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: 21
9
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by XIDIXIDIX

Originally posted by Jezus
If you want to believe in creationism or ID that is fine, but you have to realize that these beliefs are not based on information or fact.

You believe these ideas because you have faith in their truth. These are ideas passed down through books or created by spiritual leaders but they have nothing to do with science. That isn't to say you can't believe in them, you can believe in anything you want but creationism VS evolution is not a legitimate debate.

It is like saying.

Astronomy VS Astrology
Chemistry VS Alchemy
History VS Mythology
Physics VS Magic


Astrology uses Astronomy
Alchemy uses Chemistry
Mythology uses history
Magic tricks use Physics

and Evolution "Uses" Biology
evolution "Uses" science

Evolution is the great "user" and an abuser of Science. It is nothing but a parasite that Darwin attached to the real McCoy and has been riding on the coat tails of real Science to give itself an air of legitimacy but most intelligent people see right through this. All I ever see is excuses for it.

No, let me be more specific for dave sake, "a mountain of excuses" ha ha ha ha ha ha ha yeah they like to point to some puddle of goo and say "See, that is your ancestor" HA HA HA HA what kind of idiocy is that.

If it wasn't for your atheist outlook your anti god worldview, you wouldn't believe it. Sometimes I wonder if any of them really do anyway, it is THAT stupid of an idea, it is THAT dumb, that silly and THAT is the truth



[edit on 13-8-2008 by XIDIXIDIX]
[edit on 13-8-2008 by XIDIXIDIX]


And as all creationists, you're sounding incredibly strained because you have nothing to base your arguments on other than "this is what the Bible says" and the fact you just don't like the facts.

Evolutionary theory does not claim to know how life started. It deals only with what happened to life after it got kick-started. What you want is Abiogenesis.

You are looking at this from the wrong angle: we don't believe anything. We don't need to believe. Belief implies you need to concieve of something that is not in evidence, and make it true in your own head, despite all evidence to the contrary.

All we do is look at what evidence the universe provides us, and draw conclusions from it.


We aren't saying there is no god(s), we are simply saying this:

SINCE LIFE POPPED INTO EXISTENCE, IT HAS GONE THROUGH A STEADY AND CONTINUOUS PROCESS OF CHANGE DEPENDANT ON THE ENVIRONMENT AROUND IT.

This is fact, this is the truth because we have evidence for it.



Your last statement implies that being empirical about something is far less rational than assuming it was magic #ing powers by some beardy guy-in-the-sky. I cannot explain it more clearly, if you can't see how "god" is actually the silly response to the universe, created by people with lesser knowledge than we have now, then you must be a blind, arrogant fool.

Remember:

JUST BECAUSE AN ANCIENT PROPAGANDA TEXT CLAIMS TO BE THE ULTIMATE TRUTH, DOES NOT MAKE IT SO.

If you are making big claims, then you need big evidence. So, come on then, where's the evidence God created it all?




posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by dave420
reply to post by XIDIXIDIX
 


I didn't put words in her mouth - she said it.

ID is not a science - if you call it that, then you are ridiculously ignorant on this subject. Game over. You lose. Nice try.



No sorry dave,, I read her post she never said all science is trash,, JUST a certain aspect of evolution. Read it yourself if you know how to do that

you wanna say game over try learning the rules of the game and how to play. After you've proven you know how to do that, then get in the game first and quit pretending. If you would like a formal debate to prove macro evolution, I'd be more than happy to oblige if you think you're so cocksure of yourself.



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by C.C.Benjamin

.
If you want to believe in creationism or ID that is fine, but you have to realize that these beliefs are not based on information or fact


you want to find me the quote or are you like dave and just assume I said anything at all about the Bible. Read my post, I am a believe in evolution I defend it all the time



You believe these ideas because you have faith in their truth. These are ideas passed down through books or created by spiritual leaders but they have nothing to do with science. That isn't to say you can't believe in them, you can believe in anything you want but creationism VS evolution is not a legitimate debate.


you obviously don't understanb a thing I said do you. First I believe in a thing called "absolute truth". I believe facts are more truthful than fiction and I think those who don't are suggesting the best liar wins




"this is what the Bible says" and the fact you just don't like the facts.


