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: 18
9
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 11:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Micro macro thing, remember

That's the thing, someone accepting the macro because of the existence of the micro is still based on something which is proven, not faith based as you seem to imply.


edit on 11-8-2016 by daskakik because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 11:16 AM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

Why are you dignifying this thread

How about a single celled life form then

Yes or no



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 11:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Micro macro thing, remember

That's the thing, someone accepting the macro because of the existence of the micro is still based on something which is proven, not faith based as you seem to imply.



We'll show me empirical evidence of macro evolution
It's a simple question



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 11:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: TzarChasm

Why are you dignifying this thread

How about a single celled life form then

Yes or no


Not dignifying, just clarifying that you are lumping abiogenesis in with evolution. Evolution does not address abiogenesis. Rookie mistake dude.
edit on 11-8-2016 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 11:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Micro macro thing, remember

That's the thing, someone accepting the macro because of the existence of the micro is still based on something which is proven, not faith based as you seem to imply.



We'll show me empirical evidence of macro evolution
It's a simple question


How hard are you laughing right now as people scramble to beat you at your own game?
edit on 11-8-2016 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 11:22 AM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm


There is only one definition. Accept it or get over it.

The definition is that all life comes from a single ancestor. Evidence suggests otherwise. The "Universal genetic code, with the exceptions proving the rule" specifically.

So if I don't accept Berkley et al than I am disqualified from having my own belief in evolution? Does somebody own the patent or trademark?



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 11:24 AM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

Rookie to you, I decide what I want to classify as evolution
Life from nothing is evolution, you make the mistake of being told by those who decide how you must think
I am not subservient to their decissions, yours is a child's mistake. Do as we dictate to you and then, you do

So single cell to human
Yes or no
I accept your problem with abiogenesis so won't include it for your sake and the arguments sake, I am not inflexible

Yes or no



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 11:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: TzarChasm


There is only one definition. Accept it or get over it.

The definition is that all life comes from a single ancestor. Evidence suggests otherwise. The "Universal genetic code, with the exceptions proving the rule" specifically.

So if I don't accept Berkley et al than I am disqualified from having my own belief in evolution? Does somebody own the patent or trademark?


Start your own thread and maybe someone will tell you.



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 11:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: TzarChasm

Rookie to you, I decide what I want to classify as evolution
Life from nothing is evolution, you make the mistake of being told by those who decide how you must think
I am not subservient to their decissions, yours is a child's mistake. Do as we dictate to you and then, you do

So single cell to human
Yes or no
I accept your problem with abiogenesis so won't include it for your sake and the arguments sake, I am not inflexible

Yes or no


I am telling you the facts, even though i already knew you wouldnt accept them. Just being fair here so i dont have to feel bad when you disappear from these forums.

So here is my question to you. Do you have video evidence of jesus coming back to life? I demand to see video evidence of his resurrection. Or maybe you are a thor subscriber. Do you have photo evidence of hanging out with the god of thunder? Or any evidence at all of this hypothetical creator person? If the debate can end, then drop a smoking gun on the table. End it.
edit on 11-8-2016 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 11:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

Are you going to answer the question or not? If you don't agree with the stated definition of empirical evidence, then provide your own.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 11:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: TzarChasm


There is only one definition. Accept it or get over it.

The definition is that all life comes from a single ancestor. Evidence suggests otherwise. The "Universal genetic code, with the exceptions proving the rule" specifically.

So if I don't accept Berkley et al than I am disqualified from having my own belief in evolution? Does somebody own the patent or trademark?


no you can't have any other belief except what you are told to have by those who demand you accept

Did you really think there was choice and freedom, that there was science at work here,,ever



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 11:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

I am sick of answering it phantom
Go back pages, learn comprehension

Waste of my time

You going to answer my question

Yes or no



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 11:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

You missed the point. I was repeating that evidence of macro doesn't exist but accepting that micro adds up to macro is not faith based.



