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: 63
65
<< 60  61  62    64  65  66 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 11 2009 @ 08:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
reply to post by spy66
 


Okay, so I just had my poodle, (oatmeal and coffee). Later I'll take my banana to the lumber yard to pick up some wood. Then, after spider (burgers today!) I'll dig up the yard looking for a Jean-Luc Picard that's been tunneling under my green starship.

Words are kind of useful when we use them consistently, aren't they?


Is this all you have?

I think i can rest my case.




posted on Apr, 11 2009 @ 08:26 AM
link   
reply to post by andre18
 




the way i see it,

Evolution can include a creator god....
Creationism cannot include a process of evolution.


i see evolution as a structure for conceptualization
very similar to the 'Periodic Table of Elements', (which could be organized in any other number of ways other than the way it is now)

the evolutionary 'Tree'
makes for an organized framework, not much more than that...

radical thought puts a 'dogma' face on evolution just as the creationists do with their zealots.


thanks



posted on Apr, 11 2009 @ 08:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by St Udio
reply to post by andre18
 

the way i see it,
Evolution can include a creator god....
Creationism cannot include a process of evolution.
i see evolution as a structure for conceptualization
very similar to the 'Periodic Table of Elements', (which could be organized in any other number of ways other than the way it is now)
the evolutionary 'Tree'
makes for an organized framework, not much more than that...
radical thought puts a 'dogma' face on evolution just as the creationists do with their zealots.
thanks


Questions (you won't answer):

Why should evolution include a creator god?

How would life to organized other than as a "tree"?

Have you ever tried to look up "dogma"?



posted on Apr, 11 2009 @ 08:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by St Udio
reply to post by andre18
 




the way i see it,

Evolution can include a creator god....
Creationism cannot include a process of evolution.


I agree that creationism has gone way past their own understanding of science.

And i also hardly ever see any religious people ever agree on anything concerning the their own common religion either. The Bible is argued among them constantly.

Its has become more like a competition .

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]



posted on Apr, 11 2009 @ 08:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla

Originally posted by St Udio
reply to post by andre18
 

the way i see it,
Evolution can include a creator god....
Creationism cannot include a process of evolution.
i see evolution as a structure for conceptualization
very similar to the 'Periodic Table of Elements', (which could be organized in any other number of ways other than the way it is now)
the evolutionary 'Tree'
makes for an organized framework, not much more than that...
radical thought puts a 'dogma' face on evolution just as the creationists do with their zealots.
thanks


Questions (you won't answer):

Why should evolution include a creator god?



Why dont you answer this question instead of asking it.

Are you scared you might be telling a lie ?



posted on Apr, 11 2009 @ 08:52 AM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


Easy answer, creation doesn't need a god. What's to be afraid of in that? The Great Sky Fairy isn't going to come down and smite me.



posted on Apr, 11 2009 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by St Udio
reply to post by andre18
 


the way i see it, Evolution can include a creator god....


Why does evolution need to include a creator god? There is no process in evolution that requires the need for a supernatural element to help the process along. Simply not needed.

We have fossils that illustrate human evolution, whale evolution, horse evolution etc We know evolution is real - what we don't know, what we are still trying to figure out is exactly how life formed.

But what we can do in a laboratory is demonstrate that it’s possible for the building blocks of life – amino acids to come from none living material. Apply electricity you get amino acids. That doesn’t tell us exactly how life did form on earth in the past but what it does do, it tells us that life can come from none life.

Simply because we haven't figured out exactly how yet doesn't and shouldn't mean 'god did it' because you still have to explain how god did it. You have do be able to build up a plausible scientific hypothesis of how ‘god did it’ in order to show how god actually did do it……otherwise it’s just nothing but hope that he did it without reason other then blind faith.


the evolutionary 'Tree' makes for an organized framework, not much more than that...


I wouldn't say its organized.....that there's intent behind it. That I would disagree with. Yes I would agree the tree isn't much more then a tree but what else do you expect it to be???


radical thought puts a 'dogma' face on evolution just as the creationists do with their zealots.


