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: 5
9
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 9 2016 @ 02:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheKnightofDoom
Oh It sure can end OP.
Evoltion is accepted by most and has the evidence to back it up.
The end.


It can not be the end... that is when science actually turns into a religion

There is no "the end" of science... we will always be learning...

And evolution is the current understanding but its possible that one day it will be disproved however unlikely...

For example... There was a time that we studied the structure of the human skull... and many thought that said study proved that certain races of humans were less then others... said "science" was eventually dismissed as nonsense...





posted on Aug, 9 2016 @ 02:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

I find it puzzling his bleats about evidence but follows a book with no evidence and that book has warped his view against what is evidence.
Bonkers.



posted on Aug, 9 2016 @ 03:44 AM
link   
a reply to: TheKnightofDoom
I've been puzzled for a while but I think I actually understand now.

My guess is he will agree that there is no empirical evidence for the book either, and it's equally faith based.



posted on Aug, 9 2016 @ 04:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

Wow, baby steps, good for you
The book is a book of faith, not calling it a science book, never have
It doesn't claim science, the evolutionists claim science
The onus is on atheist science types to prove their claims, they call it a proven science
Empirical evidence proves it, not rhetoric and fish Gil's in foetus



posted on Aug, 9 2016 @ 04:12 AM
link   
a reply to: TheKnightofDoom

I find it puzzling that that is all you have to say, missed the point completely
Or maybe that's my point, useless bleeders with nothing of value to say



posted on Aug, 9 2016 @ 04:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

No it isn't equally faith based....one has evidence backing it up.



posted on Aug, 9 2016 @ 04:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: Raggedyman


So, end the argument, offer some empirical evidence, evidence that cant be refuted, scientifically.

So suppose someone built a time machine, and you got to ride in it.
The journey starts 65 million years ago, and stops each 10,000 years for 1 minute. That would take 6,500 minutes or 108 hours. Probably better take plenty of food and water. So you're looking out the window the whole time.

After the journey ends there is still nothing to prevent you from calling it a hoax. Not really windows, just projection screens with elaborate cinematography. So yeah, might as well end the argument.


Do you have any empirical evidence for that time machine, that would be great

Fantasy, I get it, just like evolution



posted on Aug, 9 2016 @ 04:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Akragon

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Akragon

Yeah its cool and all but its just a fish wriggling isnt it
Not exactly empirical


Well you should really watch the video...

It explains how the skeletal structure of said fish changed when it was introduced to land... as opposed to the same species in water...



Wow, so the fish has got bigger muscles and bone structure, amazing
Kinda like how a weightlifter body builder develops bigger muscles and bones when he works harder
I guess body builders are proof of evolution



posted on Aug, 9 2016 @ 04:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

I'm not a scientists, therefore god.

Winning argument.

I don't understand algebra, therefore aliens and inter dimensional watchers.

I WIN.



posted on Aug, 9 2016 @ 04:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar

originally posted by: Raggedyman

Thats a very interesting statement.
Empirical evidence to back it up

Thanks

You're a big fan of empirical evidence.
Unless you can sense it you won't believe it. I can understand that.

By definition you are incapable of abstract thought so you can never have this explained.

This is why the argument must be frustrating. You are constantly telling people you only accept empirical evidence and we keep expecting you to be capable of abstract thought. Two clearly opposite sides of the spectrum.

My sincerest apologies, you keep saying it and we keep ignoring it.

Unless of course it's only this circumstance in which you oppose abstract thought.



We'll leave the thread, you are the one complaining about me, I am content to wait for an answer that's not assumption.
Or the atheist concedes they have nothing but nonsense to bandy about



posted on Aug, 9 2016 @ 05:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

Why do you assume everyone who disagrees with you are atheist? you throw that around like an insult btw.



posted on Aug, 9 2016 @ 05:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
We'll leave the thread, you are the one complaining about me, I am content to wait for an answer that's not assumption.
Or the atheist concedes they have nothing but nonsense to bandy about


I'm not complaining about you at all. In fact I'm very thankful you have opened my eyes to how you see things.



posted on Aug, 9 2016 @ 06:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

Neither side of the argument can claim empirical evidence or complete knowledge.

Evolution is about Biological change. Creation is about abiogenesis.

Neither particularly refutes the other. The argument is unending as much as it is pointless.



posted on Aug, 9 2016 @ 06:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheKnightofDoom
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

I find it puzzling his bleats about evidence but follows a book with no evidence and that book has warped his view against what is evidence.
Bonkers.


