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.

 

creationists/IDists, admit your defeat

page: 16
9
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 10 2008 @ 02:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by dave420

Please furnish us with the names of the many, many scientists who have seen the light and found evidence for creationism. Seriously - you'd be up for a nobel prize if you can find just one. You'll get a trip to Stockholm, Sweden, some money, and a medal.


Well how about those top world famous secular evolutionary scientists who have finally seen the light about evolution? Mmmm lets see now,,



“More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than to its solution. At present all discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field either end in a stalemate or in a confession of ignorance.”
- Professor Dr. Klause Dose who is Director of the Institute for Biochemistry at Johannes Gutenberg University in West Germany


“An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears as the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which had to have been satisfied to get it going.”
-Dr. Francis Crick, Nobel Prize winner, biochemist, and co-discover of the structure of the DNA molecule


"Question is: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing that is true? I tried this question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time but eventually one person said, ‘I do know one thing – it ought not to be taught in high school.’ Then I woke up and realized that all my life I had been duped into taking evolutionism as revealed truth in some way." - Dr. Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History and editor of its journal, as well as author of the book Evolution

“Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science." - Dr. Louis Bounoure, former president of the Biological Society of Strasbourg, Director of the Zoological Museum and Director of Research of the National Center for Scientific Research in Evolution, France


"Directed by all-powerful (natural) selection, chance becomes a sort of providence, which, under the cover of atheism, is not named but which is secretly worshipped." Pierre-Paul Grasse', the most distinguished of French zoologists, editor of the 28 volumes of Traite’ de Zoologie, author of numerous original investigations, and ex-president of the French Academy of Sciences, Author of the book, ‘Evolution of Living Organisms’

“This situation, where scientific men rally to the defense of a doctrine they are unable to define scientifically, much less demonstrate with scientific rigour, attempting to maintain its credit with the public by the suppression of criticism and the eliminations of difficulties, is abnormal and undesirable in science." - Dr. W.R. Thompson

"In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion. Almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit in with it. To my mind the theory does not stand up at all." - Dr. H. S. Lipson, Professor of Physics at the University of Manchester



leading secular scientists are refuting neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory, based on their admissions alone:

(1) The theory's explanations (principles, predictions, interpretations) do not match with actual observations in the real world;

(2) The theory's principles, predictions, and interpretations limit the advancement of science; and,

(3) The theory's principles, predictions, and interpretations are based more on religious faith than on scientific fact.

Stephen C. Lawler, Author Researcher


"... I was much struck how entirely vague and arbitrary is the distinction between species and varieties" Darwin 1859 (p. 48)[42]

"No term is more difficult to define than "species," and on no point are zoologists more divided than as to what should be understood by this word". Nicholson (1872) p. 20[43]

"Of late, the futility of attempts to find a universally valid criterion for distinguishing species has come to be fairly generally, if reluctantly, recognized" Dobzhansky (1937) p.310 [10]

"The concept of a species is a concession to our linguistic habits and neurological mechanisms" Haldane (1956) [33]

"The species problem is the long-standing failure of biologists to agree on how we should identify species and how we should define the word 'species'." Hey (2001) [37]

"First, the species problem is not primarily an empirical one, but it is rather fraught with philosophical questions that require-but cannot be settled by-empirical evidence." Pigliucci (2003) [36]

"An important aspect of any species definition whether in neontology or palaeontology is that any statement that particular individuals (or fragmentary specimens) belong to a certain species is an hypothesis (not a fact)"[44]

Then I woke up and realized that all my life I had been duped into taking evolutionism as revealed truth in some way."
- Dr. Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, author of the book Evolution,

Darwinian Evolution, It's time we quit holding back science and tell Evolutionist's to either show us the mountain of evidence or get the hell out of the Schools Science Dept.





No-one thought up "evolution" and then decided to find evidence to fit it. - Dave


Chucky Darwin, discoverer of one of the biggest on-going hoax's in history.


