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.

 

Evolution - Creation 'rabble rabble rabble'

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 13 2006 @ 07:55 AM
link   
nobody cares about basic chemistry and biology? how about the entire thinking world!!!

you are discrediting yourself so hard right now...

and i didn't say you were a nihilist, i stated that if you continue to look for origins to answer your questions, you'll see that there are an infinite number of places to look. infinity and 0 overlap, and you'll end up thinking the impossible is possible.

trust me, it's a very enlightening road to traverse from time to time.




posted on Aug, 13 2006 @ 07:55 AM
link   
I think he was just answering my question "what is Nihilism"



posted on Aug, 13 2006 @ 07:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by LancerJ1
I think he was just answering my question "what is Nihilism"


correctamundo. and after that, i was referring to one of fenneks posts.



posted on Aug, 13 2006 @ 08:02 AM
link   
As i said before, cannot God and evolution to a degree exist? Maybe God tinkers with his creation from time to time.

[edit on 13-8-2006 by LancerJ1]



posted on Aug, 13 2006 @ 08:04 AM
link   
absolutely, they two theories CAN coexist. the problem is that the most vocal people in religion often oppose evolution, claiming that they cannot coexist, and that the bible is a book of actual events.

oh, but the idea that god created the universe in 7 days and the like...absurd. i'm fully willing to admit that a god might exist, but that whole genesis thing, no way.

[edit on 13-8-2006 by 25cents]



posted on Aug, 13 2006 @ 08:10 AM
link   
I didnt mean it like that, i mean regardless of its complete word for word truth, the message still remains and if it were changed so badly, then im sure we would know about it. The bible could not have changed so drastically that it is irrelevant.

Im asking you to provide answers for something you cant answer.

If you want to validate which is correct:

Evolution: Partly correct in accordance with creation
Creation: Must be correct for life and universe to exist

On the subject of the big bang, you mentioned time did not exist before the big bang. This is a poor theory. And given the fact that time itself is the only WHOLE constant throughout the universe, i argue time did exist before the bang. We just wouldnt be able to measure it as there was nothing physical aroung to calculate time.
So the idea that time didnt exist before the bang is rediculous and if u want to argue, explain what exactly in the universe keeps time moving?



posted on Aug, 13 2006 @ 08:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by 25cents
nobody cares about basic chemistry and biology? how about the entire thinking world!!!

you are discrediting yourself so hard right now...

and i didn't say you were a nihilist, i stated that if you continue to look for origins to answer your questions, you'll see that there are an infinite number of places to look. infinity and 0 overlap, and you'll end up thinking the impossible is possible.

trust me, it's a very enlightening road to traverse from time to time.


argh, i meant in regards to this debate.. im not interested in the basics of chemistry. thnx
Its not absurd to question things beyond common discussion, its a reasonable thing to ask.

your a pain in the arse lol



posted on Aug, 13 2006 @ 08:15 AM
link   
time and space are interlinked, they are the fabric of our universe. matter and energy are also contants much like time, so i don't see how you're getting your conclusion.

and creation is not necessary for the universe to exist. read up on m-theory, it'll explain a lot. you're providing zero basis for your arguments, so unless you're ready to do so, i am tired of debating the issue with someone who refuses to debate the subject intelligently.



posted on Aug, 13 2006 @ 08:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by 25cents
absolutely, they two theories CAN coexist. the problem is that the most vocal people in religion often oppose evolution, claiming that they cannot coexist, and that the bible is a book of actual events.

oh, but the idea that god created the universe in 7 days and the like...absurd. i'm fully willing to admit that a god might exist, but that whole genesis thing, no way.

