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: 54
27
<< 51  52  53    55  56  57 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 4 2014 @ 07:52 AM
link   


Are you Xlukkari?

Sorry random question but in Malta there is (was) an ancient belief system based on 5 universes in a very similar way to how you describe. They place them like Past, Future, Heaven, Hell and our current Universe. Each time someone passes away, depending on their 'power' (somewhat like Chi) they will cross over and be born again in one of these Universes. Only the strongest with the most enlightened soul can go full circle and be reincarnated into the same body they had died in. Keeping all the memories and skills of before. Its a nice belief system tbh. I rather enjoyed being taught about it when I was young. But like most, grow older and start to question.
a reply to: Maltese5Rhino

Hylozoics is obviously the Greek interpretation of a Multiverse but the teaching also passed through the Gnostics also. The entire Mediterranean would have had its secret schools but only so much was allowed into the public domain in those times and all using secret symbols. It is quite likely that the teachings where changed through popular culture and morphed over a few thousand years.

I love Malta by the way and have visited several time, I will go back one day.

edit on 4-12-2014 by kennyb72 because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 4 2014 @ 07:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Hello again KrazySh0t, Where is the evidence that life can arise from nothing, Panspermia has some merit but Abiogenesis is simply not possible.



posted on Dec, 4 2014 @ 08:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: kennyb72
a reply to: BlackManINC

I guess you guys like each other after all and it's all just playful banter. That's what I would like to believe anyway.


Look, I get that you felt like he was getting ganged up on unfairly by a mad gang of raging pro-evolution heathens and you kind of jumped in to level the playing field. Its commendable that you were looking out for the perceived under dog and I can totally respect that.

And I don't want to derail this thread any farther than it already has been over the past 50 pages and counting, but... To really be fair and give some legitimate context we truly were not the aggressors. Our venom tinged attitude towards BlackmanINC was reactionary in nature. We were not on the prowl trying to pick off the stray Christians who dared cross our Internet paths. This has been a pattern over multiple threads going back a few weeks at least in which blackmanINC was devoid of civility, couth or any reasonable or rational desire for an actual dialogue and instead preferred to utilize nonsequitors and aggression filled tirades berating and belittling anyone and everyone who had a viewpoint that did not echo or bow down to his.

The vast majority of people enter these discussions knowing that the chances are slim that everyone is always going to agree all the time but we still come to learn from other people's perspectives. BlackmanINC has one clear agenda, to proselytize and belittle any who don't defer to and bow to his superior world view. Don't take my word for it, go through and look at his replies in this thread as well as others. take a peek at his nearly apoplectic thread on the Rosetta mission that was closed down by moderators because of his belligerence.

In my previous reply to you, did I belittle you? Make derogatory comments towards you? Take an air of superiority towards you? Or did I attempt to find a rational and polite way to explain my position and why I disagreed with you and on what basis all while maintaining a civil demeanor? I may have had a few snarky replies back and forth with you earlier in the thread but I certainly haven't followed you around from thread to thread over a time span of days and weeks hurling the same insults over and over, emphasizing that you were an ape in a clearly hostile, belligerent and stalkerish fashion. I come to this forum to learn from others and share things I have learned. I'm not here to force my agenda on anybody nor do I think that is your purpose. I get the impression that your reason is similar to mine and many others but feel free to correct that assumption if I'm off base. I don't wish to continue to spread ill will or negativity, I just want you to understand that there is a bit of a deeper context or rather a subtext running beneath all of this while giving you a little perspective on why people are responding the way they are. Its not the usual modes operandi of myself or several others to linger on such a negative precipice at all let alone for over 50 pages of a thread. But the fact is, we are not the provocateurs here and I would hope that you would be able to see that if you looked close enough. Ok... End rant, back to our regularly scheduled programming...



posted on Dec, 4 2014 @ 08:05 AM
link   
a reply to: kennyb72

I'm sure you are familiar with the Miller/Urey Experiment? But to truly answer your question, Abiogenesis is a hypothesis. That means that it doesn't have enough proof to say that it is a viable model of how life arose, so it isn't a theory. It happens to be the leading hypothesis, but that still doesn't mean that it is valid.

You can believe that Panspermia happened, but like I said, that life has to have come from somewhere. So either biogenesis or abiogenesis explains it. Since there is no proof of a divine creator, abiogenesis wins out. Deductive logic. Unfortunately it isn't sound enough to call it case closed yet and up it into theory territory.
edit on 4-12-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2014 @ 08:15 AM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar


Well said good sir...






posted on Dec, 4 2014 @ 08:15 AM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

I think we are all good mate! even though I have been parrying back and forth with different members I really never leave with negative feeling about anyone. I like to think you can call someone out with the slash of a sentence but with humour and goodwill in your heart. If you are reading this blackmanINC it's time to shake hands and play nice. But if I see you being ravaged I will speak out. Same goes for anybody really.