"In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion. Almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit in with it. To my mind the theory does not stand up at all." - Dr. H. S. Lipson, Professor of Physics at the University of Manchester



Wanna bet piltdown dave

- Con












[edit on 10-5-2008 by Conspiriology]




posted on May, 10 2008 @ 04:11 AM
link   


Ignaz Semmelweis was the doctor who was sacked for proposing that his colleagues could help reduce the incidence of 'childbed fever' by washing their hands.


thank you very much for posting this, I knew I wasnt the only person who knew of this.

-Con, thanks for your post as well.

I think we are all beginning to see how dumb this evolution theory is.
now before you evolutionists get all excited and start bashing my theory (which by the way doesnt help your theory any) let me restate something.
Creationism is a religous world view... clearly religous, but has scientific evidence to back it up. now does it have enough evidence to make it law? or to make it an absolute? well that depends on your sources as well as your logic, but mostly your sources.

Mr. Madness, it looks like your sources are either refusing to admit their defeat or they are just plain ignorant... still. it appears that they are sticking witih the whole "we know its impossible, but since we are not done looking for answers, our theory still remains scientific." attitude.or this one "its ok to question how life evolved but dont you dare question if life evolved".

~Meth



posted on May, 10 2008 @ 05:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Methuselah


Mr. Madness, it looks like your sources are either refusing to admit their defeat or they are just plain ignorant... still. it appears that they are sticking witih the whole "we know its impossible, but since we are not done looking for answers, our theory still remains scientific." attitude.or this one "its ok to question how life evolved but dont you dare question if life evolved".

~Meth



Been a Long Time Meth, I don't know if you even remember me back then, but when I first got here, you were the first Christian I met and their were a whole LOT of atheists pounding us with evolution in the "why would anyone believe in god thread". Back then, it seemed like every otherday their was a new thread bashing Christians and Christianity. In one of them I had noticed the names Major Malfunction and Madness were the most vocal. I wrote a long post to Madness in that thread it was pretty vitriolic and I had enough of it. I vowed in that thread that post I was going to turn the tables on the Atheists because it was pretty bad back then. I got a lot of my congregation to join here and jref. I was pretty much a loner here as I knew this was not a job for the nicey nice turn the other cheek christian. I got ridiculed a LOT from both Atheists and Christians for not trying to lead them to christ the right way.

I never cared about doing that and is why you don't see me posting Bible Scripture. What I thought was important was STOPING THEM from leading any astray especially babes in Christ. I was getting so many u2u's from confused new Christians it broke my heart.

I prayed for help here and I got it in the names AshleyD, Clearskies, BigWhammy (my left brain bro) and Idle_rocker to name a few and we all agreed on a strategy which included reading all their books about Atheism about Evolution Darwin not ours but THEIRS from their websites and I was shocked at what I saw and heard. I have always kept tabs on people I thought new the constructs of agument and debate like wraoth, the redneck, pause4thought, and you

I saw you in other threads doing a bang up job. You are one hell of smart guy and a blessing to the cause. As for madness and his cause,,well he has been mellowed and so have I things are a lot less one sided then they used to be but as you can see by my points, it was at a price.

All in all, it has taught me a great deal and I have made some very very close freinds who I love and adore.

I wish their was a way Science and Religion could meet halfway, not be looking for intelligent design but cures for cancer while I wish the other camp would quit discarding evidence that might look like it was created in fear we would take over. I really don't think religion wants anything to do with Science hell I have learned more about Science BECAUSE of Atheists lol. It's when they start making any possibility of a creation a subject of ridicule and the very existence of Christ a hoax that they made their biggest mistake and one I warned maddness about in that long post long ago saying those exact words.

I'm seeing other Churches in my area adotping our new model for dealing with Atheism on the internet and it seems to be working. We dealt with them on myspace where it was worse than here when it came to the expletives and vulgarity. I have had a change of heart about madness however, something a mod named JJ taught me. I try to remind myself to think the way he suggested everyday and I am getting better at it.

they may disagree but it had to do with being

a kinder gentler

conspiriology

lol

- Con



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 06:21 AM
link   


not be looking for intelligent design but cures for cancer


we've already found that! my proof? articles and testimonies. thats all I have but it doesnt take a science journal to provide truth.

