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.

 

It just doesn't happen

page: 29
23
<< 26  27  28    30  31 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 9 2020 @ 02:53 PM
link   
a reply to: carsforkids
The role of science is significant in our daily life. The various gifts of science has made our life more comfortable. The wonderful inventions of science such as electricity, fans, air-conditioners, television, mobile phones, motor-vehicles, etc. has eased our life, and now it has become almost impossible to live without using them.
It is Man’s behavior of inquiringly, alertness and keen observation of changes in natural happenings has given birth to science and scientific study. Science is a great blessing for mankind. Its utilities in everyday life are unlimited and to discredit science to prove beliefs and superstitions are evidence of people desire to bury their heads in the sand and deny truth.
I also find it ironic and downright hypocritical when people try to debunk science by using social media and the internet as tools to against science and technology.




posted on Sep, 9 2020 @ 02:58 PM
link   
I find that the argument “the universe is so intricate/perfect/complicated that it MUST have a creator” rather illogical. First of all, if you say that the universe is too complex to exist without a creator, then it is not illogical to say the God himself must have a creator and so on. Of course the argument here is that God is everything that is anything, therefore no creator of God, but then why couldn’t the universe be that way?

Second, the universe is really not perfect, not even close. Outside of Earth and a few (if any) choice planets, you will literally find empty space, filled with random lifeless rocks, gas balls (which of course we better know as stars), black holes, and… more empty space. So have we actually found any life forms on another planet (apart from some bacteria, which in Christianity is inconsequential anyway)? If a star explodes a billion light years away, does it affect humans, the centre (almost, of course God is always at the centre) of the Christian religion, in any way? Of course, the rest of the universe could just be part of the often mentioned “God’s plan”. Obviously God wanted said star to explode because… well, just BECAUSE. (stop asking
) And that is where you get to a dead end. Maybe God wanted to make another planet with life in it.

And what if we did find life on another planet? Maybe Earth isn’t so special after all, huh? Maybe humans aren’t so special after all. I’m actually curious as to what Christians would do when that happened.



posted on Sep, 9 2020 @ 04:39 PM
link   
a reply to: toktaylor




Second, the universe is really not perfect,


Well your scientific academics should've prescribed anything but
mindlessness if they wanted to negate God from his Creation. Because
as far it goes to serving it's only purpose the universe is perfect. And even
your argument that it isn't sucks. Notice how you begin a process of
elimination once you negate a supreme being? Next you deny the
perfection of the whole universe and I've seen the domino effect
that ensues before.

I even had a member here tell me once and I quote for the second time
in this thread. "Okay then love doesn't exist' the exact words of an atheist.
Don't even talk logic to me in the context of your mindless proposal.

There is no logic in mindless ramblings period. And once again what good
is science that pampers our asses right up to the point it destroys the
whole Earth. And our children are just out of luck. Let's see do I want to
be comfortable if destroys the one and only place we've been given to
live? Whatta you think? Some trade off. You scientists are loose cannons
and if anyone should be pack'n it might be safer if it's you. I like this place
just fine. And I can make myself comfortable.




I admit I get a bit carried away at times.

edit on 9-9-2020 by carsforkids because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2020 @ 05:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: toktaylor
a reply to: carsforkids
The role of science is significant in our daily life.... to discredit science to prove beliefs and superstitions are evidence of people desire to bury their heads in the sand and deny truth.


No one is denying science. Technological advancement is undeniable, although it most definitely is a double edged sword (look at the effects on the environment - but that's besides the point I want to make). What we are refuting is the evidence for evolutionary theory. As the title to the thread says, it just doesn't happen. We have never observed it. The more we learn about biological intricacies, the less likely random chance could have made any of it. The genetic code needed something intelligent to code it.


I find that the argument “the universe is so intricate/perfect/complicated that it MUST have a creator” rather illogical.



biological life must have a Logical origin. The ancients have called God "Logos" for this very Reason. It is illogical to think that logical creatures could come from an illogical source.


God himself must have a creator


This has been answered many times by theologians and philosophers throughout history. God is unbegotten (meaning God was not created), this is because God always existed and therefor never needed to be created. We as temporal minded creatures struggle to ascertain what eternity actually is... but God, the Alpha-Omega, is exactly that - eternal and unbegotten.


