Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Evolution is Science, Creationists Delusional

page: 3
22
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 19 2008 @ 05:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by centrifugal

It is a popular belief among creationists, and certainly receives the most attention when evolution is involved. But it does not define creationism.


actually it does creationism its self says it happens they exact way it did in the bible 7 days things made in thier present form (unless you go to the creationist museum which uses super evolution after the flood which is evolution on steroids to the point the genetic code would collapse and everything would need to breed birth rear to breeding age in about 6 hours for the 2000 years until jesus popped up)

what your describing is theistic evolution, god started the ball rolling and used evolution to get us where we are today




posted on Dec, 19 2008 @ 05:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Warrior of Light
reply to post by Yoda411
 


I just wanted to re-post this question posed to you by an anonymous user, as I too am interested to read what you and others have to say in response. (I didn't see a reply, so I figure you have anonymous posts blocked, or just didn't see it)



Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
Here is a question for the OP. I'm convinced by the scientific evidence of how the Earth was made and the evolution process, but there is something that keeps bugging me...

At what time did a separation between plants and animals happen? is there any evidence of a plant/animal hybrid? This always puzzled me so please help me understand how the difference between plants and animals came to happen.


ill answer that,

early cells developed to be more complex cells these then split into early bacteria and the branch that then lead to archaea and eucaryota

on this branch that lead towards eucaryota and archaea plants began to develop

the first plants were simply single cells that developed the ability to use sunlight to help form energy rather then just digesting matter

so plants carry traces of the early animalistic genome

its not very technical correct but you can say plants came from animals so we share several similarities in cell structure and chemical composition

were not closely related but we are related

[edit on 19/12/08 by noobfun]



posted on Dec, 19 2008 @ 07:15 AM
link   
God created monkeys. The annunaki took those monkeys, spliced their own genes in, and created man as slaves. I used to believe in evolution, but it is pure fantasy.



posted on Dec, 19 2008 @ 07:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by freakyty
God created monkeys. The annunaki took those monkeys, spliced their own genes in, and created man as slaves. I used to believe in evolution, but it is pure fantasy.
wait what? natural process that has is and will be observered to have is and will alter genetics in living organisms is fantasy

there was a magic man in the sky who made monkeys and then giant space men came down did a few experiments and we popped up ..... yeah i can see why this is a rational thought when compared to a natural intrinsic facet of life

saying evolution is fantasy is about the same as saying circles arnt round, its an intrinsic value of life its self

btw the annunaki are sumaerian Gods, and as God say he is the only one this plan fails at the first hurdle

and thanks for supplying evidence to back it up


[edit on 19/12/08 by noobfun]



posted on Dec, 19 2008 @ 07:49 AM
link   
Creationist doens´t use science, they avoid it all cost. Usually they try to take some science out of it´s context and then character assassin the author.

Something like:
"Oh, so if evolution is true, where´s the crocodile-bird you GODLESS ATHEIST THAT WILL BURN IN HELL? (see Job456:52)"



posted on Dec, 19 2008 @ 07:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by centrifugal
reply to post by Yoda411
 


Two common arguments among creationists(christians) are that
A) Satan created the fossils to deceive us, making them appear to be aged
B) The timeline in the bible is not to be taken literally, and that God allowed for evolution to occur. In this case evolution would support creationism. According to Genesis God created all forms of life in the same order that evolution describes.

My objective here is not to prove creationism, but to demonstrate that you can't disprove creationism and that you are the delusional one if you think you can. I apologize for the circular argument but it is neccessary.

Creationism is based on faith, and no amount of scientific observation can prove it to be false.


I think this post pretty much sums all that needs to be said.

Creationism is based on faith, and no amount of scientific observation can prove it to be false.

There is no point in arguing or trying to 'convert' someone, its futile; i applaud your efforts though.



posted on Dec, 19 2008 @ 08:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS

is there any evidence of a plant/animal hybrid?


Coral and Sponges seem to be plant/animal hybrids in that they are very "plant-like" but do not use photosynthesis...




[edit on 19-12-2008 by nj2day]



posted on Dec, 19 2008 @ 08:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Yoda411
 


The beginning of our planet: Your explanation is pure fantasy. It is not based on empirical scientific methods. No one observed any of this.

The beginning of life: Again, this is all speculation. If this was possible it could be duplicated in a laboratory(make a living cell from non life materials). Since a living cell has never been created from non living material in a laboratory, trillions of years of random activity cannot do it. Then you have the problem of explaining how all the millions of life forms on our planet came from this first proposed living cell.

