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.

 

Dear Atheists: I will prove to you that there is a Creator to the universe. Come debate me.

page: 69
36
<< 66  67  68    70  71  72 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 09:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: TheChrome

Not only that every evolving animal had to undergo gender evolution from asexual to sexual, in perfect synchronization, so it's species wouldn't die out. And then one day they just copulate, something they had never done before, they had no instinct to do it, but did it anyway. And what happened while the sex organs were evolving over thousands of years ?




Literally quadrillions of species went extinct trying to figure that out or waiting for the right tools. Congratulations, you are the proud result of the evolutionary lottery. Many, many, many, many organisms died to make you possible.




posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 09:32 AM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

Were any bothans?.



posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 09:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: TheChrome

Not only that every evolving animal had to undergo gender evolution from asexual to sexual, in perfect synchronization, so it's species wouldn't die out. And then one day they just copulate, something they had never done before, they had no instinct to do it, but did it anyway. And what happened while the sex organs were evolving over thousands of years ?

Thanks for bringing some higher intelligence in for the other side of this discussion, why should the one side get a free for all pile on against creation.



Um... You DO know that not every creature that has two genders has sex right?



posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 09:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: TzarChasm

Were any bothans?.




He's made a critical error.......and the time for our attack has come.




posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 10:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Semantics once again, you guys are hilarious and predictable, the concept is that most animals procreate the old fashioned way, but yes not every living creature on the planet.
Dogs, Cats, Eagles, Dolphins......Donkeys take note of them too.



posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 10:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Prezbo369

I knew someone would get it
.



posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 10:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Unfortunately I am the evidence for that
.



posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 10:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: TzarChasm

Were any bothans?.


You get a star for that obscure reference.



posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 10:20 AM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

I just read it like Mon Mothma says it lol.



posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 10:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Semantics once again, you guys are hilarious and predictable, the concept is that most animals procreate the old fashioned way, but yes not every living creature on the planet.
Dogs, Cats, Eagles, Dolphins......Donkeys take note of them too.


That isn't semantics. It is a KEY piece of knowledge that must be considered when figuring out how sex evolved on this planet. Just because you can name a handful of animals that procreate through sex isn't a rebuttal of my points. You need to look at the evolutionary history of those animals to see when they BECAME bisexual and when they started having sex. For instance, all your examples are modern animals that went through MANY different evolutionary iterations before arriving at their current forms.

Look at fish. A female fish deposits her eggs somewhere, then a male fish swims along and fertilizes them. No sex involved. I'd say that this is likely how bisexual creatures first started reproducing. Then sex came along later.

The fact that you are trying to wave this point away as "semantics" shows your unscientific way of approaching this problem (not to mention why you are wrong).
edit on 10-8-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 10:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

I refuse to believe you are even trying anymore. This is just you occupying time and amusing yourself now.



posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 11:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Barcs

What is my cause?

I said a few things and have been answering questions ever since...

I thought it was your cause as well as the other to bash me for being a believer...

I'm not lying I may not be right but what I said has not been proven faulty...


This just proves you didn't read my post. Your arguments do not need to be proven faulty if you have not backed them up. Your cause is obviously trying to justify god to other people. My cause is to deny ignorance and defend science. I don't care if your god exists.


Refute me or shove off...


I know this is a very difficult concept, but you have not posted ANYTHING to refute. You have offered your opinion. Stop acting like your opinion is fact. It doesn't hold true just because it hasn't been refuted. YOU need to justify it with facts or it holds no weight. Basic debating 101.
edit on 10-8-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 11:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

You are missing a critical element of this exchange: 5StarOracle is not interested in proper debate. You are wasting time and energy, which is the key to his/her perceived success. Wear you down and win by default. Empty victory but that's nothing new around here.



posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 11:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Semantics once again, you guys are hilarious and predictable, the concept is that most animals procreate the old fashioned way, but yes not every living creature on the planet.
Dogs, Cats, Eagles, Dolphins......Donkeys take note of them too.