I don't know about that, are you saying people who tend to side with evolution are causing it to only be looked upon as one basic view - evolution right god wrong etc or do you mean something completely different, am I totally missing the point of your sentence?

[edit on 11-4-2009 by andre18]



posted on Apr, 11 2009 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
The Great Sky Fairy is as accurate a name as any other for the supernatural being required for the Faithful to feel safe and cozy in the big, bad universe.


Yes and your fear of him is showing as I have never met anyone claiming to be an atheist that could prove he was an atheist.

You aint no atheist son,, you hate the Christian God too much for someone allegedly not believing in him.

what a pity, your snide sneering comments are testimony of your being already convinced. As for evolution, nothing could be further from the truth and their is NOTHING you can show me that I would not be able to exploit as vacuous holes chasms, a gulf so wide that the mountain you call evidence wouldn't fall in it crashing and burning like the fraud faux science of perdition that it is.




Evolution is demonstrable to the point where nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution. Evolution is a fact. Unlike the Faithful, we mere mortal don't know everything, so the exact mechanism of evolution is still being studied. And that's the difference between science and Faith. We keep studying, learning, and asking more questions. With Faith you have hit a wall that you'll never get past.


One needs not have to ask the questions when one has the truth and your truth changes every two three months there you'll be defending another way the " mechanism " might have done it this time with only more obfuscation more semantics more lies more deceipt. The fact is you aren't busy studying a "mecanism" at all when what they keep doing is "inventing" new ones while the old ones get destroyed by creationists and that is what burns the evolutionists up, why they hate us challenging their asinine theory.

If your science was so damn unequivocally obvious so much the mountains the tons of BS it has always been and always will be. The only reason you defend it is you because you blame God for your whole miserable Godless life.

I can tell by your demeanor your immature childish tactics of mocking the creator as if that is supposed to "get our goat" when God won't be mocked and whoa to those who have mocked him so.

The bronze age book you mock spoke of you and those like you that in the last days they would profess to be wise but they become fools which is exactly how I would describe you.

You want to talk science?

Have at it kid, Ill prove a common creator with more ease and clear observable proof than you could prove a common ancestor because the ONLY common ancestor is Adam. You have had a crappy attitude since you first came in here offering nothing but silly tactless ad-hom efforts sliding out of every genuine invitation to serious dialogue

The truth is the truth even if no one believes it

a lie is a lie even if everyone believes it.

You have your mind made up

so why bother you with

the facts

[edit on 11-4-2009 by Aermacchi]



posted on Apr, 11 2009 @ 02:14 PM
link   
There are many questions concerning God. Watch this.

A bit of humor in all the seriousness.
www.youtube.com...

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]



posted on Apr, 11 2009 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Aermacchi
 


"Yes and your fear of him is showing as I have never met anyone claiming to be an atheist that could prove he was an atheist. "

Proving the non-exsistence of the need for a moral crutch like a god? Gee, that's a thought. Your challenge is ludicrous.



posted on Apr, 11 2009 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
reply to post by Aermacchi
 


"Yes and your fear of him is showing as I have never met anyone claiming to be an atheist that could prove he was an atheist. "

Proving the non-exsistence of the need for a moral crutch like a god? Gee, that's a thought. Your challenge is ludicrous.


Hey dude have you figured out if i lied yet. I am still waiting lol.



posted on Apr, 11 2009 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by andre18
We have fossils that illustrate human evolution, whale evolution, horse evolution etc We know evolution is real - what we don't know, what we are still trying to figure out is exactly how life formed.....


You have NOTHING of the kind and Ill tell you why andre, it is because you and others here like you who believe in the biggest hoax ever perpetrated in science, do so without the mind of a skeptic but as a blind faith, nay a desciple, a follower of the ever lieing illusion of Darwinian evolution. The fossils of man illustrating evolution are just that "Illustrations". The cartoons and animations of what they imagine "might" have happened if evolution were true but it isn't true.