Is that so? where do you hallucinate I said anything about the Bible saying anything at all? I won't respond to such drivel and so "strained" an attempt to discredit my post. If you got so much proof to support the concept of macro molecules to man evolution than I suggest YOU denbate me in a formal debate otherwise all you got is your false allegations and phoney science.



Evolutionary theory does not claim to know how life started. It deals only with what happened to life after it got kick-started. What you want is Abiogenesis.


yeah I was alive when they tried and failed at proving this and as always evolutionist changed there position to say they no longer try to prove this. The thing is that if we are evolving from this to that then conventional wisdom dictates we go back to the very start and if they can't figure out how we began then I don't have any reason to belive the in-between areas of this idea which are compulsory to the rest of it existing in the first place. Like I said, true science doesn't work that way and that is why you don't see science like physics changing thier theorys every other month or why you don't see them celbrating every time someone says another scientist threw a ball in the air and it hit the ground again.



You are looking at this from the wrong angle: we don't believe anything. We don't need to believe. Belief implies you need to concieve of something that is not in evidence, and make it true in your own head, despite all evidence to the contrary.


ha ha this Ill just let speak for itself ha ha ha ha ha

All we do is look at what evidence the universe provides us, and draw conclusions from it.




We aren't saying there is no god(s), we are simply saying this:

SINCE LIFE POPPED INTO EXISTENCE, IT HAS GONE THROUGH A STEADY AND CONTINUOUS PROCESS OF CHANGE DEPENDANT ON THE ENVIRONMENT AROUND IT.

This is fact, this is the truth because we have evidence for it.


you are contradicting yourself something terrible here i hope you know



Your last statement implies that being empirical about something is far less rational than assuming it was magic #ing powers by some beardy guy-in-the-sky. I cannot explain it more clearly, if you can't see how "god" is actually the silly response to the universe, created by people with lesser knowledge than we have now, then you must be a blind, arrogant fool.



Hallucninating I said this? what bearded guy did I mention?



JUST BECAUSE AN ANCIENT PROPAGANDA TEXT CLAIMS TO BE THE ULTIMATE TRUTH, DOES NOT MAKE IT SO.


Get off the '___' I never said anything about ancient texts



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by XIDIXIDIX
 


Basing part of science is bashing science. The scientific method applies in all science. Apart from Intelligent Design, which is not science, but some pathetic attempt by bible-bashers to shoe-horn their bronze-age beliefs into a system that disproved them 150 years ago.

I don't need to debate "macro" evolution, as it's part of biological evolution. If you can't understand the concept, or understand the evidence, or understand the experiments that definitively show speciation, that's not my problem, but yours.



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Toadmund
 


In argument for the 'bad science' post though we have to admit that even though science 'in general' is a search for knowledge and growth, that it also is the creation a BIG egos. What does that mean? It means that once something is so-called proven with science by a big name scientist that it takes decades and constant pounding in order to get it changed. Like the concept that science shows that the oldest civilization was roughly 4,000 BC. Yet there are others who state otherwise. THey will continue to be ignored because the mainstream science overrules anything new. Regardless of facts.

However, creationism is not proven thus the debate must go on. Because science has YET to prove evolution of 'MAN' thoroughly. It's always going to be back and forth until hard evidence comes along.



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by XIDIXIDIX
Astrology uses Astronomy
Alchemy uses Chemistry
Mythology uses history
Magic tricks use Physics

and Evolution "Uses" Biology
evolution "Uses" science

Evolution is the great "user" and an abuser of Science. It is nothing but a parasite that Darwin attached to the real McCoy and has been riding on the coat tails of real Science to give itself an air of legitimacy but most intelligent people see right through this. All I ever see is excuses for it.

