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: 55
13
<< 52  53  54    56 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 06:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: cooperton

No there was not a hypothetical, theoretical or real...upright walking monkey in our lineage. I've not only traced but have studied extensively hominid evolution and written a thing or 2 on the matter. Did Archaea originate in water? Yes. That's not quite the same as the oversimplified , incorrect and absolutely ignorant statement that humans evolved from fish or monkeys



Funny isn't it, it's an ignorant statement to suggest fish and monkeys yet talk arising, new scientist all suggest that life evolved from star dirt and star water, a soup of mud somehow, beyond all logic and reason


The only thing beyond all logic and reason is your insistence on redefining biological evolution to include whatever makes it easier for you to rationalize your scientific illiteracy.


As insane as the magical Big Bang


Yes, we get it. You don't know anything beyond a middle school level of science education and insist that anything you don't understand is magical and crazy.



The absolutely insane belief from those respected, educated learned atheists and evolutionists, the downright ludicrous belief life came from mud


And here we are again, right back to you equating understanding MES with being an Atheist. I studied Anthropology with many more admitted Christians than Atheists. For the most part though, it never came up so I have n idea what the vast majority of Anthropologists I have known and worked with believe or disbelieve.


Surely it would be reasonable, far more logical that humanity had a monkey, fish ancestor than believe life came from stardirt and starwater


One is a fact based theory the other is a hypothesis. Forcefully equating the two says far more about you than it does science.




posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 06:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

Noinden, if you go back far enough, according to new science and talk origins, you get mummy dust and daddy water
When you step on the ground, when Neil Armstrong stepped on the moon, when you drink that glass of water, you are visiting your great grandparents

You surely don't believe that do you



posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 07:04 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

Hey look ak 55

Barcs
Both of them are equally stupid, actually in fact I think the belief man evolved from dust and water is pure insanity

You say I don't understand it, then stop the jibber jabber and explain the Big Bang, dust and water to life

It never came up where you studied, like I care, I didn't ask you where, what poor education you received I don't care
It has come up here, deal with it or run along

I am not equating the two Barcs, dust and water to life is far More ludicrous than fish as ancestors to mankind
And Finaly please catch up, this thread isn't about biological evolution, it's about life arising, evolving from dust and water, always was, just seemed that a few haters wanted to hijack it to direct it away from a complicated problem that nobody ever wants to talk about


Dust daddy, water mummy

Now lay off the jibber jabber and explain how mummy water, daddy water could have happened and please don't say nothing is something, that's doorkins silly

Or toss in another belief statement if you like



posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 07:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

I've already discussed my beliefs in this thread. As well as my feelings on your repeated statements. As you well know. Enough with your weasel words.

As has been repeatedly stated,the theory biological evolution, is in no way linked to the various hypotheses on abiogenesis/proteogenesis.



posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 08:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

You seem to be misrepresenting what evolution is stating. While you will find primates, and aquatic life in a phylogenetic "tree of life" if you go back far enough. They are not something we evolved from, in that, we evolved from hominins prior to us. When you say "we evolved from fish, and monkeys", it implies they were the direct ancestor. No one would state that.


I didn't mean to imply they were our direct ancestors, as in a fish giving birth to a sapien, that's ridiculous. But, At one point in our lineage, according to evolutionary theory, we can pin-point our great great... (x100,000 great, or whatever number of generations would lead back to the aquatic era), grandfather as some sort of fish



originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Noinden

Noinden, if you go back far enough, according to new science and talk origins, you get mummy dust and daddy water
When you step on the ground, when Neil Armstrong stepped on the moon, when you drink that glass of water, you are visiting your great grandparents

You surely don't believe that do you


When one comes to realize that evolutionary theory postulates that their long ago ancestry were fish, let alone bacteria, they begin to think something is a little... fishy, with the theory.
edit on 11-4-2016 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 08:34 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

The only time a scientist will look at someone funny is if they say "you think our ancestors were monkeys" and the person literally means that. Science uses precise language, for a very good reason, it cuts down on people getting confused.

As for evolutionary theory postulating evolution. People can think it is fishy, but they need to debate/challenge the data (evidence) not what they think it says. These threads are full of people who do not do that, or partly quote things to get their point made. That is intellectual dishonesty.



posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 09:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

Cool
Leave Bio evolution at the door, this thread is not about that

Its about stardust and starwater, life from nothing
Go see the OP

I want to know how anyone, read talk origins, new scientists can say life evolved from nothing, thats all



posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 09:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

The only time a scientist will look at someone funny is if they say "you think our ancestors were monkeys" and the person literally means that. Science uses precise language, for a very good reason, it cuts down on people getting confused.


The phrase: "according to evolutionary theory, our ancestors were fish at one time" is true.


As for evolutionary theory postulating evolution. People can think it is fishy, but they need to debate/challenge the data (evidence) not what they think it says. These threads are full of people who do not do that, or partly quote things to get their point made. That is intellectual dishonesty.


You have to admit that such ignorance goes in both directions, though. My biggest issue with evolution is all the requirements necessary for a viable cell:

1) reproduction
2) translation
3) transcription
4) regulation
5) encapsulation (separate inside from outside)
6) transportation (mobilize proteins to encapsulating wall)
7) metabolism (ATP required for all these processes)

It is an insurmountable leap to be made for a living proto-cell to obtain all these attributes without intelligent agency.

Let me ask you another serious question. If you believe the truth involves no higher intelligence, where did a spiritual path even come from? Surely a spiritual path would be leading to bigger and better things, but if the genesis of humankind was a meaningless, unintelligent accident, what could you possibly gain from that?



posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 09:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

Oh yes it is!

