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.

 

A Question That Evolutionist Couldn't Answer

page: 12
6
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 12:31 PM
link   




posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 12:32 PM
link   
a reply to: TechUnique

Did you know dragons were also talked about in the bible... they even breathed fire...

In the book of Job, which is a book of fiction...

Just look at the context of the entire book... a bet between God and Satan...

Which is 100% impossible for any one to have known about if such ridiculousness did happen...

Its nothing more then a story that was meant to teach a lesson.... not reality




posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 12:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: TechUnique

originally posted by: aynock

originally posted by: TechUnique


dr grady mcmurtry is a doctor of divinity - not very relevant to evolutionary biology


Dr. Grady S. McMurtry has served as a Regent and Adjunct Professor at the School of Theology in Columbus, Georgia, the school from which he obtained his Doctor of Divinity in 1996.


link



That video was to do with Young earth creation not evolution. The fact that the earth is way younger than what you guys believe is relevant.


Finally!

You never answered the question I presented to you: "In your opinion, how old is the earth?"

Now that we know you believe in Young Earth nonsense, it's clear that we're all wasting our time presenting anything to you.

To accept evolution, one must first accept the true age of the earth. As it stands, we're trying to teach trigonometry to a person who doesn't believe that 2+2=4.


You're the one who's confused on the age of the earth my friend.



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 12:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: TechUnique

Did you know dragons were also talked about in the bible... they even breathed fire...

In the book of Job, which is a book of fiction...

Just look at the context of the entire book... a bet between God and Satan...

Which is 100% impossible for any one to have known about if such ridiculousness did happen...

Its nothing more then a story that was meant to teach a lesson.... not reality



Oh thanks Wise one. Did you write it?
No?



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 12:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: TechUnique
You guys think that these links I'm giving you are what made me believe in God? I'm just trying to find something 'Scientific' that will convince you. Like Giants for instance? Who believes Giants existed on earth prior to the Flood? If you admit that Giants existed archeologically and then a Flood wiped them out, we are getting somewhere.

Who believes in the flood? What about Dinosaurs co-existing with man? Did you know that Dinosaurs are talked about in the Bible? They changed the translation to mean Hippo or Elephant even though the descriptions definitely don't add up.


Descriptions like:



Job 40:15-24King James Version (KJV)

15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.

16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.

17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.

18 His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.

19 He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him.

20 Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play.

21 He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.

22 The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about.

23 Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth.

24 He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares.


Dinosaurs do not have testicles, stones etc......so the animal being described couldn't possibly be a dinosaur.


I'm sure that you will say any and all of the evidence for such things is fraudulent but I would say the same for your 'Science'.


Yes it's clear you would, not because of the veracity of the evidence, but purely because it contradicts your biblical beliefs...
edit on 9-2-2015 by Prezbo369 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 12:35 PM
link   
a reply to: TechUnique

No one knows who wrote it...

IF I did write a book it would have a more logical story then Job




posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 12:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: TechUnique

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: TechUnique

originally posted by: aynock

originally posted by: TechUnique


dr grady mcmurtry is a doctor of divinity - not very relevant to evolutionary biology


Dr. Grady S. McMurtry has served as a Regent and Adjunct Professor at the School of Theology in Columbus, Georgia, the school from which he obtained his Doctor of Divinity in 1996.


link



That video was to do with Young earth creation not evolution. The fact that the earth is way younger than what you guys believe is relevant.


Finally!

You never answered the question I presented to you: "In your opinion, how old is the earth?"

Now that we know you believe in Young Earth nonsense, it's clear that we're all wasting our time presenting anything to you.

To accept evolution, one must first accept the true age of the earth. As it stands, we're trying to teach trigonometry to a person who doesn't believe that 2+2=4.


You're the one who's confused on the age of the earth my friend.
Are we? Please present your obviously superior scientific assessment on the age of the earth. Surely this will change the field Geology and Biology in ways we can't possibly imagine! I await your brilliant analytical proof with bated breath.



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 12:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: TechUnique
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Earth may have underground 'ocean' three times that on surface


LOL.....so your proposal is that prior to the great flood, Earth was hollow?

Oh, and you never addressed the fact that the OP video is from a known con artist.....research these things before spewing them....it makes your argument look bad.
edit on 2/9/15 by Vasa Croe because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 12:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: Krazysh0t

One has evidence behind it, the other came from the imaginations of man.

Doesn't a scientific 'theory' come from the imagination of man?






How?

How did so many Christians miss the definition of "Scientific Theory" in school?

That same asinine statement comes up in every debate about evolution.

A scientific theory is a series of statements about the causal elements for observed phenomena. A critical component of a scientific theory is that it provides explanations and predictions that can be tested.