The Bible is strongly evidenced in archaeology, genetics, anthropology and secular history.

There is far more evidence for things Bibllical than there are for many scientific paradigms such as the superluminal inflation of the early universe or that the Hubble constant represents only optical doppler shift.



posted on Aug, 9 2016 @ 06:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: ksiezyc
a reply to: Raggedyman

So...imaginary sky fairy(AKA god/jesus)? You have no evidence from what I see. Or did I miss it in the OP?


Neither God nor Jesus is a sky fairy, imaginary or not. Any more than you are a flatworm.



posted on Aug, 9 2016 @ 06:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman


Do you have any empirical evidence for that time machine, that would be great

Fantasy, I get it, just like evolution

I quote the following for purpose of definition. I am not particularly endorsing all the theories of Psychologists.


Fantasy prone personality
(FPP) is a disposition or personality trait in which a person experiences a lifelong extensive and deep involvement in fantasy. This disposition is an attempt, at least in part, to better describe "overactive imagination" or "living in a dream world". An individual with this trait (termed a fantasizer) may have difficulty differentiating between fantasy and reality and may experience hallucinations, as well as self-suggested psychosomatic symptoms. Closely related psychological constructs include daydreaming, absorption and eidetic memory.

Eidetic memory
is an ability to vividly recall images from memory after only a few instances of exposure, with high precision for a brief time after exposure, without using a mnemonic device. Although the terms eidetic memory and photographic memory may be used interchangeably, they are also distinguished, with eidetic memory referring to the ability to view memories like photographs for a few minutes,

Only an estimated 4% of the population has FPP, I doubt that they are all accepters of evolution theory.

My religion does not require me to challenge majority opinion unless it is demonstrably and/or logically wrong in some harmful way. On balance, my opinion is that more harm can come from accepting a closed system religion than can come from accepting majority scientific opinion.



posted on Aug, 9 2016 @ 06:51 AM
link   
I'd like to use the Indian hemp plant in this discussion.
Thought to have originated in central Asia. Now this plant is all over the world.
The flower period in it's natural habitat is 6 to 9 weeks.
The same plant made it to equatorial regions.
Flower period here from 10 to 20 weeks.
They are not different species. And can be bred together and, produce fertile offspring (seeds).
Even if you grew a seed from Asia in an equatorial region. It would still have the 6 to 9 week flower period.
The plant is the same. But has evolved over time to exhibit flowering length differences to fit its geographic position.
Other differences include the structure of plant. Smaller bushier Asian plants with shorter wider leaves. As opposed to equatorial plants being taller with longer thinner leaves.
There is also a third part to this.
The Ruderalis. A more northern region plant. Probably Russian. Has developed the ability to grow straight from seed without needing a 14 to 12 hour light period to trigger it into flowering. Unlike its relatives above. This plant will just grow and flower itself, regardless of the length of sunlight hours it sees.
These plants all originated from one place. But. Over many years. Have evolved to best take advantage of their environments.
These plants are now genetically different from each other. But have the same ancestry.
I am not providing any links for this. As, any links are usually more concerned with it's psychoactive producing relative.
And, that's not the point of this reply.



posted on Aug, 9 2016 @ 08:58 AM
link   
a reply to: blackcrowe

Just to clarify:

The Indian is still the same species as Central Asian, yet has evolved adaptively.

The Ruderalis has evolved into a new species.

Is that correct?



posted on Aug, 9 2016 @ 09:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

I'm still confused if this is what you're asking or not... "Yes" or "No" ?



posted on Aug, 9 2016 @ 09:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

Their is no proof of missing links of humans evolving over thousands of years, the missing links that have been shown have at a later date been proven to be forgeries. I have looked into evolution and their is not a shred of evidence to prove it, the big question being why has nothing evolved since we have been observing the planets creatures.

Evolution uses science to explain evolution without a shred of evidence, and those that beleive in evolution (because it is a beleif and takes faith to beleive it) is no different to someone beleiving in god. Seriously ive researched it and read the books, ive read books of scientists saying why its real and yet others saying why it is impossible.

Evolution is a beleif sytem and a "theory" not yet proven, so those that beleive in it are hypocrites to mock people that beleive in god. Just thought id add that as people love denying ALL the scientific evidence against evolution.




top topics



 
9
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join