The boards are for a bit of intellectual stimulation and also to have a bit of fun so I can't see too much harm done even though we did burn up a few pages,

edit on 4-12-2014 by kennyb72 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2014 @ 08:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I have one more card to play with than you guys through ID, so seeings as Abiogenesis didn't work out too well for you, I will claim that as an ace up our sleeve. Panspermia still leaves me with a horse in the race as well.

Thanks mate.

1:30am here, time for zzz
edit on 4-12-2014 by kennyb72 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2014 @ 08:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Oh so you can`t prove that the chemical reactions to produce life happened here, but it could have occured somewhere else? Well thanks for proving my point, that chemical evolution and panspermia is nothing more than anti-scientific rubbish based on absolutely nothing but the atheistic spin that these chemical reactions, with the wand of time will form themselves into living organisms. There is no such thing as "could have happened", it either happened or it didn`t. Just like with evolution of common descent, no viable mechanism is ever provided for abiogenesis to occur either. All I see is "I believe it happened therefore it must have occurred as my materialistic creed demands", WOW.



posted on Dec, 4 2014 @ 08:30 AM
link   
a reply to: kennyb72

I don't know what you mean by abiogenesis not working out for us? I didn't say that the hypothesis has been discounted. It just hasn't been proven enough to be considered a theory yet. Again, it is the leading hypothesis, meaning that it is the idea with the most evidence for it being true.



posted on Dec, 4 2014 @ 08:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: BlackManINC
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Oh so you can`t prove that the chemical reactions to produce life happened here, but it could have occured somewhere else? Well thanks for proving my point, that chemical evolution and panspermia is nothing more than anti-scientific rubbish based on absolutely nothing but the atheistic spin that these chemical reactions, with the wand of time will form themselves into living organisms.


No, it is deductive logic. Are you not familiar with how deductive logic works? Life, even life that originated off world, HAS to have arose from somewhere. So at some point, organic matter arose from inorganic matter. The best explanation for this is chemically. But since science cannot prove it well enough, it remains a hypothesis. Hypotheses are just ideas. God is a hypothesis. There has to be enough proof to remove most doubt for it to become a theory.


There is no such thing as "could have happened", it either happened or it didn`t. Just like with evolution of common descent, no viable mechanism is ever provided for abiogenesis to occur either. All I see is "I believe it happened therefore it must have occurred as my materialistic creed demands", WOW.


Science doesn't deal in absolutes. Science never says that something definitively happened, because even science hasn't proven anything definitively. There is majority consensus, but that means that you have to leave the possibility that the majority is wrong. The only people who deal in absolutes are the religious. "God DEFINITELY exists. I have no proof of this, but he definitely exists."
edit on 4-12-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2014 @ 08:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Well according to your fellow ape man, "science" definitely proves our evolution from apes. It is not just a hypothesis it is absolute, based on circumstantial evidence, most of which isn`t even evidence. So this post would be better served for them. Did life arise from inorganic matter? Sure it could have happened. Has it been proven in any way shape or form that this occurring naturally is even a possibility? No, real science shows that it is impossible for the information itself to arise naturally and form itself into living organisms without an outside intelligence doing the informing to begin with, whether its here on earth or anywhere else. You call it deductive logic, but I don`t see anything logical about it at all.


edit on 4-12-2014 by BlackManINC because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-12-2014 by BlackManINC because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2014 @ 09:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: BlackManINC
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Well according to your fellow ape man, "science" definitely proves our evolution from apes. It is not just a hypothesis it is absolute, based on circumstantial evidence, most of which isn`t even evidence. So this post would be better served for them. Did life arise from inorganic matter? Sure it could have happened. Has it been proven in any way shape or form that this occurring naturally is even a possibility? No, real science shows that it is impossible for the information itself to arise naturally and form itself into living organisms without an outside intelligence doing the informing to begin with, whether its here on earth or anywhere else. You call it deductive logic, but I don`t see anything logical about at all.



Are you trying to say that we did not evolve from primates?



posted on Dec, 4 2014 @ 09:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: BlackManINC
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Well according to your fellow ape man, "science" definitely proves our evolution from apes. It is not just a hypothesis it is absolute, based on circumstantial evidence, most of which isn`t even evidence.


