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, It's only a theory

page: 35
65
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 10:11 AM
link   
I give up on this topic. I believe in evolution and don't think it is impossible that a creator could have guided the process. I do oppose the fundamental creationist view point.

Here is another youtube video that sums up this debate:





posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

The difference is that evolution is supported by mountains of factual material and your faith is supported by your faith



My faith? what does that have to do with science? I thought you evolutionists debunked my faith long ago?

I still seem to have it nevertheless but I won't deny you your added delusions. My faith is the hope of things promised the evidence of things unseen. You may have a problem with that but I do not.



I'm sorry you're having trouble with this concept.
What I meant is that there is a large amount of factual, scientific data that supports the theory of evolution. Examples of this large amount of factual data have been posted throughout this thread which you obviously have not read or you wouldn't have made this comment in the first place.


Yes I am having trouble with it because as it would seem this is not an exact science for you . Nor does your attempt to elaborate what you first tried to explain was a mountain, now is a "large amount" of "factual" data posted throughout this thread when I haven't seen a damn thing "Factual" and you would think if anyone would believe in things "unseen" it would those capable of having faith in things unseen. I still don't see a large amount of anythng whatever a large amount is in your mind, I suppose it is again analagous to the already alleged mountain but I can't say for sure.




OK disprove the theory of evolution.


Don't you hate it when someone tells you to "prove god doesn't exist"?

Well that is what you are asking me to prove with evolution and until someone can PROVE it exists in the first place,,



Are you posting to troll or do you have evidence?
If you don't post evidence by default, we'll just assume you're trolling.








[edit on 5-3-2009 by Aermacchi]



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
You can also look up the phrase "military intelligence" doesn't mean it really exists



I looked up both of them an albeit true they seem somewhat of an oxymoron when put together in a sentence, the two individually do happen to exist. Sorry that's what we creationists call a "Fact". A Fact just IS and it exists whether one can understand the meaning of the word FACT

or not.


I can even look up the words ogre, dragon, fairy, halfling, etc... and read about them also



How nice for you.



There's also the creationist museum that believes dinosaurs were on noah's ark?


And your point?



They claim they're creationist scientists, so does that automatically mean they really are?


If an evolutionist scientist discovered proof of that, would that make him less a scientist? I bet it would in the Darwin community



And dinosaurs were on the ark? Do YOU believe that?


You're asking a person that believe's in God that question, you DO know that do you not?



They CLAIM they're something called creation scientists after all



Again, your point?



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by John Matrix
Originally posted by jrod
We "evolutionist" are not attacking your beliefs, it is your side attacking us for using reason.


That's absurd
people don't start threads like this for any other purpose than to generate rivalry. Look at the OP. It's clearly meant to confront, belittle and demean Creationists.

Creationists have a duty to defend their positions when confronted with the blind faith preachers of evolution.

ALL of the exact same evidence fits much better, and much more reasonably, into the creation model.

OK defend yourself and prove what you say.
You haven't so far and ignored every other attempt to ask these questions so I don't expect you to now but at least everyone else will see you make baseless statements and refuse to back them up



And what do you suppose YOU have done in these threads besides accuse people of trolling? Just what do you suppose YOUR posts are?

The alternative?


Pffft



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


BAC, I will not qualify your comments on THIS thread....I just suggest you see mine on another.

(once, before I sign off....your comment is out of line....WE, all Humans, are related to simians....but, only exponentially)

IF you ever wish to refer to my, or to anyone else's 'screenname' in a disparaging manner, then it is YOUR problem, not ours.


I have no problem with your handle, what makes you think that?

I've never commented on that, and never would.

I just said if you want to think you evolved from monkeys, then so be it. I don't.



Weed may have gotten that Idea from me saying they think we came from "MacGilla" Gorrila" as a response to much of their criticiZm.

I tuned out weeds posts in threads like this so I don't usually notice them anymore, they are all pretty much the same. If he ever does that for me I would be thrilled.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by griffinrl


How many elements are there in the period table? 20 years ago it was touted as fact that there were 109. Now we've discovered 6 more.


