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 is a farce: Evidence

page: 16
27
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 03:07 PM
link   
a reply to: BlackManINC

Oh come on and don't be a sour puss.. He was right, you know? Your posting was indeed something.. special.
The part of "rocks into fish" by a magic wand - that was good! Even a small bit of truth in it, if a rock might be some sample of earths minerals, which might add with some other elements up to a aeozeon.

Only the part about reptiles who changed to birds (about right) and mammals (nope) was really wrong, indeed.


Lets start at the beginning: the beginning of life didn't rely on evolution.




posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 03:10 PM
link   
a reply to: BlackManINC


Actually, I never said anything about which god is and isn't validated.


here, i'll quote ya:


If this is what you mean by adaptation or evolution, then fine, you can believe in God as well, the real one in the Bible that is.


^ that pretty much says it right there.


The Bible is the only book on the planet that tells us where these pagan gods come from and who they really are.


you have a very limited exposure to esoteric writings it seems.


The Bible "validates" all other gods as fallen angels and devils disguising themselves as forces of nature.


did it try selling you the brooklyn bridge as well?

im done with you. go play with your newly purchased bridge.



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 03:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlackManINC

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: BlackManINC


If this is what you mean by adaptation or evolution, then fine, you can believe in God as well, the real one in the Bible that is.


hey, if the biblical god is validated, so is every other god in history. whatever happened to seniority? surely the same arguments that make the abrahamic deity viable would also make zeus, odin, osiris, and brahma all equally as viable...you cant just pick and choose who is excepted from what rule. otherwise you ruin the illusion of authenticity.

oops, too late.


Actually, I never said anything about which god is and isn't validated. The Bible is the only book on the planet that tells us where these pagan gods come from and who they really are. The Bible "validates" all other gods as fallen angels and devils disguising themselves as forces of nature. This is the one thing that every other false god on earth have in common with each other. The real God Yahweh, is pure spirit and cannot be compared to anything in our created little sphere of existence, this is how you know that Yahweh is the one true God, before you even get to the archaeological evidence validating the Bible as a historical document.


There's little doubt that the Bible is an historical document.
The doubt is whether it should be taken literally.
And that doubt is HUGE and has little validation, if any, at all.



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 04:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Pardon?
There's little doubt that the Bible is an historical document.
The doubt is whether it should be taken literally.


Have you tried the Equidistant Letter Sequence (ELS) formula Bible code ? , You can make the bible say almost anything you want with it , (the shorter the words the better) ...

biblecodewisdom.com/code/above-top-secret/1

biblecodewisdom.com/code/putin-has-bad-face-lift
edit on 23-11-2014 by engvbany because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 05:59 PM
link   
ok, i'll bite..


originally posted by: borntowatch
Mars meteors with fossils, yeah right.
Fake missing link bones.
Its endless.


care to give a few examples, and why you believe them to be fake? or would you just like to continue parroting the views of websites that reinforce your flawed thinking?



Evolution, holier than thou, holier than all.

www.nwcreation.net...

but hey I know, dont read anything that challenges your faith, it could corrupt your soul.


to be fair, i looked at your source....

some of these are examples used in a video the OP posted in the OP's LAST evolution thread (which he conveniently abandoned to start this one, when he got called out too many times for nonsense) i debunked these "missing link" claims over there...you might want to go read my writeup over there...



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 06:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: TechUnique
This.

What they don't understand is that they themselves are the ones blindly following.


i never cease to find your hypocrisy anything short of hilarious.

you slam people who choose to try and understand the world around them, though science, and claim that they are "blindly following"....yet you choose to reject scientific notions that disagree with your personal beliefs, and instead of wanting to understand the world around you, you go with the lazy "god did it" explanation....talk about blind following.



I can almost guarantee most of them have never even contributed to the publishing of a peer reviewed paper on the topic, let alone made any sort of discovery or original idea that has been adopted or accepted by this 'community' they talk of.


Have you? if not, then you'd be wise to not criticize people for having not done something that you, yourself, haven't even done..



This community is often completely divided anyway, bickering with each other over nonsense.


is the basis for this statement rooted in fact, or is it just another opinion?



