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.

 

Reconciling Creationism with Evolution: both are correct...

page: 11
10
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 21 2019 @ 06:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

Your narrative is that Scene is a Religion. Yet when provided evidence in the form of papers (with supplemental data available) you refuse to look at them.

It is thus shown you are avoiding being serious or honnest. You can't call it circumstantial if you do not do your reading .




posted on Feb, 21 2019 @ 08:28 PM
link   
Thanks to the forum in general for illustrating the contrast between creationist hypothesis and the theory of evolution, and providing yet another exhibit in the case for why these two ideas can't be reconciled without one compromising the other. I'm open to being wrong but this thread is just one more reason I don't think I am.



posted on Feb, 22 2019 @ 03:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: cooperton

You are STILL repeating this bull# rhetoric after it's been debunked a thousand times over? It's pretty clear you or Raggedy don't care what the evidence shows.


No it hasn't been debunked. Evolution has been debunked. Despite millions of generations fruit flies remain fruit flies, mice remain rice, microbes remain microbes. This scientifically proves evolution does not happen.



posted on Feb, 22 2019 @ 09:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Raggedyman

Your narrative is that Scene is a Religion. Yet when provided evidence in the form of papers (with supplemental data available) you refuse to look at them.

It is thus shown you are avoiding being serious or honnest. You can't call it circumstantial if you do not do your reading .


Stop talking and post the scientific ROT empirical evidence
It is so simple
You can end the argument completely

I don’t need suplementable data, all I need is ROT evidence
Why even bring in supplementable data
Just the ROT

You can’t find data to offer? just do it, post the ROT and finish it if you can
The whole argument ends, post the ROT and you win
It’s that simple

Empiracle evidence of evolution, not micro evolution, we have established birds change colour, beak sizes, blah blah
Evolution of species, go noindie, go get it



posted on Feb, 22 2019 @ 10:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: cooperton

You are STILL repeating this bull# rhetoric after it's been debunked a thousand times over? It's pretty clear you or Raggedy don't care what the evidence shows.


No it hasn't been debunked. Evolution has been debunked. Despite millions of generations fruit flies remain fruit flies, mice remain rice, microbes remain microbes. This scientifically proves evolution does not happen.


Your grasp of the definition of debunking is as complete as your grasp of evolution as a theory.

In case those passively observing haven't put it together yet, this discussion is about to meet the same flailing end as every other debate on this topic. I'll just add it to the list (see below).
edit on 22-2-2019 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2019 @ 11:02 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

You know tc, there is a way to end these debates once and for all
Just simply offer the ROT empirical evidence
Or admit you are a religious fundamentalist


From a member called Isurrender73
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Worth a revisit
“Things that science needs to prove before a natural cause and evolution past Class/Phylum is anything more than your imagination.

1. Abiogenesis
2. Single Cell to Multi Cell
3. Physically observe cross Kingdom - a plant physically observed to become an animal. Since plants and animals are both DNA based, either they have a common creator or common ancestor.
4. Physically observe the separation of cellular organisms from asexual to male/female
5. Physically observe an animal cross Phylum
6. Physically observe an animal cross Class
7. Physically observe an animal cross Order
8. Physically observe an animal cross Family
9. Physically observe an organism cross Genus
10. We have observed Speciation. “

Anyway


edit on 22-2-2019 by Raggedyman because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2019 @ 02:32 AM
link   
The problem is our scientists assume everything was randomly created, out of nothing. Earth was created by random chance, all life on Earth created by random chance, same as all things were created by random chance.

That's where 'science' starts from. Random chance.

How can anyone suggest all things were created by random chance, when everything we have ever created, ourselves, cannot happen by random chance?

When a table is created, out of 'nothing', we have created it, without any random chance involved. No tables will ever be created by random chance. How is all life created by random chance, if a table is impossible to create by random chance?


That's utterly absurd.


But they suggest everything was created by random chance, which is pure nonsense.



posted on Feb, 23 2019 @ 07:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1
The problem is our scientists assume everything was randomly created, out of nothing. Earth was created by random chance, all life on Earth created by random chance, same as all things were created by random chance.

That's where 'science' starts from. Random chance.

How can anyone suggest all things were created by random chance, when everything we have ever created, ourselves, cannot happen by random chance?

When a table is created, out of 'nothing', we have created it, without any random chance involved. No tables will ever be created by random chance. How is all life created by random chance, if a table is impossible to create by random chance?


That's utterly absurd.


But they suggest everything was created by random chance, which is pure nonsense.


The phrase 'random chance' is really not an accurate description of those events. Cause and effect is not random chance. Specific laws allow for specific variables to behave within a specific range of possibility and probability. This is not random.



posted on Feb, 23 2019 @ 07:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

You're really funny, acting like you can change your stripes and admit to being wrong. But if you have nothing further to add, then I'm going to return to the actual topic at hand. Which appears to have reached its predictable conclusion of a stalemate between water and the horse that refuses to drink. Here's what that horse looks like now:




posted on Feb, 23 2019 @ 07:59 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

a reply to: Raggedyman

Wow you guys are still at it, Awesome!!! I left back in 2017 and you all are right where I left off.

I always enjoy these discussions while they seem repetitive there is some good info exchanged from time to time.

I had to dust this off but if you have time it’s a good listen.

