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.

 

Irreducible complexity and Evolution

page: 41
16
<< 38  39  40    42  43  44 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 14 2017 @ 07:16 PM
link   
Why do creationists always misrepresent things?

WE never evolved "from monkeys", yet that is the line that they always wave around.




posted on Nov, 14 2017 @ 07:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Quadrivium

Except, it is used in the manner that "if you zoom out you see a macro view and if you zoom in you see a micro view". Not the creationist "they are different". Why? Because just like gravity is gravity no matter where you look, evolution remains evolution no matter what. It happens.

So again, where is your proof of intelligent design.... uh I mean Irreducible complexity again?
well There you go......when did I say I was out to prove anything.
You are always spouting off about you're religion, not me. Perhaps you would like to go back to when i first joined this thread?
But I guess you think I am attacking your religion so it makes it ok for you to attack mine.



posted on Nov, 14 2017 @ 07:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
Why do creationists always misrepresent things?

WE never evolved "from monkeys", yet that is the line that they always wave around.

MUHUHAHAHAHA!
And you claim I don't know how evolution works. Please tell me what the "great apes" supposedly evolved from.
edit on 14-11-2017 by Quadrivium because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2017 @ 07:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Quadrivium

Neighbour

You are jumping steps trying to colour a story. Just like you put "" to imply something. You would have been one of the pearl clutching types at the time of Darwin, at the idea we evolved from apes


Be honest in your representations, neighbour. Otherwise you are just another creationist who can't take the bitterness of truth.



posted on Nov, 14 2017 @ 07:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Quadrivium

You are not attacking my religion neighbour. Science is my day job. A form of polytheism is my religion. Why do you creationists assume all scientists are irreligious?



posted on Nov, 14 2017 @ 07:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

So no actual response? Just more attacks? Typical.



posted on Nov, 14 2017 @ 07:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Quadrivium

You are not attacking my religion neighbour. Science is my day job. A form of polytheism is my religion. Why do you creationists assume all scientists are irreligious?
Tbh, I do not care about your religion. Yours or mine has no place in this discussion. All that leads to is finger pointing and childish behavior like you show time and again.
At the very start of OUR "conversation" I told you that I usually do not talk about my beliefs in these types of discussion but since you shared yours, I would share a little of mine. I did and that was a end of it.....on my part at least.



posted on Nov, 14 2017 @ 07:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
Why do creationists always misrepresent things?

WE never evolved "from monkeys", yet that is the line that they always wave around.


Because it's an easy way out. Remember, they reject the science and the evidence. If a person grows up with no understanding of real science, never goes into a lab, never learns to think critically - that's a formula for ignorance.

Remarkably, the number of Creationists is going down in the U.S. This is mainly because their so-called "biblical projects" have reaped few financial rewards. The core believers are becoming fewer and farther between. That's good news!



posted on Nov, 14 2017 @ 08:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Quadrivium

Neighbour

You are jumping steps trying to colour a story.

From your earlier post:



Except, it is used in the manner that "if you zoom out you see a macro view and if you zoom in you see a micro view".

Seems you are confused.


Otherwise you are just another creationist who can't take the bitterness of truth.

Who's truth?
What type of truth? There are at least 3.

edit on 14-11-2017 by Quadrivium because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2017 @ 09:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: peter vlar

LOL... YEC's don't even have teeth to bite with, they just gum your leg a bit

I haven't traveled outside of Canada but from my experiences Catholics are rarely YEC... seems to be the protestants mostly... I've heard that its almost exclusively a western thing, which would make sense considering the west was colonized by protestant hordes



Dont muslims believe in a literal adam?



posted on Nov, 14 2017 @ 10:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xenogears

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: peter vlar

LOL... YEC's don't even have teeth to bite with, they just gum your leg a bit

I haven't traveled outside of Canada but from my experiences Catholics are rarely YEC... seems to be the protestants mostly... I've heard that its almost exclusively a western thing, which would make sense considering the west was colonized by protestant hordes



Dont muslims believe in a literal adam?


I honestly don't know... that is one religion i've never delved into

Thought about it a while back, but then i talked to a muslim who said that the texts in the Quran were more accurate then the gospels... 600 years removed from Jesus' life, compared to within 100 can not be more accurate logically

that kinda set me off looking into Islam... Lying right off the crack to someone who knows nothing about their religious texts didn't sit well with me



edit on 14-11-2017 by Akragon because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2017 @ 03:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Quadrivium

originally posted by: Noinden
Why do creationists always misrepresent things?

WE never evolved "from monkeys", yet that is the line that they always wave around.

