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: 42
13
<< 39  40  41    43  44  45 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 09:18 PM
link   
Although it may not be of the same aspect as this thread is based upon...
I feel it is safe to say we have just been witness to a bonified form of evolution...




posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 09:20 PM
link   
a reply to: 5StarOracle

A micro form of social evolution?



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 09:54 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

It was indeed social evolution
Micro makes it seem so marginal...
but I guessed I'm more easily impressed...
A step in the right direction none the less...

edit on 27-3-2016 by 5StarOracle because: Word



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 09:57 PM
link   
a reply to: 5StarOracle

Only reason I said micro is because it involved 2 people out of 7.4 billion lol



posted on Mar, 28 2016 @ 02:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Barcs

That's what you want to offer?
OK I'll play...

The universe conforms to the first law of thermodynamics dynamics... The first law states that energy can't be created by NATURAL means....
So the Universe as a system of energy can't be created by natural means...
In other words energy did not originate thru NATURAL means... Creation by means other than NATURAL means requires SUPERNATURAL means...
So the existence of energy therefore requires SUPERNATURAL means...
I think GOD can be classified as SUPERNATURAL...


In other news, 1 + 1 = 52.75.

Can't be created or destroyed means exactly that. You invoked the supernatural, something that there is no evidence for. Science does not mention supernatural in the law of energy conservation. You can't just make something up, when I backed my point up by valid science.

I gave you an example of exactly what you asked for and you failed to show the same courtesy. "It may have been created supernaturally" isn't an answer. Try again. Give me an example of anything that has been definitively created by god.


edit on 3 28 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2016 @ 10:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

I see that it is beyond your ability to comprehend...

I did not say maybe or might be...

I addressed the creation of energy by natural means...

It can only be answered by natural means, by nothing, or by supernatural means...

To say something comes from nothing is highly illogical and improbable and has no basis in reality...

Observations show that new energy can't be created naturally by other forms of energy...net energy is conserved although it can change forms...

The laws say a natural origin of energy can't occour...
So the logical explaination is that energy is created by supernatural means...
So...
The Universe existing as energy...
can not be created by natural means...

Guess what that means...
That's right...
God did it...

This is not based on faith...
it's called intellectual honesty...
You know...
Logic...



posted on Mar, 28 2016 @ 11:56 PM
link   
a reply to: 5StarOracle

I comprehend what you are saying perfectly clear, pal, but your personal beliefs are not fact, no matter how you spin it.

Prove that energy can be created, or you have no point. I have already thoroughly demonstrated that energy cannot be created and backed it up with scientific laws. Where is the evidence in favor of your side?


The laws say a natural origin of energy can't occour...
So the logical explaination is that energy is created by supernatural means...

Never use the word logical and the word supernatural in the same sentence, they are exact opposites and nothing in that statement is remotely close to logical. Energy can not be created, PERIOD. End of story. To suggest otherwise requires evidence beyond conjecture and wishful thinking, not a barely readable rant about your faith.

Supernatural by definition can not be proven, so you can't use it as potential evidence in support of your bogus claims.


edit on 3 29 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2016 @ 12:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Barcs
The evidence is in what I said...
Energy did not originate from nothing or natural means that only leaves one explaination...
That had nothing to do with my faith...
Logic and supernatural are not opposites by the way...
The opposite of supernatural is natural...
The opposite of logic is illogical...
For future reference...

edit on 29-3-2016 by 5StarOracle because: Word



posted on Mar, 29 2016 @ 10:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
The evidence is in what I said...


You are not an authority on astrophysics or physics in general, and you provided no links to any credible sources to back up a single thing you said. Just because you type something doesn't make it fact, sorry.


Energy did not originate from nothing or natural means that only leaves one explaination...


You are wrong. If energy cannot be created or destroyed, then it is eternal. Funny how quick you are to attribute it to god as if it's the only way, when it's not.


Logic and supernatural are not opposites by the way...


Semantics. You know full well I was saying that there is no logic in using the supernatural as an explanation for anything because there is NO WAY TO VERIFY IT. Logic means there is an actual connection. There is no connection here, there is just you failing to understand how the universe works.

Look, I don't care what your faith states or what you choose to believe in life. You can't prove a smidgen of it, so it is irrelevant in a science based discussion. Evidence for god requires actual physic evidence that shows god, not some guessing game about the origin of the universe and your personal opinion on the origin of energy.

Still waiting for your demonstration of something that was created by god. I have given you something that is definitively not created and can't be and you just blindly denied it. Time to grow up. This discussion is for big boys, not apologists. Time to put up or shut up. If you insist creation, then you must prove creation.
edit on 3 29 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2016 @ 03:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

It's not about faith it's about excluding other possibilities through the evidence...
Perhaps one day you will be able to figure that out...
It's time for big boys to evolve into men and accept that which is beyond them and include it in thier thought process...
Because I type something and you can't provide evidence against what I have said that makes you less of an authority then I...
Pouting and putting your familiar twist on things in attempt to insult or insinuate I have said anything else is in fact childish....
Evidence for God is provided when science is unable to provide the answers of its own claims and infact even shows itself to be contradictory...
What I have shown is an answer can be provided when God is included in the equation...
Just because you do not like the answer,does not mean you have not been answered...



posted on Mar, 29 2016 @ 03:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Barcs

It's not about faith it's about excluding other possibilities through the evidence...
Perhaps one day you will be able to figure that out...