[edit on 13-8-2006 by 25cents]


I never said i believe in that 7 day bs
i just used the bible as reference.
Ive been trying to say that evolution and creation MUST sit side by side, they must
Neither can exist without the other



posted on Aug, 13 2006 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by 25cents
time and space are interlinked, they are the fabric of our universe. matter and energy are also contants much like time, so i don't see how you're getting your conclusion.

and creation is not necessary for the universe to exist. read up on m-theory, it'll explain a lot. you're providing zero basis for your arguments, so unless you're ready to do so, i am tired of debating the issue with someone who refuses to debate the subject intelligently.


hmm
first sentance pretty much owned me, my bad
i agree with you on that

but still
doesnt rule out creation.. im going to read this m-theory stuff now



posted on Aug, 13 2006 @ 08:20 AM
link   
I think this coexistence is kinda cool. But i dont believe in the full evolution theory where humans have evolved from apes.



posted on Aug, 13 2006 @ 08:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by fennek77
argh, i meant in regards to this debate.. im not interested in the basics of chemistry. thnx
Its not absurd to question things beyond common discussion, its a reasonable thing to ask.

your a pain in the arse lol


but the basics are entirely relevant in this discussion.



posted on Aug, 13 2006 @ 08:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by LancerJ1
I think this coexistence is kinda cool. But i dont believe in the full evolution theory where humans have evolved from apes.


hahah, we did not evolve from apes, nobody ever said we did. we evolved from a common ancestor, that much is certain. do some more research.



posted on Aug, 13 2006 @ 08:26 AM
link   
Do we know who this common ancestor is?



posted on Aug, 13 2006 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by 25cents

Originally posted by fennek77
argh, i meant in regards to this debate.. im not interested in the basics of chemistry. thnx
Its not absurd to question things beyond common discussion, its a reasonable thing to ask.

your a pain in the arse lol


but the basics are entirely relevant in this discussion.


Ok so M-theory is pretty good, but the supposed extra dimensions raises further questions.
Its still just a theory remember, not more valid than creation and i welcome it to proove creationism wrong.
If in fact m-theory is true, how do you see it prooving creation false?



posted on Aug, 13 2006 @ 08:39 AM
link   
um, did you really read about it? read deeper. study.

and as for the common ancestor, that's why i told you to study evolution further.

i'm not an encyclopedia, just a logical thinker.



posted on Aug, 13 2006 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by 25cents
um, did you really read about it? read deeper. study.

and as for the common ancestor, that's why i told you to study evolution further.

i'm not an encyclopedia, just a logical thinker.


I have read quite a bit on string, superstring etc. its very cool stuff..

look, can we just agree that both creation and evolution are side by side? i cant argue any more



posted on Aug, 13 2006 @ 08:52 AM
link   
absolutely not. the two have nothing to do with one another.



posted on Aug, 13 2006 @ 08:54 AM
link   
fennek77 - perhaps you should have actually listened at school, then you might have actually understood the theory you are trying to shoot down. As it is you have constructed a strawman - an absolute garbage version of the Theory of Evolution which is not supported by anyone and clearly wrong.



*50 million years - bacteria grew into fish, fish started walking on land, for some reason they were forced by evolution to walk on fins and breath with their head in a bucket untill a few more million years saw fit to allow them lungs.

This isn't true. Nobody claims that fish evolved from bacteria 50 million years ago - where did you get this from??



*25 million years - the fish flapping on land grew into dinosaurs via millions of years and a representation of how a fish might transform into a dinosaur.

Again - which scientists claim this? None that I know.



a million years ago - MAN is spawned from similar appearance monkey, ape, chimp. Magically more fish roam from the sea to evolve becuase evolution wanted land creatures ready for the next sacrafice to the lord flying rock.

I really don't know what you are on about here. Could you explain yourself?



*The evolution equation of (1 day + environment + animal = slow change) really answers how earth is home to millions of species.

Where did you get that equation from?



Youd think after a million-gazillion years they would have evolved via meshing 2 species together to form emu-crocodiles and other exciting inbred spawn.

Evolutionary theory does not support the "meshing" together of different species.

Your attack on evolution is like me attacking then General Theory of Relativity by saying "no way was Einstein right about that - goblins don't even exist!"



posted on Aug, 13 2006 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke
Evolutionary theory does not support the "meshing" together of different species.

Your attack on evolution is like me attacking then General Theory of Relativity by saying "no way was Einstein right about that - goblins don't even exist!"


OH SNAP!!!

that had to be the funniest damn thing i've read all day. thank you, FLD.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join