No, let me be more specific for dave sake, "a mountain of excuses" ha ha ha ha ha ha ha yeah they like to point to some puddle of goo and say "See, that is your ancestor" HA HA HA HA what kind of idiocy is that.

If it wasn't for your atheist outlook your anti god worldview, you wouldn't believe it. Sometimes I wonder if any of them really do anyway, it is THAT stupid of an idea, it is THAT dumb, that silly and THAT is the truth


We can't debate because we don't have the same information.

It is very obvious by your post that you know very little about evolution. You need to do some research because your problems with evolution have nothing to do with evolution, they have to do with your lack of understanding and knowledge of the topic.

The whole "debate" between evolution and ID/creationism only exists on one side, in the minds of creationists. The VAST majority of scientists do NOT consider there to be a legitimate debate. The idea that ID some how disproves evolution is beyond ridiculous.

Some of the things in this thread are ignorance to science but some are out right lies.

In the scientific community, there is no debate.



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Dock6
 



'Science' claimed aeroplanes would never fly; that it was 'impossible'. See what I mean? And 'science' states that the bee should not be able to fly either. Do these guys ever step out into a real world? A child can refute 'science', for a child is able to attest that yes, planes DO fly as do bees.


First off the Bee statement you are refering to has to do with the bumble bee and it has been shown over and over again that, the claim you are refering to is false.
And yes at one point science claimed that planes would never fly, and they were wrong. The difference being that you dont still have scientists claiming that. Science can change and accepts the fact that things can change. Religion is not quite so flexible.



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by dariousg
reply to post by Toadmund
 


In argument for the 'bad science' post though we have to admit that even though science 'in general' is a search for knowledge and growth, that it also is the creation a BIG egos. What does that mean? It means that once something is so-called proven with science by a big name scientist that it takes decades and constant pounding in order to get it changed. Like the concept that science shows that the oldest civilization was roughly 4,000 BC. Yet there are others who state otherwise. THey will continue to be ignored because the mainstream science overrules anything new. Regardless of facts.

However, creationism is not proven thus the debate must go on. Because science has YET to prove evolution of 'MAN' thoroughly. It's always going to be back and forth until hard evidence comes along.


Because civilization evolved only within the last 7000 years, doesn't prove a thing other than we don't play well with others. There were countless villages of a hundred or so individuals tens of thousands of years ago, just no vast civilizations with complicated governing systems or national identity till much later.

They aren't ignored at all, where do you get this from? I'm an anthropology major and prehistory, paleontology and archeology cover such ancient human interactions in immense detail, they're the basis for the entire course material! Perhaps you don't hear about human prehistory in church or see much of it in the news but people devote their entire careers to the mainstream study of what you say isn't even recognized.

There is no debate, only uneducated Christian objection and pseudoscience. Contrary to what Christians would absolutely love to believe, I don't sit in archeology or prehistory and discuss the pros and cons of creationism versus evolution and fossil evidence
Total absurdity!



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by dave420
reply to post by XIDIXIDIX
 


Basing part of science is bashing science. The scientific method applies in all science. Apart from Intelligent Design, which is not science, but some pathetic attempt by bible-bashers to shoe-horn their bronze-age beliefs into a system that disproved them 150 years ago.

I don't need to debate "macro" evolution, as it's part of biological evolution. If you can't understand the concept, or understand the evidence, or understand the experiments that definitively show speciation, that's not my problem, but yours.


Thats funny dave because even Dawkins says he can't prove it so why the hell should I believe you?



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by dave420
reply to post by XIDIXIDIX
 


Basing part of science is bashing science. The scientific method applies in all science. Apart from Intelligent Design, which is not science, but some pathetic attempt by bible-bashers to shoe-horn their bronze-age beliefs into a system that disproved them 150 years ago.

I don't need to debate "macro" evolution, as it's part of biological evolution. If you can't understand the concept, or understand the evidence, or understand the experiments that definitively show speciation, that's not my problem, but yours.


