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.

 

Evolution a Religion

page: 4
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 03:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I know some of what evolution and i have countered most of it with alternatives in my various threads. evolution is a theory based on faith and should be in this forum if people were being honest with them selves. Just because a model works does not mean that is the model we are in. anyone can fill in blanks until pieces fit but that does not completly prove it. it just makes it easier for some to accept and if it becomes widely accepted then some call it fact but the faith still remains.




posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 03:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

Mind you my female doctor was pretty hot so it wasn't all that bad.
It was just a routine finger up my bum and she didn't say any more tests needed.



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 03:22 PM
link   
a reply to: deadeyedick
Faith is not an acceptable alternative to quantifiable facts. I'm a person of faith too (just not Abrahamic) but its not in my science.



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 03:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

do tell some of these quantifiable facts
my final answer is that truth is found on both sides and all the debate in both sections just have not come together to form the big picture yet.
we could start with 1+1=2 but that is not always true 1 egg plus 1 sperm eaquals 1 person



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 03:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: boymonkey74
Also religion is to do with faith.
Science can be observed just like evolution can be.
It has evidence religion has none.


Darwinist evolution is equally faith-based. Most of the dating record are heavily flawed. Atoms only decay at a steady rate in a relatively stable environment. Furthermore, radioactive dating measures the age of the particle, not necessarily the object in question.



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 03:40 PM
link   
a reply to: deadeyedick

Ok here we go, but I don't want to see the words micro and macro evolution being thrown about, because those are weasel words to try and squirm out.

(a) We've observed evolution in the lab. What do you think antibiotic resistance is? That is a fairly low level of evolution but it is evolution none the less. Bacteria have managed to evolve to resist the antibiotic.
(b) We've been able to showthe correlation between various species on a genetic level. When you see those pretty branching diagrams, a fairly simple program in R (with a hefty wad of genetics data) and some time, will generate one. I've done it. So you can predict where species diverged from one another. Funnily these predictions tend to line up where we observe various fossil appearing for the first time.
(c) WE can trace using genetic data that humans evolved in Africa. It lines up with the fossil record. Timing calculated also lines up with appearance of Homo sapiens fossils.

There are three. I have more.


edit on 12-11-2014 by Noinden because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 03:46 PM
link   
a reply to: deadeyedick

Yeah. This is wrong. I've seen your threads and posts about evolution and you are just as guilty of not being fully educated on evolution as any other Creationist trying to debate evolution.



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 03:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

We have seen evolution in action also.

www.iflscience.com...

Madagascar is a great place to see it working.

www.wcs.org...



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 03:51 PM
link   
a reply to: boymonkey74

I was going for a simple one
But there are these and more as well.

With humans we can show when milk tolerance entered some of our genomes. Not unsurprisingly its clustered around the time we began to domesticate animals we could milk



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 03:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

But thems the Devils ideas Krazysh0t!



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 03:55 PM
link   
The thing is they always ask for proof and when you show it then they still deny it.
Ignorance pure and simple.
How many times have you guys shown deadeye evidence? eh?.
They will never accept it.



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 03:58 PM
link   
a reply to: boymonkey74

Well its my first time doing it, not the first time I've done it to creationists



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 04:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: deadeyedick



Ok here we go, but I don't want to see the words micro and macro evolution being thrown about, because those are weasel words to try and squirm out.



(a) We've observed evolution in the lab. What do you think antibiotic resistance is? That is a fairly low level of evolution but it is evolution none the less. Bacteria have managed to evolve to resist the antibiotic.

(b) We've been able to showthe correlation between various species on a genetic level. When you see those pretty branching diagrams, a fairly simple program in R (with a hefty wad of genetics data) and some time, will generate one. I've done it. So you can predict where species diverged from one another. Funnily these predictions tend to line up where we observe various fossil appearing for the first time.

(c) WE can trace using genetic data that humans evolved in Africa. It lines up with the fossil record. Timing calculated also lines up with appearance of Homo sapiens fossils.



There are three. I have more.



Repeatable does not make fact. Just think of those fake pull ups they do in the movies. looks real but not

dna is alive and yes we are all tied together but the thought that it is in real time has not been investigated much. we assume we got it over the yrs but if i was outside our time and wanted to join in i would just gather the dna i needed from what is here. i would be a plant then an animal then human. We see that dna changes occur more rapidly and if anything the fact we can not think on the level of complexity of dna shows it is not there by chance. we can make small changes to it but overall its full definition is way out of our leauge.


