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.

 

Man didn't evolve from fish or monkeys

page: 4
13
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 6 2016 @ 04:52 PM
link   
Evolutionists get upset if a creationists suggests that evolutionists think man evolved from fish and monkeys

The strangest thing is that evolutionist believe that humanity arose from as ghost explained, a non biological ancestor that was dirt and water.
Well maybe they won't admit to believing that, sadly they have no other option than dirt and water turning into life

Dirt and water that he assumes evolved into amino acids that evolved into a meteorite that may have ...

Yeah, no thanks ghost, I was looking for science not a faith statement


Here something funny ghost, I may say God did it, your answer is nature did it

One day we should discuss the Devine fingerprint of the universe, the law of gravity, the other incredible laws that no random chance could ever produce.
How fine tuned our existence is

I imagine you think nature wonderful. Nature worship, paganism

Evolution goes back many centuries, back to the Greeks and their religions, Darwin was late on the scene




posted on Mar, 6 2016 @ 05:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs

As I said further. He is where science and the
supernatural combine to make us. It's actually quite logical even.


But that isn't what happens. Whenever Science and Supernatural collide Science shows that nothing Supernatural is happening at all. It shows that whatever was thought to be Supernatural was either Just Natural or a Hoax. Science and the Supernatural will never combine because they can't based upon what each of them define.

Magic is Science to those who understand it. Science is Magic to those who don't understand it.



posted on Mar, 6 2016 @ 05:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Evolutionists get upset if a creationists suggests that evolutionists think man evolved from fish and monkeys


No one is getting 'upset'. If anything, the only reaction is 'shock and awe'.

Ignorance is completely forgivable though, and nothing to get upset over.

The shock and awe is if that ignorance is embraced over and over again despite excessive evidence, examples and so forth.


originally posted by: Raggedyman
The strangest thing is that evolutionist believe that humanity arose from as ghost explained, a non biological ancestor that was dirt and water.


Please find the quote where I said "humanity arose from dirt and water"

If I remember correctly, all throughout this topic I said this:
originally posted by: Ghost147
Furthermore, Abiogenesis involves Organic Molecules, not "dirt and water".


and I'm not the only person to state that, too:
originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: Raggedyman
Science does not yet know exactly how life began (and may never do), but it is pretty sure that it did NOT begin with dirt and water.




originally posted by: Raggedyman
Well maybe they won't admit to believing that, sadly they have no other option than dirt and water turning into life


Oh, so "as ghost explained, a non biological ancestor that was dirt and water. " now means "Well maybe they won't admit to believing that"... Right.

So me 'not admitting it' is how I explained over several posts that:
A) Accepting evolution doesn't require the acceptance of any other sort of Scientific theory or hypothesis
B) Organic molecules is what Abiogenesis says life derived from

Right... But what I really know in my heart is that "dirt and water"...

Might want to zip up your pants, your troll is showing.


originally posted by: Raggedyman
Dirt and water that he assumes evolved into amino acids that evolved into a meteorite that may have ...


And the trolling grows...


originally posted by: Raggedyman
Yeah, no thanks ghost, I was looking for science not a faith statement


And grows....


originally posted by: Raggedyman
Here something funny ghost, I may say God did it, your answer is nature did it


Why is that funny?


originally posted by: Raggedyman
One day we should discuss the Devine fingerprint of the universe, the law of gravity, the other incredible laws that no random chance could ever produce.


I await the topic where that is relevant.


originally posted by: Raggedyman
I imagine you think nature wonderful. Nature worship, paganism


Yes... All praise be mother nature....


originally posted by: Raggedyman
Evolution goes back many centuries, back to the Greeks and their religions, Darwin was late on the scene


So... what you're saying is.... you're a troll....

Got it.

Well I guess that concludes more useless content from Raggedyman. I think I'm about done here.




edit on 6/3/16 by Ghost147 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2016 @ 05:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ghost147
So... what you're saying is.... you're a troll.... I think I'm about done here.

What raggedy just stated about Darwin being late on the scene is a well known fact...

Labeling facts as trolling does absolutely nothing for ones credibility.

I actually think it's pretty sad that so many falsely accuse others of being a troll in order to bolster their own argument.


originally posted by: SLAYER69
...most of the time those who are doing the accusing are often the ones doing a poor attempt at trolling themselves...


At the risk of being accused of trolling, I'd like to suggest that everyone who spends their days on the digital playground of social media should henceforth cease invoking the facile, vacuous, imprecise, insipid term "trolling." The insinuation that the "troll" is insincere in her act of provocation — or that the act of provocation is motivated entirely by the desire for attention.

This is something that can almost never be demonstrated, and since it directs attention away from the provocation itself while impugning the inevitably concealed motives of the provocateur, it must invariably amount to an ad hominem attack. Accusing someone of trolling is more like calling him an a--hole than responding cleverly and insightfully to what he has to say.

My point is simply this: At its most basic level, trolling is what everyone is doing online every hour of every day, and what many others had done long before the internet era. And at its best, trolling is coterminous with thinking itself — which often involves and requires provocation as a goad to move the mind out of its well-worn grooves and easy pieties. So please, let's retire the term.

