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: 45
13
<< 42  43  44    46  47  48 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 2 2016 @ 04:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

I would just love to hear you admit we are products of starwater and stardust, kinda like magic but no magic, just lots of faith




posted on Apr, 2 2016 @ 04:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

Come on Barcs, inserting the supernatural, you have
You don't even have the courage to answer stardust and water

You have no scientific evidence yet you HAVE to believe

Please read your post as if I am addressing it to you about the water dirt issue

Calling someone homeschooled

You insult as a rebuttal, offer no explanations, duck and weave like a hippo

You should have been homeschooled

Your anti junkyard tornado is your own explanation to how life evolved from dust and water, the only difference is your faith edits accepts it as a natural thing, no evidence, no science, no worries, the natural can act like a whirlwind and make something from nothing. You find a watch and say it's a natural piece from nature

Look an aeroplane, nature, look a watch, nature
Look life, dust and water

You make fun of others but your own beliefs are faith
edit on 2-4-2016 by Raggedyman because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2016 @ 12:57 PM
link   
You couldn’t be here if stars hadn’t died, when massive stars run out of fuel they collapse and explode into supernovas. Spreading elements such as iron, oxygen, calcium and many others that make up the solar system, our star and in our bodies. As Lawrence Krauss would say..
"Forget Jesus. The stars died so that you could be here today.”



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 09:55 AM
link   
a reply to: flyingfish

Prove it, that's a religious statement
Your faith is very strong, atheist churches these days



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 01:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: flyingfish

Prove it, that's a religious statement
Your faith is very strong, atheist churches these days


The projection is strong in this one, defending your own unpleasant impulses by denying their existence while attributing them to others.
This is an old, tired, dishonest, creationist tactic! Asserting that supporters of evolution are religious zealots like themselves.

Psychological projection


Another common forum for projection is in internet arguments, where it is usually pathetically obvious to everyone except the projector.


Congratulations! You have lost all credibility.



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 02:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

How about you prove that the statement is one of faith, rather than of science??



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 05:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Barcs

Come on Barcs, inserting the supernatural, you have
You don't even have the courage to answer stardust and water

You have no scientific evidence yet you HAVE to believe


This repeated nonsense is simply an argument from incredulity. But it doesn't make you right.

If we aren't derived from "dirt and water" as you insist – then why, for instance, are essential minerals like calcium, magnesium, bicarbonate, sodium, chloride, potassium, sulfate, et al so important for the human body? Do you know where these minerals can be found? Correct - in natural spring water aaaand dirt. And do you know what we call these friendly little minerals? Yup, you guessed it again, electrolytes.

Now, are you really going to sit there and deny that electrolytes are not essential to important bodily functions? Or that we're not made of 50-65% water? Or that all of these elements were not first born out of the center of a star? Or that our sweat is not made of sodium?
edit on 3-4-2016 by PhotonEffect because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 06:21 PM
link   
a reply to: PhotonEffect

See I think those last two sentences are the ones that are his (?) problem here. That science can show that things come from stars. Apparently, despite the evidence science has gathered, this is "magic" to him. It boils down to ignoring evidence, over you know re-evaluating ones point of reference with new evidence...



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 06:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

No...

His problem is that science disagrees with the bible

pretty simple really




posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 06:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Akragon

But does it? Most of the arguments Creationists make, are usually based off of "odd" interpretations of the Bible. Not that it matters
Creationists will never move an inch, and insult science for being willing to adapt to new evidence (the so called "back tracking" that has been thrown about here).



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 07:00 PM
link   
a reply to: PhotonEffect

Ok you have me
I am cornered, nowhere to run
Now my silly premise is exposed to the whole world to see

Terrified, weak and at my wits end

Just one question PE
How, scientifically how do we evolve life from nothing
How does dirt water calcium rah fan gather from dirt and water and inject life into random

Did you not understand the simplicity of the question.
It's not about slements, it's about conscience, where

I assume monkeys fish have a conscience of type, dirt and water doesn't, or are you saying it does

Maybe it's the force, but then that would make you religious



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 07:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

We don't attack science just the credibility of the scientists who make this stuff up others who agree with it

Evolutionists destroy science by throwing science out the window

Why do evolution supporting atheist hate science, why do they dismiss real science practice to preach their faith
Why do evolution supporting atheists want to corrupt science

Why the hate for science by atheists, why pervert it



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 07:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

Show me the science
I know you hate science, deny science and substitute it for your religion

I don't
I can't prove your religion Noi, I can't prove your faith



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 07:13 PM
link   
a reply to: flyingfish

Listen clearly Padwan
The onus of proof is on you, you carry the banner of science

Science by its very nature demands proof, evidence and support

Why do you hate even science,
Science is not a defense, proof and evidence is
You can't say science proved, use the evidence to prove

Why to you destroy science by turning it into a something it's not

There is a distinct growing of atheist fundamentalism, atheist beliefs, atheist leaders and preachers and you deny that?
Like you deny science, why hate on science



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 07:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

The science has been repeatedly posted in this thread. You repeatedly have chosen not to acknowledge it. Thus one can only assume, that you would not know science if it bit you.

Again you confuse my religion (Gaelic hard polytheistic practices) with my job (science).



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 07:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

So you admit to Ad Hominem tactics for your arguments, finally. You just capitulated. Good game, shame you were not up to the task.

Now onto the science of evolution. Please indicate in a clear and concise matter where science is thrown out of the window. It is most certainly not thrown out of the window neighbor. Every single published piece of research is held to the same standards as every other scientific publication.

You again seem to be confused that every single scientist is NOT an atheist. A great many of those who have worked in the field are religious people. Myself included. You will of course ignore this, or dismiss it, as you can not change with the evidence. Thus why you attack science.



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 07:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden


But does it?


Of course it does... the contents of the bible were written before "science" was even a word

Theres no reason the bible should agree with science, and vice versa...

Im not a scientist, but even grade 6 science class could tell anyone that...

I can only assume most of the people that tend to disagree with it were home schooled, and believe their book is on par with scientific methods




posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 07:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Akragon

I am a scientist, I went to a (moderate) Christian School (despite an agnostic family and being a pagan). The bible really does not clash with science that much, simply because it contains absolutely no science, but a dose of middle eastern faith. Now if we wander into the realms of Christian Science, sure thing. But only a complete Muppet would use the bible as a model for anything beyond gnosis



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 08:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden


The bible really does not clash with science that much, simply because it contains absolutely no science,


That was my point... its not a science book

Though it does clash with evidence from a scientific POV... or lack there of...

For example... the flood... No evidence

Adam and eve... utter absurdity

7 day creation... nonsense, though Christians will argue that we don't know what a day is to God... the book says its a thousand years...

two lights in the sky... well the sun is one, but we know the moon doesn't give its own light... its reflective light


and on and on and on...




posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 08:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Akragon

Ahh and there is the problem. The bible has no evidence. It is a collection of stories. Some find them a source of gnosis.

Every culture tends to have creation myths. The ones from the middle east tend to be very similar (different names, though usually etymologically the same), similarly if you know your Dumézil, then you know that the various Indo-European ones are similar too.

The problem is not the book (in it's many edited forms), it is the people assuming it to be the "unadulterated word of god". THAT is the problem,
AGAIN that means the bible does not clash with science, its the womble who insists that it is a source of evidence who clashes with science.




top topics



 
13
<< 42  43  44    46  47  48 >>

log in

join