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.

 

Animals appearing whole - ie anti-evolution

page: 11
31
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 01:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423




Text True, but people of faith believe in the Bible. But Creationists are not people of faith nor are they Christians. The crap science that Ken Ham and his crowd have come up with is nothing less than a fraud. The Creationism movement is a cult attracting the lame, lazy and the crazy who need a crutch to make them feel relevant. The challenge is open. I am happy to take on any Creationist on this board or elsewhere.

What do you mean by Creationists are not people of Faith nor are they Christians? Why do you call creationism a cult? Can't really understand that premise at all. I have always understood that the original Jewish Christians were Creationists.




posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 03:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: Phantom423




Text True, but people of faith believe in the Bible. But Creationists are not people of faith nor are they Christians. The crap science that Ken Ham and his crowd have come up with is nothing less than a fraud. The Creationism movement is a cult attracting the lame, lazy and the crazy who need a crutch to make them feel relevant. The challenge is open. I am happy to take on any Creationist on this board or elsewhere.

What do you mean by Creationists are not people of Faith nor are they Christians? Why do you call creationism a cult? Can't really understand that premise at all. I have always understood that the original Jewish Christians were Creationists.


I don't know what "Jewish Christian" is, but a literal interpretation of the Bible is not the issue here.

Creationists say they believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible, but in fact, what they've done is use the Bible as a stomping ground to organize a cult around fraudulent science.

1 They've convinced their followers that evolution is not possible, can't be proven and has no scientific foundation. Yet, no Creationist will debate the real science which clearly shows evidence that evolution is a fact.

2. Their propaganda about dating fossils and the earth rests almost entirely C14 isotopic dating which is rarely used today. They chose to ignore the hard evidence derived from electron spin resonance which clearly and definitively shows that the Earth, fossils, rocks, etc. are millions of years old.

3. And let's not forget that dinosaurs walked the Earth with men - and they all got into a big boat captained by Mr. Noah. That includes Tyrannosaurus Rex, velociraptor, and another hundred species of ancient reptiles. I don't think I'd want to be assigned to that poop patrol much less sleep next to one.

4. But the most egregious thing is their refusal to debate the hard evidence - I mean the REAL science, not the crap they have at their website. None of them have ever accepted an invitation to a debate. Ken Ham "debated" Bill Nye a few months ago and consistently deferred to his lack of knowledge of the science. Yet he writes books, delivers lectures and has no problem coming up with this crap at his website.

5. Ken Ham is a fraud. He and his organization are on their third round of junk bonds - real junk bonds a la Michael Milken (remember he wound up in the slammer) - to finance a new park in Kentucky. He's no fool. Whatever he skims from the top for himself and his minions may be invisible now. But eventually, someone will catch him red-handed in the cookie jar. It's just a matter of time.
sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com...
danielsilliman.blogspot.com...

So to answer your question - No, Creationists are not people of faith and they are not Christians. No one of faith or a true Christian would stoop to the level of fraud that Ken Ham and his crowd of acolytes are perpetrating on the public. Yes, it is a cult embedded in typical illogical cultist dogma. They fit the definition perfectly: "a small religious group that is not part of a larger and more accepted religion and that has beliefs regarded by many people as extreme or dangerous.

I'll say one thing for Ham - he's a hell of a salesman. But I think the world would have been better served if he was a Fuller Brush salesman and not a cult organizer.
edit on 29-6-2014 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 07:13 PM
link   


I don't know what "Jewish Christian" is, but a literal interpretation of the Bible is not the issue here. a reply to: Phantom423

Don't mean to insult or be contentious but my understanding of Christian is not the Roman organized religions or the organized religions of today. The only Christian organization that I have ever recognized are the disciples and Apostles of Jesus up to about 135CE. I don't belong to any organized sect of any religion and that is why I asked as I did.

I agree that religious leaders do bilk their followers and the electronic ministries are the worst in doing this. I am not privy to science knowledge so must take a back seat on that but from what I have been taught the apostles of Christ Jesus did not have anything except Torah and their own experience with Jesus. Those original letters remain lost so actually all we have now are copies of copies. Even Torah is copy of copy so the word literal actually cannot be used in honesty. I don't think a wise person can say in all honesty that that the entire NT and OT is correct to the letter. I guess that is where I divide what I want to believe and what is said. I think everybody does the same.