The fact of the matter is, when you've got naive people, presenting other naive people false information, based on false scientific practices and wild assertions and jumps of logic... you can NEVER argue with with. They will literally just laugh you off because you believe in something they believe to be impossible because their FALSE theory told them so.


and the EXACT same thing can be said of the creationist assertions you've delivered to us in all these threads...
edit on 11-23-2014 by Daedalus because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 06:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Cypress

not to mention that the science he bashes so readily, gave him the conputer he's using to do it, the medical technology that kept him alive when he nearly died, the electricity that powers the things he uses, modern heat, modern light, air conditioning, cars....all kinds of great stuff....because of science, we have human beings orbiting the earth, we've been to the moon, sent probes to other planets, and we even have a few that have left the solar system....but science is s**t, and a farce.... -rolls eyes-



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 06:23 PM
link   
a reply to: WakeUpBeer

yes, there's this too.....in addition to the oceans boiling, and the question of where all the water came from, and where it went...

yeah, between submersion, and boiling, plant life would have been history....so that would also mean nothing to produce breathable air....and it would take years for sufficient plant life to grow back, to keep everything alive.....sooooo suffocation?



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 06:38 PM
link   
a reply to: TechUnique

this post reminds me of an interview with Tom Cruise, that i saw once....

he was going on to the interviewer about how "you don't know the facts and history of psychiatry, i do", when his sole basis for understanding psychiatry, was the lunatic assertions and ramblings, put to paper, of L. Ron Hubbard....

the fact of the matter is that time and again, you post in a dishonest and hypocritical fashion...i don't believe you're intentionally trolling, which is really worse, because you don't know how to stop..



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 06:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Shoujikina

You HAVE to be trolling here, right? ....right? Because literally none of what you just said makes even the slightest amount of sense..Literally, WHAT are you even talking about? What is a "Sidoplasm?" DO you mean Cytoplasm? "five to ten strands of DNA at a minimum to do the housekeeping required." Five to ten--where are you getting these arbitrary numbers from? Please do yourself a favor and read up on some BASIC science, because you probably don't realize it, but you're embarrassing yourself tremendously. I apologize ahead of time if you are mentally disabled, which I assume to be the case. Why don't you ask your counselor in your "special" classes to go over some biology again. Your parents will be so proud of you when you get an A on your report card this quarter!



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 07:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: ManFromEurope
a reply to: BlackManINC

Oh come on and don't be a sour puss.. He was right, you know? Your posting was indeed something.. special.
The part of "rocks into fish" by a magic wand - that was good! Even a small bit of truth in it, if a rock might be some sample of earths minerals, which might add with some other elements up to a aeozeon.

Only the part about reptiles who changed to birds (about right) and mammals (nope) was really wrong, indeed.


Lets start at the beginning: the beginning of life didn't rely on evolution.


According to the evolutionist, the beginning of life relied on the evolution of amino acids into proteins, so yes evolution does rely on the origin of life, that is what the so called Rosetta Mission is really all about, to prove abiogenesis by panspermia. So these heathens will claim evolution has nothing to do with it when its convenient for them. Like anyone with a disingenuous motive, they talk out of both sides of their mouth. Evolution either is or isn't about the origin of life, you can't have it both ways.



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 07:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlackManINC


According to the evolutionist, the beginning of life relied on the evolution of amino acids into proteins, so yes evolution does rely on the origin of life,


Which "evolutionist" stated this? It's absolute BS and you know it is. Provide a citation or withdraw your constant fallacious lies because once again you misrepresent science in order to slander it. It's disingenuous and petty and that type of rhetoric is what got your Rosetta thread closed down.



that is what the so called Rosetta Mission is really all about, to prove abiogenesis by panspermia.


Your grip on reality is as weak as your grip on science and manners. Abiogenesis and Panspermia are two completely separate hypothesis. It's an either or scenario they are not conjoined. Not that you care because you couldn't make up your irrational arguments if you had to learn the actual science. I genuinely feel sorry for you that you live your life with such terribly bitter sentiments towards people who are trying to understand the world and universe around them.


So these heathens will claim evolution has nothing to do with it when its convenient for them.


No, it's what people who study anthropology and biological processes always say. Again, show some citations. You can't expect anyone to take you remotely serious wen you just throw random sentences together without any thought. You seriously need to support your statements and provide proper citations or admit you make it up on the fly.


Like anyone with a disingenuous motive, they talk out of both sides of their mouth. Evolution either is or isn't about the origin of life, you can't have it both ways.


Oh sweet irony. Were you able to type the sentence about talking out both sides of your mouth with a straight face? Because that's your basic MO in every post you make. Evolution absolutely is NOT about the origins of life. I'm not sure where you got that idea from but it's not even remotely true. Evolution is about the sum of genetic mutations and morphological changes that organisms undergo over time.Evolution is a scientific fact. It happens, has happened and is happening right now. Refusing to acknowledge science and reality doesn't make it any less true. Abiogenesis and Panspermia are hypothesis. Nothing more. The only disingenuous motives in seeing are yours because you keep fabricating statements while preaching at the heathens from your impervious ivory tower of arrogance. It's ridiculous at this point.