Second, the universe is really not perfect, not even close. Outside of Earth and a few (if any) choice planets, you will literally find empty space, filled with random lifeless rocks, gas balls (which of course we better know as stars), black holes, and… more empty space. So have we actually found any life forms on another planet (apart from some bacteria, which in Christianity is inconsequential anyway)? If a star explodes a billion light years away, does it affect humans, the centre (almost, of course God is always at the centre) of the Christian religion, in any way? Of course, the rest of the universe could just be part of the often mentioned “God’s plan”. Obviously God wanted said star to explode because… well, just BECAUSE. (stop asking
) And that is where you get to a dead end. Maybe God wanted to make another planet with life in it.


Stay grounded.... You are making so many assumptions here. Earth is in a perfect orbit that allows life to flourish as was intended by the Designer. It is dangerous to think too far beyond that because it involves much speculation.



posted on Sep, 9 2020 @ 06:09 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton




biological life must have a Logical origin.


No one knows the origin of life - not you, not me, not anyone. No one has ever witnessed the creature from the Blue Lagoon create life.

But life does have a logical course of action. It's called evolution.

Over 500 peer-reviewed journals and 200,000 research articles have investigated biological evolution. The results have been clear: evolution is the mechanism of life on this planet.

All attempts by your cult have failed. There isn't a single Judeo-Christian religion that endorses your positions. Your cult is out on a limb ready to crash and burn. Ask Ken Ham when was the last time he paid taxes.




It is dangerous to think too far beyond that because it involves much speculation.


Yes, I agree. It's too dangerous for YOU and your CULT to think, period. Otherwise, you would have to confront the truth and cults never do that until it's too late, usually for their members.





edit on 9-9-2020 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-9-2020 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2020 @ 06:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

I don't understand why something would evolve that would need to breath different air, drink a different liquid, and eat different foods than the things that were available within the environment in which they were evolving.



I don't understand how you suppose random chance could create a digestive system that is able to regulate water levels in the body and transport water accordingly across very precise water pump proteins. I also don't understand how you think random chance could generate the ability to digest food into useful resources for the body and allocate it efficiently through a vascular highway system throughout the body. I also don't understand how you think random chance could have made kidneys and a liver to allow toxic chemicals that are in foods to be removed through a very meticulous detoxification process.

You're acting like evolution is a miracle worker or something



I mean, there is life on earth in other environments that (for example) lack oxygen but thrive because they evolved in an environment lacking free oxygen


How? How could this ever happen? You have replaced the notion of "God did it", with 'evolution did it'. You have no idea how, you just suppose due to faith in evolution that it must have done it. Somehow.



-- and they evolved into organisms that COULD thrive there.


If there were organisms that require oxygen and they were living in an environment with no oxygen they would all die. They would have no time to magically evolve, because they would all be dead. You see how all these evolutionary hypotheticals are impossible?

Our world is designed.



Humans and other land animals thrive in the environment in which they live because they evolved to thrive there.



Organisms thrive in the environment for which their genetic code was designed.


Ever seen any theories that are supposition-free ?

What if the concept of intelligent design : is merely another supposition, of our limited intellects ?

Or can we suppose our way around that one ?

Suppose we could still share a anyways !



posted on Sep, 9 2020 @ 06:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

Sorry drama queen but two hundred million papers from people
parroting the lies they've paid good money to believe mean nothing
to the truth that is cause for the lies you believe. Your evolution uses have
truths and tries to claim what God has done for it's own. That's the definition
of a cult. And you can call it Scientism.

You can't possibly even try to say evolution is logical. That's just lame.
In the end your scientism requires far more faith. You have to believe
something far more fantastic than a Creator with supreme intelligence.
When you can show us intelligence can come from mud you might have
something. You don't even have a good argument. I'm say'n seriously
look at the beauty of this place. There is good intention in all that
we are privileged to lay eyes upon.


edit on 9-9-2020 by carsforkids because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2020 @ 08:45 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton



This has been answered many times by theologians and philosophers throughout history. God is unbegotten (meaning God was not created), this is because God always existed and therefor never needed to be created. We as temporal minded creatures struggle to ascertain what eternity actually is... but God, the Alpha-Omega, is exactly that - eternal and unbegotten


That's not an answer, that's changing the rules of the riddle so you can finish it. Inventing a superpower that defeats the challenge of the puzzle. And when I say inventing, I mean fabricating a property that has never been documented in all of history. You have to assume this ability or quality of transcending spacetime because you can't provide any observable examples. But you want everyone in this forum to believe that Dr Who is more acceptable than evolution without any real facts illustrating a direct causality between a space wizard and the beginning of life on earth. Sorry buddy but you just aren't selling it.



posted on Sep, 9 2020 @ 09:23 PM
link   
a reply to: toktaylor




I find that the argument “the universe is so intricate/perfect/complicated that it MUST have a creator” rather illogical. First of all, if you say that the universe is too complex to exist without a creator, then it is not illogical to say the God himself must have a creator and so on. Of course the argument here is that God is everything that is anything, therefore no creator of God, but then why couldn’t the universe be that way?