Evolution is an age old argument even before modern science intervened but in my opinion it matters little to me. My theology is not provable fact simply because if it were fact then it would not be theology. I think that theology should remain theology and not try to embrace any science unless that science can embrace that theology. An example would be that an archeological team find the temple of Solomon and move that from theology to fact. As it stands now it is simply tradition.

Anyway, thanks for letting me bend your ear.



posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 07:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Seede

wow id wish more christians would argue with faith instead of pseudoscience and logical nonsense. good on you.



posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 10:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Seede





I don't know what "Jewish Christian" is, but a literal interpretation of the Bible is not the issue here. a reply to: Phantom423

Don't mean to insult or be contentious but my understanding of Christian is not the Roman organized religions or the organized religions of today. The only Christian organization that I have ever recognized are the disciples and Apostles of Jesus up to about 135CE. I don't belong to any organized sect of any religion and that is why I asked as I did.

I agree that religious leaders do bilk their followers and the electronic ministries are the worst in doing this. I am not privy to science knowledge so must take a back seat on that but from what I have been taught the apostles of Christ Jesus did not have anything except Torah and their own experience with Jesus. Those original letters remain lost so actually all we have now are copies of copies. Even Torah is copy of copy so the word literal actually cannot be used in honesty. I don't think a wise person can say in all honesty that that the entire NT and OT is correct to the letter. I guess that is where I divide what I want to believe and what is said. I think everybody does the same.

Evolution is an age old argument even before modern science intervened but in my opinion it matters little to me. My theology is not provable fact simply because if it were fact then it would not be theology. I think that theology should remain theology and not try to embrace any science unless that science can embrace that theology. An example would be that an archeological team find the temple of Solomon and move that from theology to fact. As it stands now it is simply tradition.

Anyway, thanks for letting me bend your ear.


Excellent post. Agree with everything you said.



posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 10:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Perhaps every time some sort of genetic change is recorded, Evolutionists get all excited and start saying "See! Proof of Evolution!".

To prove Evolution, you'd have to prove the mechanism, not just observe that there was a change.


edit on 29/6/2014 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 10:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Moresby
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Creationists would tell you that the dating is wrong and all the extinctions come from the flood.

More sophisticated creationists will tell you that the evidence of evolution is a test of faith. That God specifically planted evidence, knowing scientists would interpret as signs of evolution, and only the truly faithful would be able to see through it to the truth.

This a nifty little argument because there's really no way to counter it. In addition, it envisions a God who understands how man's thoughts would develop. And it makes evolutionary biologists instruments of his will. Which is kind of brilliant.

There's a lot of reasons why most creationists don't adopt this argument. But I think it's the best one they have.


A more sophisticated Creationist would suggest that there is no actual end-to-end evidence for Evolution, there is merely evidence of diversity, which does not imply any specific mechanism. This includes both Evolution and Creationism.

I am not suggesting one over the other, just pointing out that both points of view are taken on faith.



posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 10:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: DupontDeux
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Regarding physics I was referring to radioactive decay (and carbon dating) - a thorn in many a creationist's side.

And my point is that if we cannot carbon date, and if we cannot use geological dating then we are just left with (my third point) that fact that a lot of species have lived at some point. Without means of dating, we cannot tell if they originated in the same point in time and then just sort of died out at various points along the way.

As I said, I think your points are really good, but the trouble with debating logically against creationists is that creationism is not logic.

Hence the success of characters like that Kent Hovind-fella. :-)


The problem with radioactive dating is one of contamination. People forget that.



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 04:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