Vitamin B17 - look it up. a good book to get is "world without cancer"
its a yellow book, cost about 20 bucks. but its got everything in it, it expains how it works and the politics behind hiding the cure.

In Genesis God said to eat the fruit and the seed. Vitamin B17 happens to be in fruit seeds... it sounds like God knew what he was doing when he said that.

there are a few good threads on cures for cancer and there are also sites that provide the chemistry that demonstrate how it works.



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 07:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Conspiriology
Well how about those top world famous secular evolutionary scientists who have finally seen the light about evolution? Mmmm lets see now,,


Many are quote-mines. A dishonest technique commonly used by creationists. So, for example, if we take this...

“An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears as the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which had to have been satisfied to get it going.”
-Dr. Francis Crick, Nobel Prize winner, biochemist, and co-discover of the structure of the DNA molecule


The dishonest part is the elimination of the important qualifier that follows:


"But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions. The plain fact is that the time available was too long, the many microenvironments on the earth's surface too diverse, the various chemical possibilities too numerous and our own knowledge and imagination too feeble to allow us to be able to unravel exactly how it might or might not have happened such a long time ago, especially as we have no experimental evidence from that era to check our ideas against."

linky

And Crick had no issues with evolution really, he saw it as a well-established explanation. So it is remiss for you to use him. He was an atheist (probably agnostic atheist), but did play with the idea of directed panspermia for a time.

This one is apparently a construction of different quotes from different sources, and attributed to some poor individual. Even the attribution is incorrect.

“Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science." - Dr. Louis Bounoure, former president of the Biological Society of Strasbourg, Director of the Zoological Museum and Director of Research of the National Center for Scientific Research in Evolution, France

The second French science dude quote by Grasse is also a quote mine and ignores his claim that evolution is cool, stating is was accepted almost unanimously, and that he agreed with it.

Grasse Quote mine

Can't be bothered with the rest, but even if they were reliable and in context, who cares? Science ain't like theology, arguments from authority and picking and choosing quotes in a bible-like way just don't cut it.

[edit on 11-5-2008 by melatonin]



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 07:51 AM
link   
its ok for you to pick at the bible like this but when we pick at quotes, the parts that stand out to us... you have a cow.

these scientists said what they said for a reason. probably to keep their rep up. if they were to totally deny the evolution theory they would probably lose recognition in a heart beat.



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 08:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Methuselah
these scientists said what they said for a reason. probably to keep their rep up. if they were to totally deny the evolution theory they would probably lose recognition in a heart beat.


Aye, so easy to just brush the dishonesty of quote-mining under the carpet. Crick was an atheist who saw evolutionary theory as well-established. Spent the latter days of his life working on scientific (neurobiological) theories of consciousness with Koch, and has been seen as a eugenicist and 'militant' atheist by some.

Yet here we have an out of context quote suggesting something rather different.

Don't play the projection card. Scientists don't burn people at the stake for hereticism. We're not talking about people who had to claim deism for fear of being brought to task for refusing to accept theological dogma. A scientist can deny whatever he likes, but in a scientific context he will be expected to support it evidentially.

[edit on 11-5-2008 by melatonin]



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by dbates
1. Everything with a beginning had a cause.
2. The universe had a beginning.
3. The universe had a cause.


point 2 is supposition

and point 3 doesn't logically lead to god.



4. ID accounts for this causation.


with the exception that it doesn't provide any science...



Evolution can not account for how the biggest explosion ever caused order instead of disorder.


...
that's like asking cell biology to account for nuclear fusion

further proof of ignorance from the ID camp.



Entropy seems to have worked in reverse for a while at least.


www.talkorigins.org...
www.talkorigins.org...
www.talkorigins.org...
www.talkorigins.org...
www.talkorigins.org...

why am i just throwing links at you? well, it's because i doubt you'll really listen to anything i've said because other posters and myself have already refuted every statement that's been made in your post.



5. Evolution takes non-existant fossils of human evolution and weaves a story.


bull.
bull bull bull bull bull.
there have been hundreds and thousands and millions of fossils provided to link things, but it's all just ignored by the creationist camp



O, I could keep going, but why bother?


you're right, digging yourself into a hole of ignorance is quite embarrassing.