In a world generated by a higher power all the fossil records could be completly out of context if they had the ability to create a world from parts of other worlds. That does not make them wrong just out of context givin that one could bring parts of worlds that are billions of yrs old together 6000yrs ago.



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 04:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: deadeyedick



Yeah. This is wrong. I've seen your threads and posts about evolution and you are just as guilty of not being fully educated on evolution as any other Creationist trying to debate evolution.
you say that as if i said i knew evolution in and out. i said i knew some of it. everything i have come across points to faith of the ones who convinced themselves there could be no other way.

how many of my threads did you see in science forums? 0 at least i can admit that most will not see my truth because it is if the nature of faith.



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 05:04 PM
link   
a reply to: deadeyedick

Out of curiosity what would you consider fact worthy then?

So far I am observing a deep resistance to having an open mind on your part. You are doing your thing based on faith. Good for you. But it does not make it a fact.

You also are trying to argue (not even debate, if you were debating you'd put your facts my way) with me. You don't try to show my facts as flawed. You ignore them.

You clearly don't understand the area we are taking about, that little incoherent spiel on DNA shows this aptly. What is "real time" Its just an incoherent babble bub!

I'm not even going to touch the last paragraph which is a mixture of young earth creationism and science fiction. Ok I lied. Yeah the earth is bits of other worlds billions of years old. SO is the sun, so are you. Super novae scatter the heavier elements for the Universe, we are made up of that debris.



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 05:06 PM
link   
a reply to: deadeyedick

If you don't know the subject (and you just admitted this) why the hells are you engaging? I don't know about bible scholarship (I'm not a Christian or Abrahamic after all) and I keep the hell away from those, unless they impinge on something I do know (Science, Paganism, linguistics etc)



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 09:05 PM
link   
i know some of the evolution views. I said that i do not claim to be an expert. My view is that there is no empirical evidence for anything and what science calls fact changes with the direction of the wind. i believe that dna can change in real time if needed. meaning right now. i believe that before we are born here as human we have already been here as plants and animals working our way up the food chain collecting dna and that the plant or animal right beside you is likely to be yourself. this is all possible if we start from a place that exist outside of what we refer too as time.

this place is not our home and is goverened by forces that current science can not explain yet. being a scientist you are not benefiting the world with your knowledge like you will be able too when you get back where you came because that place is governed by science. by holding faith and learning what you can about science is actually wise in the long run but trust me when i say i have learned to do things science can not explain but the majority of it will harm people or if i passed on the what i know it would be hijacked by some that would kill us.



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 09:11 PM
link   
you would have a thread without the religous debate if it was not posted in the religion section. there are experts in evolution here but not many come to debate religion and they fail to see how the two could ever have any lasting links.



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 09:18 PM
link   
a reply to: deadeyedick

Your view that there is "no empirical evidence" would be wrong. You are right that DNA (its capitalized) is correct, its called mutation, and I can point you in the direction of several chemicals that will do that really "real time" for you. Or perhaps you can go stand near a source of radiation (gamma would be best, though you are not going to end up a Hulk sorry).

Beyond that your comments are utter gibberish to me. Sorry its just nor worded in a manner I can interpret kindly. I'm actually fairly open minded, as I've pointed out, I'm a Neopagan Druid. I am open to the occult world, the spiritual world, and the world we live in. But what you are talking about there sets my BS sensors off. Sorry.

Earth is not my home? Oh yeah it is, I can tell this by the fact that my DNA is related to every other living thing on the planet. All use DNA, all have the same chirality as mine in their proteins. L amino acids are usually fine, D ... not so much (or if you prefer use the R and S nomenclature). Going to fast for you? Speaking a foreign language? Most likely, that was Chemistry. Its one of the tools I use to know this is the planet which is my home. I use genetics to determine that I am related to the Neanderthal, Denisovians and more distantly Chimps, and the other great apes.

Science explains the world far better than any other paradigm out there. Now if we are talking the spiritual world, sure that's not for science, but we are not, we are talking the material world here and now. I am not worried about being hijacked, its why I swear fealty to the Morrigan. Lugh and Dagda. Its a *ghosti thing.

Ok look I talked about some strange ideas back at you.

As for trusting what you say? I need more evidence to do that neighbour. So far I've only sensed hostility to science, evolution in particular.



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 09:20 PM
link   
a reply to: deadeyedick

I am fine with the religion, but I'm going to use my own sprititual path, and not assume because an Abrahamic follower quotes scripture at me that they are talking about the only answer. My faith is as strong as yours for example. We can not prove or disprove the other. But science is not faith based.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join