That is fine enough but then why do you if you are not a christian say that I am not a christian or that indeed creationists are not christian, Oh and by the way get off your self imposed moral High horse I too am arguably a jew through my maternal ancestry in a direct line and am definitely not anti semitic, I even look jewish but I happen to believe that Yehoshua is Meshiach now while you may contest that it is actually the same whom we call Jesus today www.youtube.com... So did this righteous man whom walked with god in his heart and life all of his considerable life.
Oh by the way you do know Jesus was Jewish don't you, I mean I know there is some very anti christian sentiment (NOT to be confused with the anti christ) among many in the the Jewish community whom blame the religion and it's followers for some roman period propeganda that got out of control but then you do remember what the Lord said to Jacob OUR father don't you, "Can you count the star's of the heaven's or the sand's of the earth upon which you now lie, but I alone who made them know there true number and I shall multiply your seed until they are greater in number even than these but they shall not always obey me and I shall punish them often, like chaff upon the threshing floor cought in the wind (Jerusalem) I shall scatter them into the north and the south, the east and the west. Into every nation and family of man until all the world are blessed by your seed (until all men are his descendant's) but a remnant I shall keep true unto my name and when I have fullfilled these thing's I shall bring them back here (Bethel) and raise them up even to my throne, they shall rule the world in my name.
You do know that is not the current state of isreal don't you, how many chinese and african's are Jacob's descendant's.
When and if you and I are standing in that valley maybe, just maybe we shall see eye to eye but not until then as the Lord has not yet fullfilled as he said and the older prophecys are the most important ones though every word of god shall come to pass and non shall fall away.
edit on 30-6-2014 by LABTECH767 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 06:52 AM
link   
Assume evolution is a lie and creationism is true? Okay but I'm going to need a crayon and a hammer!



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 06:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: DupontDeux
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Regarding physics I was referring to radioactive decay (and carbon dating) - a thorn in many a creationist's side.

And my point is that if we cannot carbon date, and if we cannot use geological dating then we are just left with (my third point) that fact that a lot of species have lived at some point. Without means of dating, we cannot tell if they originated in the same point in time and then just sort of died out at various points along the way.

As I said, I think your points are really good, but the trouble with debating logically against creationists is that creationism is not logic.

Hence the success of characters like that Kent Hovind-fella. :-)


The problem with radioactive dating is one of contamination. People forget that.


There is no contamination with dating methods. Electron spin resonance is similar to MRI (Magnetic resonance imaging) - just used a different way. The physics is the same. I posted a few articles below. C14 emits low energy beta particles which are all over the place - if you have a granite countertop, you have C14 in there to some extent. So radioactive contamination isn't an issue.

ESR is now the method choice anyway.

www.sciencedirect.com...
www.sciencedirect.com...
en.wikipedia.org...

It isn't just about the logic - it's the lying and defrauding that is so disturbing. These people have no conscience. I wouldn't put it past Ham to start his own Jonestown community at some point. If it puts money in his pocket, he's there - believe me.



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 07:01 AM
link   
a reply to: GafferUK1981

Freeze the crayon and heat the hammer, why can not both hold truth, look at an egyptian pyramid from above with no depth perception and of course you will say it is square but God is the ultimate scientists, Physicist and Artist, we are told something but we do not understand as like the children we really are we simply can not conceive of the truth but either believe or do not believe yet for Him all thing's are possible even when we think that is not how it is done, who know's the machine better than it's creator and whom can adjust it's parameters so that they work better than He.
Do you think the creator of Reality made it fixed when all you can do is percieve it from one singular perspective so like the pyramid you think it is square when in fact that is only part of the truth and that truth may not even be fixed or the reality it appears to be.



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 07:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: Phantom423

That is fine enough but then why do you if you are not a christian say that I am not a christian or that indeed creationists are not christian, Oh and by the way get off your self imposed moral High horse I too am arguably a jew through my maternal ancestry in a direct line and am definitely not anti semitic, I even look jewish but I happen to believe that Yehoshua is Meshiach now while you may contest that it is actually the same whom we call Jesus today www.youtube.com... So did this righteous man whom walked with god in his heart and life all of his considerable life.
Oh by the way you do know Jesus was Jewish don't you, I mean I know there is some very anti christian sentiment (NOT to be confused with the anti christ) among many in the the Jewish community whom blame the religion and it's followers for some roman period propeganda that got out of control but then you do remember what the Lord said to Jacob OUR father don't you, "Can you count the star's of the heaven's or the sand's of the earth upon which you now lie, but I alone who made them know there true number and I shall multiply your seed until they are greater in number even than these but they shall not always obey me and I shall punish them often, like chaff upon the threshing floor cought in the wind (Jerusalem) I shall scatter them into the north and the south, the east and the west. Into every nation and family of man until all the world are blessed by your seed (until all men are his descendant's) but a remnant I shall keep true unto my name and when I have fullfilled these thing's I shall bring them back here (Bethel) and raise them up even to my throne, they shall rule the world in my name.
You do know that is not the current state of isreal don't you, how many chinese and african's are Jacob's descendant's.
When and if you and I are standing in that valley maybe, just maybe we shall see eye to eye but not until then as the Lord has not yet fullfilled as he said and the older prophecys are the most important ones though every word of god shall come to pass and non shall fall away.


