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: 47
13
<< 44  45  46    48  49  50 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 4 2016 @ 01:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman


Oh woe is you, someone disagrees


What are you even talking about right now?


In fact I love science, hold it to test
Unlike others who need science to comfort them, need science to justify them.


Who are these people?

As if "they" hold science to the status of "God"?


Unlike others who manipulate science to sustain them, I am happy to question it.


And of course people who have been educated in the fields of science aren't trained to question, postulate... test their theories... right?


My opinion, you hate science, it abhors you, you deny it. Transfer your own beliefs onto science to justify your beliefs.


Well your opinion is nonsense, and you've been showing that fact most of this thread... but it is yours

You seem to think that anyone that disagrees with your, or questions your posts "Hates" something...

Thus far in our previous encounters you've said i hate God, and science...


Hate that anyone would question your sacred cows


LOL what?


You need science to justify your gnosticism, to hate God, to live your life the way you want


Yet again!!

And you don't even have the slightest clue what "Gnosticism" is... you call EVERYONE a gnostic LOL... its pure comedy!


But lets not play that game, I ask for evidence


No...

you mock the very thing you claim to ask for

though you are right... "man didn't evolve from fish or Monkeys"


edit on 4-4-2016 by Akragon because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 4 2016 @ 01:10 AM
link   
Assume what I believe is true and the universe was created by God...
Then if this is true...
Science is nothing more than the study of the methods and means he used and rules and laws God put in place to govern his creation...
That would make God thee master scientist...
So the sciences are no more than an attempt to understand God's thought processes...

Sort of reminds me of a joke...
One day after billions of years studying all of God's creation with the superior intellect gifted to him by God the devil approaches God...
The devil says to God "I finally know how you did it...I can make a man just like you did"..."I'm as great as you are!"...
God gives the devil a little smile and a chuckle and says "ok lucifer let's hurry this along... you show me just how I made man and prove you are as great as I am"
The devil can't believe his luck he's about to prove what has always claimed and finally be as great as God...
So the devil came prepared and he has a small hand broom and a dustpan he gets on his hands and knees and starts sweeping up some dust...
God whacks the devil on the top of the head good and hard... the devil looks up dazed and confused...
God says "make the dust yourself...that's what I did"...

edit on 4-4-2016 by 5StarOracle because: Word



posted on Apr, 4 2016 @ 04:03 AM
link   
a reply to: 5StarOracle

Again it does not indicate a single creator. To me it shows MANY. So your signature is an author list to me.



posted on Apr, 4 2016 @ 04:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Akragon

Actually ak I am more than happy to see different opinions and different beliefs

I don't attack people for their beliefs, good on them

If people want to believe in evolution that's just great
I don't have to

Won't believe the lies others believe

I am asking for evidence, I will mock silly, pseudo science and it's corny evidence

I don't see anything that resembles real evidence I wonder, are you gnosisfaith in disguise?

I,would putnanlaughing head too but it's not a joke



posted on Apr, 4 2016 @ 05:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman


I don't see anything that resembles real evidence I wonder, are you gnosisfaith in disguise?





posted on Apr, 4 2016 @ 10:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

Oddly enough, you speak of intelligent design

I don't think it matters your choice of designer, just see a design

I agree with intelligent design



posted on Apr, 4 2016 @ 10:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

Where is your evidence to back your claim of many creators?
Of course any form of creation dismisses the claim any random accident was the cause of anything...
That would include evolution... Because if evolution is real in any form...Well that would mean that creation has allowed for it... Infact it couldn't even be called evolution anymore a whole new theory would be required...



posted on Apr, 4 2016 @ 12:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
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


Why would I admit that, when we don't even know for sure what the origin of life is? I'll wait for science to give us the answer instead of hastily generalizing what may have happened and falsely equivocating it to evolution. I would love to hear you make an argument that actually makes sense.

Every argument you have made is a straw man. Nowhere in the theory of evolution does it mention starwater, mud or stardust. That isn't evolution, it's an unproven hypothesis called abiogenesis, and even that is way more complicated than stardust and water.

Again, you sound like a 3rd grader that just learned basic addition and subtraction trying to criticize calculus. You don't even remotely understand what you are trying to say. That's the crux of the problem right there.

So, any chance you are going to EVER address the talk origins link that I posted back in the beginning? Funny you keep saying there is no evidence, but you have yet to address a single one of the 29 pieces of evidence that the site provides. When are you going to do this? You can pretend it was never posted, but that's what dishonest people do. They lie and ignore everything that conflicts with their side. Prove that you aren't a troll and address the evidence already instead of the constant lies.

edit on 4 4 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2016 @ 12:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton
Wrong, evolution in theory relies on random mutations.


Old junkyard parts are not genetic code, and the entire genome isn't completely scrambled and reformed over and over. We are talking about small genetic changes adding up over time. Your argument is completely bunk, not even close to reality and has been debunked for decades already.

A better analogy would be comparing it to computer code. If you took existing codes and randomly mixed them up, they could indeed arrange into different codes causing different software functions.

To suggest something like that would be the same as a bunch of old worn parts and nuts and bolts mixing together in a tornado is flat out stupid.


Do you think its a coincidence that the earth remains in a consistent orbit? It is like a golfball perpetually twirling around the ring of the cup.


No, it's not even close to that. This isn't surprising coming from somebody that constantly lies to promote his faith as fact, and doesn't understand the basics of science.

Learn to science. Jesus Christ, man.



posted on Apr, 4 2016 @ 12:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Noinden

Where is your evidence to back your claim of many creators?
Of course any form of creation dismisses the claim any random accident was the cause of anything...
That would include evolution... Because if evolution is real in any form...Well that would mean that creation has allowed for it... Infact it couldn't even be called evolution anymore a whole new theory would be required...