Think about a television set that is turned on but not receiving a transmission. You have random static referred to as snow. It's a black and white picture of snow created by the electron gun in the television firing random electrons. The likelihood of evolution is the same as the likelihood that the electron gun is going to randomly, over millions of years, produce a color picture of my naked wife.

I remain unconvinced. It is quite logical to associate design in the universe to an intelligent designer.

Teach people that they are a product of chance and evolved from slime, then on to animals, and they will act like animals. They daily news programs are proof of that. That's something that can be observed!!
I have no doubt the spoon fed masses are converted and believe in this delusion, so you have a lot of company and support.

No offence intended, but I do find this hypothesis to be an assault on logic and reason. I am convinced that the creator himself could not come down to earth and convince you otherwise. So, I leave you with my two sense.

Evolution scientists get all the gov. funding. Creation scientists don't. It's hard to speak the truth when you know your funding depends on your promulgating lies.



posted on Dec, 19 2008 @ 09:09 AM
link   
Latest Evidence: Sahelanthropus tchadensis and
The Missing Link That Never Was
I encourage everyone not to close the door of your mind and go through this website:

www.darwinismrefuted.com...




posted on Dec, 19 2008 @ 09:17 AM
link   
reply to post by John Matrix
 


the main point I'd like to raise with your "technically correct" observation of the lack of observation "nobody was there to watch it happen"
Which is of course correct, but no argument as it is like the "if a tree falls in the forest and there is no one there to hear it doe sit make a sound?"
Although indeed no one is there to hear the sound, we can through experience, logic and thousands of years of human social legacy, assume quite condifently and accuraltey (certainyl in the case of a tree) that it did indeed make a sound.

A key distinction of fossils and remains and diversified species is that they are observable, studiable, they simply exist they are not trying to bash us over the head sayign "you must beleive in me".

Also the bible (for example) is a cobbled collection of reinterpretted stories over quite some time, the fact that the Genesis section is newer than the old testament is telling in so far as that where by when thousands of living scientists concur with (at least mostly) their peers in considering that based upon many observations it seems reaosnable to assume until other evidence presents itself vastly to the contrary that evolution and natural selection are bloody sensible concepts. Where as in the case of a creationist perspective, somone wrote down a story based upon somethign that no one who is alive now or when the story was written actually experienced, and the "proof" is that there must be intelligent design i the universe from some all pervading creator.

Is that divine intelligence intending for people to be born with disabilities?
or any other unfortunate fact of life on earth.

Perhaps it is because Dogma does not change that Creationists cannot concieve of how change and thus evolution occur, physically, historically, culturally.

Even (generalising massivley now) Religion itself could be put to common shamanistic roots where the "holy man" would go on spirit journey's often with use of psychotropic substances.

In times of crisis religion gives solidarity for it is an opiate that says "dont fear, have faith, all will be fine.
And those who have faith and die, cannot live to loose it.
Those with faith that live only have their one more day on earth as proof of divine countenance.

Control of this faith is a wonderful way to keep people calm when it's all going to hell.

It boils down to someone deciding the answer for everyone rather than everyone finding the answers over time.

If you want to be told what to think read a book.
If you want to make up your own mind, read many books, and dont stop reading.

Personally I feel that their are great advantages to religions, in terms of morale guidance, but the dogmatic rigour of clerical rule and scripture is against life itself as an adaptive chaotic thing.

It is Ironic then that religions too for all their attempts to keep from changing actually do, christianity for instance have a legion of differing movments, and many other religions too.

The best thing to illustrate my point is start talking to someone who you consider to share your faith about what you both in fact beleive, you may find that you end up arguing because of individual personal interpretations.

I always say "your god is who you say he is and no one can tell you different"

Creationists already have an answer to a BIG question, a provision of their faith so they can worry about other things, in one sense that's quite practical, but they do say that ignorance is bliss.

They don't want antoher answer outside their creation story, it's simply inconvenient for their established belief.

An established beleif with established origins, which evloved, branched off, and was also observed by man & documented, studied, rationalised.



posted on Dec, 19 2008 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by John Matrix


The beginning of our planet: Your explanation is pure fantasy. It is not based on empirical scientific methods. No one observed any of this.


can we solve a murder if no one saw it bieng commited?
solve a rape case if the victim was unconcious?

and that reliese on impiracal scientific methods too, you dont have to see it your just have to be able to understand the evidence form a working conclusion and then prove its accurate

which they did and are doing

by your deffinition all murderers should be released unles they were seen killing the victim, having the corpse stashed under the floorboards the murder weapon covered in the victims blood and the killers finger prints, the blood stained clothing of the killer ..... none of it counts bacause they only have the evidence no one actually saw it

see the problem with your argument?


