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: 5
8
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 04:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: OperationBlackRose
Scientists have discovered that you will believe anything if someone says scientists have discovered it.


GAME OVER




posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 05:46 AM
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.



I love it when Darwinian Philosophers keep moving the goal posts. Eventually you're going to end back at "it's magic" with that strategy.

Noone has commented on my previous posts regarding fast sediment formation? Noone ever does, but anyhoo. How can you say don't bring up micro macro, which are terms the mainstream scientific community came up with IN ORDER TO WEASEL OUT OF AN EXPLANATION FOR LARGE SCALE EVOLUTION, then follow on to give absolutely no evidence of macro evolution at all.

Even the Bible explains that micro evolution occurs and any child can tell you this too, BECAUSE IT'S OBSERVABLE! Creationists have a problem with believing in macro evolution because it isn't observable and requires vast amounts of time.

The act of naming a 1000 different beatles as seperate species because they have slightly different mandibles IS NOT EVOLUTION!



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 06:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Dem0nc1eaner

please tell us what you understand under the term "Species"



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 06:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Hellhound604

With all due respect, why ask leading questions when you know we will differ on the interpretation?

Is a definition infallible because it's in a text book or because a man in a white coat tells you it's so? This was my earlier point, this is where it starts to feel like "faith" rather than "knowledge".

I suppose you would like me to say that "species" refers to organisms with unique traits, genetics etc. But with regards to evolution, I feel the term is over-taxed. Apparently I'm not allowed to use the term micro-evolution - a nice easy get out for the Darwinian Philosophers - but, like I said, this is mentioned in the Bible even and yes, we can all accept that environment plays a role in an animals suitability for it's habitat. The question I think most creationists have is, where is the proof, not that a Beetle can birth a Beetle more suitable for it's environment, which yes we can see happen all the time, but that a Beetle can give birth to something you would no longer class as a Beetle.

And yes, I do understand the theory, I do, but without massive amounts of time, it doesn't even work logically.

So I refer to my previous post about uniformitarianism/catastrophism. Everything we think we know about the universe is based on a lot of assumptions. What if the speed of light isn't constant? What if we don't fully understand what the sun is? Or the type of energy it gives off could change? Could that affect the way matter reacts over time? Do we even understand the nature of matter?

There are so many assumptions we make to create a model that appears to be logical, but it certainly isn't, in my mind anyway, proof of anything, unless it can be seen, tested or shown to happen in a lab.



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 06:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Dem0nc1eaner

We have seen it and observed it.

ideonexus.com...

But you will not even bother researching any of it because you are blinded by you ignorant religion.

Oh and stop calling it Darwinian evolution...we have had 150 years more research and evidence collected now.
edit on 13-11-2014 by boymonkey74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 06:50 AM
link   
Just to add before I leave the thread.
It appears to me the only group of people who will not accept evolution are American Christians, heck Islam, Catholics, Hindus all accept it.
I believe in God and I accept evolution as tool made from God.
I think the people who automatically dismiss can't accept every living thing is connected and that is an amazing thing.
We are all part of evolution and to dismiss and to ignore the evidence is pure ignorance and stupidity.
edit on 13-11-2014 by boymonkey74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 06:51 AM
link   
Oh and where is the OP?.
Ran off when shown evidence....



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 07:00 AM
link   
a reply to: deadeyedick

At least you admit to coming to a debate unarmed, but that still doesn't make it right or you what you are saying true. Seems rather odd to me that you would write a topic off as a matter of faith without fully investigating it. Doesn't sound very open minded to me.



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 07:09 AM
link   
a reply to: boymonkey74

Well aren't we ignorant today. You have made an awful lot of assumptions about me haven't you. You are very concise with your lack of comprehension - well done!

You assume I haven't done my own research?
You assume I haven't seen this webpage before?
You assume I'm religious?
I never once called it Darwinian evolution - Darwinian Philosophy - it's a thought construct, science should be useful IMHO!

And 150 years of research? Are you really going to lay claim to all of the failed hoaxes etc. that went on in the first 100 years of your supposed evidence. Hilarious...

It's only been over the last, what, 30-40 years that there has been any evidence that's even debatable.

And yet again, noone has bothered even trying to discuss the earth age, the apparent "million year" formations of strata, which has now been proven as not being necessary. Proven! In a lab! Observably! Geological structures such as Grand Canyon can be created under the right conditions in a matter of weeks/months, not millions of years.

You are a shining example of the closed-mindedness of the "educated" masses. Shine on fail-monkey!



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 07:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Dem0nc1eaner




Lol ok.
Iam out.

Just lol.



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 07:20 AM
link   
a reply to: boymonkey74

No rebuttal?

Glad you took my advice



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 07:21 AM
link   
It's interesting how so often evolutionists flame creationists for "not understanding the "facts"" but, whenever I show them opposing facts, they bail. Very telling...



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 07:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Dem0nc1eaner

You have not shown anything dude.
You have just given your opinion.
But go on show me where you learnt all these so called facts.



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 07:50 AM
link   
a reply to: boymonkey74

I have repeatedly asked someone to refute Guy Berthault's findings re quick strata formation. There are sites that claim to have done so, but all they do is show his premise was wrong, not his findings. He shows clearly that strata can form very quickly, if the movement of water is taken into account.



Part one/four.



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 07:52 AM
link   
He also shows reasonings behind finding "out of place" fossils etc. It explains the "cambrian explosion" as being the result of a lot of life being catastrophically submerged by a large flood.