Excluding possibilities doesn't preclude substituting your own possibilities. There are infinite amounts of possibilities, so excluding all the wrong ones is impossible. If you've excluded all known possibilities then the remaining answer left is, "I don't know."


It's time for big boys to evolve into men and accept that which is beyond them and include it in thier thought process...


Why should people accept things that aren't proven?


Because I type something and you can't provide evidence against what I have said that makes you less of an authority then I...


No you aren't an authority because you are a random poster on the internet, a form of communication with massive anonymity.


Pouting and putting your familiar twist on things in attempt to insult or insinuate I have said anything else is in fact childish....


This is a deflection from Barcs' points.


Evidence for God is provided when science is unable to provide the answers of its own claims and infact even shows itself to be contradictory...


No, that isn't even close to a true statement. God isn't proven when science is wrong or doesn't know the answer. Science is just wrong or doesn't know the answer. That's it. Tacking god onto the end of that is intellectually dishonest and is an assumption.


What I have shown is an answer can be provided when God is included in the equation...
Just because you do not like the answer,does not mean you have not been answered...


This is called confirmation bias.



posted on Mar, 29 2016 @ 03:41 PM
link   
a reply to: 5StarOracle

Actually when you bring something that can not be quantified (a Deity, deities, "Aliens" etc) it is an act of faith. I may have snarked about "what units do you measure that in" a while back. But I was being totally serious. IF you are going to use a scientific theory (in this case thermodynamics) especially one which is from a quantitative field, then all variables need to be quantified.

Thus you can not use science to define a Deity, to prove a deity. Hence it is faith, not evidence.

Now don't get me wrong, I have plenty of gnosis that deities (plural) exist, including Jehovah/Allah. None the less it is still gnosis.



posted on Mar, 29 2016 @ 03:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

Well if you being a scientist can not see the truth within what I have said...
then I do not know what else to say...
Perhaps God is then measured as the sum of all energy...
You don't have to have faith to see what I provided is infact evidence for the supernatural...
Maybe it is however easier for me though...
because I do have faith...



posted on Mar, 29 2016 @ 03:55 PM
link   
a reply to: 5StarOracle


Read what I said! Put a quantifiable amount on the deity effect, and we can talk. Otherwise, it is theology, which is not a science.

I have a lot of faith, in the supernatural neighbour, you keep missing the point. Gnosis, is not evidence, and you have only supplied a gnois, a shared one to be share, but none the less unverifiable.

What do you not understand from "I am a religious person", or perhaps you dismiss my non Abrahamic faith? Is that it?



posted on Mar, 29 2016 @ 04:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

I see...
You can agree to supernatural means...
Answer me this...
is what I stated actually highly probable?



posted on Mar, 29 2016 @ 04:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
You don't have to have faith to see what I provided is infact evidence for the supernatural...


You have provided ZERO evidence for anything, you just stated random things as facts when they are not actually facts. Real facts become established when they can be objectively verified and tested, something that is not currently possible for god, the bible, or your belief system. You have to take it on faith because it CAN'T be verified. That's what makes it a belief system rather than a scientific discipline like evolutionary biology.

Why is it so difficult to admit that your belief system is based on faith? I get that you believe it and want it to be true, but it's not even remotely close to being verified or proven at this point. It seems like you are too emotionally attached to make a logical bias-free argument.



edit on 3 29 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2016 @ 04:34 PM
link   
a reply to: 5StarOracle

I will not put a scientific term (probability) to use in a non-scientific discussion (and the moment one inserts the supernatural it is non scientific).

As I am a hard polytheist, I do not believe any singular entity created the Universe. I believe that the an fhírinne ("order") arouse from the chaotic void, all by its lonesome. This is of course a gnosis. gnoses can not be proven, by their very definition.

But the point from that last paragraph is my belief in deities, does not affect my understanding of the measurable universe (viz what science can measure). Nor does it need too.

Taking this further, no deities did not "create energy". If you wish to show this, using thermodynamics, you are in for some heavy mathematics, and defining eventually based measurements of Jehovah/Allah.



posted on Mar, 29 2016 @ 04:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

This seems to be the crux of Creationist issues, they seem obliged to need to use (well actually misuse, and misrepresent) Science to "prove" their matters of faith. these things do not need to be mutually exclusive, however for them it is. *Shrugs*



posted on Mar, 29 2016 @ 04:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

This seems to be the crux of Creationist issues, they seem obliged to need to use (well actually misuse, and misrepresent) Science to "prove" their matters of faith. these things do not need to be mutually exclusive, however for them it is. *Shrugs*



posted on Mar, 29 2016 @ 04:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

Natural means being exhausted only leaves supernatural means...
Period..




top topics



 
13
<< 39  40  41    43  44  45 >>

log in

join