The sequence showing the supposed evolution of the horse, which even they admit to be false, is still on display in museums. The horse series charts were the result of distortions of the facts. Every new fossil discovery has revealed the invalidity of these imaginary charts.

The peppered moths are an excellent example of this. Looked at in the light of research up until the last quarter of the 20th century, trees grew darker in color as the Industrial Revolution progressed. Therefore, lighter colored moths living on these trees declined in number as they were more visible to birds and more easily caught. Darker colored moths, on the other hand, increased in number. But this has nothing to do with evolution, of course. No new species emerged. All that happened was a change in the proportions within the moth population. But in order to show this as a so-called evidence of evolution through natural selection, Darwinists resorted to sticking moths onto tree trunks with his supporters asking what is the big deal, it was to illustrate the point. The point they fail to realize is peppered moths don't cling to trees period. This whole sham was created as a strawman.




What we have seen in most science labs are the artisans renderings of heavy browed baloney the quasi man-ape carvings in alibastor passed off as actual skulls discovered but when you go to the archive where the actual skull is stored, you see what is nothing of the kind but merely a fragmented jawbone or tooth they built the skull around to their own taste to fit the model of this broken philosophy.

So desperate are they to be a science of worthy prestige poised as the proven proponents of a science on the breaking edge of the worlds most important discoveries but time and time again, unlike the greats of other areas of science, like Pasteur, Einstein, Hahn, Oppenheim, Newton, Salk, Meitner, etc, we see the all stars of evolution being brought down like a house of cards where entire trees of evolution once thought to be great discoveries and transitional epics of our bio-historical footprint are not just mistakes or forgivable excuses understood with our blessing as they go back to the drawing board.

No what we have seen and continue to see is a science that has so many deliberate lies and pre-meditated frauds that are continuously overlooked and even forgiven that it should embarrass even the most serious ardent lovers of this most manipulative membership of science using the most machiavellian machinations of fakery and fraud, it has the distinction of being the science most attractive to unethical atheist's using it NOT as science per se, but as an alternative justification to explain away the creator while they worship mans creations of manufactured evidence and pathetically perpetrated piltdown frauds.

Your best paletologists, your most note worthy of scientists, not just the average or mediocre of your clique of notable who's who of science but your best have also been guilty of perpetuating the frauds of this construct of anti-theisism.

Haeckel, BUSTED and his excuse?

"everyone else was doing it"

and ya know, what?

I believe him.

Shinichi Fujimura, BUSTED

One of the most highly respected and regarded Japanese archaeologist's known for his prolific fossil and artifact discoveries uncovering prehistoric artefacts he earned the nickname "God's hands". At site after site, Fujimura discovered stoneware and relics that pushed back the limits of Japan's known history. The researcher and his stone age finds drew international attention and rewrote text books. His name was often used to besmirch the creationist arguments yet In November 2000 the spell was broken when a newspaper printed pictures of Fujimura digging holes and burying objects that he later dug up and announced as major finds.

his excuse?

"I was tempted by the devil. I don't know how I can apologise for what I did,"

Interesting the atheist used the devil once said to be a myth, he now blames as a reality but as usual the terminal self righteousness of his atheism left him speechless as to articulate the simple phrase "I am sorry, I was wrong" .

How very typical of this science.

when a science is caught over and over where entire careers are ruined by a fraud, in many cases throwing an entire tree of evolution out the window, what happens when one of evolutions most celebrated is not only an entire career ruined but as we find out was an entire career of fraud after fraud after fraud after fraud. For thirty years Professor Reiner Protsch von Zieten, known the world over for his scientific acheivements to evolution science, discovered one of archaeology's most sensational finds. The skull fragment discovered in a peat bog near Hamburg was more than 36,000 years old - and was the vital missing link between modern humans and Neanderthals.

