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.

 

Those Who Hate Secret Societies Are Not In Secret Societies

page: 7
10
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 06:10 PM
link   
Yeah, I went to some cathedrals in my lifetime and there is a ton of symbolic imagery that covers nearly everything.


originally posted by: KSigMason
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest
If you think that Christianity holds no symbolic imagery then you are blind. Symbolism doesn't inherently mean idolatry.





posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 06:11 PM
link   
I don't like this thought-line, it's like saying "hurt anyone and everyone to win no matter what".


originally posted by: KSigMason
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest
Where in the writings of the Illuminati do they say the "ends justify the means." Or are you quoting from someone else?




posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 06:14 PM
link   
To evolve is to become greater than before, not merely change.



a reply to: Tangerine
*As you may know, evolving doesn't necessarily mean in a positive direction other than increasing survivability.





edit on 10-11-2014 by Asynchrony because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-11-2014 by Asynchrony because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 11:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Asynchrony
To evolve is to become greater than before, not merely change.



a reply to: Tangerine
*As you may know, evolving doesn't necessarily mean in a positive direction other than increasing survivability.






That is incorrect. Biological evolution is change over time through mutation. Change does not imply greater than. Social evolution has led humans to wage war on a global scale and possess weapons that can conceivably destroy life as we know it. Is that "greater than" the social condition of early humans? I think not.



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 03:11 PM
link   
No, to biologically mutate is to biologically mutate, with or without physical improvements in relation to the mutated's environment. In humans evolution is implied to denote the steps of mankind's mutations in a upward scale (thus the greater than tagline).

For example, by your definition, the abominations of insects in Japan caused by the Fukushima fallout would be "evolution" and that would be incorrect.



originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Asynchrony
To evolve is to become greater than before, not merely change.



a reply to: Tangerine
*As you may know, evolving doesn't necessarily mean in a positive direction other than increasing survivability.






That is incorrect. Biological evolution is change over time through mutation. Change does not imply greater than. Social evolution has led humans to wage war on a global scale and possess weapons that can conceivably destroy life as we know it. Is that "greater than" the social condition of early humans? I think not.



posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 01:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Asynchrony
No, to biologically mutate is to biologically mutate, with or without physical improvements in relation to the mutated's environment. In humans evolution is implied to denote the steps of mankind's mutations in a upward scale (thus the greater than tagline).

For example, by your definition, the abominations of insects in Japan caused by the Fukushima fallout would be "evolution" and that would be incorrect.



originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Asynchrony
To evolve is to become greater than before, not merely change.



a reply to: Tangerine
*As you may know, evolving doesn't necessarily mean in a positive direction other than increasing survivability.






That is incorrect. Biological evolution is change over time through mutation. Change does not imply greater than. Social evolution has led humans to wage war on a global scale and possess weapons that can conceivably destroy life as we know it. Is that "greater than" the social condition of early humans? I think not.


evolution.berkeley.edu...

"MISCONCEPTION: Evolution results in progress; organisms are always getting better through evolution.

CORRECTION: One important mechanism of evolution, natural selection, does result in the evolution of improved abilities to survive and reproduce; however, this does not mean that evolution is progressive — for several reasons. First, as described in a misconception below (link to "Natural selection produces organisms perfectly suited to their environments"), natural selection does not produce organisms perfectly suited to their environments. It often allows the survival of individuals with a range of traits — individuals that are "good enough" to survive. Hence, evolutionary change is not always necessary for species to persist. Many taxa (like some mosses, fungi, sharks, opossums, and crayfish) have changed little physically over great expanses of time. Second, there are other mechanisms of evolution that don't cause adaptive change. Mutation, migration, and genetic drift may cause populations to evolve in ways that are actually harmful overall or make them less suitable for their environments. ...."




top topics
 
10
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join