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: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 13 2006 @ 08:59 AM
link   
ops,
my first post was a bit smart-arsey, sorry

i wasnt shooting down evolution? i was trying to unify the two, but keeping with creation also




posted on Aug, 13 2006 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by 25cents

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.



lol, im getting ripped on now... btw i meant species of differant animal 'groups'
birds on birds goes without saying, i meant like chickens and rhinos..

god damn it



posted on Aug, 13 2006 @ 09:34 AM
link   
no, i wasn't ripping on you. i was just lauaghing at the way he worded that.

i use other boards for flaming.



posted on Aug, 13 2006 @ 10:42 AM
link   

You have voted fennek77 for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have one more vote left for this month.



Originally posted by 25cents

and fennek, if you're willing to provide actual proof rather than speculation, using the scientific method, then yes, i'll put aside the other factual information provided by testing methods and actual scientific observation.



Actually he is applying the scientific method - to the theory of evolution - and then pointing out where that theory falls short when the scientific method is applied. It's called a logical argument.

BUT - I have some physical proof I would like addressed that I have presented a couple of times on this board and never gotten an adequate answer to.

Scientists extracted the DNA of a honeybee trapped in amber 40 million years ago and then they compared it to the modern day honeybee. THEY WERE VIRTUALLY IDENTICAL.

By applying Darwin's survival of the fittest rules and the theory of evolution wouldn't this mean...

1. The honeybee is apparently the ultimate design, and
2. We're all evolving toward superior honey-bee-ish-ness?

Please help me understand. *bzzzzzz*



posted on Aug, 13 2006 @ 12:20 PM
link   
You know, I respect all religions. The problem though is that I don’t like it when they come down knocking on my door right when I get home from work and just sat down with a Jack in the Box burger in my mouth while I am watching The Drew Carey show! Then have the nerve to tell me that I am wrong and they of course are right.

I ask, what makes you so right?

“Because it is in the Bible!”

You know, I could create a book that says the comet Hale-Bopp is where all the answers lay and we all should kill ourselves and I am sure someone would follow me! Oh wait…hasn’t that happened before?

I don’t give a damn how old the Bible is. It was a book created by HUMANS! A HUMAN did it! God did not just come down here and threw a book at us and said “read this”.

And another thing. How about the other religions out there eh? What makes them so wrong? It is what those people believe isn’t it? It is what makes them think they have a purpose in life! So what makes them so wrong then huh? Just because they worship many gods instead of one, it makes them bad people?

What I think is that everyone should respect everyone’s thoughts and beliefs. Everyone has their own faith and should respect that. However, don’t come to me and say that since I believe in evolution that I am wrong.

Sure…go ahead and practically drown yourself in ice cold water or worship that cow! Just don’t come to me and tell me that I am wrong! Because right there…that tells me that you don’t have an open mind and if there is a God or gods, then he or she created us to make our own decisions and that is exactly what I am doing!

He decided God was a man any ways?



posted on Aug, 13 2006 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall

Scientists extracted the DNA of a honeybee trapped in amber 40 million years ago and then they compared it to the modern day honeybee. THEY WERE VIRTUALLY IDENTICAL.

By applying Darwin's survival of the fittest rules and the theory of evolution wouldn't this mean...

1. The honeybee is apparently the ultimate design, and
2. We're all evolving toward superior honey-bee-ish-ness?

Please help me understand. *bzzzzzz*


No, it means the Honey Bee is the perfect Honey Bee. Do humans eat nectar? No? Then why ould we need things that Honey Bees need? Sharks haven't evolved much, except for size and amount of teeth, but does that mean we are becoming sharks? No, for sharks are the perfect sharks. If something were to changed, like all fish shrank to the size of a dollar bill I bet we would see sharks shrink and have smaller teeth, but right now the sharks are perfect for the enviroment they live in.

Same with Alligators. They have only changed in size, and not by much, for the past 100+million years. WHy? Does that mean we are becoming alligators? No, it means alligators are the perfect alligators. Until something changes that makes them bad alligators they will remain the same.

Humans haven't evolved much except for size in the past 35,000 years.(5'8 use to be a giant) does that mean all other animals are becoming humans? No, it means right now we are the perfect humans.



posted on Aug, 13 2006 @ 12:35 PM
link   
Thank you Valhal

Much appricated



posted on Aug, 13 2006 @ 12:47 PM
link   
Chapio:
Nice comments, good to see someone who respects all religions. I also respect the religions of the world, they each have their own way of worship, prayer, beliefs, traditions and morals, i respect that.
The dreaded muslim, bah. Real muslims arent terrorists and sadists.. if you do your research you will notice Islam is just as positive as Christianity.. possibly more organised i believe. If i wasnt forced to be christian as a child, i would make my choice with Islam because it needs help to banish this stereotypical idea we have.

Personally, ive never read the bible (except when forced in religious eduction propaganda). Christianity, Catholics and Mormons need to unify into 1 church for Jesus Christ for starters.

God can decide anything he wants, who are we question his word?



posted on Aug, 13 2006 @ 12:50 PM
link   
lol honeybees?
Thats true though, animals, insects, sea creatures who are top of the food chain in their environment and animal family shouldnt need to evolve.
But take the Kangaroos in Australia for instance, we shoot them faster than they can breed, i dont see them evolving into T-rex's? hoping around etc.



posted on Aug, 13 2006 @ 12:52 PM
link   
::While I would write a intelligent, and thought provoking dicussion on this topic, after reading three pages of it, I found myself bleeding from the eyes, and slamming my head against the pointy spot on my desk corner. I think I'm okay, but, I taste blue now....is that normal?::



posted on Aug, 13 2006 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by WolfofWar
::While I would write a intelligent, and thought provoking dicussion on this topic, after reading three pages of it, I found myself bleeding from the eyes, and slamming my head against the pointy spot on my desk corner. I think I'm okay, but, I taste blue now....is that normal?::


Whats wrong with my discussion?