How do fossils even form, without being entombed by sediment? Animals can't just die and fossilise on the ground in great numbers, as they are often found. They will rot and disappear.



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 07:56 AM
link   
How about oil and coal?

creation.com...

www.creationworldview.org...

I know you won't like the origin site, but these have again been shown to happen in a lab, under the right circumstances.

Although hydroplate theory may seem quite weak, it did have a successful prediction ie large volumes of water would be found deep underground, which has recently been proven -

www.dailymail.co.uk...



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 10:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: OperationBlackRose
Scientists have discovered that you will believe anything if someone says scientists have discovered it.



I ate a banana yesterday.



Beat that scientists saying they have discovered something man,


Tomorrow I will use a match to light one of my farts.


Forewarning: If InhaleExhale doesn't post anymore after this post, know that they have loved being here but igniting a rocket that they hoped would get them into orbit has lead to disastrous results and they have blown up Uranus.



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 11:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dem0nc1eaner

I never once called it Darwinian evolution - Darwinian Philosophy - it's a thought construct, science should be useful IMHO!



And 150 years of research? Are you really going to lay claim to all of the failed hoaxes etc. that went on in the first 100 years of your supposed evidence. Hilarious...

Interesting how while calling out someone, your counter is mere hyperbole. How many hoaxes have there been since hew publication of On the Origins of Species? 3? 4? the way you make you statement its as if you are implying dozens. of those hoaxes, how long did they persist and how were the revealed as hoaxes? Do you know? is the information available on you perch upon the high tower?

It's only been over the last, what, 30-40 years that there has been any evidence that's even debatable.


absolute bull s# to be Blunt. Neanderthal is a 19th century find. Work done by the Leakey's in the 50's and 60's was groundbreaking to say the very least but he was doing important work at Olduvai as far back as the 1920's. Denigrating a scientific because it knows more today than it did 30,40,50 or 100 years ago is absolutely asinine. Name e a singe scientific discipline that does NOT know more currently than 50 years ago.


And yet again, noone has bothered even trying to discuss the earth age, the apparent "million year" formations of strata, which has now been proven as not being necessary. Proven! In a lab! Observably! Geological structures such as Grand Canyon can be created under the right conditions in a matter of weeks/months, not millions of years.


showing that something CAN occur under laboratory conditions isn't in he same ballpark as showing that it DID happen in the real world that way under natural conditions. if that were the case then abiogenesis wouldn't still be a hypothesis


You are a shining example of the closed-mindedness of the "educated" masses. Shine on fail-monkey!


and a quality specimen you are as well. is his what passes for intelligent debate?



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 12:09 PM
link   
I was called ignorant before we even got this far, so yes, that got my back up, maybe you should direct your comment to the person who tried to insult my belief system without knowing what that belief system was.

Anyway...

"absolute bull s# to be Blunt. Neanderthal is a 19th century find. Work done by the Leakey's in the 50's and 60's was groundbreaking to say the very least but he was doing important work at Olduvai as far back as the 1920's. Denigrating a scientific because it knows more today than it did 30,40,50 or 100 years ago is absolutely asinine. Name e a singe scientific discipline that does NOT know more currently than 50 years ago. "

This is still based on assumptions of the age of the Earth. The 30/40 year comment was stating that recently genetic information had provided some credible points to debate, that weren't based solely on fossils, who's cause of origin can't be verified.

One cause of origin I can't accept is that they dropped to the ground and were slowly fossilised at the speed it's accepted the strata would have formed around them.

"showing that something CAN occur under laboratory conditions isn't in he same ballpark as showing that it DID happen in the real world that way under natural conditions. if that were the case then abiogenesis wouldn't still be a hypothesis"

Isn't that the same basis that macro-evolution is based on? Because minor adaptations within a species CAN be observed, then it MAY be possible for this to happen to a greater extent, if we have enough time. How is this any different? Also, we have examples of fast strata formation in the natural world, on a smaller scale, so why is it impossible for you to imagine it happening on a larger scale? Especially when there are countless records from across the entire planet, from almost every civilisation, that state there was a gigantic flood that covered the majority of the Earth.

We have a situation where it has been proven that vast quantities of water moving at speed with varying current's will produce strata much like we see in the real world, we also have many accounts from history of this happening. So I think that's a pretty good hypothesis.

How can you reconcile your beliefs that the fossil record has been created slowly over millions of years, just because it MAY be possible? Which I don't even think it is.

Like I said before, fossilisation requires (in most all cases) the body to be entombed. How do we even have a fossil record, that appears to be regulated in some fashion across the planet, unless there was an event which entombed many animals all at once, across the entire planet.

Why do we find fossilised trees straddling strata? Why do we find entire schools of fish and large groupings of animals in one spot. Do fish return to graveyards to die like elephants? Or does it seem more likely that the whole school was impacted and entombed at once.

And lastly, just look around you for pete's sake. Does the natural world support uniformitarianism or catastrophism?
edit on 13-11-2014 by Dem0nc1eaner because: re-wording



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 12:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Dem0nc1eaner

Wow Darwinian philosophers? Neighbour you have no idea what the modern understanding of evolution entails do you? Further more, goal posts move, as new evidence becomes available. It is called being honest.

Next, your bible is not the only religious text out there.

Lastly "micro evolution" is weasel words. Evolution is evolution.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join