Think about a television set that is turned on but not receiving a transmission. You have random static referred to as snow. It's a black and white picture of snow created by the electron gun in the television firing random electrons. The likelihood of evolution is the same as the likelihood that the electron gun is going to randomly, over millions of years, produce a color picture of my naked wife.
wow havnt i explained exactly why this metaphor is wrong twice already? and how if theose electrons were subject to natural selection the image would quickly appear?

have dead horse will flog i guess


I remain unconvinced. It is quite logical to associate design in the universe to an intelligent designer.
except theres no logic to show its designed


Teach people that they are a product of chance and evolved from slime, then on to animals, and they will act like animals.
yes wont get any crusades witch burning or children in africa today bieng killed and tortured ...... o wait thats what christianity as a religeon did and is still doing today......


They daily news programs are proof of that. That's something that can be observed!!
what that countries with the highest athiest count highest science education are the ones with the lowest crime rates? the best education systems? best health systems?

while the most religeous are not?


No offence intended, but I do find this hypothesis to be an assault on logic and reason.
yes becasue magic is so logical isnt it ...?



I am convinced that the creator himself could not come down to earth and convince you otherwise. So, I leave you with my two sense.
actually that would be a start, after all atheists are just those looking for proof before they jump in feet first ... so maybe he should


Evolution scientists get all the gov. funding. Creation scientists don't. It's hard to speak the truth when you know your funding depends on your promulgating lies.
actually science is quite often self supporting, and when a high capital earner like the bio industries make lots of money they share some of it for the less able to self fund fields of science

science gains knowledge and makes applications, those applications make money that money funds more science



[edit on 19/12/08 by noobfun]



posted on Dec, 19 2008 @ 09:32 AM
link   
reply to post by John Matrix
 



I remain unconvinced. It is quite logical to associate design in the universe to an intelligent designer. ~~~~ Teach people that they are a product of chance and evolved from slime, then on to animals, and they will act like animals.


Logic and rationality... uh... aren't your strong suits, I take it?


Latest Evidence: Sahelanthropus tchadensis and
The Missing Link That Never Was


Creationists... always late to the party eh? I already explained on page 2 how Sahelanthropus was likely not a human ancestor, and how science has known that for the past SIX YEARS, and a mere ONE YEAR after it's discovery.

Way to stay current.

Well, since we're on the topic - I might as well post this video which correlates, since I know someone is going to get cute and mention Nebraska Man or some such hogwash.




posted on Dec, 19 2008 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by John Matrix
 


"Evolution scientists get all the gov. funding. Creation scientists don't."

OKay the easiest way to do this is just ask these questions in a list:

1.Isn't the church rich enough to fund its research?

2.What experiments do creation scientists want to do to prove their theories?

3.As there is a separation of church and state then it really isn't down to the govt to pay for creation science is it?

4.Isn't the term Creation scientists an oxymoron?



posted on Dec, 19 2008 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by John Matrix
Latest Evidence: Sahelanthropus tchadensis and
The Missing Link That Never Was
I encourage everyone not to close the door of your mind and go through this website:

www.darwinismrefuted.com...



latest? its years out of date, hell the magaizine article that ran the stoiry was 3 years after it was found

try reading somthing a little more uptodate

www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov...


The results not only confirm that TM 266-01-60-1 is a hominid but also reveal a unique mosaic of characters. The TM 266-01-60-1 reconstruction shares many primitive features with chimpanzees but overall is most similar to Australopithecus,
www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov...

umm so its a bit like chimps and a bit like early humans ancestors(Australopithecus) but has been shown to be running along side rather then fill the gap

im sorry i thought this proved human evolution wrong not supported it further?

[edit on 19/12/08 by noobfun]



posted on Dec, 19 2008 @ 10:17 AM
link   
I think at this point, it would be best to have the detractors of Evolution, announce their exact arguments on why it is a "failed" Theory...

Once they do this... perhaps we can show them the evidence on why their thinking is wrong... And they can answer specifically why our evidence is incorrect...

So far, all we see is "spray and pray" argument styles...

As this is a thread on evolution, lets force them to stick to the topic... And only state their problems with the current theories...

However, this also means the detractors cannot deny or ignore evidence unless they have undeniable proof that the evidence is false, or there is evidence to the contrary.

Perhaps we should start with what they think evolution is? and go from there?

I find that the detractors have less to say when forced to stick with the argument at hand...




