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.

 

Creation v Evolution argument can end

page: 11
9
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 07:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: pthena

Basically he wants a magic trick. A monkey changing to a dog in front of his eyes.



Basically I want empirical evidence, making up what you think I want shows me you still have nothing worth while




posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 07:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: pthena

Basically he wants a magic trick. A monkey changing to a dog in front of his eyes.



Basically I want empirical evidence, making up what you think I want shows me you still have nothing worth while


You've said it yourself, so I wasn't "making it up".

Maybe you should re-read your OP?



posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 07:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: logicsoda

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: logicsoda

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: HoloShadow
Creation is an idea, Evolution is scientific fact, plain and simple.


Well come up with the empirical evidence, simple


We have. Why do you keep asking for empirical evidence when it has been shown to you on multiple occasions?


I must have missed it, please show me

You're not worth any further responses. Cheers.


Yet you felt the need to respond

Without evidence, surprise



posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 07:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: pthena

Basically he wants a magic trick. A monkey changing to a dog in front of his eyes.



Basically I want empirical evidence, making up what you think I want shows me you still have nothing worth while


You've said it yourself, so I wasn't "making it up".

Maybe you should re-read your OP?


Yet still no empirical evidence...



posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 08:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: pthena

Basically he wants a magic trick. A monkey changing to a dog in front of his eyes.



Basically I want empirical evidence, making up what you think I want shows me you still have nothing worth while


You've said it yourself, so I wasn't "making it up".

Maybe you should re-read your OP?


Yet still no empirical evidence...


Because what you want would disprove evolution.

But you already know that as you've been told that plenty of times before.



posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 08:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: logicsoda

If he wanted proof he should have said so.

If he is looking for the theory of evolution to be proven then that simply won't happen. We have evidence that can be repeatedly observed, tested, etc...


What I want is this


originally posted by: logicsoda

We have evidence that can be repeatedly observed, tested, etc...

Show it to me, walk away the winner



posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 08:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: logicsoda

The problem is, as i've said before... The OP is looking for Proof, not "evidence"

He wants to actually see something evolve for his evidence...

Personally i wouldn't mind seeing something "created" for evidence of Creationism



Yes, exactly. He basically wants to be able to witness "macro" evolution in real time, or he won't accept it. Scientists have only witnessed speciation a handful of times, so to witness something that relies on thousands if not millions of those speciation events accumulating is simply preposterous and unrealistic. It's like saying that I want to see a single cell turn into a pig.
edit on 8 10 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 08:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Akragon


Also why i posted the video of a fish seemingly learning to walk



Seemingly is appropriate, but not scientific

I have a problem withthe word "seemingly", a fish parachuting and struggling to find water as compared to your beliefs



posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 08:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: mouthfullofkefirgrains
well said, op…

I assumed the theory of evolution was legit for the longest time, even after realizing that Jesus Christ is Lord I still held to it…

now, even Hawking is saying their is probably an Intelligence behind the creation...

the more you dig on this topic the more obvious it becomes…

my current fave:

Genetic ENTROPY

yt: Prof. John Sanford on Genomic Entropy
youtu.be...

Geneticists:
Dr. Crow: we are inferior to caveman.
Dr. Knodrashov: no human geneticist doubts man is degenerating.
Dr. Lynch Even assuming a lower mutation rate, we are degenerating at 1%-5% per generation.
Implies a young Creation and as with DNA complexity, theory of evolution is unlikely.

Average cell in 15 yr old - up to 6,000 mutations per cell. (all your cells are different)
Skin cell in 60 yr old - up to 40,000 mutations
Mutations primary cause of aging and death.
“...little potential for substantially increasing the upper limit of human life span.” (upper limit: 120 yrs)
--Michael Lynch (Population Geneticist)
50% reduction in sperm count in men.

Around 100 new mutations per generation.

Dr. Francis Collins, head of Human Genome Project, converted to Christ partly due to the data he found working in genetics.

“And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:
They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment;”
Heb 1:10-11


“Intelligence must have been involved...”
--Dr. Antony Flew, 2004 (speaking about DNA complexity and his new-found belief in God. Dr. Flew was the author of “Theology and Falsification”, and was the foremost atheistic scientific writer of 20th Century)



Oh you shouldnt have done that, thats desecrating an atheists faith.

I bet this post will be ignored by everyone

Thanks



posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 08:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: blueman12
If only there was non-religious folks who didn't believe in evolution, I might actually give these anti-evolution arguements a shot.

Does anyone else get see RED flags when one side of an argument contains only religious folk?


Maybe you should learn to research a little better



posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 08:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

Well as i've said many times already, Fish don't walk... they don't adapt to walking...

