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.

 

The Case Against Playing in the Evolution Court.

page: 17
12
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 8 2019 @ 01:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: edmc^2

Didn't your religion say something about questioning god? You said I was a god and now you are being so obtuse.

I had no idea being a god was a simple as explaining how life can be created from a lump of dead meat or a non-living thing.

Really I still feel human.


But you didn't. That experiment was a sad example, and the title was extremely hyperbolic. It was intelligent scientists forming a cell from pre-existent materials. Look at the comments on the youtube video, people aren't falling for this crap anymore. Such a vast leap from scratch monomers to a living organism would be impossible by natural means. If that's the best you can find, it insists scientists can't do it from scratch. If intelligent scientists can't do it from scratch, then unintelligent processes cannot do it from scratch...
edit on 8-7-2019 by cooperton because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 8 2019 @ 01:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: edmc^2

Didn't your religion say something about questioning god? You said I was a god and now you are being so obtuse.

I had no idea being a god was a simple as explaining how life can be created from a lump of dead meat or a non-living thing.

Really I still feel human.


But you didn't. That experiment was a sad example, and the title was extremely hyperbolic. It was intelligent scientists forming a cell from pre-existent materials, i.e. bacterial components. Such a vast leap from scratch monomers to a living organism would be impossible by natural means. If that's the best you can find, it proves scientists can't do it from scratch. If intelligent scientists can't do it from scratch, then unintelligent processes cannot do it from scratch...



Thanks Coop for helping Grim. Hopefully this poster will get it.



posted on Jul, 8 2019 @ 01:25 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Dead things. That was the term he used. Both synthetic lives has been created and cloning of DEAD animals.

The goalpost was set and the goal achieved. No matter how much you move them now it was still met.

Mwahaha bow to your new god.



posted on Jul, 8 2019 @ 01:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: cooperton

Dead things. That was the term he used. Both synthetic lives has been created and cloning of DEAD animals.

The goalpost was set and the goal achieved. No matter how much you move them now it was still met.

Mwahaha bow to your new god.




Sounds like you won a semantic battle, congrats. But it's meaningless. Your faith that living things can come from basic monomers is not based in reality. Life cannot come from inert monomers, or even macromolecules, by natural means. No experiment has proven that life can form from these building blocks, and the more we learn about the complexity of biology the more apparently impossible it becomes.
edit on 8-7-2019 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2019 @ 02:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: cooperton

Dead things. That was the term he used. Both synthetic lives has been created and cloning of DEAD animals.

The goalpost was set and the goal achieved. No matter how much you move them now it was still met.

Mwahaha bow to your new god.




Sounds like you won a semantic battle, congrats. But it's meaningless. Your faith that living things can come from basic monomers is not based in reality. Life cannot come from inert monomers, or even macromolecules, by natural means. No experiment has proven that life can form from these building blocks, and the more we learn about the complexity of biology the more apparently impossible it becomes.


First person to name the fallacy wins a prize!



posted on Jul, 8 2019 @ 02:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: cooperton

Dead things. That was the term he used. Both synthetic lives has been created and cloning of DEAD animals.

The goalpost was set and the goal achieved. No matter how much you move them now it was still met.

Mwahaha bow to your new god.




The goal post didn't move. You just can't accept that the answer to the question leads back to life.

hehehe. You wanna take another gander or pretend they created life from dead meat?



posted on Jul, 8 2019 @ 03:20 PM
link   
... meanwhile, in the rest of the world, creation myths dwindle into history and evolution research continues because there is no alternative.
edit on 8-7-2019 by puzzlesphere because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2019 @ 04:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: puzzlesphere
... meanwhile, in the rest of the world, creation myths dwindle into history and evolution research continues because there is no alternative.


Go tell a Brahmin he is an ancestor of a mutant ape, he will laugh in your face
Go tell a Bodhisattva he is an ancestor of a mutant ape, he will laugh in your face
Go tell a Mahatma he is an ancestor of a mutant ape, he will laugh in your face

You were raised in a culture that has religiously raised you to believe in evolution. It will die out once people can look past their programming. Evolution doesn't survive logical scrutiny.



posted on Jul, 8 2019 @ 04:35 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

... yet you can't offer a testable alternative.

So yes, it seems it does survive logical scrutiny, as evidenced by over 1.5 million research entries in the literature that refer to evolution in some way.