While many like those here had used his discovery and quoted from peer reviewed papers he had written, with all the zealotry backing up their bravado so brazen and sure of themselves, like we see going on here/

Yet once again ALL of it, I mean everything this guy did was a fake,.

The professor's 30-year-old academic career has now ended in disgrace after the revelation that he systematically falsified the dates on this and numerous other "stone age" relics. Thomas Terberger, the archaeologist who discovered the hoax said "Prof Protsch's work appeared to prove that anatomically modern humans and Neanderthals had co-existed, and perhaps even had children together. This now appears to be rubbish."

He continued saying: "Anthropology is going to have to completely revise its picture of modern man between 40,000 and 10,000 years ago,"

In one case he had claimed that a 50 million-year-old "half-ape" called Adapis had been found in Switzerland, an archaeological sensation. In reality, the ape had been dug up in France, where several other examples had already been found

The professor had been forced to retire because of numerous "falsehoods and manipulations". According to experts, his deceptions may mean an entire tranche of the history of man's development will have to be rewritten. But ya know what, knowing evolutionists and their reluctance to correct the many fradulent icons of this science, simply won't ever get around to it with it being safely and erroneuously used in examples for the mountain of evidence in a landfill of bogus bunk science and manufactured evidence.


The most infamous of all scientific frauds, Piltdown Man "fossil" was named Eoanthropus dawsoni after Charles Dawson, the solicitor and amateur archaeologist who discovered it. For 40 years Piltdown Man was heralded as the missing link between humans and their primate ancestors. But in 1953 scientists concluded it was a forgery.

generations of students who were by this discovery's very existence, duped into being convinced that man was no longer made in the image of God and again, it was argued and believed we were some kind of spin-off from primates.

We had Javaman = Fraud

Colorado man = Fraud

Lucy = Fallacy

Cromagnan = fallacy

neanderthal man = fraud

Coelcanth = un-evolved after 30 million years

Micro Raptor, = extinct bird




Since then then their have been mountains more of fraudulent evidence from fudged data to fit the theory to the avida computer models which again have proven to be programmed heavily in favor of the evolution paradigm settling nothing. Mutations are one of the two "evolutionary mechanisms" proposed by Darwinism. It is suggested that these chance modifications to DNA caused living things to evolve. Thousands of mutation experiments have been performed to back up this claim. Some populations of living things, fruit flies in particular, have been subjected to intense mutation. Evolutionist publications portray these mutation experiments as "laboratory evidence of evolution." Yet the fact is that far from confirming evolution these experiments have actually undermined it. Even the recent Lenski experiments where it was said that e-coli bacteria had evolved new gene's that enabled the assimilation of citrate was proven by Royal Truman and several others having a look at original documentation and lab work where new codons were created and later it was shown that this expression of a genetic adaptation could be coaxed into activation and lenski's particularly unreal lab environment directed the natural selection process towards an artificial selection proving nothing that we had not already might have predicted.

Darwinist scientists who uncovered the fossil agree that the fossil they discovered in Kenya is THE SAME WITH THE CONTEMPORARY MAN. , which was discussed in Science magazine and then in news channels such as Reuters and BBC News, belongs to a human being 5 feet 9 inches tall The very same measurements also make it possible to understand the weight, stride length and the gait. ALL THESE MEASUREMENTS MADE ON THE FOOTPRINT REVEALED THOSE OF THE CONTEMPORARY MAN. Yet we don't see Darwinist's in any hurry to publish their thoughts and ideas on that find.
Gee isn't that unusual. PfffT



But what we can do in a laboratory is demonstrate that it’s possible for the building blocks of life – amino acids to come from none living material. Apply electricity you get amino acids. That doesn’t tell us exactly how life did form on earth in the past but what it does do, it tells us that life can come from none life.


No it doesn't tell us anythng, and saying it can when it cannot and has not, just supposing it might does not a scientific experiment make but it does offer more examples of evolution succumbing to the logical fallacy for assuming the consequent.