When you pull a trout from the water it doesn't try to walk back to where it came from...

This particular fish figured it out, and the skeletal structure of said fish changed in the process

Its not like a weightlifter as you previously stated... the bone structure of a weightlifter doesn't change to accommodate lifting heavy weights... Otherwise i'd be a mutant myself, having practiced weightlifting in highschool




posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 08:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Akragon

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: logicsoda

The problem is, as i've said before... The OP is looking for Proof, not "evidence"

He wants to actually see something evolve for his evidence...

Personally i wouldn't mind seeing something "created" for evidence of Creationism



Bingo. but see, you arent allowed to test gods or ask for demonstrations or they make an example of you. ...Lets make it happen.


lol... Not allowed?

I regularly poke that beast with no repercussions... aside from the occasional insult

that just requires a working knowledge of their book



Wow ak, you are so cool, so clever, so witty, I feel intimidated and weak kneed when I read your posts.

Still, a little empirical evidence goes a lot further in a thread about empirical evidence, rather than you grandstanding, puffing up your own chest and telling everyone in the mirror how wonderful you are.

Listen to yourself, then take it to another thread.



posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 08:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

much appreciated... i guess

Fortunately you have no right to dismiss me from this or any other thread...

Even IF its yours




posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 08:18 PM
link   
Please dont get all sciency on me now, its clearly not your strong point.
Better you tell me how wonderful you are and how intimidated I am of your knowledge and wit



originally posted by: Akragon
Its not like a weightlifter as you previously stated... the bone structure of a weightlifter doesn't change to accommodate lifting heavy weights... Otherwise i'd be a mutant myself, having practiced weightlifting in highschool



Here is some science

www.livestrong.com...

Bone Mineral Content Study
The Department of Health Sciences, University of Jyväskylä, Finland, conducted a research review of bone density studies to determine weightlifting’s effectiveness in building bone mass. According to the study, published in the April 2006 edition of “Aging Clinical Experimental Research,” weightlifting has the greatest impact on young people and adults under age 60, resulting in bone mass gains of 2 to 5 percent per year. For those ages 60 and older, typical bone mass increases from weightlifting were between 1 and 3 percent. The study did note, however, that lifting weights offered additional benefits related to bone health, such as a reduced risk for falls that could potentially result in bone fractures.

Maybe to long doing weights, buff boy, and not enough time in class



posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 08:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: Raggedyman

much appreciated... i guess

Fortunately you have no right to dismiss me from this or any other thread...

Even IF its yours



I asked for empirical evidence, not how highly you rated yourself

Its off topic, please...



posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 08:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

lol... you are amusing at least...

Perhaps thats why i went back on my statement that is pointless talking to you... at the very least i can usually get a laugh out of your demeaning and condescending rhetoric

an increase in bone mass is not the same as a change in skeletal structure...

And by the way, you really don't know anything about science, even compared to my limited knowledge...

im not getting all sciency on you... we in the real world call it logic




posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 08:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: blueman12
If only there was non-religious folks who didn't believe in evolution, I might actually give these anti-evolution arguements a shot.

Does anyone else get see RED flags when one side of an argument contains only religious folk?


To be fair, the anti evolution movement also contains some ancient alien theorists but they are in the extreme minority. The large majority today is a mix of religious fundamentalists and trolls. Mostly trolls.



posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 08:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: Raggedyman

lol... you are amusing at least...

Perhaps thats why i went back on my statement that is pointless talking to you... at the very least i can usually get a laugh out of your demeaning and condescending rhetoric

an increase in bone mass is not the same as a change in skeletal structure...

And by the way, you really don't know anything about science, even compared to my limited knowledge...

im not getting all sciency on you... we in the real world call it logic



Skeletal structure, DID I say that?
Doesnt sound like me.

Let me see, let me find it...

Ahh, no I wont, cant be bothered, best you make up what you want to, hold the title of awesome you give yourself.

I am interested in empirical evidence, thanks for trying



posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 08:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

Keep going man. You're cracking me up tonight with your fundementalist views.

Do the "100+ million dead...." bit again. That always makes me smile.



posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 08:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: blueman12
If only there was non-religious folks who didn't believe in evolution, I might actually give these anti-evolution arguements a shot.

Does anyone else get see RED flags when one side of an argument contains only religious folk?


To be fair, the anti evolution movement also contains some ancient alien theorists but they are in the extreme minority. The large majority today is a mix of religious fundamentalists and trolls. Mostly trolls.


Do we call that emperical evidence?

Thanks for trying

www.equip.org...

Does anyone else get see RED flags when one side of an argument contains only religious folk, except there are non rf


Sorry



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join