There are no fossils that prove evolution.


yes there are.
they've been provided.



There is no evolution that caused a different species.


your ignorance, let me clear it up

www.talkorigins.org...
www.talkorigins.org...
wiki.cotch.net...

the third one is new to my repertoire.



Merely micro evolution inside of species. I await the fossil record proof....*whistles Jeopardy theme*


you don't necessarily need fossil record proof, i've just provided links to observed instances of speciation



O of course the retort is that there is no one fossil that proves evolution. It's a combination of observations.


well, no one anything ever proved anything. there must be consistent evidence...



Couldn't ID make the same statement? It's not one single piece of evidence, but a collection of facts that points towards ID.


...well, there's nothing scientific about ID.
at all.

what facts?
there's not a single fact that backs it up.



How is evolution any better. Even Dawkins admits that there is no in between fossil record. It's all assumption as much as ID is isn't it?


...wow, it's a paraphrase mine. there's no in between because each stage is an "in between" the whole point is that there is no proper half form. even if there was a proper halfway form, the creationists would say that it creates the requirement for 2 more halfway forms...
that's what he's said.



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 03:40 PM
link   
 


Originally posted by Maddnessinmysoul


Originally posted by dbates
1. Everything with a beginning had a cause.
2. The universe had a beginning.
3. The universe had a cause.


point 2 is supposition

and point 3 doesn't logically lead to god.


Point 2 the universe has a beginning is far more established than your precious macro-evolution bedtime story. Einsteins theory of general relativity demands a finite universe. Hubble observed the expanding universe and as predicted residule heat signatures from the big bang have been observed.

Because the initial cause created the laws of physics with the universe it is not bound or described by them - it transcends them and this cause effectively created nature - therefore it is by definition "supernatural" i.e. GOD

Give up your maddness - science has proven Gods existence.



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
Point 2 the universe has a beginning is far more established than your precious macro-evolution bedtime story.


hooray for not following the teachings of jesus right there (i highlighted it for you in case you didn't notice it yourself)
i don't think such a mellow guy would approve of those tactics.

anyway, let's see where you're going with that.



Einsteins theory of general relativity demands a finite universe. Hubble observed the expanding universe and as predicted residule heat signatures from the big bang have been observed.


ok...but the big bang isn't the beginning of the universe.

the universe existed prior to the big bang in the form of the singularity.
the big bang is the beginning of an epoch, but not of the universe.

just a tiny bit of background on it
en.wikipedia.org...



Because the initial cause created the laws of physics with the universe it is not bound or described by them - it transcends them and this cause effectively created nature - therefore it is by definition "supernatural" i.e. GOD


...again, not necessarily god. not being bound by the laws of physics of this universe doesn't mean god. you're taking a massive leap there. supernatural also doesn't equal god. this could be a thing that can simply start a universe and that's it. or at least make a gravitational singularity become a universe...



Give up your maddness - science has proven Gods existence.


actually, you're confusing philosophy with science here.

you're trying (which is the key word here) to use pure logic to prove the existence of god, that's philosophy.

you're also displaying a half knowledge of big bang cosmology and trying to use it as a proof of god.

[edit on 5/11/08 by madnessinmysoul]



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Nice try... smoke and mirrors as usual.

When the facts destroy your position call them bad Christains.

Jesus flipped the tables on the money changers in the temple.

The so called "singularity" is God maddness. Time and the laws of physics did not come into existence until the Big Bang "banged". Hence you can not describe anything before the bang with the laws of physics.

Stop the madness! Accept Jesus today.



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
Nice try... smoke and mirrors as usual.

When the facts destroy your position call them bad Christains.


...you didn't use any facts, you just called established science a fairy tale.

and i'll have to point out another area in which you're being a hypocrite. you ignored all the evidence i provided (8 links) and the majority of my post earlier and now accuse me of smoke and mirrors
you just keep excluding all the evidence i provide.
i provided concrete evidence of speciation. i explained away your issues.



Jesus flipped the tables on the money changers in the temple.


that's a reaction, not an attack
there's a difference between that and what you said. you're being pointlessly mean, he was making a point.