So no, the Theory of Evolution did not come from someone's imagination.
edit on 2/9/2015 by Answer because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 12:39 PM
link   
a reply to: TechUnique

My question is before you became a new born christian what did you believe in before?. What great tragedy happened to you to throw away all thought of your own to accept the Bible as the answer to everything?.
I think it was the homemade Tattoos...it was wasn't it....

Lol.



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 12:42 PM
link   
a reply to: AngryAtTheBlindBelief



About humans though. Lions, hyenas etc all have fur. Lots of it. Making them very hot in the same way you described above. A human full of hair in Africa may want to shed the hair during the day, but wants it back at night. This would stop the evolution in its tracks because they would never invent socks (not literal). They would seek shade during the day and be cold at night. This puts them in the cool/cold more often than hot. This will remove the need for clothing as they will be cool more often.

That logic just doesnt compute for me.


sorry - i'm not sure what you mean

the point is if you start to use clothing to keep you warm you are less reliant on hair to keep you warm - you can afford to lose some of it at no disadvantage - in fact it becomes an advantage for the species if they lose the hair, because they can more effectively keep cool during the heat of the day - in effect doing more without losing the advantages of lots of hair, because you have another method of keeping warm at night (animal skin clothing/blankets)

this is a process that would happen slowly over many generations - the species gains an advantage because it can operate more efficiently - hairy animals have to stop doing stuff if it gets too hot because they will overheat and die - un-hairy humans are much more efficient at getting rid of excess heat during the day so they can do more for longer

this may also allow them to expand their range - another advantage



If they lost their hair because they started to cover themselves that is a chosen evolutionary path. I have been told repeatedly throughout this chat that evolution is not chosen.


they've chosen to wear clothes - they haven't chosen an evolutionary path - that is a complicated process way beyond their ability to control - influence yes, but not consciously (though we are in that situation now to a degree, to the extent we are aware of the mechanics of the system), and only as one of many influences - it's the whole system that is in control - they are only a very small part of that system



Also if covering our bodies caused us to lose our hair our hands and faces at the very least should still be covered. I've never seen a caveman wear a balaclava.


how many cavemen have you seen? - more importantly chimps/gorillas/orangutans don't have hair covering their faces

edit on 9-2-2015 by aynock because: filled out



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 12:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
Doesn't a scientific 'theory' come from the imagination of man?


No more than saying the answer to 2+2 is 4 comes from my imagination. A scientific theory is an explanation for a series of observed events the same way that 4 is an explanation for observing 2+2. Being a theory and not a law though means it is an incomplete observation though. They certainly aren't thought up by someone daydreaming in a field.


One should use the scientific model but not trust anyone else to observe, one must look for oneself at the observable evidence. I want to see the evidence not just read about it.
What can actually be known for sure??
And what is knowing?


What is preventing you from seeing the evidence? With the scientific method you ARE allowed to review the evidence to your heart's content. That is the whole point. It's called the peer review process and your opinion (as long as it is valid) is just as good as a scientist's opinion on the matter. If you could produce the necessary evidence to debunk evolution, you would become a superstar in academia on parallel to people such as Newton, Einstein, and even the Christian reviled Darwin.



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 12:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: TechUnique

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: TechUnique

originally posted by: aynock

originally posted by: TechUnique


dr grady mcmurtry is a doctor of divinity - not very relevant to evolutionary biology


Dr. Grady S. McMurtry has served as a Regent and Adjunct Professor at the School of Theology in Columbus, Georgia, the school from which he obtained his Doctor of Divinity in 1996.


link



That video was to do with Young earth creation not evolution. The fact that the earth is way younger than what you guys believe is relevant.


Finally!

You never answered the question I presented to you: "In your opinion, how old is the earth?"

Now that we know you believe in Young Earth nonsense, it's clear that we're all wasting our time presenting anything to you.

To accept evolution, one must first accept the true age of the earth. As it stands, we're trying to teach trigonometry to a person who doesn't believe that 2+2=4.


You're the one who's confused on the age of the earth my friend.


So what do YOU think the age of the earth is. How did you arrive at this time? Was it told to you by someone else or did you calculate it on your own?



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 12:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Answer

Dating techniques are based on assumptions. The main assumption is the constancy of process rates used to calculate ages. Seeing as that assumption is used in all the dating techniques of geology, then if the assumption is wrong, then so are all the dates.

You guys are going on a whim with the dating thing, you have faith that your dates are correct when they could be(and are in fact) completely out of sync.

Historical records of any human civilization before 4000 B.C. are completely absent. You could say that 'We hadn't evolved yet enough to write history', sure you could say that. But evidence points not only towards us having a creator, but towards a flood wiping everything out and towards supernatural influence on earth and its civilizations.

When you get into it the Bible makes a lot of sense and matches up historically with what we know for sure. Your dating methods are FAR from a certainty. They require faith to believe that they are correct.

I'm sure you will disagree though.