Thats funny dave because even Dawkins says he can't prove it so why the hell should I believe you?



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 08:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by XIDIXIDIX
Astrology uses Astronomy
Alchemy uses Chemistry
Mythology uses history
Magic tricks use Physics

and Evolution "Uses" Biology
evolution "Uses" science

Evolution is the great "user" and an abuser of Science. It is nothing but a parasite that Darwin attached to the real McCoy and has been riding on the coat tails of real Science to give itself an air of legitimacy but most intelligent people see right through this. All I ever see is excuses for it.

No, let me be more specific for dave sake, "a mountain of excuses" ha ha ha ha ha ha ha yeah they like to point to some puddle of goo and say "See, that is your ancestor" HA HA HA HA what kind of idiocy is that.

If it wasn't for your atheist outlook your anti god worldview, you wouldn't believe it. Sometimes I wonder if any of them really do anyway, it is THAT stupid of an idea, it is THAT dumb, that silly and THAT is the truth


We can't debate because we don't have the same information.

It is very obvious by your post that you know very little about evolution. You need to do some research because your problems with evolution have nothing to do with evolution, they have to do with your lack of understanding and knowledge of the topic.

The whole "debate" between evolution and ID/creationism only exists on one side, in the minds of creationists. The VAST majority of scientists do NOT consider there to be a legitimate debate. The idea that ID some how disproves evolution is beyond ridiculous.

Some of the things in this thread are ignorance to science but some are out right lies.

In the scientific community, there is no debate.


This is the biggest cop out I have ever seen, you evolutionists not only do NOT know what you're talking about, you are cowards



posted on Aug, 14 2008 @ 07:33 AM
link   
reply to post by XIDIXIDIX
 


Because you're so confused about this subject this thread is turning into a farce. We have the abject ignorant screaming from the top of their lungs just how much they don't understand what they're screaming about.

We have demonstrated speciation in labs. We have seen it in nature. Macroevolution is microevolution is evolution. Just because you can't understand it doesn't make it false.

Read a book. Not the good book, but one that has actual facts in it. You might learn something. It'll hurt, but you'll get there.



posted on Aug, 14 2008 @ 07:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by XIDIXIDIX

Originally posted by Lethil
We can confirm micro-evolution in lab tests...we have fossils of the evolutionary progress of species...micro evolution cannot exist with macro and vice versa...to dismiss one is to dismiss them both...and now i shall refer you to the creationist argument...The banana...which isnt really a native banana...but hey ho those creationists need to pull *evidence* from somewhere ie their bums... www.youtube.com...

[edit on 12-8-2008 by Lethil]

[edit on 12-8-2008 by Lethil]





micro evolution cannot exist with macro and vice versa...to dismiss one is to dismiss them both


This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard, I can say to dismiss macro evolution is to dismiss Jesus and it would have the same meaning to you as this idiotic statement means to me. They are NOT the same thing and no matter how slick you think you are trying to merge the two meanings into one, they are two distinct and seprate ideas. Just because a finger nail grows and evolves doesn't mean it will turn into a Birds wing or a talon or what ever weird thing they come up with. It has never been seen and any observations they have made are so highly subjective that all of them so far have been nothing but that, just subjective opinion and wild speculation.

That is NOT evidence it is just junk science and has no place polluting what has been established as real facts such as micro evolution. I think you guys are making a big mistake mixing the two meanings together and I think its going to come back and bite you all in the arse for attempting such a desperate ploy screwing with Science terminology this way. It has fogged up the legal profession when ever they tried pulling a stunt like this and it will muddy up science just was bad.

I think you KNOW the difference and I think you are using this as a machination to confuse or convolve out of spite and not in the purest interest of science. You are NOT a scientist yourself so shame on you. If Scientists are attempting to bastardize the english vernacular of Science then I am sure other Scientists will just call it something else like trans speciation or any number of terms to convey the specifics of this phenomena that keeps evolution from ever becoming a respectable area of legitimate Science such as Physics or Chemistry. Evolution has made Biology the laughing stock of all the Sciences, a pathetic joke at best.

