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.

 

Evolutionists, how do you explain this?

page: 10
20
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 25 2017 @ 10:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: firefromabove
a reply to: Cypress

So they're just interpolating things.

They have no actual evidence.


No it's called comparative analysis. Deny ignorance




posted on May, 25 2017 @ 10:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: firefromabove

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: firefromabove

originally posted by: Painterz
As others have said, it's not just guesswork. There's firm scientific method behind it.


Yeah, a firm scientific method based on a false premise

I bet astrologers also claim their methods are firm when explaining their "science"
What do you do for a living? What is your college degree in?


I have the same college degree as Darwin

Next question


Are you even remotely being sarcastic? Or is this a serious answer from you?...
It's so ridiculous that I cannot effectively tell...



posted on May, 25 2017 @ 10:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Cypress

originally posted by: firefromabove
a reply to: Cypress

So they're just interpolating things.

They have no actual evidence.


No it's called comparative analysis. Deny ignorance


Cool slogan bro

Needs more evidence



posted on May, 25 2017 @ 10:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: firefromabove

originally posted by: Cypress

originally posted by: firefromabove
a reply to: Cypress

So they're just interpolating things.

They have no actual evidence.


No it's called comparative analysis. Deny ignorance


Cool slogan bro

Needs more evidence


I see plenty of evidence being posted against you, which you continue to brush off...but when it comes to YOU posting any evidence to support YOUR claims or YOUR attitudes and assumptions...I see nothing except more vagueness and deflection.

I'd say the burden of proof should be your responsibility, as you are the OP.



posted on May, 25 2017 @ 10:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: ReyaPhemhurth

originally posted by: firefromabove

originally posted by: Cypress

originally posted by: firefromabove
a reply to: Cypress

So they're just interpolating things.

They have no actual evidence.


No it's called comparative analysis. Deny ignorance


Cool slogan bro

Needs more evidence


I see plenty of evidence being posted against you, which you continue to brush off...but when it comes to YOU posting any evidence to support YOUR claims or YOUR attitudes and assumptions...I see nothing except more vagueness and deflection.

I'd say the burden of proof should be your responsibility, as you are the OP.


At this point he's just trolling and not very good at it either.



posted on May, 25 2017 @ 10:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Cypress

originally posted by: ReyaPhemhurth

originally posted by: firefromabove

originally posted by: Cypress

originally posted by: firefromabove
a reply to: Cypress

So they're just interpolating things.

They have no actual evidence.


No it's called comparative analysis. Deny ignorance


Cool slogan bro

Needs more evidence


I see plenty of evidence being posted against you, which you continue to brush off...but when it comes to YOU posting any evidence to support YOUR claims or YOUR attitudes and assumptions...I see nothing except more vagueness and deflection.

I'd say the burden of proof should be your responsibility, as you are the OP.


At this point he's just trolling and not very good at it either.


I suppose that can happen when you're missing common sense and parental guidance, all whilst having access to the internet.


edit: And by "you're" I mean the OP firefromabove...
edit on 25-5-2017 by ReyaPhemhurth because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-5-2017 by ReyaPhemhurth because: Clarification



posted on May, 25 2017 @ 10:54 AM
link   
Ho boy, you jokers are talking about evolution like its comparing ice cream inside an ice cream truck and bragging about how stupid it is to think the truck makes the ice cream (while the rest of us are laughing on the inside at the absurdity of thinking you don't really know its made in a separate facility). Your infantile ramblings merely highlight the fact that everyone denigrating evolution as 'fact-less' and 'BS' simply haven't even taken the briefest time (not even reading the GD wiki page for god's sake) to try and understand it, but rather you immediately jump to your gut conclusions that it just don't 'feel right', and is therefore stupid and wrong and idiotic.

Thankfully whether something does or does not 'feel right' has never been a qualifying data point in real science.



posted on May, 25 2017 @ 10:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer
Ho boy, you jokers are talking about evolution like its comparing ice cream inside an ice cream truck and bragging about how stupid it is to think the truck makes the ice cream (while the rest of us are laughing on the inside at the absurdity of thinking you don't really know its made in a separate facility). Your infantile ramblings merely highlight the fact that everyone denigrating evolution as 'fact-less' and 'BS' simply haven't even taken the briefest time (not even reading the GD wiki page for god's sake) to try and understand it, but rather you immediately jump to your gut conclusions that it just don't 'feel right', and is therefore stupid and wrong and idiotic.

Thankfully whether something does or does not 'feel right' has never been a qualifying data point in real science.


Hilarious how they denounce science 'because it doesn't feel right' but when it's about their little imaginary friend in the sky, they can't come to the same conclusion. Ha.



posted on May, 25 2017 @ 11:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Tinystarlight

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

originally posted by: Tinystarlight
You will never see the kind break its barrier.

So your point is mute.


Since our entire lives are a mere few specks of dusts from an entire enveloping duststorm, thaty landed in the ocean of water 1,000 years ago, of course not.

Just playing devils advocate. Crikey! That proves I'm an antichrist!



There is the fossil record that goes back millions of years. I was taking that into the equation. There is no "missing link" in the fossil record.

It always shows that life formed suddenly and unexpectedly and fully formed. There is no missing link for anything in existence. And the fossil record is millions of years old.

1,000 years. No.


Don't know if anyone else picked up on this, had to post straight away.
What on earth are you on about, no missing links?
We are all, at any stage a link.
There are no suddenly appearing animals either. I can't believe you even wrote this, there is a clear absence of any understanding of evolution to say this.
Here, really simple with pictures:

Evolution of the horse:
alternativehorsehealth.org...

Evolution of the Elephant:
elephantsworldwide.blogspot.co.uk...

