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- A Fairy Tale for Grown-ups

page: 3
2
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Conspiriology
Logic? You are arguing from logic? You think this so called evidence you have supporting your Atheistic motives for continuing the advancement of your Religion of Atheism is logic has not succumb to your own personal Bias and choosing evidence that has historically been the product of BS BUNK and JUNK Science?


Atheism is not a religion but a lack of one.
And thank God, Allah, AND Zeus for that.


Originally posted by Conspiriology
Desperate Evolutionists making up more "stuff" more fluff and more lies is what you believe and I don't care what pretty words you dress up your posts with, or how many the numbers or how big the size of the evidence is.


You said more than you would have liked to, I'm sure, when you said you don't care how big the evidence is.
This is exactly the problem that creationists have.
Why do you not care about the evidence?


Originally posted by Conspiriology
My experience with Atheists is they assume they know more about Science when they do NOT.


But obviously we know enough about science to know the ridiculous claims in the Bible are impossible. Take Noah's arc. It's scientifically impossible for such an event to happen.


Originally posted by Conspiriology
My experience with Atheists is they RUN from logic for whenever pure logic is used in the remote probabilities of such constructs of our existence as molecules to man evolution, it just doesn't add up (no pun) and they can't seem to help me with the math.


So even though it's proven that life forms adapt to their environment, and even though it's proven that life forms will do whatever it takes to adapt to their environment in order to survive, you STILL would rather believe something that has absolutley no bases?

You demand that the theory of evolution be layed out in one pretty package for you to see that it's true, yet you require no scientific verification of God.
Interesting.
Isn't there a word for that?


Originally posted by Conspiriology
My experience with Atheists is not to argue with them about religion but just destroy their phony theory. That, thank the lord, has been relatively easy to do and gets easier all the time.


Really? Because I haven't seen one iota of evidence against evolution or in favor of God which may 'destroy' the theory of evolution, as you say.
Keep workin' on that.




posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hollywood11
In the end both are equally wrong.


That's rich. You're peddling the childish belief in atlantis to the point you require it for your word to make sense.

So why is it that all these ancient double helix's appear to be snakes and why take the leaping assumption that they somehow represent DNA?

They all appear as snakes. I was watching Jeff Corwin yesterday and you know what I saw? Snakes. Snakes that were coiling. There was a pair that were mating, they took the shape of a double helix, not because they were symbolising the genetic code but because they were mating.

Here's a snake double helix for ya. It's even uncoiling -
could they be symbolising RNA aswell?


And here is another pair fighting.


There is a reason the snakes are depicted as double helixs' and it ain't because they are symbolic for DNA but because that's what they do.



posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 08:42 PM
link   
They could indeed simply be a macrocosm of the smaller microcosmic RNA. Ultimately there is only Yin and Yang interacting throughout the whole round of nature and the universe.



posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 01:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Hollywood11
 


Says you.

This is not a one-line reply.



posted on Oct, 7 2008 @ 12:12 PM
link   
Not only me, but every observation ever made by human beings as well as enlightened beings confirms this.



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 01:43 AM
link   
You're talking gibberish again, Hollywood. Confirm what? Wand who are these enlightened beings? And what evidence is there that suggests that they exist? Reasonably!?



posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 12:28 AM
link   
The whole "enlightened ancient beings" argument from those afraid of actual facts and the scientific method always cracks me up . . .

First . . . Stories in books don't prove the existence of any being . . . ancient or contemporary. Just as stories about "gods" don't prove the existence of "gods" and stories about "unicorns" don't prove the existence of unicorns.

BUT IF . . . you could prove the existence of "ancient" beings . . . you have no way to determined their enlightened status. "Enlightened" in whose estimation? . . . The smartest guy in the tribe . . . the only guy that knows how to write . . . a schitzophrenic shamen?

The very method to determine anything about ancient civilzations is completely misrepresented and dismissed by those that want to "believe" in these ancients beings . . . so, it's back to believing what some drugged up holy man or fear mongering ruler wanted written in a book . . . some evidence.



posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 12:47 AM
link   
Evolution : Obvious Evidence to Prove 99% of It ...

God : No Proof For It



posted on Oct, 23 2008 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by solomons path


First . . . Stories in books don't prove the existence of any being


They can. For example, if different people from unrelated and unconnected cultures write about the same thing, or see the same things in their visions, it would be likely that they both are seeing the same things and what they saw was objectively real. For example, if the gods of the ancient world were just hallucinations, then unrelated cultures wouldn't have the same gods with only slightly different names. Like Nu Wa in the east and Yahweh in the west....scientists think these are 2 different gods and that they are just made up by ancient people, but in fact they are related and ancient people really did have contact with them in their meditations and visions. This is why unrelated people come to the same conclusions and write about the same things independantly of each other.

[edit on 23-10-2008 by Hollywood11]



posted on Oct, 23 2008 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Hollywood11
 


Which would make sense if you had any evidence to suggest that, but you don't, so it can be added to the long list of "Things Hollywood11 thinks he knows but obviously doesn't".



posted on Oct, 24 2008 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Hollywood11
 


You're also forgetting about missionaries.



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 10:37 PM
link   
I'm not forgetting that....it all depends on the time of travel as well as where a particular missionary came from and went to.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join