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.

 

Simple Examples of Irreducible Complexity - Evolution Impossible

page: 23
28
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 8 2019 @ 07:03 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

I apologize that your post have been ignored because that post was awesome.





posted on Aug, 8 2019 @ 07:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Quadrivium
a reply to: neoholographic

I apologize that your post have been ignored because that post was awesome.



Thanks and of course it's ignored because a natural interpretation of evolution is a fantasy.

The amount of evolutionary BS is astounding in just about ever paper that has been published on evolution and you can see it reflected in these posts.

A Modular Interpretation of evolution which is an Intelligent Design interpretation is the only interpretation that fits the evidence.

These parts work together in complex ways to carry out specific tasks. NO EVOLUTION NEEDED



posted on Aug, 8 2019 @ 07:59 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

Exactly!
They can not (or do not want to) see that all of the "evidence" they put forth is based on assumption and speculation.
It is like they don't see all the "could of, would of, should ofs, maybes and likelys that riddle all the evidence they provide.

Then they want to complain "you did not look at the evidence" or "you don't understand Evolution".
/end most annoying, whiny voice possible.
edit on 8-8-2019 by Quadrivium because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2019 @ 08:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
"As I have said before, Cooperton is a fraud. He's tried every trick in the book to make a living out of this garbage to include crowdfunding"

Lol wait, what?


Yeah I think phantom is going schizophrenic.


Life is what we make it. The things we do, do matter. It doesn't matter if there is nothing after death. I don't know that there isn't but you know, that's one of the things that keeps me going. If this is all there is, then I'm going to enjoy it. Make friends, love family, live on in memory. Until I die and find out (or not) what is (or isn't) next, what else is there to do? Just because people like me don't believe in a gods or the like, doesn't mean we live cold empty meaningless lives.


Well said, but the thing is, atheism strips all meaning from life. If an atheist has meaning in their life, they are not a true atheist. If there is no God, no greater purpose, and we are all an accident, then we all return to nothingness, with no memory trace of anything that occurred here. The same will happen to everyone you know. So it is meaningless. But, do not even appease the philosophy of these people. Evolution is their religion that they use to try to convince others of their meaningless ideology.

The good news is, they are wrong. We are meaningful, and purposeful, and there is a plan set for us by the same Being that created us. The sooner we align our consciousness with this Being, the sooner we will embody that Archetype.



posted on Aug, 8 2019 @ 10:00 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

Out of curiosity, do you understand that the mutationsassociated with these adaptions? Just curious



posted on Aug, 8 2019 @ 11:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: neoholographic

Out of curiosity, do you understand that the mutationsassociated with these adaptions? Just curious


Neo#$%^ , better known as YouTube scientist, hasn't seen the football since the kickoff as regards science and technology.
His favorite word is: IMPOSSIBLE. Wouldn't it be great if you and I went into our labs every day with that attitude?

The same scientific method that put humans on the moon, cured and treated diseases, engineered cars, household appliances - virtually everything we use 24 hours a day. But wait - the scientific method doesn't apply to evolution! Why? Because they said so! And that's why they're so easy to swat just like a fly. One swap and they're dead in the water. Happens practically every day on this board.

As I said before, I hope they keep on keepin' on. We need their ignorant input to substantiate and set in stone that they are frauds.



posted on Aug, 8 2019 @ 11:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

Oh you and I know this. We've both danced the dance with him. IF only SNPs were "impossible" then they might have proof of their deity



posted on Aug, 9 2019 @ 01:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

blame it on religion man...

Its the ONLY reason they disagree... it doesn't comply with genesis




posted on Aug, 9 2019 @ 02:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Quadrivium
a reply to: neoholographic

Exactly!
They can not (or do not want to) see that all of the "evidence" they put forth is based on assumption and speculation.
It is like they don't see all the "could of, would of, should ofs, maybes and likelys that riddle all the evidence they provide.

Then they want to complain "you did not look at the evidence" or "you don't understand Evolution".
/end most annoying, whiny voice possible.


Good points!

Just ask a Darwinist to be specific and everything will fall apart for them.

When they link to any evidence, which they barely do, it's full of if's, and's, maybes and we don't know's.



posted on Aug, 9 2019 @ 03:03 AM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

theres Darwinists too?

whats the difference between a Darwinist and an evolutionist?


edit on 9-8-2019 by Akragon because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2019 @ 04:00 AM
link   
I guess you’re right, we and everything else was created. Biology, chemistry and physics are no longer required, so let’s pack up the labs and turn them into churches. Instead of finding cures for disease or making new discoveries or advancing our knowledge and technology, we can just pray for it instead.



posted on Aug, 9 2019 @ 07:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: TerraLiga
I guess you’re right, we and everything else was created. Biology, chemistry and physics are no longer required, so let’s pack up the labs and turn them into churches. Instead of finding cures for disease or making new discoveries or advancing our knowledge and technology, we can just pray for it instead.

That was a very uneducated and moronic list of statements you just made.
en.wikipedia.org...
(and those are from the Christian Faith alone)


This from your earlier post can be applied here as well:

Read the Wikipedia page, do more research and then choose to support this charlatan.

edit on 9-8-2019 by Quadrivium because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-8-2019 by Quadrivium because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2019 @ 08:11 AM
link   
a reply to: TerraLiga



Instead of finding cures for disease or making new discoveries or advancing our knowledge and technology, we can just pray for it instead.


Nobody that advocates intelligent design wants that, unless you happen to maybe be Amish.

A silly statement, born out of frustration to make headway on the argument for what, 23 pages.



posted on Aug, 9 2019 @ 10:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Quadrivium

There is a significant difference between a Christian and a creationist. The former tend to be objective and open to reason; the latter are ideological fundamentalists.

