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: 16
31
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 23 2014 @ 07:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

I have to admit that I tend to go by my somewhat leaky memory but one thing I remember and always have is the tenet around which all theory is supposed to be based, that a theory can never be proven but only supported and of course any contrary evidence therefore according to the rule or Tenet there in stated invalidates the theory in it's current state meaning a theory is only viable as long as there is absolutley no unexpected result's or parameters.
Of course some theorem are so long winded and took so long to arrive at that they are still used widely today even though they are known to be wrong and sadly new theorem tend to be based on current models which therefore inherit the legacy of there flaw's.


That sounds accurate to me! The problem is that evolutionists want to ignore basic scientific tenets to defend the theory. Simple things such as observe, test, duplicate, seem to no longer matter when it comes to evolution.


originally posted by: LABTECH767
A workaround is to add Chaos theory to explain unexpected and random result's but in fact it is litterally a cop out as they do not currently have a better theory than there flawed one that return's these unexpected/unpredicted result's.
There is no chaos only a system that is beyond our ability to model and therefore whose parameters we truly do not know, it may even be that our current reality is in a constant state of change and in periods of the past the world may have inhabited a quite different reality, the very foundation law's of the universe may be in flux and a constant state of change making reality fluid or chaotic rather than set and fixed which further would have implications on current working model's held so dearly by many, quantum physicists are aware of this conundrum and it tend's to give some of them a headache.


I quite agree. It's a case of being unable to understand, or refusing to accept data that would offer understanding, and creating a loophole with which to ignore "inconvenient" facts.


originally posted by: LABTECH767
Imagin a reality shift caused by interactions in the membrane interactions of superspace and the corresponding effect upon our percieved law's and state of reality, it may even be possible that entire technologys could suddenly stop working or may have in the past or future as the science they are based upon was no longer valid due to a dimensional law change to the structure of reality itself, this is even more possible if the idea of the holographic universe is used as a basis.


Way too heavy for my brain at the moment!




posted on Jul, 23 2014 @ 07:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Evolution and intelligent design aren't mutually exclusive.



posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 06:46 AM
link   
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Common Creationist Claims: DEBUNKED!


(5) "The Paluxi River basin contains footprints of dinosaurs, side-by-side with human footprints. This is proof that man and dinosaurs were contemporaneous, and that dinosaurs are not millions of years older."
This is absolutely false, and it's amazing that this argument keeps cropping up. The famous "man tracks" in the Paluxi river have been examined again, and again, and the results are the same every time. The alleged "man" tracks are 2-1/2 times the size of a large human foot, too large to be that of a human. They don't even have toe imprints, as would be expected, if a human made them. The prints are vaguely "bean-shaped", much like a human footprint, but when you see a cast of them, it is obvious that these prints are not human. Also, there is a 1-to-1 correlation with the Dinosaur tracks that these footprints are next to. In fact, it becomes more apparent when you see a sequence, that the "man" tracks, in effect, are part of the dinosaur's print -- they are the impression of one of the toes or footpads.


Apparently those tracks have been analyzed by scientists contrary to whatever you were saying.



posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 06:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bilk22
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Evolution and intelligent design aren't mutually exclusive.


I know this. It's been pointed out already on this thread that I wasn't speaking about people who accept evolution but also believe in an intelligent designer. This thread is speaking to the people who deny evolution specifically.



posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 06:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
That sounds accurate to me! The problem is that evolutionists want to ignore basic scientific tenets to defend the theory. Simple things such as observe, test, duplicate, seem to no longer matter when it comes to evolution.


Do they now? Like what?


I quite agree. It's a case of being unable to understand, or refusing to accept data that would offer understanding, and creating a loophole with which to ignore "inconvenient" facts.


I find it hard to believe that scientists are the ones having a hard time accepting data. That is usually reserved for your camp. How about some links or evidence that this is true? Just because you say it is true doesn't make it so.



posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 07:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
How about some links or evidence that this is true?


Yeah, good luck with that!



posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 12:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
I quite agree. It's a case of being unable to understand, or refusing to accept data that would offer understanding, and creating a loophole with which to ignore "inconvenient" facts.