It's time to kill the word 'troll'




edit on 3.6.2016 by Murgatroid because: felt like it...



posted on Mar, 6 2016 @ 06:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Murgatroid

I don't know if it was trolling but I was sure playing mr quote miner and assumption expander with ghosts words

I just find it funny how some people can be so righteous and arrogant.

What I did do and say was not kosher

Though I am happy to say that I find ghosts personal view on natures ability a form of pagan worship
Creationists say God did it, he says nature did it, don't know how but nature and science will one day explain it all.

Now that's a cop out

I also think that saying organic molecules are a common ancestor but not explaining where they come from is a cop out as well, what are their origins, not what may have made them but what was their base



posted on Mar, 6 2016 @ 08:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman



Evolutionists get upset if a creationists suggests that evolutionists think man evolved from fish and monkeys


No one is upset about your honest ignorance. 'We' are actually merely energized and delighted for the chance to correct your misunderstanding.

After all, Science exists for one purpose and one purpose only: the advancement of human knowledge. It is the vocation of Scientists to learn and to teach what they learn to fellow humans. Society actually pays Scientists to do this. Cool.

When some folks ask questions or simply display ignorance that can be easily remedied, it is not only natural for Scientists (and knowledgeable lay persons) to seek to enlighten the ignorant, it is their job, their role in society. They don't get upset when they are asked to supply that service, they are actually delighted to help out.

While we are not upset at your honest ignorance and just want to help you learn the truth; willful ignorance and disingenuous rebuttal do certainly get irritating.

The answer to your question, or assertion, or misunderstanding about fishes, monkeys, and mankind is that man kind did NOT descend or evolve from either fishes or monkeys any more than your cousins descended from your parents. It is that simple. It is a fact. It is not difficult to comprehend.

"Evolutionists" as you name 'us' DO NOT BELIEVE that mankind evolved or descended from fishes or monkeys. The fossil record doesn't show that and the DNA record does not show that. Scientists do not BELIEVE nonsense relationships that neither the fossil record nor the DNA record support. Scientists KNOW that Monkeys and Mankind have a common ancestor just as you and your cousins have a common ancestor. Fishes and Mankind have a common ancestor just as you and your cousins have a common ancestor. That is what is supported by the fossil record and the DNA record.

Your continual assertion that 'we' do 'believe' such nonsense is a fundamental misunderstanding of 'the way things are' on your part. Either that or it is a monstrous lie that you keep perpetrating because your personal ego won't let you admit to being wrong. Given that you have had this explained to you over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over lead me to pick one of those choices over the other. I'll leave you to figure out which one makes more sense.
edit on 6/3/2016 by rnaa because: (no reason given)

edit on 6/3/2016 by rnaa because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2016 @ 08:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Creationists say God did it, he says nature did it, don't know how but nature and science will one day explain it all.


Well at least we know nature is a real thing. Not so much for the this God guy though. Unless of course what you call God is really just nature in the first place. In which case calling it God and worshiping "him" sorta misses the mark.

Science does in fact help explain nature however. Will it one day explain it all??? Who knows. But it has explained a whole lot so far. Again, unlike this God guy you keep talking about.

BTW, I doubt Ghost is "worshiping" nature like a pagan. In fact I doubt Ghost does anything "religious" like worshiping anything. Only false Gods needs worship. Maybe really insecure kings too.



posted on Mar, 6 2016 @ 08:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147




and I'm not the only person to state that, too:
originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: Raggedyman
Science does not yet know exactly how life began (and may never do), but it is pretty sure that it did NOT begin with dirt and water.


Yeah, thanks for the re-quote.

I think even more to the point was my remark that the ONLY Abiogenesis "Hypothesis" that claims life came from inorganic dirt and water was Genesis 2:6-7


5Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the LORD God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground. 6But a mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground. 7Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.



posted on Mar, 6 2016 @ 11:08 PM
link   
a reply to: rnaa

Well please elucidate

Big Bang?
Stardust and water?

Then life

I mean it's just a theory, like evolution make something up
We are discussing the belief that dirt and water are a non biological ancestor

Did the Big Bang happen to also create amino acids

Any kind of evidence, not evidence that is assumption, not evidence that fits into a theory but evidence that builds a theory



posted on Mar, 7 2016 @ 10:12 AM
link   
Wow. So basically another troll thread making the same exact presumptions as the "origin of species" thread. Can't you stick to a single topic with the lies? Holy strawman batman!


Evolutionists get upset if a creationists suggests that evolutionists think man evolved from fish and monkeys


No, people that understand evolution do not get upset. They are laughing their asses off when they read utter drivel like "Your ancestor is mud and water, OMG!" You are the equivalent of a grammar school child criticizing calculus before learning basic math. Grow up.

Obvious troll is obvious.
edit on 3 7 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2016 @ 10:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
I am always amused how creationists suggest that they think mankind evolved from fish or monkeys

It really is silly if you think that, see evolution explains we come from a common ancestor
Something further down the tree of life, some animal that existed long ago and was not a fish, not sure what it was though, definetly not a monkey or a fish so they teach us what we must believe according to their assumptions

The truth of evolution is not a monkey or a fish, ultimately our common ancestor was dirt and water

They may complain that Creationists believe we evolved from monkeys and fish, though they have no qualms we have all, all life, evolved from dirt and water

Figure that out if you can


You should probably re-read and then re-write your opening sentence.