Maybe if students didn't have to put up with angry Atheists spouting off a bunch of anti god statements in between coming and going to their next classes at campus's they would be taken more seriously. I have seen the activists at univeristies doing that and most of the time those Atheists doing it are not even students there. They are only hurting there own reputations


Ok here try this...tell an evolutionary biologist that you think micro evolution exists but macro doesnt...oh and dont blame me if your laughed out of the room..only accepting one negates them both...



posted on Aug, 14 2008 @ 08:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Lethil
 


It's useless explaining it, for to accept that, his entire belief system would (apparently) crumble before his eyes. He doesn't want to believe it, so in his head, he doesn't have to.

But yeah - I'd love to see that discussion go down. hehehehe



posted on Aug, 14 2008 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by dave420
reply to post by XIDIXIDIX
 


Because you're so confused about this subject this thread is turning into a farce. We have the abject ignorant screaming from the top of their lungs just how much they don't understand what they're screaming about.

We have demonstrated speciation in labs. We have seen it in nature. Macroevolution is microevolution is evolution. Just because you can't understand it doesn't make it false.

Read a book. Not the good book, but one that has actual facts in it. You might learn something. It'll hurt, but you'll get there.



No you're dead wrong Dave, it has NEVER been proven and I don't care if evolutionists read one word with a distinct and seprate meaning they are not the same transmutation of one species to another has NEVER been proven. the above poster says they would laugh in my face for saying they are not the same. Getting a sun tan is not changing species if it is true what what was our last species dave? do you know?

Ill ask you again Dave, do you have any idea why Dawkins said that
Does ANYONE KNOW?





I believe, but I cannot prove, that all life, all intelligence, all creativity and all 'design' anywhere in the universe, is the direct or indirect product of Darwinian natural selection. -- RICHARD DAWKINS,


Now Dave, you seem to be saying we have seen it in labs? I ask where? what lab? I mean this entire thread is nothing but talk by you guys.

Do you know why Dawkins said that quote Dave?

Because it is the truth! They Can not prove it! So quit saying they have liar

Gladiator—an ‘extinct’ insect is found alive! No changes and I can name hundreds and hundreds of creatures where no change has ever been noted with the exception of size but the species is the same then as it was millions of so called years ago. Don't even bother telling me it had been perfectly suited for its environment without the necessary pressures to induce evolutionary change when many of these creatures were on the brink of extinction! If you can't get that than it is I who laugh at the sillyness of your position sticking to something more suited to your atheism without a single reason to have any scientific rationale for it.

You like dawkins quote above are merely the exact butt of the joke you aim at religious people and I am not religious. You shown me you are what you laugh at Dave. Please don't show me me more micro evolution attempting to substantiate trans speciation and don't assume you or any of you think you know more than I about biology when OBVIOUSLY you do NOT

The theory of evolution is the outcome of the materialist philosophy that surfaced with the reawakening of ancient Sumerian and Greek materialistic myths and became widespread in the 19th century. Materialism seeks to explain nature through purely material factors

The person who put forward the theory of evolution the way it is defended today, was an amateur English naturalist, Charles Robert Darwin YOUR Hero! , it is hardly rational to attempt to explain the fossil gap in the evolution of birds with a claim that "a bird popped all of a sudden out of a reptile egg", because by the evolutionists' own admission, the evolution of a species to another species requires a great and advantageous change in genetic information. However, no mutation whatsoever improves the genetic information or adds new information to it. Mutations only derange genetic information. You remember don't you? The question that today still 'stumps' dawkins into complete and utter silence. Yes yes I know he was tricked by the Christians those sneaky bastards! H HA HA HA HA It's always the same excuse isn't it with that guy. Ben Stein TRICKED HIM! What again! ha ha ha ha that guy falls for anything but I am not falling for his idiotic esoteric phony excuses.



posted on Aug, 14 2008 @ 11:14 AM
link   
reply to post by XIDIXIDIX
 


Hahahahahaha! You are PRICELESS!.



posted on Aug, 14 2008 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by dave420
reply to post by XIDIXIDIX
 


Hahahahahaha! You are PRICELESS!.