Im sorry, i didnt attend harvard or Yardale or sum other top notch university? I cant shock you with words like "equillibrium" or "omnipitence" or "hypotenuse"



posted on Aug, 13 2006 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by fennek77
Whats wrong with my discussion?

Im sorry, i didnt attend harvard or Yardale or sum other top notch university? I cant shock you with words like "equillibrium" or "omnipitence" or "hypotenuse"


I really was hoping for the shock factor of those words, and you let me down fennek, for shame. For Shame.


My only problem with this thread currently was the backwards logic used throughout its entirity, from your first post and onward.

It hurts my brain.

And reminds me why I lost hope in humanity.



posted on Aug, 13 2006 @ 01:28 PM
link   
25cents,

Is not a completely open mind necessary to extrapolate the theories in evolution?


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.


That is not very open minded. The FACT is, all of this is theory. You can postulate evolution based on genetic, even micro-molecular research all that you want to. The FACT is, it is not provable at this point in our development.

Fenneck,

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?

Time is a concept created and observed by man. Does a Dragonflies life appear to the Dragonfly to be less than our own? Do minutes and seconds pass if they are not observed, and if so at what rate? Perception my friend, time is only perception.


ve been trying to say that evolution and creation MUST sit side by side, they must
Neither can exist without the other

Again, a conclusion based on supposition and not currently provable.


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.

Certain



posted on Aug, 13 2006 @ 02:03 PM
link   


My only problem with this thread currently was the backwards logic used throughout its entirity, from your first post and onward.

It hurts my brain.

And reminds me why I lost hope in humanity.


How else can a pro-creationist debate with a radical evolutionist?
Argueing for Religion and God is harder than being a slack jawed lazy evol.ist

I acctually have to use logic, think outside the common-knowledge, take a stab guess here and there. Its not the easiest thing and i only have the bible as hard evidence - which is a tough script to support without crying.



posted on Aug, 13 2006 @ 02:11 PM
link   

How else can a pro-creationist debate with a radical evolutionist?
Argueing for Religion and God is harder than being a slack jawed lazy evol.ist


A more accurate question is...

How can you debate with a preconceived prejudice about the opposing viewpoint?

Semper



posted on Aug, 13 2006 @ 02:18 PM
link   
Semper,
Nice response

In regards to evolution and creation sitting together..
Your right, but creation without evolution would be visible in disease, each person would be identical, same skin color and various other static traits would be identifiable.
Evolution without creation, would surely be a messy process, human would not have such unique features that define us today, given so many million years, man would change drastically depending on location to such an extend that obvious differances would highlight evolutions influence.

Although still just theories



posted on Aug, 13 2006 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis

How else can a pro-creationist debate with a radical evolutionist?
Argueing for Religion and God is harder than being a slack jawed lazy evol.ist


A more accurate question is...

How can you debate with a preconceived prejudice about the opposing viewpoint?

Semper


Just what i was about to say



posted on Aug, 13 2006 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by fennek77

How else can a pro-creationist debate with a radical evolutionist?
Argueing for Religion and God is harder than being a slack jawed lazy evol.ist

I acctually have to use logic, think outside the common-knowledge, take a stab guess here and there. Its not the easiest thing and i only have the bible as hard evidence - which is a tough script to support without crying.


My only problem with that is the bible is a religious doctrine. It can't be used as evidence.

And if we do, then lets use ALL of the religious doctrines, not just limited to christian paradigms. After all, its not the only religion, and its not necessarily the right one.



posted on Aug, 13 2006 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by fennek77
To start off, i believe children are being brain-washed in our schools with evolutionary graphs and a so called 'scientific explaination'. And apparently science = . fullstop answers ?

I think that when science is presented, its presented as a method that comes to rational conclusions, not one that absolutely determines "The Truth".

a couple o' million years and 'evolving' into human form for what ever reason

That 'reason' is the entire idea. Species adapt to their environment via natural selection. They weren't trying to force fit apes and humans together.


Its like grabbing an orange and comparing it to a pear, "pears evolved from oranges" due to similar shape... end of discussion (no!)

Its not presented as being as simple as that. What is your alternative explanation for the detailed similarities between man and ape, and also the series of ape and man-ape fossils found in the particular pattern that they are within the fossil record?

interest in debunking God

Is that what you think the motivation of people who study evolution is? That they decide someone needs to debunk god, and that the best way to do that is to study biology??

by exploiting the wonders of the world.

Why do you consider the investigation of nature an exploitation?

The idea of God is refered to as 'blind faith'

What suggests that religion and beleif in god isn't faith based?? What else can an understanding of the superr-natural be based on other than faith??

The idea of God, a creator is much more reasonable compared to evolution.

There is no reason in supposing that a super-man created everything by sculpting them out of clay, or by magical fiat.

To even think the answer is 'bang, spinning, sun-planets, chemicals, bacteria, growth, change, man'

That is not presented or understood in science to be an 'answer', it is simply a theoretical explanation of the evidence as we have it. It doesn't answer why there is a universe, merely suggests the physical process of how it came into being. We don't need to say 'god makes my car move' when we can lift the hood and study the engine.

Conclusion: God may be real

You just stated that god was the more reasonable explanation, but now you are unable to say if he even exists or not?



posted on Aug, 13 2006 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Conclusion: God may be real

You just stated that god was the more reasonable explanation, but now you are unable to say if he even exists or not?

God may be real was a suggestion towards the evolutionists... Im a firm believer thanks, no need to question me

And yeh someone has already picked through the first post and countered the vulnerable comments.. too late



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join