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 07:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: BlackManINC


According to the evolutionist, the beginning of life relied on the evolution of amino acids into proteins, so yes evolution does rely on the origin of life,


Which "evolutionist" stated this? It's absolute BS and you know it is. Provide a citation or withdraw your constant fallacious lies because once again you misrepresent science in order to slander it. It's disingenuous and petty and that type of rhetoric is what got your Rosetta thread closed down.



that is what the so called Rosetta Mission is really all about, to prove abiogenesis by panspermia.


Your grip on reality is as weak as your grip on science and manners. Abiogenesis and Panspermia are two completely separate hypothesis. It's an either or scenario they are not conjoined. Not that you care because you couldn't make up your irrational arguments if you had to learn the actual science. I genuinely feel sorry for you that you live your life with such terribly bitter sentiments towards people who are trying to understand the world and universe around them.


So these heathens will claim evolution has nothing to do with it when its convenient for them.


No, it's what people who study anthropology and biological processes always say. Again, show some citations. You can't expect anyone to take you remotely serious wen you just throw random sentences together without any thought. You seriously need to support your statements and provide proper citations or admit you make it up on the fly.


Like anyone with a disingenuous motive, they talk out of both sides of their mouth. Evolution either is or isn't about the origin of life, you can't have it both ways.


Oh sweet irony. Were you able to type the sentence about talking out both sides of your mouth with a straight face? Because that's your basic MO in every post you make. Evolution absolutely is NOT about the origins of life. I'm not sure where you got that idea from but it's not even remotely true. Evolution is about the sum of genetic mutations and morphological changes that organisms undergo over time.Evolution is a scientific fact. It happens, has happened and is happening right now. Refusing to acknowledge science and reality doesn't make it any less true. Abiogenesis and Panspermia are hypothesis. Nothing more. The only disingenuous motives in seeing are yours because you keep fabricating statements while preaching at the heathens from your impervious ivory tower of arrogance. It's ridiculous at this point.


What would it matter to you if I did provide the statements from the evolutionists mouth espousing abiogenesis by panspermia heathen? Like a good evolutionists, you'll find a way to spin it into something that its not.



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 08:05 PM
link   
a reply to: BlackManINC

You do realize that evolution says absolutely nothing about where the first life came from right? Evolution is about life evolving from one form to another, usually to a more complex form suited to the enviroment it is in.

The origin of life (abiogenisis or proteogenisis) is something else completely. Similarly the Big bang has zero to do with evolution.

It really gets tiresome when evolution deniers don't actually know what they are arguing against. I am aware of what IDers and Creationists believe, please have the courtesy to do the same eh?



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 08:06 PM
link   
a reply to: BlackManINC

You say heathen like its an insult to some of us? I'm a neopagan, in a branch of that group of religions which on occasion uses the term heathen (though not as much as my Scandinavian centric friends).

So you are going to go the ad homenin route this early in your run at us? Good to know.



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 08:55 PM
link   
a reply to: BlackManINC

You're a sad pathetic miscreant. Seriously, the best you can do is keep calling me a heathen? Its clear that you can't actually refute the science when you don't grasp the difference between a biological process(evolution) ad a chemical process(abiogenesis). You're a joke, cuckoo for caca. The spinning is obviously your sole domain since you are just filling up space with hyperbolic buffoonery and conjecture. You obviously aren't here to discuss let alone dispute science that's well beyond your ability to grasp. Provide citations for your nonsense if you can. I'm not going to hold my breath though because you'll just claim somethimg says what it clearly does not just like in your thread that was shut down. Don't blame everyone else for your inability to understand basic high school biology while claiming that giving you correct information is just spin.
edit on 23-11-2014 by peter vlar because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 08:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: BlackManINC

You do realize that evolution says absolutely nothing about where the first life came from right? Evolution is about life evolving from one form to another, usually to a more complex form suited to the enviroment it is in.

The origin of life (abiogenisis or proteogenisis) is something else completely. Similarly the Big bang has zero to do with evolution.

It really gets tiresome when evolution deniers don't actually know what they are arguing against. I am aware of what IDers and Creationists believe, please have the courtesy to do the same eh?


Abiogensis today in fact is referred to as 'chemical evolution', the report below being a shining example. It doesn't matter how well one can or can't explain how the first living entity could evolve, because if you can't explain how it got there in the fist place, then your whole theory is dead in the water. Evolution is used to describe anything from the slightest sign of change within a species to molecules to man. They realize they can't explain abiogenesis on earth, so they are now throwing the theory of evolution into outer space to prove it.

link: journals.cambridge.org...