Roger Scruton talking about Scientism and the Religion of Science

edit on 23-2-2019 by Observationalist because: Added spacing



posted on Feb, 24 2019 @ 02:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: Raggedyman

You're really funny, acting like you can change your stripes and admit to being wrong. But if you have nothing further to add, then I'm going to return to the actual topic at hand. Which appears to have reached its predictable conclusion of a stalemate between water and the horse that refuses to drink. Here's what that horse looks like now:



And your really funny making out you are the water not the horse

I am still hear and still asking for the scientific ROT and you are stil claiming science, science that all you can offer is a cartoon of a horse

It's always a predictable conclusion, going back years

Those who question evolution ask for the empirical evidence and atheist evolutionists scatter to the wind
Or post silly cartoons like yours


Random chance😆😂
Don't want your replies to assumption
Want ROT Evidence, you know, real science not your religious psychobabble TC

Beat a dead horse?



posted on Feb, 24 2019 @ 02:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: turbonium1
The problem is our scientists assume everything was randomly created, out of nothing. Earth was created by random chance, all life on Earth created by random chance, same as all things were created by random chance.

That's where 'science' starts from. Random chance.

How can anyone suggest all things were created by random chance, when everything we have ever created, ourselves, cannot happen by random chance?

When a table is created, out of 'nothing', we have created it, without any random chance involved. No tables will ever be created by random chance. How is all life created by random chance, if a table is impossible to create by random chance?


That's utterly absurd.


But they suggest everything was created by random chance, which is pure nonsense.


The phrase 'random chance' is really not an accurate description of those events. Cause and effect is not random chance. Specific laws allow for specific variables to behave within a specific range of possibility and probability. This is not random.


Cause and effect don't create billiard tables, or computers. Cause and effect create mudslides, or avalanches.

An avalanche is from cause and effect, behavior within range of probability, and happens by random chance.

The natural world is a perfect showcase of random chance events, which are, indeed, cause and effect events, within occur within a range of probability. These events do not create functional objects, which require intelligence - the very opposite of what random chance events create, in the natural world.

Indeed, random chance events do not even 'create' anything, per se.

Random chance events 'happen,' or 'occur', at random, and have a 'result', or an 'outcome'.


From knowing that random chance events DO NOT CREATE ANYTHING AT ALL, it's fairly obvious to anyone that random chance did not make the most complex creations known to exist - life itself.

Life cannot even be compared to any other creation on Earth. We can create many things, which are complex, like computers, or airplanes. But we cannot create life, no matter how we've tried to, no matter what we know so far about biological science, or anything we know about life, we cannot create life.

Why would anyone believe life was created by random chance events, over bazillions of years, is both mind-boggling, and disturbing, to me.



edit on 24-2-2019 by turbonium1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2019 @ 07:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

You've not read the papers. It is evident. When you've read some, get back to me. You are not being honest here.



posted on Feb, 24 2019 @ 07:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Observationalist
a reply to: TzarChasm

a reply to: Raggedyman

Wow you guys are still at it, Awesome!!! I left back in 2017 and you all are right where I left off.

I always enjoy these discussions while they seem repetitive there is some good info exchanged from time to time.

I had to dust this off but if you have time it’s a good listen.

Roger Scruton talking about Scientism and the Religion of Science


You like YouTube videos? Here's one for you.




posted on Feb, 24 2019 @ 08:41 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

Bill Nye, isn’t he a children’s tv presenter, really




posted on Feb, 24 2019 @ 08:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

The only lie is you saying you have empirical evidence on paper and you have supplied it

www.newgeology.us...

It’s disingenuos to suggest evolution is a settled science
It’s insane to actually believe it without questioning the issues that present themselves

As a christian I question my faith in God and Jesus constantly, you unfortunately don’t seem to have the same capacity for your faith in science.
That’s fully brainwashed noindie



posted on Feb, 24 2019 @ 09:47 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

So my other video was not Roger Scruton, But another dude from the same presentation.

Here is short one with Roger debating your “high preiest”(from the moderato) of Darwinism. Dawkins, Hitchens and some other bloke.
Starts with Roger answering question about can science be considered a religion.

The best part is the contrast of Roger’s eloquent response to the question of transcendence right after a defensive, chest beating, rally the troops response from Hitchens.



posted on Feb, 25 2019 @ 08:45 AM
link   
Are you saying that it is impossible for a random chance event to create life ?

like its a statistical impossibility , despite their being life in the universe and such a diverse selection as well.

Why would anyone believe some mystical sky god made life , when the only evidence that some sky god made it was because it was written in a book !

and there are yet more and more sky gods who made life , who is the correct sky god ?
do they all work for the same company ?



posted on Feb, 25 2019 @ 01:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: sapien82
Are you saying that it is impossible for a random chance event to create life ?

like its a statistical impossibility , despite their being life in the universe and such a diverse selection as well.


You're falling under the same logical assumption that theists get accused of. Instead of "God did it", you are presuming "evolution (random chance) did it". You're assuming that because there is life, that random chance must have done it. Yet biological life is far more complex than our current capabilities in robotics... So if human invention, which involves intelligence, is surpassed by biological invention, it is obvious that biology required intelligent input greater than humans are capable of.



posted on Feb, 25 2019 @ 02:58 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Chemical reactions are NOT random chance.




top topics



 
10
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join