No you have that backwards. What you are suggesting is an infinite number
of retro generations and that is 100% impossible. This is a fact that you
can not deny and call it science. So the logic dictates there must be a
causeless cause for the beginning that even science declares did occur.

Well guess what we find in the Bible? God way ahead of any kind of
science. Ahead of Plato, Socrates, Newton, Einstein, declaring himself
to be the one missing part of the equation from your perspective.

"I am the Alpha and the Omega, The beginning and the end" also
"I am that I am " What you want for some odd reason to be true is what
is illogical. Further more you think I should believe that some goat herder
made up this God? But was smart enough to be ahead of science 2500 to 3500
yrs in the future when doing so? Excuse me if I think you're preposterous.

Tell me why it's so important for you that God does not exist?
Simple question can you even give it an honest answer for the
whole world to see? I'm asking because it baffles the hell out of
me.



posted on Sep, 10 2020 @ 07:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Nothin

Ever seen any theories that are supposition-free ?

What if the concept of intelligent design : is merely another supposition, of our limited intellects ?

Or can we suppose our way around that one ?

Suppose we could still share a anyways !


We could definitely share a merry time around the conversation ! The biggest clue I would present regarding the necessity of a logic source for creation is that we ourselves are logical creatures.. You need logic to create logical structures. All mathematical laws act according to logical algorithms, so there must be a logical source which implemented them.


originally posted by: Phantom423

But life does have a logical course of action. It's called evolution.


Here you are conceding that a logical source is necessary for life, that is a good start...




originally posted by: TzarChasm

That's not an answer, that's changing the rules of the riddle so you can finish it. Inventing a superpower that defeats the challenge of the puzzle. And when I say inventing, I mean fabricating a property that has never been documented in all of history. You have to assume this ability or quality of transcending spacetime because you can't provide any observable examples. But you want everyone in this forum to believe that Dr Who is more acceptable than evolution without any real facts illustrating a direct causality between a space wizard and the beginning of life on earth. Sorry buddy but you just aren't selling it.


You're the least objective person on this forum. I will never expect you to come to terms with philosophical truths that disrupt your mutant ape theory. I am speaking mostly to the people without bias. God is unbegotten... you can believe it or not, but don't say it's not an answer.
edit on 10-9-2020 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2020 @ 12:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Nothin

Ever seen any theories that are supposition-free ?

What if the concept of intelligent design : is merely another supposition, of our limited intellects ?

Or can we suppose our way around that one ?

Suppose we could still share a anyways !


We could definitely share a merry time around the conversation ! The biggest clue I would present regarding the necessity of a logic source for creation is that we ourselves are logical creatures.. You need logic to create logical structures. All mathematical laws act according to logical algorithms, so there must be a logical source which implemented them.


originally posted by: Phantom423

But life does have a logical course of action. It's called evolution.


Here you are conceding that a logical source is necessary for life, that is a good start...




originally posted by: TzarChasm

That's not an answer, that's changing the rules of the riddle so you can finish it. Inventing a superpower that defeats the challenge of the puzzle. And when I say inventing, I mean fabricating a property that has never been documented in all of history. You have to assume this ability or quality of transcending spacetime because you can't provide any observable examples. But you want everyone in this forum to believe that Dr Who is more acceptable than evolution without any real facts illustrating a direct causality between a space wizard and the beginning of life on earth. Sorry buddy but you just aren't selling it.


You're the least objective person on this forum. I will never expect you to come to terms with philosophical truths that disrupt your mutant ape theory. I am speaking mostly to the people without bias. God is unbegotten... you can believe it or not, but don't say it's not an answer.


I'm fairly certain I am an objective party, partly because I can rationally conclude that God is the least logical fairy tale ever written based on the available facts and documented subatomic and astrophysical phenomena, not to mention archaeology & psychology which both cover the evolution of the human mind and how theology was invented along with its menagerie of mythical beasts.



posted on Sep, 10 2020 @ 01:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Peeple

That was all Satan!

High Stakes Intelligent Design



posted on Sep, 10 2020 @ 02:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm

I'm fairly certain I am an objective party, partly because I can rationally conclude that God is the least logical fairy tale ever written based on the available facts and documented subatomic and astrophysical phenomena, not to mention archaeology & psychology which both cover the evolution of the human mind and how theology was invented along with its menagerie of mythical beasts.