The reason I wrote that is to illustrate that undertaking and understanding many strands of science you have to apply the methodology of evolution and adaptation. It is this fundamental basis that genetic research into cellular disease and abnormalities can be understood and combatted. To deny it would be to invalidate the last 60 years of research and applied medicine.

Taking what you are saying at base level is exactly what I wrote. You are denying almost everything that may exclude the work of your god, in which case a prayer is all that you need.



posted on Aug, 9 2019 @ 10:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: TerraLiga

...a natural interpretation of evolution is a fantasy and the only interpretation of evolution that matches the evidence is a Modular Interpretation which is an Intelligent Design interpretation of evolution. ...

Sounds just like the term "unnatural evolution" used by zandra in the thread "You want proof of evolution at work, here it is.... Enjoy! (Observable and testable)."; page 15.

Which I mentioned there is a contradiction in terms (a statement or group of words associating objects or ideas that are incompatible). Because as I mentioned there:

(The forces of) Nature and chance are the 2 main causal factors involved in evolutionary storylines. Since that is what the word "evolution" or the verb "evolve" is used to refer to in this thread and subforum, one probably shouldn't try to switch to a definition of "evolution" that merely mentions "change over time"; or something like that, like "gradual change of things (over time)". In case someone feels like arguing that “unnatural evolution” is not a contradiction in terms by switching to such definitions instead.

...or a similar definition that leaves out the 2 main causal factors in evolutionary storylines to argue that one can have evolution (as used in the context of this thread or subforum) without it being caused by (the forces of) nature and chance, i.e. an unnatural (or for example an intelligent design) interpretation of evolution, to use your words (which I didn't really want to do cause they are confusing, not clear; but I did so anyway to show the relation to the term "unnatural evolution", which was a more blatant contradiction in terms).

The same counts for the term "an Intelligent Design interpretation of evolution".

The whole point behind the introduction of the word "evolution" in biology by Darwin was to argue that it was natural or caused by (the forces of) nature (and chance). As the word "natural" is used in that context, creation and design is not a natural process as evolution is claimed to be (the causal factors are not exclusively nature and chance, involving spontaneity). So if one is referring to the concept of "unnatural evolution" with the term "an Intelligent Design interpretation of evolution", then that's a contradiction in terms, cause if it's an 'unnatural' process like creation or design, it isn't evolution anymore (the word "evolution" doesn't apply anymore in a biological context as in the evolutionary storylines for the origin of species). Caveat: I'm not that fond of using the words "natural" and "unnatural" like I just did, because of the confusion surrounding the different ways these terms are used, allowing someone to argue that creation and design are actually natural processes; but they aren't anything like the proposed natural process of evolution as it is proposed concerning its causal factors as I tried to point out.
edit on 9-8-2019 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2019 @ 10:55 AM
link   
A scientist doesn’t know for absolute certainty that a proposed theory is correct in many cases. It is a best guess, taking supporting evidence into account. If a theory can be tested and the result is repeatedly consistent then it is generally considered fact or law, depending on the application. If a non-testable theory is bettered by another by consensus then it usually replaces the previous one.

In respect of the really big questions, like the origin/s of life, then only speculation can be used, but this speculation is in some way supported by the work of many thousands of scientists over time, who have produced cumulatively many millions of pieces of research and study.

A creationist, on the other hand, has one series of fables to base its entire body of reason and truth, while consistently demanding ever-stringent evidence from the scientist.

The creationist is without doubt the most ridiculous and hypocritical religious sect on this planet - and by the posts I’ve seen here they deserve all the mockery and ridicule thrown at them. You will remain a laughing stock until you spend your time proving your theory than trying to disprove other’s.



posted on Aug, 9 2019 @ 03:51 PM
link   
a reply to: TerraLiga

nope... flat earthers are far worse...

head over to the thread to be amazed




posted on Aug, 9 2019 @ 04:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Akragon

I thought they’d been put in the hoax bin? I also thought creationists were going to follow them. Oh well.

Triangulation kills flat-earthers, DNA kills creationists.



posted on Aug, 9 2019 @ 04:11 PM
link   
a reply to: TerraLiga

Well we had three at one point.... pretty sure two gave up, or figured out how ridiculous their ideas were



But one remains... and he still tries to argue his points

Its in the LOL bin but its still some funny stuff... even Creationists avoid that thread




posted on Aug, 9 2019 @ 04:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: Quadrivium
a reply to: neoholographic

Exactly!
They can not (or do not want to) see that all of the "evidence" they put forth is based on assumption and speculation.
It is like they don't see all the "could of, would of, should ofs, maybes and likelys that riddle all the evidence they provide.

Then they want to complain "you did not look at the evidence" or "you don't understand Evolution".
/end most annoying, whiny voice possible.


Good points!


No, not really. It’s a personal opinion, not fact.


Just ask a Darwinist to be specific and everything will fall apart for them.


I’m not terribly shocked by this considering the fact that there hasn’t been such a thing as a “Darwinist” for 70 years at least. “Darwinists” didn’t know about genetics, dating techniques, radioactive decay etc.... That only came about with the advent of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis in the 1940’s. It always amuses me when arrogant people like you think that they’re taking the piss out of the MES despite not grasping the most basic aspects of the science they loathe simply because they think it interferes with their faith.


When they link to any evidence, which they barely do, it's full of if's, and's, maybes and we don't know's.


Just because you post from a conflated position of confidence doesn’t make it correct. Your own willful ignorance will be your undoing.




top topics



 
28
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join