever giving birth without genetic mutations? Do you have observable evidence of god? Do you have observable evidence that suggests evolutionary changes cannot add up past a certain limit? Do you even realize how utterly ridiculous it is to attack science while utilizing a computer, which is a product of science?
edit on 18-6-2014 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2014 @ 02:52 PM
link   
And yet again, the Christians never say what the alternative theory to evolution is. If there is no evolution, then what did we have.? You should be able to summarize it in a paragraph. Creationism? Sure but what does that really mean? Elaborate.



posted on Jun, 18 2014 @ 03:10 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Making money? I didn't know that Dawkins was issuing junk bonds to finance his philosophy. Ken Ham, on the other hand, is on his third issue! And they're real junk bonds a la Michael Milken - no underlying assets, no rating and no expectation of principal recovery much less a profit.
sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com...

ICR and Ken Ham are outright frauds. It's a cult preying on the lame, lazy and the crazy.

No one in that organization has an advanced degree from a recognized university in any hard science. The quotes in their articles are from other scientists - and are misinterpreted, twisted and turned to suit their own agenda.

Cite an article from their website from a legitimate scientist and I'll be happy to review it.



posted on Jun, 18 2014 @ 03:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: puzzlesphere

Oh you have observable evidence of a change of kinds? Please do share.


lmgtfy.com...

Your turn. Support your claims with scientific evidence. Again, "because I said so" doesn't cut it.

Show us the evidence that supports any of what you have said.



posted on Jun, 18 2014 @ 04:25 PM
link   
Why can we not have both creation as well as evolution?

And why do some people always want to fight over what kind of Christian you are?

wonder if God likes how we treat one another if we continue to murder in His name!



posted on Jun, 18 2014 @ 06:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: BubbaJoe

The source I quoted was for the two quotes of information, not for the information about NT books. What I posted were non-christian sources that mention Jesus . One was from Tactius in 64 A.D. if you think that information is incorrect please show me information to the contrary the other was from one of the earlier references to Jesus in the Babylonian Talmud.

I mean dont take my word for it lets just listen to Bart Ehrman he's an atheist so he isnt stupid because belief in God makes people dumb.....





Not to nit pick but, while the Tacitus reference was from an incident that occurred in 64 AD, it wasnt written by Tacitus for another 50+ years until 116. While it is certainly an interesting and important document being one of the very few non Christian sources from an early era of Christianity, it was still written over 80 years after the alleged execution and over 50 years after the incident in Rome.

As for the Talmudic references to Jesus, they are almost certainly from the a organic period(3rd-4th centuries CE) as opposed to the tannaic period(1st-2nd centuries). the references in the Babylonian Talmud were "polemical counter-narratives that parody the New Testament stories, most notably the story of Jesus' birth and death" and that the rabbinical authors were familiar with the Gospels (particularly the Gospel of John) in their form as the Diatessaron and the Pe#ta, the New Testament of the Syrian Church. Schäfer argues that the message conveyed in the Talmud was a "bold and self-confident" assertion of correctness of Judaism, maintaining that "there is no reason to feel ashamed because we rightfully executed a blasphemer and idolater. Essentially it was an apologist variation on the gospels to make some Jews feel better about executing a blasphemer.

Either way neither of your sources are contemporary with the events in question.



posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 09:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: AfterInfinity
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

No.


something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence

: a true piece of information


^ this is the definition of a fact. Not "a piece of information used as evidence". Doesn't matter how it is used. It is a fact and cannot be argued with. That's why it's called a fact.



It used to be a fact that the Earth was flat, yet that was never true. So, I ask again are fact and truth the same?



posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 09:06 AM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

I will look into what you've said, but lets just leave them out of it for a second. No Historian doubts that Paul wrote Galatians. Paul makes a bunch of off the cuff comments about Jesus that Historians take as evidence that Jesus existed. Paul says things like James, the brother of the Lord...And He doesn't clarify anymore than that because He expects people to know who He is talking about.



posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 09:57 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb




My main question is can anyone give me a genetic pathway through which an Ape can evolve into a human, or a genetic pathway for the mesonychid to evolve into a whale?


learn to ask tougher questions.

start from the single celled organism.

#12
edit on 19-6-2014 by reploid because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 10:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb

originally posted by: AfterInfinity
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

No.


something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence

: a true piece of information


^ this is the definition of a fact. Not "a piece of information used as evidence". Doesn't matter how it is used. It is a fact and cannot be argued with. That's why it's called a fact.



It used to be a fact that the Earth was flat, yet that was never true. So, I ask again are fact and truth the same?


It was never a fact that the earth was flat - that's just what people believed.



posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 11:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: reploid
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb




My main question is can anyone give me a genetic pathway through which an Ape can evolve into a human, or a genetic pathway for the mesonychid to evolve into a whale?


learn to ask tougher questions.

start from the single celled organism.

#12


@OP The answer to the question about micro/macro evolution are posted in multiple threads on ATS. Why don't you read them? The genetic pathway of ape to man is genetic drift. It's well established and not a mystery. The problem is you people just don't want to read. You want to ignore the evidence and continue to march to your own drum.

Read this article - it's about the brain. It might be enlightening.

www.nature.com...
edit on 19-6-2014 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-6-2014 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 11:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb

originally posted by: AfterInfinity
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

No.


something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence

: a true piece of information


^ this is the definition of a fact. Not "a piece of information used as evidence". Doesn't matter how it is used. It is a fact and cannot be argued with. That's why it's called a fact.



It used to be a fact that the Earth was flat, yet that was never true. So, I ask again are fact and truth the same?


An established fact in science is the truth until someone comes up with evidence that it isn't true. You use the "facts" of science every day - you drive a car, you fly in airplanes, you get x-rays and MRIs when you need them. I haven't met a Creationist yet who would deny themselves the "facts" of science and not utilize everything that science has given this world. But when it comes to perpetrating a fraud like Ken Ham who has completely disemboweled science to suit his own agenda, well that's just fine in your mind.

You're wrong. Get over it.



posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 11:52 AM
link   
This thread reminds me of Garry Kasparov playing chess with a pigeon.

Garry has all the moves. He's so good he can't find a human to play with him, he has to play supercomputers to get a game.

But the pigeon just ignores all the rules, knocks over the pieces, defecates all over the board and struts about with its chest out as if it has won a great victory.

You guys obviously have a lot more patience than I do.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join