No, science says that it has a pretty good idea that it happened, not that it absolutely happened. Also, evolution is more than just a hypothesis. It is a scientific theory. That means it has more credibility in the "it is real" department. Also, I have trouble believing you know what real evidence is. I want to see some evidence for your God hypothesis.


So this post would be better served for them. Did life arise from inorganic matter? Sure it could have happened. Has it been proven in any way shape or form that this occurring naturally is even a possibility? No, real science shows that it is impossible for the information itself to arise naturally and form itself into living organisms without an outside intelligence doing the informing to begin with, whether its here on earth or anywhere else.


Real science shows this? Would you care to link me to some studies from actual scientists in this field that say this?



posted on Dec, 4 2014 @ 09:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yeah, I know this revelation may be a shock to you.



posted on Dec, 4 2014 @ 09:12 AM
link   
a reply to: BlackManINC

Honestly guys read his last post and ask youself this.
"Is this person open minded enough to change his view".
The answer is no so lets not waate our time with this one.
Black is too far gone.
Don't waste your time on the unteachable.



posted on Dec, 4 2014 @ 09:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: BlackManINC
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yeah, I know this revelation may be a shock to you.


Which one? I don't see any of the evidence that I requested for the God hypothesis nor do I see any studies from your "real" science that shows the conclusions you presented about life needing an intelligent designer. I'm not even shocked that you didn't present any evidence and instead deflected with a non sequitur.



posted on Dec, 4 2014 @ 09:14 AM
link   
dbl post
edit on 4-12-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2014 @ 09:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: BlackManINC
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yeah, I know this revelation may be a shock to you.


Which one? I don't see any of the evidence that I requested for the God hypothesis nor do I see any studies from your "real" science that shows the conclusions you presented about life needing an intelligent designer. I'm not even shocked that you didn't present any evidence and instead deflected with a non sequitur.


Its no shocker to me that you believe life can arise naturally by some inexplicable means with no mechanism. But no, instead of just leaving it at that, lets deflect the issue about God. I know your type, you`re the type described in Revelation that will reject God even when he`s siting on his throne in the holy city right in front of your face, because really, in your heart you don`t want God. The heart rules the mind, so it has become clear to me that this is not a matter of providing evidence because you are not worthy of it.
edit on 4-12-2014 by BlackManINC because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2014 @ 09:38 AM
link   
a reply to: BlackManINC

Which God yours? what makes yours the right one?.
There are thousands of Gods which people follow why is it always yours that is right?.

www.lowchensaustralia.com...

Lets face it your religion is based on where you are born.
I find it funny and sad that you froth at the mouth condemning all.
Ask yourself this Blackman are you a true Christian...reading this thread the answer is no...far to much hatred and bitterness in your soul.
I will pray to my God to help you open your eyes.
I feel a battle inside you....have you come out yet?.
edit on 4-12-2014 by boymonkey74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2014 @ 09:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: BlackManINC

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: BlackManINC
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yeah, I know this revelation may be a shock to you.


Which one? I don't see any of the evidence that I requested for the God hypothesis nor do I see any studies from your "real" science that shows the conclusions you presented about life needing an intelligent designer. I'm not even shocked that you didn't present any evidence and instead deflected with a non sequitur.


Its no shocker to me that you believe life can arise naturally by some inexplicable means with no mechanism. But no, instead of just leaving it at that, lets deflect the issue about God. I know your type, you`re the type described in Revelation that will reject God even when he`s siting on his throne in the holy city right in front of your face, because really, in your heart you don`t want God. The heart rules the mind, so it has become clear to me that this is not a matter of providing evidence because you are not worthy of it.


Well you are the one calling Abiogenesis into question because of not enough evidence. Why can't I do the same thing with your God hypothesis? At least Abiogenesis HAS evidence for it.

Though it is kind of insulting that you presume to think for me on what I would and wouldn't consider evidence for God. I pretty much knew you'd hand wave away my explanations and evidence that I have provided, but I provide them anyways. Yet here you are deflecting with non sequiturs and proselytizing instead of just acquiescing to my request for evidence. Is it possibly because you are talking out your ass and don't actually have evidence for anything you are saying? My gut says yes. Prove me wrong.

By the way, even Christianity says that you are wrong. According to the bible, EVERYONE is worthy of the evidence of god. It is up to them to reject it or not. So saying that I am not worthy of the evidence goes against what you believe.




top topics



 
27
<< 51  52  53    55  56  57 >>

log in

join