All matter exists according to very predictable laws that follow a consistent logical pattern to allow it to maintain a consistent form.

You can believe this is due to illogical implementation, but that would be very illogical. Every part of our known world is precise and logical to maintain an interactive material interface. The fact that you are capable of logical discourse proves the presence of logic in the world



posted on Sep, 10 2020 @ 02:29 PM
link   
a reply to: carsforkids
If this world was designed for us, why would the designer give us bodies that require fresh drinking water… and then cover 70% of the Earth with poisonous water? Does He not desire for his creations to survive? The topic of fresh water is quite relevant for at least millions of people on this earth.
There are also many things that appear poorly designed apart from oceans filled with saltwater, or aquatic mammals and reptiles that can’t breathe underwater) because nature has no foresight and can’t see the big picture. I can name a few:
1) Sun exposure that results in skin cancer
2) Places on earth too cold for human life
3) meteors and asteroids hurtling around and at the earth
4) why does male human have nipples?
5) Lower Leg bones on Whales...what are those for?
6) Is the platypus an example of God’s creativity in mixing genes, or a surviving transitional form that proves birds and mammals once shared a common ancestor?
7) Why does humans shared 95 to 98.5% of their DNA with chimps.

The evidence for evolution is ample but subtle, and most of those who presume Creationism or Intelligent Design (as I once did) will never see this evidence because they either lack the incentive to investigate, or they are unable to put their preconceptions aside.

You say you’ve rejected evolution “on the basis of some pretty good, common sense and ‘scientific’ reasons.” That’s great! Let’s work on getting this scientific evidence published, so we can prove to the scientific community why they’re all wrong, and why your “pretty good” hypothesis should supplant 150 years of evidence favoring evolution.



posted on Sep, 10 2020 @ 04:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: toktaylor
a reply to: carsforkids
If this world was designed for us, why would the designer give us bodies that require fresh drinking water… and then cover 70% of the Earth with poisonous water? Does He not desire for his creations to survive? The topic of fresh water is quite relevant for at least millions of people on this earth.


You'll see that from a design perspective everything begins to make sense, but you have to view the natural world as it was intended.

1) raw foods are about 2/3 water, the same ratio that our bodies are water. Given the original model, we would be eating food that has much more water.

2) streams before they were polluted were a great source of fresh water with abundant minerals.. a healthy stomach is more than capable of destroying any potential biological contamination in healthy stream water



There are also many things that appear poorly designed apart from oceans filled with saltwater, or aquatic mammals and reptiles that can’t breathe underwater


This is silly.. saltwater organisms live in saltwater environments, while fresh water organisms live in fresh water environments



1) Sun exposure that results in skin cancer


Skin cancer rates increased exponentially with the invention of sunscreen. Sunscreen only blocks uv rays so other higher energy radiation is able to bombard skin before humans feel the burn because the sunblock is preventing them from realizing they've been in the sun too long. Just like your body tells you when you have eaten sufficient food, so too does our skin tell us when we've had enough sun, so long as we aren't blocking this indication mechanism via sunscreen



2) Places on earth too cold for human life


Eskimos thrive.



3) meteors and asteroids hurtling around and at the earth


Have you ever seen a meteor hit the earth? It is extremely rare. Sodom and Gomorrah may be one historical example and it was a geological feedback mechanism to an extremely deviant cultural psychology




5) Lower Leg bones on Whales...what are those for?


Helps with torque for swimming



6) Is the platypus an example of God’s creativity in mixing genes, or a surviving transitional form that proves birds and mammals once shared a common ancestor?


Huh? Platypuses are ideally suited for their environment.



7) Why does humans shared 95 to 98.5% of their DNA with chimps.


That high percentile number is only comparing homologous genes between the two organisms. The actual piece-to-piece match is more in the 80th percentile. Plus, similar organisms would be expected to have similar coding. Just like a MacBook air has more similarity to a MacBook pro than it does a garage door opener



The evidence for evolution is ample but subtle


There are no examples of an organism evolving. All organisms can adapt but they cannot go outside of their pre-determined bounds that maintains their essential nature




You say you’ve rejected evolution “on the basis of some pretty good, common sense and ‘scientific’ reasons.”


Yes, biological organisms come from a logical source, not an illogical source
edit on 10-9-2020 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2020 @ 04:19 PM
link   
a reply to: toktaylor




If this world was designed for us, why would the designer give us bodies that require fresh drinking water… and then cover 70% of the Earth with poisonous water? Does He not desire for his creations to survive? The topic of fresh water is quite relevant for at least millions of people on this earth.