This argument is both juvenile and nonsensical. Do you have anything to back up any of your BS claims? Do you have an argument that makes sense?



posted on Apr, 4 2016 @ 02:41 PM
link   
a reply to: 5StarOracle

I have the same evidence you have. It is a gnosis to see one, or many creators, probabky an (anti)gnosis to see none too. It is one of those questions you can feel through belief, but not prove through evidence.

Evolution is separate from creation/biogensis, oh wait we've had that back and forth in a number of threads. What caused life to start, is separate from what causes it to change (mutations). They don't depend on each other
What created life, and what created the universe, yeah gnosis can creep into that, and I've less problems with that happening. Mind you I am not an atheist.



posted on Apr, 4 2016 @ 02:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

No, I don't. What I speak of is the fact that using scientific evidence to see the divine, can cut many ways. Monotheistic, athiestic (sorry guys but I had to include that here, as the lack of divine is a stance), polytheistic, animistic, pantheistic, henotheistic etc. Different groups over time have interpreted it differently.

I've spoken on how I think the universe started on a spiritual level. That does not equate to how life started, just as how life started does not equate to how it evolves. There is no grand unifying theory of life.

As to what created life in my view? My own spiritual path (gaelic polytheism) has no "the gods created man" myth. It does have myths for different groups of beings, but not a creation one. Indeed most Indo-European mythologies were more interested in the groups of men, than where they came from.



posted on Apr, 4 2016 @ 05:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman




If people want to believe in evolution that's just great I don't have to Won't believe the lies others believe


Evolution is a settled science, evolution is not a matter of opinion, or something one chooses to believe in or not, like a religion. You either understand evolution or you don't.
The reason why you won't understand evolution is cause your more interested in intentionally creating false dichotomy's and straw men, in fact you don't go anywhere near understanding evolution, but rather only attack your gross misrepresentations of it. It would seem you are willfully aware of this ignorance, putting you in the creationist-troll category.



posted on Apr, 4 2016 @ 05:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

Again, evidence has repeatedly been posted in this thread and others on the subject. This includes evidence directed at you. The ball is in your court.



posted on Apr, 4 2016 @ 06:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

You are truly amazing

You suggest you cant, arnt allowed to form an opinion with out scientists first forming it for you
That sounds a little scary you know, not for me, for you.
You have surrendered your mind to scientists opinions.
The Germans did that in ww2, accepted what the scientists taught them about the Jews


Now why admit it you ask, you don't have a choice, you don't believe in the supernatural so you have no other options
Dirt and water, star dirt star water

In fact star dirt and star water is the issue this thread is dealing with, abiogenesis, it's evolution in my opinion, not yours evidently
irrespective this thread , well it's about star dirt and star water and origins

Not evolution, abiogenesis, beginning of life, the fact that you have absolutely no other options as an atheist to believe like magicy, magicy, life evolved from star dirt and star water

I didn't address your talk origins thing cause I didn't see it
That and talk origins things are silly childish ignorant storys for children who accept....

Barcs, get a proper scientific papper, not talk origins Cartoon Network trash



posted on Apr, 4 2016 @ 06:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: flyingfish
a reply to: Raggedyman




If people want to believe in evolution that's just great I don't have to Won't believe the lies others believe


Evolution is a settled science, evolution is not a matter of opinion, or something one chooses to believe in or not, like a religion. You either understand evolution or you don't.
The reason why you won't understand evolution is cause your more interested in intentionally creating false dichotomy's and straw men, in fact you don't go anywhere near understanding evolution, but rather only attack your gross misrepresentations of it. It would seem you are willfully aware of this ignorance, putting you in the creationist-troll category.


Yet you don't post any evidence

I don't get that



posted on Apr, 4 2016 @ 06:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

Yet you don't read the evidence when it is posted. Or at least don't admit you have. I am sure it niggles at the back of your mind, and you take a curious peak


No seriously. When you read, what has been posted, and do more than an off handed dismissal, with out itemizing WHY. You admit defeat, through those actions.



posted on Apr, 4 2016 @ 06:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: cooperton
Wrong, evolution in theory relies on random mutations.


Old junkyard parts are not genetic code, and the entire genome isn't completely scrambled and reformed over and over. We are talking about small genetic changes adding up over time. Your argument is completely bunk, not even close to reality and has been debunked for decades already.

A better analogy would be comparing it to computer code. If you took existing codes and randomly mixed them up, they could indeed arrange into different codes causing different software functions.

To suggest something like that would be the same as a bunch of old worn parts and nuts and bolts mixing together in a tornado is flat out stupid.


Do you think its a coincidence that the earth remains in a consistent orbit? It is like a golfball perpetually twirling around the ring of the cup.


No, it's not even close to that. This isn't surprising coming from somebody that constantly lies to promote his faith as fact, and doesn't understand the basics of science.

Learn to science. Jesus Christ, man.


Dirt and water from space or elsewhere is not genetic code, you seem to know that yet

Learn to science man



posted on Apr, 4 2016 @ 06:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

only thing that confuses me in this thread is "WHO is staring his nonsense"?

Must be a friend of his or something... or someone is just getting a good laugh and sees his posts as satirical




posted on Apr, 4 2016 @ 06:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Akragon

Its not that hard to tell. Given there is a small but vocal group of fellow creationists who either start these threads, or run with them. Either that or sock puppets


What I really want to know is why "stardust and water" is the phrase that seems to almost have gained an philological provenance in his mind.




top topics



 
13
<< 44  45  46    48  49  50 >>

log in

join