So the 109 elements in the table weren't facts because more were discovered? Was it stated absolutely that no other elements would be found?

Maybe I misread your statement and you're saying that data can always be revised with new input? I think that's what you're saying but correct me if I'm wrong

This one I agree with you on.



The first mammals were said as a fact to have evolved 155 million years ago. Now science claims it was more like 200 million years ago.


[edit on 5-3-2009 by griffinrl]


Actually I was wrong about 6 more, it's 9 more as of this date.

There is controversy about whether some of the elements are indeed fact.



en.wikipedia.org...
"The first transuranium element (element with atomic number greater than 92) discovered was neptunium in 1940. As of August 2007, only the elements up to 111, roentgenium, have been confirmed as valid by IUPAC, while more or less reliable claims have been made for synthesis of elements 112, 113, 114, 115, 116 and 118."


More or less reliable claims? I don't consider "more or less" a fact.

Yup, I do believe data can always be updated as we learn more. That's why we have to be careful with what we call a fact.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by JPhish
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


well allegations and pre-conceived notions have not been "OFF of the table" Most if not all of them have been running rampant in the "naturalists" posts.


Ahhh JPHISH! How the hell are you my good friend! Long time no see.

B.a.c. I want you to meet Jphish, he is an exceptionally intelligent debater on threads like these and although he has complimented me with the distinction of inspiring him to become a member here, I have been a HUGE fan of his many posts and arguments especially with Horza, man you owned that guy. I too have seen this happen in naturalist threads but again was the reason for my first post in this thread.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

Although we may not have every little piece of evidence surrounding evolution, we still know that evolution is correct.



No you still BELIEVE evolution is correct

Their is not much more than speculation surrounding evolution much of which your interpretation of the evidence wants to believe is true and Belief is what faith is all about



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by griffinrl
Jesus did it.

Simple as that.

Argument settled


WoW! That has got to be the most accurate observation I have ever seen you admit is true!

Gee Griff! Can I add you to my friends list!! hehe



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Aermacchi
 


Sure why not? I'm sure you could use all the friends you can find



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 12:26 PM
link   
I have some questions.

1. Why is there only 10,000 years of space dust accumulations on the moon's surface.

2. Why is the oldest reef in the world(great barrier reef) dated at 4,400 years old?

3. Why does the accumulation of space dust (mostly iron and nickel) on the ocean floor represent only 10,000 years of accumulations.

4. If the moon is moving away from the earth at a rate of 3.8 cm per year, how close would it have been to earth 50,000 years ago, and what effect would that have on ocean tides? Wash over the continents maybe?

5. How come there is evidence of flooding all over the planet?

Animals have to be buried immediately in order for bones to fossilize, otherwise the bones decay or are dragged away and chewed to bits by other wild animals. I've see dead wild animals completely disappear in a matter of days. The fossil record exists as a result of quick burial and little to no oxygen. The layers of strata the fossils are found in do not represent layers laid down over millions of years, but instead, represent different weights and consistencies of materials being deposited hydraulically.

Sedimentary layers were formed in Spirit Lake in the aftermath of mt. st. helens eruption. Trees that had been uprooted and floated on the lakes surface became "root heavy" with water which caused them to plant upright in the bottom of the lake, with various layers of sediment burying the trees in different depth, giving the exact same look as other ancient forests which also have roots growing through so called millions of years of strata...LOL.


Coal was observed to have begun forming in the bottom of Spirit Lake only 10 years after the event. Explain that.

During the same event, canyons that look like a mini grand canyon were formed through solid rocks by mud and debris in a matter of days, not millions of years.

I can go on and on with evidence that points to a much younger earth.

Carbon dating is based on a constant decay rate that's only been observed for what? 75 years maybe? Who says it's always been constant? Prove it?

www.icr.org...



edited to add a link on the faults with carbon dating.