The so called "singularity" is God maddness.


now you're redefining everything...

so god is now dead and the whole of the universe is god's corpse?
seriously, you need to look at the implications of what you say before you say it.

stop making baseless statements and address the science that i'm providing you with.

you can't prove that god was the singularity, so don't say it. this is a scientific discussion, use science.



Time and the laws of physics did not come into existence until the Big Bang "banged". Hence you can not describe anything before the bang with the laws of physics.


um...duh?
but that doesn't mean that the universe didn't exist...
the universe existed before the big bang, but it didn't exist in a measurable state.



Stop the madness! Accept Jesus today.


stop the preaching.



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
ok...but the big bang isn't the beginning of the universe.

the universe existed prior to the big bang in the form of the singularity.


So this singularity of (near) infinite energy came from? Now you're just guessing. There are no laws or facts you can use to talk of the singularity or pre-singularity. What then caused the singularity? Since infinite regression is philosophically impossible (else we would have never come into existence) there must be some beginning point. Some source of all that is. What would that be exactly?



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by dbates
So this singularity of (near) infinite energy came from? Now you're just guessing. There are no laws or facts you can use to talk of the singularity or pre-singularity. What then caused the singularity? Since infinite regression is philosophically impossible (else we would have never come into existence) there must be some beginning point. Some source of all that is. What would that be exactly?


So fatalistic. I'm sure no matter what we find, you'll just shove your faith-based concept just beyond it, hiding in the gaps in knowledge. Might as well say ignorance = god.


The idea that the universe erupted with a Big Bang explosion has been a big barrier in scientific attempts to understand the origin of our expanding universe, although the Big Bang long has been considered by physicists to be the best model. As described by Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, the origin of the Big Bang is a mathematically nonsensical state -- a "singularity" of zero volume that nevertheless contained infinite density and infinitely large energy. Now, however, Bojowald and other physicists at Penn State are exploring territory unknown even to Einstein -- the time before the Big Bang -- using a mathematical time machine called Loop Quantum Gravity. This theory, which combines Einstein's Theory of General Relativity with equations of quantum physics that did not exist in Einstein's day, is the first mathematical description to systematically establish the existence of the Big Bounce and to deduce properties of the earlier universe from which our own may have sprung. For scientists, the Big Bounce opens a crack in the barrier that was the Big Bang.

linky

Lots of interesting stuff around in the halls of academia.

ABE: couldn't resist this:


The so called "singularity" is God maddness



the origin of the Big Bang is a mathematically nonsensical state -- a "singularity" of zero volume that nevertheless contained infinite density and infinitely large energy


Aye, in a way. Both are nonsensical, and probably a result of our lack of knowledge.

[edit on 11-5-2008 by melatonin]



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin


Many are quote-mines. A dishonest technique commonly used by creationists. So, for example, if we take this...

“An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears as the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which had to have been satisfied to get it going.”
-Dr. Francis Crick, Nobel Prize winner, biochemist, and co-discover of the structure of the DNA molecule


The dishonest part is the elimination of the important qualifier that follows:


"But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions. The plain fact is that the time available was too long, the many microenvironments on the earth's surface too diverse, the various chemical possibilities too numerous and our own knowledge and imagination too feeble to allow us to be able to unravel exactly how it might or might not have happened such a long time ago, especially as we have no experimental evidence from that era to check our ideas against."

linky



Oh here we go again with the quote mining band-aid but if you read the rest it look like he is saying evolution couldn't have happened regardless Mel

And Crick had no issues with evolution really, he saw it as a well-established explanation. Yeah I agree he did until he discovered DNA.


- Con




[edit on 12-5-2008 by Conspiriology]



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 10:52 PM
link   
Well!!!

All I can say is,

Thank god for secular humanists!!!!!

WW



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 11:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

hooray for not following the teachings of jesus right there (i highlighted it for you in case you didn't notice it yourself)
i don't think such a mellow guy would approve of those tactics.

anyway, let's see where you're going with that.

ok...but the big bang isn't the beginning of the universe.

the universe existed prior to the big bang in the form of the singularity.
the big bang is the beginning of an epoch, but not of the universe.