None for creation... doing well creationists!

Go write a peer reviewed rebuttal... make it 1.5 million and 1.



posted on Jul, 8 2019 @ 04:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: puzzlesphere
a reply to: cooperton

... yet you can't offer a testable alternative.

So yes, it seems it does survive logical scrutiny, as evidenced by over 1.5 million research entries in the literature that refer to evolution in some way.

None for creation... doing well creationists!

Go write a peer reviewed rebuttal... make it 1.5 million and 1.


If all it takes is quantity to validate something, then that means the 68,000,000 German Nazis during WWII were super right!
edit on 8-7-2019 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2019 @ 04:49 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Wow... epic false equivalency! Comparing research papers to German Nazis?... lol... how do you think that helps your argument at all?!?... lol again... you are too much... talk about desperately lashing out because you don't have a solid argument!!!

Let me repeat that figure from above... ZERO entries in any research journal ever, anywhere for creation... over 1.5 million verifiable research papers that you can read and repeat their methodology for evolution.

All you have to do is write a rebuttal for one of them.

Good luck...
edit on 8-7-2019 by puzzlesphere because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2019 @ 06:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: puzzlesphere
... meanwhile, in the rest of the world, creation myths dwindle into history and evolution research continues because there is no alternative.


Funny thing is, a majority if not all research done through TRUE SCIENCE not only confirmed Creation but made it stronger. In fact, science is actually just cathing up with what the Bible has already stated and predicted.

Looks like time for another thread.



posted on Jul, 8 2019 @ 06:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: cooperton

Dead things. That was the term he used. Both synthetic lives has been created and cloning of DEAD animals.

The goalpost was set and the goal achieved. No matter how much you move them now it was still met.

Mwahaha bow to your new god.




What happened to Grim?

Goen awol.

BTW - keep the sig, more exposure for me.



posted on Jul, 8 2019 @ 07:06 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

What is TRUE SCIENCE pray tell?

You can obviously point me to documented conclusions that confirm creation?... and not just make it stronger, but verify it any way whatsoever? No?

... and the funny thing is you haven't shown a single fact to verify your opinion.

Go for it thread champ! You going to present some creation research in this new thread?



posted on Jul, 8 2019 @ 07:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

Sounds like you won a semantic battle, congrats. But it's meaningless. Your faith that living things can come from basic monomers is not based in reality. Life cannot come from inert monomers, or even macromolecules, by natural means. No experiment has proven that life can form from these building blocks, and the more we learn about the complexity of biology the more apparently impossible it becomes.


The problem is the whole term "life" is just a human creation, an invention to describe what the universe sees as complex chemical reactions. "life" is only special to us because we decided it to be that way. The universe in our minds and the universe out there are two different places.



posted on Jul, 8 2019 @ 08:20 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

This god had work to do. Seeing as I actually exist and have responsibilities. If you have a problem with that then send your god over to talk about it. Punny mortal.

Aren't you ashamed to have named me a god just because you knew nothing of science?



posted on Jul, 8 2019 @ 09:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi


We need to get a big table and start having meetings of this newly anointed pantheon so we can establish rules. That way nobody is waiting around for some false god to make themselves known after you’ve invited them over!



posted on Jul, 8 2019 @ 09:09 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

I will bring chips and salsa. We should all pitch in on beer.



posted on Jul, 9 2019 @ 12:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: edmc^2

This god had work to do. Seeing as I actually exist and have responsibilities. If you have a problem with that then send your god over to talk about it. Punny mortal.

Aren't you ashamed to have named me a god just because you knew nothing of science?


actually, it wasn't me. most evolutionists had substituted themselves to be gods already. the arrogance has been there all along and you're exemplifying it.

So, still can't answer my question.

Oh, well, proves my point.



posted on Jul, 9 2019 @ 12:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: puzzlesphere
a reply to: edmc^2

What is TRUE SCIENCE pray tell?

You can obviously point me to documented conclusions that confirm creation?... and not just make it stronger, but verify it any way whatsoever? No?

... and the funny thing is you haven't shown a single fact to verify your opinion.

Go for it thread champ! You going to present some creation research in this new thread?




Still evading my question.

I think I know why. Because it proves my point.

Oh well, your self appointed god Grim needs your help.



edit on 9-7-2019 by edmc^2 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join