My guess would be you're pretty much a youngster and you don't have to
say either way. That's just a guess by your sense of reasoning such as the
above. Indeed a whole plethora of such questions are readily available to
be asked by anyone. All quite similar and lacking any appreciation for
the brain that brings you bottled water. You simply aren't wired to see
where it is as well as how it is God fits perfectly. In what we have so
perfectly. It's so perfect that your arguments not only bare no fruit.
They're like a tomato hitting a semi at 90 mph. No effect.




You say you’ve rejected evolution “on the basis of some pretty good, common sense and ‘scientific’ reasons.” That’s great! Let’s work on getting this scientific evidence published, so we can prove to the scientific community why they’re all wrong, and why your “pretty good” hypothesis should supplant 150 years of evidence favoring evolution.

Why would I do that? My only interest is in you. Because what you think about
this conversation. Between you and I and Coop or anyone else. Is not even close
to what I think about this conversation. My only concern is with what God puts
in front of me. And at this moment that's you. Believe me when I tell you he
keeps me busy enough I don't need all that. lol Maybe someone else but not me.
I can barely handle you! lmao. I would humbly resign.

I would highly recommend Coop
edit on 10-9-2020 by carsforkids because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2020 @ 04:57 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton




There are no examples of an organism evolving. All organisms can adapt but they cannot go outside of their pre-determined bounds that maintains their essential nature


Cite an article that confirms your statement. You're sitting on your brain, which makes for uncomfortable conversation.

Not a single statement you make can be backed up with valid scientific evidence. Everything is conjecture with no experimentation.

That's why your cult is banned from publishing in scientific journals. You lie, cheat, steal, misrepresent and flame your way through the facts.

You've sold no one.

When are you going to write those letters? Let's see if you can sell a real scientist a bill of goods loaded with your crap.




edit on 10-9-2020 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2020 @ 05:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Nothin

Ever seen any theories that are supposition-free ?

What if the concept of intelligent design : is merely another supposition, of our limited intellects ?

Or can we suppose our way around that one ?

Suppose we could still share a anyways !


We could definitely share a merry time around the conversation ! The biggest clue I would present regarding the necessity of a logic source for creation is that we ourselves are logical creatures.. You need logic to create logical structures. All mathematical laws act according to logical algorithms, so there must be a logical source which implemented them.


Supposin' we could have been created by an emotional/creative source, whom gave us a touch of logic, for functional purposes ?

Whom or what vibes and resonates with nature : a devotee of logic, or a creative artist ? Both ?

You know : real, unadulterated and unnamed nature, underneath all of our cockamamie ideas and concepts ?



posted on Sep, 10 2020 @ 06:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TzarChasm

I'm fairly certain I am an objective party, partly because I can rationally conclude that God is the least logical fairy tale ever written based on the available facts and documented subatomic and astrophysical phenomena, not to mention archaeology & psychology which both cover the evolution of the human mind and how theology was invented along with its menagerie of mythical beasts.


All matter exists according to very predictable laws that follow a consistent logical pattern to allow it to maintain a consistent form.

You can believe this is due to illogical implementation, but that would be very illogical. Every part of our known world is precise and logical to maintain an interactive material interface. The fact that you are capable of logical discourse proves the presence of logic in the world


Yes, the current surviving structures that made the arduous journey through 4 billion years of non stop hunger games. And humans are remarkably resilient for being such counter intuitive weapons of mass destruction.



posted on Sep, 10 2020 @ 07:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423

Cite an article that confirms your statement.


Me citing a scientific journal that says evolution is not real would be like citing a verse in the Bible that says that God isn't real. Your scientism religion does not allow dissenting opinions.. yet there is still plenty of evidence in the scientific literature that involves observable evidence that demonstrates evolution is not possible. First off, there is no example in the literature of an organism evolving into a novel organism, so that is ample proof that evolution does not occur, despite countless generations of artificial selection of lab organisms trying to emulate evolution. You don't realize how indoctrinated you are. You are left to zealous faith for your belief that life could have come to be without an intelligent source. Even you yourself said :


originally posted by: Phantom423

But life does have a logical course of action.





Not a single statement you make can be backed up with valid scientific evidence. Everything is conjecture with no experimentation.


Every law of physics is precise, consistent, and upholds the biological world. Science itself is a logical form of study that implies that logic must exist since it requires logic to even discuss it.



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 26  27  28    30  31 >>

log in

join