Ok



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 07:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Moresby
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Creationists would tell you that the dating is wrong and all the extinctions come from the flood.

More sophisticated creationists will tell you that the evidence of evolution is a test of faith. That God specifically planted evidence, knowing scientists would interpret as signs of evolution, and only the truly faithful would be able to see through it to the truth.

This a nifty little argument because there's really no way to counter it. In addition, it envisions a God who understands how man's thoughts would develop. And it makes evolutionary biologists instruments of his will. Which is kind of brilliant.

There's a lot of reasons why most creationists don't adopt this argument. But I think it's the best one they have.


A more sophisticated Creationist would suggest that there is no actual end-to-end evidence for Evolution, there is merely evidence of diversity, which does not imply any specific mechanism. This includes both Evolution and Creationism.

I am not suggesting one over the other, just pointing out that both points of view are taken on faith.




Evolution is not taken on faith. It is a scientific fact.



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 07:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
I am not suggesting one over the other, just pointing out that both points of view are taken on faith.



Bullcrap. You keep pulling this card. "I'm on the fence, I'm only asking questions". You consistently misunderstand and misrepresent the ToE and even go as far as to cite and defend creationist sources. You are behaving in a breathtakingly intellectually dishonest manner.



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 07:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

No it is a scientific theory, based on observation and interpretation of the observed, like any theory it is constantly being revised, given for a fruit fly to adapt a from of genetic selection occurs (Yet it remains a fruit fly no matter how many generations have been worked on in the laboratory).
And even given the accepted (BY the entrenched scientific community) idea that one species arises from another and several species can have a quite dissimilar ancestor there is yet another scientific method of natural genetic fluctuation which can make disparate species generate shared genetic trait's and that is viral cross species propegation of genetic material, this occurs when a pathogenic virus can infect multiple species with variant immunological level's of respons.
The virus not only infects the host cell's dna but also makes it's copys in the host cell so some of the host cell dna can become incorporated in the virus and indeed probably does quite easily, this in term's of how the virus work's is a survival trait as it homogenises multiple host species so creating a larger shared environment for it's own survival but this is not evolution, it is infection born genetic alteration which is not the same thing though natural selection there after would allow the resultant species to survive or not and it may outperform (though how unlikly that may be, though further pathogen trait may be to kill off the hosts that do not adapt but that it can infect as ultimately the virus still lives even if it is innactive through mitosis as it then replicates with the normal cell division, as you know the a virus is essentially a string of DNA or RNA in a enzymatic protien shell but is inert or dead without a host cell) the pure form of the uninfected.
This passing of genetic material though is rare and would only incorporate the virus born material if the virus becomes inactive upon infecting a new host, so pig's have human like intestinal tract's we used there skin for burn's for many years treatment as it is not rejected as fast as other animal skin and could this be because of this cross species viral propegation as after all the pig is perhaps the oldest domesticated animal and because it is a ready source of deadly infection's for us also the potentially most pathogenically dangerous in natural conditions.
But other species too have been exposed for extremely prolonged periods to human's and have other cross species pathogens occured, then of course there are pathogens which themselve's simply have the ability to cross infect as they can cope with the differing environments of the host body's.
There is always a spanner ready to throw in the works as you know but like I said it is against scientific tenet to call a theory a fact, it is a perceived fact or an accepted fact but those are not the same thing as a proven fact, the word is of course Theory.

edit on 30-6-2014 by LABTECH767 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 07:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: Phantom423