[edit on 5/3/09 by John Matrix]



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 12:41 PM
link   
More evidence for a much younger earth:

mineralization of sea water at present rates indicate thousands of years old, not millions.

too much carbon 14 in diamonds and strata.

minerals with too much helium.

tons of evidence for a much younger earth....yes...tons!

check out the evidence here:

www.icr.org...




posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by griffinrl
reply to post by ExistenceUnknown
 


I can tell you this from personal experience. I was raised in a fundamental Pentecostal household. Talk about raised in ignorance. Luckily as I became a teenager I began to question things and realized that I wasn't being given any facts. Thank goodness I had at least enough intelligence and a strong enough mind set to investigate. I admit I'm biased against religion...but that's due to being rasied in it. I never in my entire life met a happy Pentecostal. And for the record I'm 44 now and not a teenager


Do you think the heathens don't raise kids in ignorance?

Your families belief's were flawed if they raised you in ignorance(usually as a result of some sort of fear or separatist ideology).

But the heathens do the same thing. People love to hate and ignore what they don't understand....and that also inlcudes hating people they don't understand.

Fales pride, prejudice, bigotry, etc. all precipitate from hatred.

Neither the Pentacostals or heathens have a corner on keeping their children ignorant.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by John Matrix
 


Yeah and I'm sure it was because I didn't belong to the correct religion too. Of course we didn't have access to fine learning institutions such as the Institute for Creation Research.

[edit on 5-3-2009 by griffinrl]



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by skeptic_al


Where as Creationism locks you into a religeon. Which also means you
must follow the Religeon without question and just blindly accept what
the Religeon says is fact.


really?

what about intelligent design?



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by griffinrl
reply to post by John Matrix
 


Yeah and I'm sure it was because I didn't belong to the correct religion too. Of course we didn't have access to fine learning institutions such as the Institute for Creation Research.

[edit on 5-3-2009 by griffinrl]


Thank God for Al Gore and the internet Griff! Else you might of ended up like them there columbine kids shooting at everyone boasting about how wonderful Natural Selection was or that guy Jeffery Dahmer who said he didn't respect life because he was taught life is nothing special in evolution classes !



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aermacchi

Originally posted by skeptic_al
Where as Creationism locks you into a religeon. Which also means you
must follow the Religeon without question and just blindly accept what
the Religeon says is fact.


really?

what about intelligent design?


Same as creationism (not as lazy though)...

There are NO experiments or predictions which go in favor of it.

It cannot be disputed or replaced with better theory like scientific theories can. Only fills in the gaps (where science have no answers so far) of science with bunch of controversial crap.

Therefore, it is not in the same category with science



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by 5thElement

Originally posted by Aermacchi

Originally posted by skeptic_al
Where as Creationism locks you into a religeon. Which also means you
must follow the Religeon without question and just blindly accept what
the Religeon says is fact.


really?

what about intelligent design?


Same as creationism (not as lazy though)...

There are NO experiments or predictions which go in favor of it.

It cannot be disputed or replaced with better theory like scientific theories can. Only fills in the gaps (where science have no answers so far) of science with bunch of controversial crap.

Therefore, it is not in the same category with science


The ONLY thing that makes sense about your post is what is lacking in it and that is not ONE of your statements by you OR griff attempts to answer John Matrix questions.



I guess that is just more of the things "Science" doesn't have an answer for huh.



[edit on 5-3-2009 by Aermacchi]



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 02:47 PM
link   
If evolution is a theory (or in your perception - not "real"), then religion is a joke.

If there were two horses racing, one had 80% chance to win, and the other had a 20% chance to win - who would you bet on if they had the same outcome?

Evolution is logical while religion is not regarding our education today.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by FritosBBQTwist
If evolution is a theory (or in your perception - not "real"), then religion is a joke.

If there were two horses racing, one had 80% chance to win, and the other had a 20% chance to win - who would you bet on if they had the same outcome?

Evolution is logical while religion is not regarding our education today.


If they had the same outcome it wouldn't matter which one I picked would it and why do you insist on comparing religion to Science? You are neither a Scientists nor a Theologist

[edit on 5-3-2009 by Aermacchi]




top topics



 
65
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join