MUHUHAHAHAHA!
And you claim I don't know how evolution works. Please tell me what the "great apes" supposedly evolved from.


Apparently you dont know anything about evolution. Funny you would argue against it and not understand it. Bottom line your wrong,Humans did not evolve from apes, gorillas or chimps. We are all modern species that have followed different evolutionary paths, though humans share a common ancestor with some primates there evolution was different from ours. I. Suggest learn about a topic before you speak it will at least make you seem educated.



posted on Nov, 15 2017 @ 06:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: Quadrivium

originally posted by: Noinden
Why do creationists always misrepresent things?

WE never evolved "from monkeys", yet that is the line that they always wave around.

MUHUHAHAHAHA!
And you claim I don't know how evolution works. Please tell me what the "great apes" supposedly evolved from.


Apparently you dont know anything about evolution. Funny you would argue against it and not understand it. Bottom line your wrong,Humans did not evolve from apes, gorillas or chimps. We are all modern species that have followed different evolutionary paths, though humans share a common ancestor with some primates there evolution was different from ours. I. Suggest learn about a topic before you speak it will at least make you seem educated.

WOW.....
I can't believe I am having to school evolutionist on their own beliefs.
Please see: Catarrhini (SP?) From this evolution states that the old world monkeys and the ape evolved (eta: and humans, for clarification). It is a subdivision of simians aka monkeys.
Quad
edit on 15-11-2017 by Quadrivium because: content



posted on Nov, 15 2017 @ 08:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
Funny you would argue against it and not understand it.


Yet this is what most material-based origins believers (Evolutionists) do when arguing against a consciousness or spirit-based origin model (creationist). They have never considered what it actually means that consciousness preceded matter, and created it for the purpose of self-expression and to create more conscious children


originally posted by: peter vlar

I was hoping to actually discuss the evidence that supports the MES not engage in a debate about theoretical physics.


double slit experiment isn't a theory its an actual observable result where photons materialize upon being observed by a measuring apparatus, and otherwise behave as light waves while no measurement is being made.



Please feel free to address my prior questions posed to you or provide supporting data that you believe falsifies the MES. This is merely sidestepping the real issue with a strawman that has nothing to do with biological evolution. I'm always happy to discuss the evidence regarding evolution if you care to do so.


I think what is warranted is an unbiased C-14 testing of dinosaur remains. You should be curious as to the results - wouldn't it be exciting if these specimens were actually 4,000-40,000 years old? Until then, all will dismiss the results as creationist tampering. Please note how difficult it is to ever get a grant or published when your results refute the long-held theory of evolution. But if young C-14 dates are true, this would open up a whole new frontier of understanding and perhaps our origins are much more exciting than thoughtless random mutation.
edit on 15-11-2017 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2017 @ 08:30 AM
link   
a reply to: cooperton





I think what is warranted is an unbiased C-14 testing of dinosaur remains. You should be curious as to the results - wouldn't it be exciting if these specimens were actually 4,000-40,000 years old? Until then, all will dismiss the results as creationist tampering. Please note how difficult it is to ever get a grant or published when your results refute the long-held theory of evolution. But if young C-14 dates are true, this would open up a whole new frontier of understanding and perhaps our origins are much more exciting than thoughtless random mutation.


I think we've been over that in the not too distant past? Just like your QM theory, the dinosaur fantasy is a lot of bs wrapped up in more bs.

You're not interested in truth. That's a huge problem because it will destroy you. Someone said the truth will set you free. You might want to get out of that prison one day.

You never reply to evidence or facts. That in and of itself says everything we need to know about your intentions. You deny evidence and you deny facts. That's a personality abnormality.
edit on 15-11-2017 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2017 @ 08:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423

I think we've been over that in the not too distant past? Just like your QM theory, the dinosaur fantasy is a lot of bs wrapped up in more bs.


Let's allow the results to say that, right scientist?



You're not interested in truth. That's a huge problem because it will destroy you. Someone said the truth will set you free. You might want to get out of that prison one day.


I want truth more than anything. Just because my leads on the truth are different than your conclusions does not mean I am deluded from the truth. Check your bias.



You never reply to evidence or facts.


Oh come on now, that is a huge overstatement. I post considerable amounts of empirical evidence for my statements. You guys just refuse to accept some of it because they aren't published by your priesthood, and you ignore the evidence that matter is naught without consciousness.



That in and of itself says everything we need to know about your intentions. You deny evidence and you deny facts. That's a personality abnormality.