You may want to adjust your position a little bit here. What you have just said sums up evolution deniers to a T. All facts are ignored except the ones you like. Anything against your side is automatically lies and assumptions. I know this because I've specifically provided several links for you that show observations and experiments that prove evolution. It's not even worth arguing any more. It just makes rational religious folk look back when you start a crusade against science to support a fundamentalist view of your religion and cite claims that have been debunked by scientists for several years.
edit on 24-7-2014 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 12:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bilk22
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Evolution and intelligent design aren't mutually exclusive.


I couldn't agree more, however, one of them has mountains upon mountains of evidence and the other one is just wishful thinking. Can you figure out which is which?



posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 04:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: Bilk22
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Evolution and intelligent design aren't mutually exclusive.


I couldn't agree more, however, one of them has mountains upon mountains of evidence and the other one is just wishful thinking. Can you figure out which is which?
Maybe you can explain that to some of the world's greatest scientists, astronauts and other intelligent thinkers. They seem to believe there's way more to life than happenstance.



posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 04:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Bilk22

Imams examples of these fine individuals would be...?



posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 05:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: Bilk22

Imams examples of these fine individuals would be...?
Well I have heard some mention it, but even you might be capable of finding stuff like this on your own if you'd just apply yourself. However here's the first Google hit for astronauts that believe in god.
edit on 96712Thursdayk22 by Bilk22 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 05:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Bilk22

I followed your link, it took me to a site about the Argument from Authority fallacy, is this correct?



posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 06:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: Bilk22

I followed your link, it took me to a site about the Argument from Authority fallacy, is this correct?


This is what the link is to.




Astronauts Who Found God

by Chuck Colson

Astronaut, John Glenn's return to outer space many years after his awe-inspiring orbit around the earth is a reminder of the kind of heroism that makes space exploration possible. What author, Tom Wolfe called the "right stuff."

What you may not know, however is that for many of the early astronaut heroes, the "right stuff" included deep religious faith. Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin are best known as the first astronauts to land on the moon and take that "giant leap for mankind." But you probably don't know that before they emerged from the spaceship, Aldrin pulled out a Bible, a silver chalice, and sacramental bread and wine. There on the moon, his first act was to celebrate communion.

Frank Borman was commander of the first space crew to travel beyond the Earth's orbit. Looking down on the earth from 250,000 miles away, Borman radioed back a message, quoting Genesis One: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." As he later explained, "I had an enormous feeling that there had to be a power greater than any of us-that there was a God, that there was indeed a beginning."

The late James Irwin, who walked on the moon in 1971, later became an evangelical minister. He often described the lunar mission as a revelation. In his words, "I felt the power of God as I'd never felt it before."

Charles Duke, who followed Irwin to the moon, later became active in missionary work. As he explained, "I make speeches about walking ON the moon and walking WITH the Son [of God]." Guy Gardner is a veteran astronaut who speaks in churches on the reality of God.

To look out at this kind of creation and
not believe in God is to me impossible.
– Astronaut John Glenn

What is it about being in space that seems to spark our innate religious sense? Two centuries ago the philosopher Immanuel Kant said there are two things that "fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me."

Reflections about these things, Kant wrote, lead our minds to contemplate God Himself—the moral law revealing His goodness, the heavens revealing His power.

As the psalmist put it: "The heavens declare the glory of God." Or as John Glenn put it just a few days ago as he observed the heavens and earth from the windows of Discovery: "To look out at this kind of creation and not believe in God is to me impossible. It just strengthens my faith."

Many of us have thought that science is antagonistic to faith. Yet most of the great figures who shaped the scientific enterprise from the beginning have been devout believers—people like Blaise Pascal, who invented the first calculator; Isaac Newton, who discovered the law of gravity; and James Maxwell, who formulated the laws of electromagnetism. All were Christians who felt that the study of nature did not challenge their faith but rather strengthened it.