No madness you are wrong, if the universe existed before the big bang but in another form than it is NOT a universe it is a singularity and an epoch is a what? Here let me help you since I am assuming you are having trouble with this and words like "kind" ready?

Epoch = a significant event, time, or moment which is chosen as a new origin for time measurements. To put it another way madness,, the BIG BANG

Got it?



...again, not necessarily god. not being bound by the laws of physics of this universe doesn't mean god. you're taking a massive leap there. supernatural also doesn't equal god. this could be a thing that can simply start a universe and that's it. or at least make a gravitational singularity become a universe..


if it becomes anything or as you say becomes a universe than I guess whammy was correct the first time huh



actually, you're confusing philosophy with science here.

you're trying (which is the key word here) to use pure logic to prove the existence of god, that's philosophy. you're also displaying a half knowledge of big bang cosmology and trying to use it as a proof of god.



Well that's because an age old book you say is full of contradictions, describes it that way and who was responsible for it. That's the philosophy part, the science part is what makes the philosophy part patent.



- Con



posted on May, 12 2008 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dock6


Nothing comes from nothing. 'Science' knows that, but it doesn't stop 'science' from pronouncing nonsensically and illogically


So instead of trying to find the answer like scientist do religious people chalk it up to god? Tell me since science knows nothing comes from nothing why can't religion see that? How can anyone sit and tell me or any other Atheist that god who just somehow popped into existence from NOTHING created our universe from the same NOTHING god was created from? Seems to me science has more of a leg to stand on. At least we are trying to find the answer instead of believing in the invisible man.

I have no problem with someone believing in god. If that's what it takes to get you through your life so be it. But for so many religious people to tell me I'm wrong for believing what I believe and need to be saved is nonsense to me. The same as science seems to be nonsense to you.



posted on May, 12 2008 @ 12:50 AM
link   

there have been hundreds and thousands and millions of fossils provided to link things, but it's all just ignored by the creationist camp - Madness


Show us ONE and I don't mean micro evo I mean bona fide macro evolution where a species changed or appears to be changing into something we can show thriving finished product. I am sure I'll be able to show you why Creationist ignore it as nothing more than BUNK


there's no in between because each stage is an "in between" - Madness


Than tell me what a "stage" is so we can find the in between for each stage madness, Oh that's right a stage is an in between so there ARE in betweens after all. That's some pretty slick semantics madness.



The Wright Brothers when building the first flying machine had many prototypes and many schematics and blue prints until finally getting it right and Wright took flight (forgive the rhyme lol) The entire time this was taking place the machine evolved with self determinism and a clear objective but wasn't quite perfected until they studied a creature that exits by pure happenstance without any intention, objective, or intelligence to justify its ability to do what it does by accident.

The ability to fly is what they wanted to learn from this creature of cosmic coincedence commonly known as a Bird. The Wright brothers were quick to call their own research "intellectual Property" having patented the idea while not giving credit to God or Natural Selection for having any intelligence at all yet like most of the things man copies from creation, he credits NOT the intelligence to assume while the birds wings may have been very gradual what on earth would be the reason for thier gradual devepment if not to fly so even IF natural selection and random mutation were a factor, a foregone conclusion to fly would have to be made just like it had been when the wright brothers were designing a machine to do the same thing.

The proof of intelligent Design is that we can't seem to be intelligent enough to create a damn thing without copying it from something that allegedly took no intelligence at all.

From DNA to Velcro, from the lens and iris aperture on camera we boast of our intelligence while we steal creations copyright in an act of ignorance, arrogance and pride of being the creator of it, to avoid admitting it did not come from our own intelligence

but from the hand

of God

- Con



posted on May, 12 2008 @ 03:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Conspiriology
 


except that you're outright lying. crick never ever ever ever ever voiced any problems with evolution and the only way you can is by cutting out huge parts of his statements

the reason mel has to constantly call out quotemines is because they're dishonest. i could randomly pull out quotes from the bible to make it seem like the bible supports atheism


there is no god

^the bible

but i removed the qualifier which makes it say something entirely different

the fool hath said in his heart "there is no god"


hmm...
see, you're doing the exact same thing.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join