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: 9
9
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 10:42 AM
link   

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.




posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 10:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
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


That's a bit like asking someone to prove the existence of God but without referring to anything related to, or caused by, God.

It's like asking someone to explain an equation but without using numbers, letters, words, or images of any kind.

There's also no need to prove it to you. It is. Whether you believe it or not, it simply is.

For 99.9% of people it actually makes zero, completely zero, difference to their daily lives whether they believe in creationism, evolution, or alien genetic experiments as our origin of species. if you want to hold tight to creationism, or intelligent design, or whatever other variation you follow... go for it. Enjoy yourself. Don't get worked up over being right or wrong because it doesn't actually matter.



posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 01:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Richw007


Evolution means nothing because it would have to be proven.

Theory: Between the time that Gospel of Mark was written and the time Gospel of John was written Jesus had evolved.

That theory can be proven by establishing the dates of the two writings and comparing the conceptual role Jesus plays in the different presentations.

Disclaimer: dating would be approximate, findings could be influenced by interjection of prejudicial concepts, such as doctrines of one and only one Jesus and unchangeable nature of Jesus.



posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 01:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman


So those lizards are now alligators, crocodiles, platypus???

So basically, in order to satisfy your criterion of science (observable, repeatable) you would have to stay on that island for 10,000 years watching the lizards change. One day, you discover that the DNA has changed to categorize the lizards as a separate species which cannot interbreed with the parent group. But that still wouldn't satisfy you because they're still lizards.

So, 100,000 years later, they are not lizards. Eureka! But no! You still have to repeat it for verification!



posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 01:49 PM
link   
a reply to: pthena

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

What he doesn't understand is that would prove evolution false.

He also doesn't understand that adaptation is change over time. Change over time is a part of evolution.

He's tried this numerous times. His arguments are old and worn out. But he needs them to cling to his religion.



posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 02:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman


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 do you want to believe evolution theory or not believe evolution theory?

It seems to me that most people don't care either way, so, that's up to you isn't it?
edit on 10-8-2016 by pthena because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 02:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: Raggedyman


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 do you want to believe evolution theory or not believe evolution theory?

It seems to me that most people don't care either way, so, that's up to you isn't it?

The thing about evolution is that it's true whether one believes it or not.



posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 03:03 PM
link   
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?



posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 03:16 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?


Most religious people have no problem reconciling their faith with evolution, it's only the fundamentalist minority who believe their holy book is to be interpreted literally who have an issue with it. You never hear them ragging on, say, gravity or special relativity, oh no. It's only the scientific findings that directly contradict religious scripture that they have a problem with. I wonder why that could be...



posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 03:19 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?

I've met one or two in my life. Non-belief in evolution != religious/theist necessarily.



posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 03:25 PM
link   
Another pointless thread. The OP is not interested in evidence, as it's been provided hundreds of times and he has ignored it. The evolution argument has been over for decades. Creationists think that because they personally reject science that it gives credibility to the idea that it's wrong. Sorry guys, every single argument you can come up with against evolution has already been debunked. In order to contradict an established theory in science, you either need evidence that conflicts with it or evidence of an alternate theory. It doesn't magically become wrong because you say so. Do you have this evidence, Raggedity? Denying the current evidence and lying about terminology like micro and macro evolution doesn't cut it.
edit on 8 10 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 03:26 PM
link   
Oa reply to: Barcs

But...But...But...

Goddidit!



posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 03:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs
Another pointless thread. The OP is not interested in evidence, as it's been provided hundreds of times and he has ignored it. The evolution argument has been over for decades. Creationists think that because they personally reject science that it gives credibility to the idea that it's wrong. Sorry guys, every single argument you can come up with against evolution has already been debunked. In order to contradict an established theory in science, you either need evidence that conflicts with it or evidence of an alternate theory. It doesn't magically become wrong because you say so.

Aye, this is why I won't entertain his responses anymore. It appears to me that he is just a.) willfully ignorant or b.) trolling. I've given him plenty of good examples for macroevolution and microevolution and yet he still begs for evidence. I don't have the time/patience to deal with that. I am sure at least one person learned something from my responses to Raggedyman in the past and that is all that I care about.



posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 03:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

God sakes man... Don't call it a theory

Thats just another word for them to jump on




posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 04:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: Barcs

God sakes man... Don't call it a theory

Thats just another word for them to jump on


Well, it is a theory, just not in the same sense as the more colloquial use of the word "theory".



posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 04:05 PM
link   
a reply to: logicsoda

Let's see...



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.


That looks like a promising start.




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


Ignorance can be fixed. But we go through a line of dismissals with no hint that the OP is trying to learn anything.



I can't empirically prove that you were born. How can we find out if you were born?



So, historical science is not repeatable, testable observable, its not a sciene Creation v Evolution argument ended


And religious people don't say things like this:


The science I am using is pure science, not your religion inspired science with no empirical evidence, just faith

They might pull an 'I know you are but what am I' if you're insulting faith while exhibiting a superiority complex, but I said I have respect for people of faith.



Well explain how science is determined according to your understanding. Mine is repeatable observable and testable as defined by scientists



Can you list a few examples of people you think are scientists?



Santa, the Easter bunny and tom cruise



posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 04:06 PM
link   
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




posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 04:07 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



Bingo. But see, you arent allowed to test gods or ask for demonstrations or they make an example of you. Isnt that how they scare people into not asking questions?

edit on 10-8-2016 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 04:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Akragon

But what he wants to see as "evidence of evolution" would actually disprove evolution.

It's kind of ironic that what he wants to see disproves the thing he wants "evidence" for.



posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 04:12 PM
link   

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




new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join