You are getting desperate. You've made that argument in the past and it was debunked. It doesn't do anything to prove god, so your post is off topic. Gender did not have to evolve in perfect synchronization. Why would you use this argument when you used it as the premise of a thread already and it got destroyed?



posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 12:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: Barcs

You are missing a critical element of this exchange: 5StarOracle is not interested in proper debate. You are wasting time and energy, which is the key to his/her perceived success. Wear you down and win by default. Empty victory but that's nothing new around here.


Ahhhhh, you noticed too. My 15 year old granddaughter does the same thing. Just keeps talking til she wears you down. Doesn't work on me though. I've "been around the block" a few times.

The OP is about PROOF. Saying you believe God just is ---- doesn't really say anything.

No proof. You lose.


edit on 10-8-2015 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 01:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
here is some proof this is how you frame a house...



I don't think anyone is doubting you work in construction.

It's the fuzzy math. Net vs gross. Cash in hand -- after cost.

------------------------

But, here's the thread title: Dear Atheists: I will prove to you that there is a Creator to the universe. Come debate me.

I question why you are in this thread if your only claim is that the Creator exits ---- that he always has.

Saying something has always existed means nothing in a debate specific to proof.
edit on 10-8-2015 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 02:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

On a somewhat lighter note, it amuses me how much "ATS" sounds like "atheists".

...CONSPIRACY!!! Lol



posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 02:19 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm


On a somewhat lighter note, it amuses me how much "ATS" sounds like "atheists".

...CONSPIRACY!!! Lol


And atheist sounds like a theist.



posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 03:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: TheChrome

Not only that every evolving animal had to undergo gender evolution from asexual to sexual, in perfect synchronization, so it's species wouldn't die out. And then one day they just copulate, something they had never done before, they had no instinct to do it, but did it anyway. And what happened while the sex organs were evolving over thousands of years ?




Literally quadrillions of species went extinct trying to figure that out or waiting for the right tools. Congratulations, you are the proud result of the evolutionary lottery. Many, many, many, many organisms died to make you possible.


And I bet they are turning in their graves at the waste....



posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 03:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheChrome

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul

originally posted by: TheChrome
And yet a single cell organism is much more complicated than a house. It is just not at all intelligent to think life evolved randomly. There is a whole theory of how animals evolved from a single cell, to a fish, that crawled out of the sea etc. What is never mentioned is how did plants evolve? How did fungi evolve?


The same way - you should study evolution rather than just demonstrating ignorance of some of its most fundamental aspects.


The random formation of one type of life is in the statistically impossible mathematics zone, and yet we are talking about three separate formations of life. Animal, Plant, Fungi. Truly, there are also 3 other forms of life accepted by science: Protista, Eubacteria, Archaebacteria. So we are now up to six separate forms of life, that must beat the statistical odds and evolve separately.


They are not "different forms of life" - they are just different ways humans classify life!! Sheesh.......talk about basic ignorance!!


Do you know what he odds are of you existing from the random combination of your parents' genes?? Astronomical - and yet here you are.

Or what are the odds of any single 5 card poker hand being generated - and yet thousands - perhaps millions of them are made every day.


I am tired of the establishment lying to and deceiving people.


I am tired of people like you making profound conclusions about subjects you have no actual knowledge of.

The current system, the Three Domain System, groups organisms primarily based on DIFFERENCES in ribosomal RNA structure. Ribosomal RNA is a molecular building block for ribosomes.


It is you in fact that does not know what you are talking about.

biology.about.com...


Differences in RNA don't make different types of "life" - life is life....the fact that it is all RNA points to a common ancestor!

The human classifications are just the way we label things - nothing more - there is only 1 classification "life", and the labels we apply are subject to change :


As we have seen, systems for classifying organisms change with new discoveries made over time. The earliest systems recognized only two kingdoms (plant and animal).

The current Three Domain System is the best organizational system we have now, but as new information is gained, a different system for classifying organisms may later be developed.




top topics



 
36
<< 66  67  68    70  71  72 >>

log in

join