Chemical evolution at the primitive prebiotic level may have proceeded toward increased diversity and complexity by the adjacent possible process (originally proposed by Kauffman). Once primitive self-replicating systems evolved, they could continue evolution via Eigen's hypercycles, and by Prigogine's emergence of order at the far-from-the equilibrium, non-linear systems. We envisage a gradual transition from a complex pre-life system, which we call the transition zone. In this zone we find a mixture of complex chemical cycles that reproduce and secure energy. Small incremental changes in the structure and organization of the transition zone eventually lead to life. However, the chemical systems in this zone may or may not lead to life. It is possible that the transition to life might be the result of an algorithm. But, it is uncertain whether an algorithm could be applied to the systems in which chance plays a role.


Like I said, they talk out of both sides of their waste orifice.



edit on 23-11-2014 by BlackManINC because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 09:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlackManINC

Abiogenesis today in fact is referred to as 'chemical evolution', the report below being a shining example. It doesn't matter how well one can or can't explain how the first living entity could evolve, because if you can't explain how it got there in the fist place, then your whole theory is dead in the water. Evolution is used to describe anything from the slightest sign of change within a species to molecules to man. They realize they can't explain abiogenesis on earth, so they are now throwing the theory of evolution into outer space to prove it.


And yet you still don't see the Forrest for the trees. Modern Evolutionary Synthesis refers only to biological evolution. The field of study only begins once the first simple life has appeared on earth. It has nothing to do with chemical evolution. They are two seperate processes and fields of study. All you're doing is quote mining.
Are you next going to try to claim that evolution covers cosmology as well because astronomers use the phrase Cosmological Evolution to describe aspects of the universe or Stellar Evolution to describe different aspects of a stars life cycle? You are conflating two seperate processes and fields of study and haven't really got a grasp on any of the basics.



Like I said, they talk out of both sides of their waste orifice.


yes, those who are devoted to creationism and deny science when convenient do indeed engage in that.



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 09:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: BlackManINC

Abiogenesis today in fact is referred to as 'chemical evolution', the report below being a shining example. It doesn't matter how well one can or can't explain how the first living entity could evolve, because if you can't explain how it got there in the fist place, then your whole theory is dead in the water. Evolution is used to describe anything from the slightest sign of change within a species to molecules to man. They realize they can't explain abiogenesis on earth, so they are now throwing the theory of evolution into outer space to prove it.


And yet you still don't see the Forrest for the trees. Modern Evolutionary Synthesis refers only to biological evolution. The field of study only begins once the first simple life has appeared on earth. It has nothing to do with chemical evolution. They are two seperate processes and fields of study. All you're doing is quote mining.
Are you next going to try to claim that evolution covers cosmology as well because astronomers use the phrase Cosmological Evolution to describe aspects of the universe or Stellar Evolution to describe different aspects of a stars life cycle? You are conflating two seperate processes and fields of study and haven't really got a grasp on any of the basics.



Like I said, they talk out of both sides of their waste orifice.


yes, those who are devoted to creationism and deny science when convenient do indeed engage in that.


Haha, yeah, continue to see whatever you want to see out of it sir. You are the prime example of a spin doctor



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 09:23 PM
link   
a reply to: BlackManINC

Perhaps I should clue you into a couple of things neighbour.

(a) I hold a PhD in Chemistry, postgraduate qualifications in bioinformatics, and I've studied proteogenisis (aka abiogenisis)
(b) I work in the science industry
and
(c) Look at (a) and (b) they are important to the next bits I am going to say.

Many things are incorrectly called other things. The Higss particle is caleld by the media and other laypersons the "god particle" yet not a single educated individual calls it that. The name persists but it does not make it so.

How people misuses a scientific theory is no reflection of the theory itself. Indeed its a reflection of the lack of education and understanding of those people.

What you are missing from that paper you citeed (and its not a new one now is it?) is that they are talking about "pre life" a lot in there. Perchance have you actually read the whole paper? WE use a lot of words differently today than what they once meant or were supposed to be used. Here are a couple. Synergy. It really was supposed to ONLY be applied to a chemical system, yet its used all over the place. Nice used to mean strange. Gay happy. putting "pro" in frount of a word to make it imply something is "better" was also of a chemistry origin. But the language evolves.


You are really hostile neighbor, you need to chill out. You are dealing with something way above your pay grade here, and its showing.




top topics



 
27
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join