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 12:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: TechUnique

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: TechUnique

originally posted by: aynock

originally posted by: TechUnique


dr grady mcmurtry is a doctor of divinity - not very relevant to evolutionary biology


Dr. Grady S. McMurtry has served as a Regent and Adjunct Professor at the School of Theology in Columbus, Georgia, the school from which he obtained his Doctor of Divinity in 1996.


link



That video was to do with Young earth creation not evolution. The fact that the earth is way younger than what you guys believe is relevant.


Finally!

You never answered the question I presented to you: "In your opinion, how old is the earth?"

Now that we know you believe in Young Earth nonsense, it's clear that we're all wasting our time presenting anything to you.

To accept evolution, one must first accept the true age of the earth. As it stands, we're trying to teach trigonometry to a person who doesn't believe that 2+2=4.


You're the one who's confused on the age of the earth my friend.


You base your belief on the bible and junk science from those trying to push the young-earth creationist agenda.

You keep posting sources from Christian-propaganda websites and YouTube as some sort of "proof" that your belief is valid.

How do you not see how flawed that argument is? Just because I can find a website that says the earth is flat, it doesn't make it true.

Evidence comes from peer-reviewed scientific studies. If you don't use that standard, you're being gullible. Are there some anomalies that pop up from time to time? Sure, but one or two strange occurrences do not invalidate mountains of evidence.

If you can find a single peer-reviewed scientific study that claims the earth is 10,000 years old or younger, I'll eat the nearest hat.



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 12:56 PM
link   
a reply to: TechUnique

Well first the bible doesn't say how old the age of the earth is anyways... so that argument is out...

The whole theory was basically made from trying to calculate the age from the genealogies in the bible which is a misguided way of doing things in the first place... No one knows if those genealogies are correct... and even back then they couldn't tell you if they were accurate

And theres absolutely no evidence of a global flood... There would be evidence all over the "globe" if it happened, but there isn't... Unless of course your evidence is Ken ham... And if you actually read what he has to say about the flood... and believe it, you're just as delusional as he is...

The bible does make a lot of sense in some cases... but when it comes to the Torah, it makes little to no sense, logically or scientifically...




posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 12:58 PM
link   
I suggest you guys read this page.
Source

Probably won't even read it. You'll probably see the website url and not even bother, yet still claim its bogus.



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 01:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: TechUnique
a reply to: Answer

Dating techniques are based on assumptions. The main assumption is the constancy of process rates used to calculate ages. Seeing as that assumption is used in all the dating techniques of geology, then if the assumption is wrong, then so are all the dates.


Actually, if you bothered to educate yourself on these matters you'd find that dating techniques aren't based on a singular assumption. Heck, most would pick up on the idea that techniques is plural and all then see that would have to be the case.


You guys are going on a whim with the dating thing, you have faith that your dates are correct when they could be(and are in fact) completely out of sync.


Most of the time when they are out of sync as you say is when the dates we've provided are too young. NOT too old. So if anything, the earth is OLDER than we currently think. Not younger.


Historical records of any human civilization before 4000 B.C. are completely absent. You could say that 'We hadn't evolved yet enough to write history', sure you could say that. But evidence points not only towards us having a creator, but towards a flood wiping everything out and towards supernatural influence on earth and its civilizations.


So historical records are the only type of evidence that can be used for existence? Where is this evidence for a creator? Where is the evidence for a flood wiping everything out and where is the evidence for supernatural influence on earth, outside of the bible that is?

To be honest, AGAIN if you were to educate yourself beyond blind belief you'd find that all evidence points away from these things, not towards them. But then again it is hard to shake a deeply held confirmation bias such as yours. For instance, I could tell you that all that water stored under the earth which you seem to think is evidence of the global flood is actually mineralized and probably has never been free flowing water EVER on this planet. OR even if it was all free flowing on the surface, the mountaintops of the world would still poke up (inconsistent with the claims in the bible where everything was covered by water including the mountains). But you will ignore it all and continue to present your blind belief as fact.


When you get into it the Bible makes a lot of sense and matches up historically with what we know for sure. Your dating methods are FAR from a certainty. They require faith to believe that they are correct.

I'm sure you will disagree though.


Do you even know HOW to conduct research, or do you parrot things you read online? Wait, why did I ask that question, this thread is proof that you just parrot things you read online. Like a youtube video would EVER equal valid scientific evidence. LOL.
edit on 9-2-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 01:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: TechUnique
I suggest you guys read this page.
Source

Probably won't even read it. You'll probably see the website url and not even bother, yet still claim its bogus.



Your argument on dinosaurs living with humans is based on a cave drawing... and one carving on a wall in Cambodia...

That's pretty solid...


edit on 9-2-2015 by Akragon because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 01:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: TechUnique
I suggest you guys read this page.
Source

Probably won't even read it. You'll probably see the website url and not even bother, yet still claim its bogus.


I suggest you read this: Unicorns existence proven, says North Korea




top topics



 
6
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join