Some quotes from your link Dave,

" Charles Darwin. Perhaps the most famous example of allopatric speciation is Darwin's Galápagos Finches." I don't think I have to explain how this one had been debunked do I? I mean this is almost as bad as the peppered moths slick trick but nevertheless NOT proof. This is getting as sun tan nothing more

Now to the next one

" If their reproductive isolation is incomplete, then further mating between the populations will produce hybrids, which may or may not be fertile. If the hybrids are infertile, or fertile but less fit than their ancestors, then there will be no further reproductive isolation and speciation has essentially occurred (e.g., as in horses and donkeys.) "

Natural selection holds that those living things that are more suited to the natural conditions of their habitats will prevail by having offspring that will survive, whereas those that are unfit will disappear. For example, in a deer herd under the threat of wild animals, naturally those that can run faster will survive. That is true David,, But no matter how long this process goes on, it will not transform those deer into another living species! No way no how never been seen or heard of The deer will always remain deer and that is what we do know that is what we can observe that is what I CAN prove! Oh and David, , there is nothing you can say about it because I CAN prove it and it is undeniable

Okay lets take a look at the horses shall we Dave, as it too is just another area I will edit wiki myself on as it is FALSE. If you cared enough to read the links provided within the "priceless" one you provided for my entertainement, you would have found out why the evolutionary tree of the horse display is currently in the basement of the museum because it simply was NOT true! Nice try though but a bit over used and of no consequence what so ever. The part about life forming and amino acids next.

The likelihood of the spontaneous formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 noughts after it... It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup Dave the probability factors are so high that in any math science like Calculus for instance, that high a probability in the real world amounts to ZERO!

Very good of you David, you have given me much to smile about and plenty to laugh at



posted on Aug, 14 2008 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by XIDIXIDIX
 


I love how you skipped over all the parts that figuratively poop on your assertions, and pick up on a few vague setences that don't even cast any doubt on the subject at hand. Then you start going off on one about abiogenesis, which is nothing to do with evolution.

You are still priceless. You seem to embrace ignorance, doing everything you can to stop the nasty spectre of knowledge getting into your head.

Again, priceless. You are living in the dark ages, and you seem happy with that. Good luck with the future, you're going to need it. Luckily, natural selection will take care of you and your ilk, so while you seem rather peeved with this discussion, to me it's funny. It shouldn't be, as you clearly had no chance at being a normal, open human being. The insidious claws of religion must have sunk into your soft flesh at an early age for you to be so hopelessly clueless about the world you live in, and the fact that a sentient being such as yourself still doesn't even know what it is, is the highest order of irony I can think of.

So, to sum up: hehehehehe. you're funny.



posted on Aug, 14 2008 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by XIDIXIDIX
The likelihood of the spontaneous formation of life from inanimate matter is one o a number with 40,000 noughts after it... It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution.

There is NO WAY that could be calculated as the knowledge required to make such a calculation [as in the entire universe including all kinds of life and enviroments which may or may not be able to support it] does not exist. How could you possibly know the likelihood of it not happening?

All this is unrelated and irrelevent to the subject at hand however:

You do realise that abiogenesis has NOTHING to do with evolution don't you? That just makes your point NA. Your failure to realise this just shows how much little you understand the Theory of Evolution.

[edit on 14-8-2008 by riley]



posted on Aug, 14 2008 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by riley
 


He's clearly too ignorant to be helped by anyone on this thread. It's not just ignorance, but a clear and obvious desire to not have his world-view unsettled by some upstart 150-year-old theory. You can point out the futility of his arguments, and he'll keep on moving those goalposts.

He's beyond help.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join