And that's exactly what space exploration can do in the lives who take part in it. If you're watching the Discovery mission with unsaved friends, explain to them how over the decades space travel has provided an unexpected dividend. Astronauts who powerfully encountered the God who created the heavens and the earth.





posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 06:17 AM
link   
If you want to understand one current hypothesis about the origin of life, I highly recommend the following video (watch from 2:40 onwards - the beginning is excruciatingly awful. Oh, turn the music off, it's distracting!).






edit on 25-7-2014 by MarsIsRed because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 06:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bilk22
And that's exactly what space exploration can do in the lives who take part in it. If you're watching the Discovery mission with unsaved friends, explain to them how over the decades space travel has provided an unexpected dividend. Astronauts who powerfully encountered the God who created the heavens and the earth.


Except that for most astronauts it didn't happen, which kinda renders your argument (or the one you copied from) irrelevant!




edit on 25-7-2014 by MarsIsRed because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 06:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bilk22

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: Bilk22
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Evolution and intelligent design aren't mutually exclusive.


I couldn't agree more, however, one of them has mountains upon mountains of evidence and the other one is just wishful thinking. Can you figure out which is which?
Maybe you can explain that to some of the world's greatest scientists, astronauts and other intelligent thinkers. They seem to believe there's way more to life than happenstance.


Just because someone is smart doesn't mean they can't entertain bad ideas. I believe this is a combination of two fallacies. Argument from authority and argument ad populum (bandwagon fallacy). You (and they) still need to produce evidence that this being exists. As scientists I'm sure they understand this.
edit on 25-7-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 08:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Bilk22

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: Bilk22
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Evolution and intelligent design aren't mutually exclusive.


I couldn't agree more, however, one of them has mountains upon mountains of evidence and the other one is just wishful thinking. Can you figure out which is which?
Maybe you can explain that to some of the world's greatest scientists, astronauts and other intelligent thinkers. They seem to believe there's way more to life than happenstance.


Just because someone is smart doesn't mean they can't entertain bad ideas. I believe this is a combination of two fallacies. Argument from authority and argument ad populum (bandwagon fallacy). You (and they) still need to produce evidence that this being exists. As scientists I'm sure they understand this.
Maybe one day, if you're lucky, you'll get that proof. I guess it depends upon what type of life you've led.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 09:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Bilk22

Fellow astronaut Edgar Mitchell believes Uri Geller is psychic. Being an astronaut does not make you any less susceptible to silly pseudo-scientific beliefs. This is known as the Appeal to Authority fallacy.
edit on 25-7-2014 by GetHyped because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 02:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bilk22

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: Bilk22
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Evolution and intelligent design aren't mutually exclusive.


I couldn't agree more, however, one of them has mountains upon mountains of evidence and the other one is just wishful thinking. Can you figure out which is which?
Maybe you can explain that to some of the world's greatest scientists, astronauts and other intelligent thinkers. They seem to believe there's way more to life than happenstance.


Believing in god, isn't the same as claiming Intelligent Design is a field of science or has objective evidence in support of it. That's personal faith. Intelligent design does not have any objective evidence to support it. That's the bottom line. That doesn't make it false, but it also shows that the belief isn't scientific.
edit on 25-7-2014 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 04:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: Bilk22

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: Bilk22
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Evolution and intelligent design aren't mutually exclusive.


I couldn't agree more, however, one of them has mountains upon mountains of evidence and the other one is just wishful thinking. Can you figure out which is which?
Maybe you can explain that to some of the world's greatest scientists, astronauts and other intelligent thinkers. They seem to believe there's way more to life than happenstance.


Believing in god, isn't the same as claiming Intelligent Design is a field of science or has objective evidence in support of it. That's personal faith. Intelligent design does not have any objective evidence to support it. That's the bottom line. That doesn't make it false, but it also shows that the belief isn't scientific.
I never claimed it was scientific. Never claimed it was a field of science. I never even claimed my position on the subject other than to offer up the idea that people who are deeply involved in science, exploration, astrophysics and other fields are believers. Aristotle was a believer. Maybe a good debate with him is in order LOL




top topics



 
31
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join