I wanted to post one or every species but figured that if you can be bothered to look at these you'll see that species evolved and are still evolving. Constantly!
There is no end product.

You god people are shooting yourself in the foot with denying evolution. If you were clever, you'd say that instead of making each animal from scratch, god is just running a program, to which all of nature adheres.

Well, I could believe in such a 'god' rather than a weirdo who makes several million species from scratch [out of clay or something]. But it would mean that your bible is wrong. So you rather stick with easily refutable nonsense.



posted on May, 25 2017 @ 11:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: firefromabove

I'm not even a big doubter about the overall premise of 'evolution', dont spend much time thinking about, but that case realm popped into head the other night.

I can observe 'evolution' in action daily on my property, a jungle where everything is in obsessive adaptation mode by design.

But from this same space ar these (often DAMN) creatures that there entire blueprint is a real mofo to sort out how they came to be supreme.

If they just hatched the way they are, like their 'far more' complex rivals, the reptiles, then it wouldn't even be 'a thing'.


I'm not trying to bring the conversation off topic, but I have to ask.

Your comments....
"I can observe 'evolution' in action daily on my property, a jungle where everything is in obsessive adaptation mode by design. "

And

"If they just hatched the way they are, like their 'far more' complex rivals, the reptiles, then it wouldn't even be 'a thing'. "

Are you a fellow builder of mini rainforests with a fondness towards brightly colored South American amphibians?



posted on May, 25 2017 @ 11:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Hecate666

exactly , why cant religion just admit that god himself or herself or whatever is a scientist
and clearly if they believe in inteliigent design , then why cant they be arsed to figure out how god did it , they just seem to be happy fighting science on this , like dont take away the magic of god and figure out how god made all the species

if there is a creator then they must be scientific , because there is no way you could just whip up millions of distinct species of animals off the top of your head in 7 days

I mean CMON!
that right there requires planning and understanding and more than one person or god could handle surely !



posted on May, 25 2017 @ 11:50 AM
link   
a reply to: thekaboose

Slight mutation in a male / female survives long enough for them to breed, the mutation carries on down the line and changes, millions of variations later ... evolution. I do not understand why people think its a insane theory.

I think it is because it is pushed as some magical mystery that took place a gazillion years ago, instead what it actually is.

From the beginning of life on this planet, organisms adapt to their environment. It is the first rule for survival and is ingrained into every cell.

All cells will not make the same choice for survival, so the majority usually wins. If it is a standoff, then the organism significantly mutates until it is highly notable, or it dies.

The mutations may make the organism more selectable for reproduction, if it does, these genetic mutations will be passed on. Even if they aren't readily passed on, they will remain recessive and can still pop their heads up when least expected.

Survival of the fittest, though the fittest may not be readily recognized. This is not a process that is static. It is continuously in process, within all living creatures, including ourselves. That is why genetic tampering scares me to death.
We may have the knowledge to produce a bunch of "pretty ones", but we may be producing ourselves straight into extinction.



posted on May, 25 2017 @ 12:25 PM
link   
This is just yet another post loaded with rubbish where a Christian tries to impress his lordly 'philosophical' nature by asking a question OP thinks is clever and earth-shattering, when in reality it shows naivety. OP continually deflects actual evidence and instead continues to spout nonsensical garbage devoid of any thought based on their biblical beliefs.

The bible has never had any true scientific value and it does very little to provide anything of scientific substance because everything within the book and within Christianity demands faith and believers (like OP) establish credibility for 'God' and their argument, not through scientific prowess, but through things like prophecy, miracles and personal revelations.

Therefore, OP's and other creationist's views extrapolate from these criteria for forming actual credibility. So instead of measuring credibility on scientific research, evidence and analysis...and we go with measuring based on miracles, prophecy and personal revelations and how these occurred in the bible, it gives Christianity the falsity of looking like they're scoring well.



posted on May, 25 2017 @ 12:38 PM
link   
Ah there is nothing like the pleasure of another evolution vs creation debate thread that ends up being like..............





well in it's defense I guess it's not politics.



posted on May, 25 2017 @ 12:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: SolAquarius
Ah there is nothing like the pleasure of another evolution vs creation debate thread that ends up being like..............

well in it's defense I guess it's not politics.



Here's to hoping no one notices you that said the "P" word...
edit on 25-5-2017 by ReyaPhemhurth because: omitting quote's gif



posted on May, 25 2017 @ 12:53 PM
link   
a reply to: firefromabove

A single jawbone isn't the sole basis. It's also based on morphology of similar animals, the direct ancestor and the phylogenetic tree which is based of DNA whenever possible. It's drawing knowledge from alot of different disciplines and the knowledge is always changing.



posted on May, 25 2017 @ 01:04 PM
link   
a reply to: firefromabove

And creation isn't?



posted on May, 25 2017 @ 01:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: firefromabove
How is it that evolutionist "scientists" look at a single jawbone or a thigh bone of some extinct animal and then somehow just "know" what the rest of the animal looked like?

Most images we have of extinct animals are artist renderings, based on one jawbone or thighbone!

Anybody can see that evolutionists operate not on evidence but on imagination and assumptions. If you feel otherwise please explain.





"pot calling the kettle black" on this subject.....a mythical god, adam and eve, people in the bible living hundreds of years, a flood that covered the entire world, turning a woman into a pillar of salt, etc....i'll stick with evolution



posted on May, 25 2017 @ 01:15 PM
link   
OP hasn't posted in a bit...maybe he ran out of fairytale-religion-gas?



posted on May, 25 2017 @ 02:00 PM
link   
I seen this nonsense going on with artist interpretations of how things looked.Total fantasies made up.




top topics



 
20
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join