"I am always amused how creationists suggest that they think mankind evolved from fish or monkeys "

Creationists think mankind evolved from fish or monkeys? Probably not, if they are a Creationist.

If not, then who is the "they"?



posted on Mar, 7 2016 @ 10:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: rnaa

Well please elucidate

Big Bang?
Stardust and water?

Then life

I mean it's just a theory, like evolution make something up
We are discussing the belief that dirt and water are a non biological ancestor

Did the Big Bang happen to also create amino acids

Any kind of evidence, not evidence that is assumption, not evidence that fits into a theory but evidence that builds a theory


The term is primordial soup. Are you confused about what it means?



posted on Mar, 7 2016 @ 11:19 AM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

Primordial soup

Can I guess the ingredients, dirt and water

Where did those ingredients come from, any idea?



posted on Mar, 7 2016 @ 11:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: TzarChasm

Primordial soup

Can I guess the ingredients, dirt and water

Where did those ingredients come from, any idea?



en.m.wikipedia.org...

From stars that died long before the first cell formed.



posted on Mar, 7 2016 @ 11:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

There Barcs, there there, take a chill pill and just relax.
You sound aggrieved, it's all ok.

I am allowed to disagree with your beliefs, I am an adult. I get to question your faith and science.
Grab a bex and have a lay down, you don't sound very healthy at the moment

When you wake up from your stress relieving rest, provide some solid evidence, we can move on from there



posted on Mar, 7 2016 @ 11:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: rnaa

Well please elucidate

Big Bang?
Stardust and water?

Then life

I mean it's just a theory, like evolution make something up
We are discussing the belief that dirt and water are a non biological ancestor

Did the Big Bang happen to also create amino acids

Any kind of evidence, not evidence that is assumption, not evidence that fits into a theory but evidence that builds a theory


I don't think it's accurate to say that the Big Bang created amino acids. The Big Bang happened, for unknown reasons, this caused amino acids to exist. Then they formed life, the amino acids. This is the current understanding, it seems to me.

To you it seems unlikely that this would happen? Well I haven't hear of any more likely theory. We are all just trying to figure things out here, in the brief time we have. The theory of evolution, or abiogenesis, or the current theories of cosmology, none of them are claiming to be absolute truth. Just some of the best understanding we have now. And none of them claim to have knowledge of a primus motor. In this context, your argument is very weak, I think.

Of course, the theory of evolution of evolution and the physics around the Big Bang have proven themselves to be useful in everyday science. I don't claim that this makes them true, I am very conservative when it comes to the notion of "truth".

But it sort of hints that there might be something to these ideas. They might be on the right trail.
edit on 7-3-2016 by Subnatural because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2016 @ 12:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Barcs

There Barcs, there there, take a chill pill and just relax.
You sound aggrieved, it's all ok.

I am allowed to disagree with your beliefs, I am an adult. I get to question your faith and science.
Grab a bex and have a lay down, you don't sound very healthy at the moment

When you wake up from your stress relieving rest, provide some solid evidence, we can move on from there


Stress? Dude, I'm busting my sides laughing at the nonsense being written in here and in the origin of species thread. It has to be satire. You are posting on ATS, you know the "Deny Ignorance" site. I'm denying your ignorance and your obvious trolling. Don't get me wrong, it's amusing how you portray religious folk to be such morons, but it's a poor generalization as it's really just a small minority of extremists that blindly deny science. And they all don't rely nonstop on fake straw man definitions of evolution. I really think you are being too mean to them.


originally posted by: Raggedyman
My argument is their science is very weak


No, that's not your argument. You have yet to make one that has anything whatsoever to do with the science behind evolution. If you are not a troll, you are a very bad liar.
edit on 3 7 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2016 @ 12:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Subnatural

My argument is their science is very weak

They claim evolution a fact

How did the Big Bang cause amino acids, it's a question, I would like an answer. It's a question not a weak answer
How did they form life, from dirt and water?
It seems your argument is weak, you have the same argument, Big Bang, amino acids, life

Sorry that's not good enough, it sounds silly, it's not science, it's a faith.

It's also not the best understanding, it's the only understanding, again that's weak

My point is that they have no idea, my point is that evolutionists get upset if creationists suggest that humanity evolved from monkeys or fish yet they accept life evolved from stardust and water from the Big Bang by accident

They say they don't believe dust and water, what's the other alternative, magic mushrooms, aliens?
It can only be star dust from the Big Bang, what else is there

That's a serious faith statement by evolutionists there



posted on Mar, 7 2016 @ 12:31 PM
link   
if monkeys were the prototype human, why are they still around? is nature in the habit of maintaining the earlier generations of a species, concurrent with the most modern one?



posted on Mar, 7 2016 @ 01:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

Here I was about to put my genomics steel caps on, then I read a well reasoned post....damn you to heck







 
13
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join