Viz
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"

The OP defines the threads topic.



posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 09:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

When one comes to realize that evolutionary theory postulates that their long ago ancestry were fish, let alone bacteria, they begin to think something is a little... fishy, with the theory.


Funny, some get antsy when people suggest monkeys or fish but dont have a problem with a bacteria
Bizarre structure these believers

I look at scientists funny because they believe life evolved from dust and water, they find that a little difficult to understand and then groan when someone says fish
Incredulous.

Guess you just have to have a heap of faith to believe what they believe

For mine I dont think they think

its all fishy at all, its blind faith
edit on 11-4-2016 by Raggedyman because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 09:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Raggedyman

Oh yes it is!

Viz
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"

The OP defines the threads topic.


See the conclusion.
Go read what a conclusion means.

The thread is based on the conclusion, the post lead to a conclusion

A decent education would have taught you that the conclusion is the topic



posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 09:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

It is a spurious conclusion. Why. Because, and I will bold this as you appear to be hard of seeing, evolution does not deal with how life started.

An ancestor is a living being. Sterile dirt, and aseptic water, can not thus be ancestors. I know you the have a phrase imprinted into your consciousness, like a pathology. But try to understand that. The only part of your thread that may thus be commented on, with regards to evolution, is a misrepresentation of ancestry. Not what you think scientists do or do not believe.

If you can not get that, then you are ultimately due to fail in life.



posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 10:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

I'm truly interested in hearing your answer to this question, since you brought up spirituality:

If you believe the truth involves no higher intelligence, where did a spiritual path even come from? Surely a spiritual path would be leading to bigger and better things, but if the genesis of humankind was a meaningless, unintelligent accident, what could you possibly gain from that?

"If the flesh came into being because of spirit, that is a marvel, but if spirit came into being because of the body, that is a marvel of marvels. Yet I marvel at how this great wealth has come to dwell in this poverty."



posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 10:55 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Ok you perhaps misunderstood what I was saying. My spiritual path is one that is from a non Abrahamic path, and is Ind-European in culture. The genesis of the universe is one where "chaos" became "ordered". Where humans came from is not mentioned. So it is not really a concern here.

I am a polytheist, so there are no 'higher intelligence" as in omnipotent/omnipresent/omni anything. But there are many deities. I believe Jehovah/Allah exists, but he is NOT supreme.

Thus my spiritual path is a way to live, and I bend my knee to specific deities, in a way similar to that of my Gaelic ancestors did with a client, sponsor relationship. The term *ghosti applies here.

So to bring it all back to this. My spiritual path, which is mystical, does not come to odds with Science.



posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 11:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Raggedyman

It is a spurious conclusion. Why. Because, and I will bold this as you appear to be hard of seeing, evolution does not deal with how life started.

An ancestor is a living being. Sterile dirt, and aseptic water, can not thus be ancestors. I know you the have a phrase imprinted into your consciousness, like a pathology. But try to understand that. The only part of your thread that may thus be commented on, with regards to evolution, is a misrepresentation of ancestry. Not what you think scientists do or do not believe.

If you can not get that, then you are ultimately due to fail in life.


I know evolution does not deal with how life started.
I am
I AM talking something different
If you can not get that, then you are ultimately due to fail in life.

New scientist Dawkins and talk origins all say it did happen that way
Thats my issue


edit on 11-4-2016 by Raggedyman because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 11:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

Ok you perhaps misunderstood what I was saying. My spiritual path is one that is from a non Abrahamic path, and is Ind-European in culture. The genesis of the universe is one where "chaos" became "ordered". Where humans came from is not mentioned. So it is not really a concern here.

I am a polytheist, so there are no 'higher intelligence" as in omnipotent/omnipresent/omni anything. But there are many deities. I believe Jehovah/Allah exists, but he is NOT supreme.

Thus my spiritual path is a way to live, and I bend my knee to specific deities, in a way similar to that of my Gaelic ancestors did with a client, sponsor relationship. The term *ghosti applies here.

So to bring it all back to this. My spiritual path, which is mystical, does not come to odds with Science.


Ok you perhaps misunderstood what I was saying.

I am not interested in your spiritual path your non Abrahamic path, your Ind-European culture.
Your beliefs



I am after evidence that science suggesting dirt and water, or as Dawkins suggests, clay, is any better at being wrong as some who assume fish and water, scientifically

Ops So Sorry This wasnt addressed to me, my apologies. I will not delete it for the sake of continuity
edit on 11-4-2016 by Raggedyman because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2016 @ 01:13 AM
link   
Sounds like OP seem to think that anyone who believes in evolution is an atheist who also believes in the big bang.



posted on Apr, 12 2016 @ 02:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: kushness
Sounds like OP seem to think that anyone who believes in evolution is an atheist who also believes in the big bang.


I dont think that at all, just the majority of fundamentalists who haunt these threads are atheists big bangers.
Those who like to attack others for their beliefs

Like me

So kushness
whats harder to believe, mankind came from fish or monkeys or dirt and water.

Its not a trick question



posted on Apr, 12 2016 @ 04:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

This has been proven to be demonstrably wrong. You are also as guilty as the accusations you make. SO get off your cross mr Martyr. Science has no theory yet over the origin of life, it does have hypotheses.



posted on Apr, 12 2016 @ 05:20 PM
link   
answers are available , people cant face the truth so they keep searching around whats right in front of them




top topics



 
13
<< 52  53  54    56 >>

log in

join