[edit on 19-12-2008 by nj2day]



posted on Dec, 19 2008 @ 10:20 AM
link   





posted on Dec, 19 2008 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by noobfun
 


I'm not going to reply to any of your specific replies because your replies don't make any sense.

The molecule known as DNA, which is found in the nucleus of each of the 100 trillion cells in our bodies, contains the complete blueprint for the construction of the human body. The information regarding all the characteristics of a person, from physical appearance to the structure of the inner organs, is recorded in DNA within the sequence of four special bases that make up the giant molecule. These bases are known as A, T, G, and C, according to the initial letters of their names. All the structural differences among people depend on variations in the sequences of these letters. In addition to features such as height, and eye, hair and skin colors, the DNA in a single cell also contains the design of the 206 bones, the 600 muscles, the 100 billion nerve cells (neurons), 1.000 trillion connections between the neurons of the brain, 97,000 kilometers of veins, and the 100 trillion cells of the human body. If we were to write down the information coded in DNA, then we would have to compile a giant library consisting of 900 volumes of 500 pages each. But the information this enormous library would hold is encoded inside the DNA molecules in the cell nucleus, which is far smaller than the 1/100th-of-a-millimeter-long cell itself.

Evolution is a "blind faith" based system for explaining life on earth from it's origin to this present day. The mathematical probability for one living cell to have come into existence (over any period of time) as a result of non living particles coming together is utterly absurd....A single human cell is more complex than the space shuttle.....which makes evolution even more absurd.

Evolution is a conspiracy and a fraud. But the spoon fed masses are too close minded and far too lazy to do their own research so they blindly put their faith in it and in the scientists that keep the conspiracy alive in order to collect their gov. funding.

Intelligent design is evident throughout the universe. It takes very little faith to accept that there is a designer/creator behind life on earth.



posted on Dec, 19 2008 @ 10:43 AM
link   
hello to you all. I'm the one who posted the question about when the separation between plants and animals occurred. thanks for the information and thanks for answering my question. Keep up the discussion, this debate is quite interesting and informative indeed



posted on Dec, 19 2008 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by John Matrix
Evolution is a "blind faith" based system for explaining life on earth from it's origin to this present day. The mathematical probability for one living cell to have come into existence (over any period of time) as a result of non living particles coming together is utterly absurd....A single human cell is more complex than the space shuttle.....which makes evolution even more absurd.

Evolution is a conspiracy and a fraud. But the spoon fed masses are too close minded and far too lazy to do their own research so they blindly put their faith in it and in the scientists that keep the conspiracy alive in order to collect their gov. funding.


I'm sorry but I have to stop you right there.

Evolution is not "blind faith" because it has been consistently supported by many different unrelated scientific experiments using a huge variety of methods. If one of these experiments proved otherwise, the theory would not be known as scientific fact - which it is today.

As for the reason why a single cell is more complex than the space shuttle - that doesn't prove an intelligent designer. That proves the absolute power and obscurity of nature.

Do you really think I'm too lazy to do my own research? I mean really, do you think I was just fed this and I instantly bought it? No. I asked the important questions to both sides of the table. When I questioned the Christian Church how they know the Bible is true, their evidence was simply 'faith'. You can imagine when I asked a molecular scientist how they know Evolution is true, they provided evidence as you would be required to in order to prove the argument in a court of law.

As for Evolution being a conspiracy and a fraud, when is the last time an Evolutionist came knocking on your door asking for donations?

The Catholic Church expects 10% of your entire paycheck to "repent your sins".

[edit on 12/19/08 by Yoda411]



posted on Dec, 19 2008 @ 11:02 AM
link   
But what started that process and everything else? Is it just random interactions with laws of nature or is their a God behind it? That's the real question and one that science won't be able to get to the bottom of. Evolution and creationism can coexists....its delusional to think otherwise.

You have some people that put their faith (which they shouldn't) in the idea that the world is literally 6000 years old, and a lot of that other stuff. The main clash is between these people and science, but the small section that proposes that doesn't represent the whole which is what some people forget when they bring in evolution.

Group "C" believes in "X".
Group "C" also believes in "Z"
Group "B" thinks it has proven "X" to be incorrect.
Therefor (here's the logical failure) Group "C" is also wrong on "Z". And Group "D"'s ideas on "Z" are also wrong.

Group "D" isn't even involved yet evolutionists use what they've found on "X" to attack them. For people claiming to be so smart, its funny that they do this.

[edit on 19-12-2008 by ghaleon12]









 
22
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join