Simply because we haven't figured out exactly how yet doesn't and shouldn't mean 'god did it'


Even if it did prove God did it, do you really think anyone of you would admit it.


because you still have to explain how god did it.


We believe if we had an equal part at the table of science, we could not only do that, but we would be able to humiliate the evolutonary scientists having the academic bureucrats wondering why they didn't do that sooner.



You have do be able to build up a plausible scientific hypothesis of how ‘god did it’ in order to show how god actually did do it……otherwise it’s just nothing but hope that he did it without reason other then blind faith.


You think you can just make arbitrary rules for creationists like that when evolutionists won't even discuss abiogenesis muchless give us a chance to do the science in an atmosphere so proven guilty of discriminating against anyone in science who has an interest in challenging the status quo of Darwinian dimwits and their dogmatic Dr. Doolittle zoologist Dick Dawkins.

The fact is andre, you have NO evidence to support molecules to man evolution, NONE, NOTTA, ZILCH, ZIPPO and you never will because it is a lie.


Plane and simple and why many will say " So what if some frauds were found that some crooks did that, it doesn't stop nature from hapening!"

To them I would say, no it doesn't and part of that nature that seems to keep happening is that it is in the evolutionist's nature to cheat to lie and corrupt real science.

Evolution is not a Science, it is a taxidermist's disneyland and a public education systems state run religion. Its own private hell and a nightmare for our nations future for leading that future will be the most idiotic graduates of a science that has not a clue what it thinks it does.

and isn't even aware of it



posted on Apr, 11 2009 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Aermacchi
 


Quite a rant. Pointless, however. You won't negate the most important facet of biological science with voodoo.



posted on Apr, 11 2009 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
reply to post by Aermacchi
 


"Yes and your fear of him is showing as I have never met anyone claiming to be an atheist that could prove he was an atheist. "

Proving the non-exsistence of the need for a moral crutch like a god? Gee, that's a thought. Your challenge is ludicrous.


While you actively disbelieve God you give it away all we need to know that proves my point. Yours is not the need for a moral crutch, but one to oppose it in favor of your own angst agression towards the God you claim you don't believe in yet here you are, either wasting your time talking to people who are delusional or trying your best to defeat an ideology you hate because it is real



posted on Apr, 11 2009 @ 08:01 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 11 2009 @ 08:08 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 11 2009 @ 08:11 PM
link   
Alright folks, knock off the personal jabs.



posted on Apr, 11 2009 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by AermacchiWhile you actively disbelieve God you give it away all we need to know that proves my point. Yours is not the need for a moral crutch, but one to oppose it in favor of your own angst agression towards the God you claim you don't believe in yet here you are, either wasting your time talking to people who are delusional or trying your best to defeat an ideology you hate because it is real

You confuse disdain with "active disbelief". I don't worry about the tooth fairy, I don't worry that Big Foot will stumble over me while I asleep in bed. I don't worry about your Great Sky Fairy. I AM annoyed with the god-botherers, the drum beaters, the holy Nazis that want me to adhere to their delusions.



posted on Apr, 11 2009 @ 08:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aermacchi
While you actively disbelieve God you give it away all we need to know that proves my point. Yours is not the need for a moral crutch, but one to oppose it in favor of your own angst agression towards the God you claim you don't believe in yet here you are, either wasting your time talking to people who are delusional or trying your best to defeat an ideology you hate because it is real


So you actually believe a person can't be an atheist?

I was never indoctrinated with a belief that includes an all powerful creating entity.

I have absolutely no reason to believe in God.

Other people believe it. So what?

It is written in many old books. Okay...many things are written in books.

Atheism is not a choice, it is a state of mind.

Where you have faith and belief I have thought and consideration.



posted on Apr, 11 2009 @ 09:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Jezus
 


Exactly. Some people aren't taught to believe in God, and therefore they have no reason to (since there is no other reason to other than being taught).

Great point.



new topics

top topics



 
65
<< 60  61  62    64  65  66 >>

log in

join