No it is a scientific theory, based on observation and interpretation of the observed, like any theory it is constantly being revised, given for a fruit fly to adapt a from of genetic selection occurs (Yet it remains a fruit fly no matter how many generations have been worked on in the laboratory).
And even given the accepted (BY the entrenched scientific community) idea that one species arises from another and several species can have a quite dissimilar ancestor there is yet another scientific method of natural genetic fluctuation which can make disparate species generate shared genetic trait's and that is viral cross species propegation of genetic material, this occurs when a pathogenic virus can infect multiple species with variant immunological level's of respons.
The virus not only infects the host cell's dna but also makes it's copys in the host cell so some of the host cell dna can become incorporated in the virus and indeed probably does quite easily, this in term's of how the virus work's is a survival trait as it homogenises multiple host species so creating a larger shared environment for it's own survival but this is not evolution, it is infection born genetic alteration which is not the same thing though natural selection there after would allow the resultant species to survive or not and it may outperform (though how unlikly that may be, though further pathogen trait may be to kill off the hosts that do not adapt but that it can infect as ultimately the virus still lives even if it is innactive through mitosis as it then replicates with the normal cell division, as you know the a virus is essentially a string of DNA or RNA in a enzymatic protien shell but is inert or dead without a host cell) the pure form of the uninfected.
This passing of genetic material though is rare and would only incorporate the virus born material if the virus becomes inactive upon infecting a new host, so pig's have human like intestinal tract's we used there skin for burn's for many years treatment as it is not rejected as fast as other animal skin and could this be because of this cross species viral propegation as after all the pig is perhaps the oldest domesticated animal and because it is a ready source of deadly infection's for us also the potentially most pathogenically dangerous in natural conditions.
But other species too have been exposed for extremely prolonged periods to human's and have other cross species pathogens occured, then of course there are pathogens which themselve's simply have the ability to cross infect as they can cope with the differing environments of the host body's.
There is always a spanner ready to throw in the works as you know but like I said it is against scientific tenet to call a theory a fact, it is a perceived fact or an accepted fact but those are not the same thing as a proven fact, the word is of course Theory.


Yes it is scientific fact.



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 11:40 AM
link   


No it is a scientific theory, based on observation and interpretation of the observed,


Nope. Scientific theories are based on facts. Plain and simple. There is no interpretation necessary. When you see that morphology is directly controlled by genes, and then see hundreds of genetic mutations one from generation to the next, it is blatantly obvious. Creationists and evolution deniers make up this imaginary boundary, claiming that mutations can not add up past a certain point, but have no evidence for this claim whatsoever. If something can speciate, then why can't it get even further away from the original, given enough time? No evolution denier ever answers these questions. They just make blanket statements like "a fruit fly will always be a fruit fly". What you don't seem to understand is that big changes require longer time periods. We're not going to witness large change within a single human lifetime. It's nonsensical. But again, if any evolution denier can provide evidence that genetic mutations stop adding up after a certain point, then I'll concede the argument, but whenever I ask the question, the subject gets changed. Let's see if you can back up that claim.



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 12:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs


No it is a scientific theory, based on observation and interpretation of the observed,


Nope. Scientific theories are based on facts. Plain and simple. There is no interpretation necessary. When you see that morphology is directly controlled by genes, and then see hundreds of genetic mutations one from generation to the next, it is blatantly obvious. Creationists and evolution deniers make up this imaginary boundary, claiming that mutations can not add up past a certain point, but have no evidence for this claim whatsoever. If something can speciate, then why can't it get even further away from the original, given enough time? No evolution denier ever answers these questions. They just make blanket statements like "a fruit fly will always be a fruit fly". What you don't seem to understand is that big changes require longer time periods. We're not going to witness large change within a single human lifetime. It's nonsensical. But again, if any evolution denier can provide evidence that genetic mutations stop adding up after a certain point, then I'll concede the argument, but whenever I ask the question, the subject gets changed. Let's see if you can back up that claim.


They won't debate because they can't debate. They have no data, no evidence, no bench work. Just rambling speculation.

Note that the most rabid followers of Creationist crap never show up after a challenge. They just disappear into the ether. I've shut down more than a few threads already


edit on 30-6-2014 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 12:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

A fact in science is something that can be readily observed, i.e. first hand observed behavious such as measuring the ductility of a piece of metal with a strain gauge or applied weights where as a indirectly observed grouping of data can not be called readily observable so is not regarded as a fact in science but is indeed regarded as suitable for formulating a hypothesis or rather a theory (hypothesis and theory are more or less interchangable in that respect.
Therefore
Evolutionary Theory can not be called scientific fact though it can by length of service and level of acceptance be called an established fact much like einsteins theory of relativity (though darwin was not as intelligent as einstein though he did cause some pretty good political lampooning in a publication called punch).
In that respect you are obviously wrong and are I am sorry to day flogging a dead horse, trying to catch a ship that has already sailed etc.



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join