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 11:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: TzarChasm

Rookie to you, I decide what I want to classify as evolution
Life from nothing is evolution, you make the mistake of being told by those who decide how you must think
I am not subservient to their decissions, yours is a child's mistake. Do as we dictate to you and then, you do

So single cell to human
Yes or no
I accept your problem with abiogenesis so won't include it for your sake and the arguments sake, I am not inflexible

Yes or no


I am telling you the facts, even though i already knew you wouldnt accept them. Just being fair here so i dont have to feel bad when you disappear from these forums.

So here is my question to you. Do you have video evidence of jesus coming back to life? I demand to see video evidence of his resurrection otherwise its cockamamie.


As I said

Single cell to human

Yes or no
With evidence



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 11:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Phantom423

I am sick of answering it phantom
Go back pages, learn comprehension

Waste of my time

You going to answer my question

Yes or no


You're tired of answering the question because you know you'll get nailed if you agree to the definition of empirical evidence.

Once again, here's your first post:




I will make this clear from the outset I understand why people accept evolution. It is a common sense, simple to believe theory for those who dont accept God. I once believed it myself O know many christians who believe in evolution, I consider them christians. That means my faith doesnt hinge on me believing in creation, I can be a christian and believe in evolution. So, end the argument, offer some empirical evidence, evidence that cant be refuted, scientifically. If you dont want to, please dont, if you think its a waste of time posting evidence, please dont If we have empirical evidence there can be no assumptions. A bird with longer wings, a fly with a special adaptation, its not proof as far as I am concerned, it may well be to you and I accept that. Micro evolution just doesnt hold enough weight in my opinion. A cricket with gills, that would be something, a baby human with gills, yeah, that would be something as well


You asked for empirical evidence. If you don't agree with the definition of empirical evidence, then post your own definition.



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 11:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: TzarChasm

Rookie to you, I decide what I want to classify as evolution
Life from nothing is evolution, you make the mistake of being told by those who decide how you must think
I am not subservient to their decissions, yours is a child's mistake. Do as we dictate to you and then, you do

So single cell to human
Yes or no
I accept your problem with abiogenesis so won't include it for your sake and the arguments sake, I am not inflexible

Yes or no


I am telling you the facts, even though i already knew you wouldnt accept them. Just being fair here so i dont have to feel bad when you disappear from these forums.

So here is my question to you. Do you have video evidence of jesus coming back to life? I demand to see video evidence of his resurrection otherwise its cockamamie.


As I said

Single cell to human

Yes or no
With evidence


As i said, video evidence of you hanging out with god and getting all your smug answers fron the horses mouth. You can demand all the evidence you want, but you dont have to reciprocate and share your own evidence? Hypocrite. Give us the all conclusive smoking gun.


originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Phantom423

I am sick of answering it phantom
Go back pages, learn comprehension

Waste of my time

You going to answer my question

Yes or no


you are doing your best to waste our time, its only fair.

edit on 11-8-2016 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 11:45 AM
link   
Wow, people are actually still debating with Raggedyman...



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 11:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman



Life from nothing is evolution

This study here would indicate the possibility of life starting without RNA. Not exactly from nothing.


cambridge-study-reveals-how-life-c ould-have-started-from-nothing
"People have said that these pathways look so complex they couldn't form by environmental chemistry alone," Rasler told NewScientist. "This is the first experiment showing that it is possible to create metabolic networks in the absence of RNA."
...

Rasler's team has been the first to show that life could literally come from nothing. Of course, in the scientific community, this could be a major advancement, albeit one that is still only a part of an overall picture that's still forming through years of continuing research. However, these findings could also potentially play into the creationism versus evolution debate. One of the holes often poked by creationists is the complex and hard-to-explain idea of life started from nothing at all, and for the most part scientific explanations have been somewhat lacking. However, these findings indicate that something from nothing might not be as far-fetched idea as it seems.



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 11:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: logicsoda
Wow, people are actually still debating with Raggedyman...


Its not a debate. Never was.



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 11:53 AM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm


Start your own thread and maybe someone will tell you.

I was going to wait until I had a working hypothesis on abiogenesis. Even then it would probably fit into Skunkworks, where sketchy ideas belong.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join