As I said, I address empirical evidence. Finding similar looking skeletons in a continent is not proof that one phenotype evolved into the other, or is it evidence that the one isn't human. Nor is adaptability of organisms proof that these mechanisms can culminate in the diversity of species as proposed by evolution. The difference between me and you is that I know what you believe, and you do not know what I believe.
edit on 15-11-2017 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2017 @ 08:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xenogears

Dont muslims believe in a literal adam?


Yeah they delineate from Jewish origins and follow the line of ishmael rather than Isaac. Although there is considerable overlap. Ironically both are from the line of Shem, making them both Shemites aka Semites.

But both traditions believe in a historic Adam. See Luke 3:23-38 and Matthew 1:1-17. Also see Zeus and Hera, which is the Greek account of these two... Both indicate supernatural traits, i.e. extreme longevity and supernatural abilities.



posted on Nov, 15 2017 @ 09:11 AM
link   
a reply to: cooperton




Let's allow the results to say that, right scientist?


The results?? From where - the "museum" which supplied the bones? I posted the link to the museum. There's not a scientist on the planet who would touch that with a 10 ft pole.




I want truth more than anything. Just because my leads on the truth are different than your conclusions does not mean I am deluded from the truth. Check your bias.


Your leads are bogus. They're unsubstantiated. The guys who posed as scientists at the GA lab are no where to be found.
None of the authors of papers on the subject have ever repeated their experiments. Nor have any of the samples been tested using other means of determining C14. In other words, there's absolutely zero corroboration of their data.





Oh come on now, that is a huge overstatement. I post considerable amounts of empirical evidence for my statements. You guys just refuse to accept some of it because they aren't published by your priesthood, and you ignore the evidence that matter is naught without consciousness.


Really? I ignore the evidence? What evidence? I gave you a description of what QM is and what it is not. There is no mathematical term for consciousness in QM. If you have one, you'll get the Nobel Prize.




As I said, I address empirical evidence. Finding similar looking skeletons in a continent is not proof that one phenotype evolved into the other, or is it evidence that the one isn't human. Nor is adaptability of organisms proof that these mechanisms can culminate in the diversity of species as proposed by evolution. The difference between me and you is that I know what you believe, and you do not know what I believe.



You only address YOUR empirical evidence. You never step into the real world of analytical science that repeats, compares and validates. Why? Because all your "empirical evidence" falls apart.

As for beliefs, I doubt that even you know what you believe. Science is about evidence, not beliefs. Beliefs are religious or philosophical.





edit on 15-11-2017 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-11-2017 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2017 @ 09:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: Noinden
Why do creationists always misrepresent things?

WE never evolved "from monkeys", yet that is the line that they always wave around.


Because it's an easy way out. Remember, they reject the science and the evidence. If a person grows up with no understanding of real science, never goes into a lab, never learns to think critically - that's a formula for ignorance.

Remarkably, the number of Creationists is going down in the U.S. This is mainly because their so-called "biblical projects" have reaped few financial rewards. The core believers are becoming fewer and farther between. That's good news!



AGAIN,
Please see: Catarrhini. From this the theory of evolution states that the old world monkeys, apes and HUMANS evolved. It is a subdivision of simians aka monkeys.
It has never been observed, there is no real evidence but hey, if that is what evolution states then it has to be true...... (waiting on you to recant your statement above).
So, do you and your ilk actually understand evolution or are you just spouting off nonsense because of your non belief in a Creator? It appears to be the latter.



edit on 15-11-2017 by Quadrivium because: added




posted on Nov, 15 2017 @ 09:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423

The results?? From where - the "museum" which supplied the bones? I posted the link to the museum. There's not a scientist on the planet who would touch that with a 10 ft pole.


Because they would get fired from any supposedly scientific establishment for pursuing empirical evidence that would prove evolution wrong. Poor Mary Schweitzer when she found soft tissue in dinosaur bones had to make an oath that her heart was with the scientism priesthood rather than any sort of scriptural bias... The (un)scientific inquisition kills all who defy its dogmatic precepts.




Your leads are bogus. They're unsubstantiated.


So now C-14 dating is bogus? You guys move the goalposts alot. I can't harpoon a phantom.

[quote
Really? I ignore the evidence? What evidence? I gave you a description of what QM is and what it is not.

And your description did not coordinate with the long-held conclusion of the Copenhagen Interpretation. You believe that matter reigns, but the leaders of quantum physics demonstrated that consciousness is the foundation for material manifestation.



There is no mathematical term for consciousness in QM. If you have one, you'll get the Nobel Prize.


God said it to Moses long ago. "I Am that I Am"



Beliefs are religious or philosophical.


Philosoph - A lover of knowledge. Are you not? Consider diversifying your approach to understanding.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 38  39  40    42  43  44 >>

log in

join