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.

 

Don't let them tell you that "The Theory of Evolution" is a fact.

page: 31
14
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by iWork4NWO
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


Live in your bubble. I don't care. Everybody should be directed to your previous post before they start discussing anything evolution related with you. I'm done. That much is certain. There is no point if you don't even know what a friggin' 10 year old kid knows.


I just proved you wrong. Of course you're done.


You just demonstrated your knowledge of the Theory.


You accept a Theory as fact that you know nothing about.

Climate, diet, and exercise cause inheritable changes? Go read up on Genetics.


[edit on 10-3-2009 by B.A.C.]




posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by iWork4NWO



You said you have worked in a uni now for 5 years in the bioscience dept ...


No I didn't and that's besides the point anyways..

[edit on 10-3-2009 by iWork4NWO]



Considering it's my 5th year in a University I'd hope to know what scientific methdod is. Apparently to you it's obvious that I don't. Well great. I really don't care. Let's move on..



Yes, I am a scientist. Going on my 5th year in a faculty of biosciences in a large European university. This makes me think that I understand the theory of evolution a lot better than you do. TOE, by the way refers to "theory of everything"..


OOPS... you see the point is, how can we believe anything you say? You are right, it's over with you. You are a fraud just like the Theory of Evolution you defend so miserably.


[edit on 10-3-2009 by Fundie]



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by iWork4NWO
I'm done. That much is certain. There is no point if you don't even know what a friggin' 10 year old kid knows after the first 10 minutes of the first theory of evolution related science class.


Don't blame you. Like any adaptive agent, learn from experience



The laws governing inheritance are quite unknown; no one can say why the same peculiarity in different individuals of the same species, and in individuals of different species, is sometimes inherited and sometimes not so; why the child often reverts in certain characters to its grandfather or grandmother or other much more remote ancestor; why a peculiarity is often transmitted from one sex to both sexes or to one sex alone, more commonly but not exclusively to the like sex.(p. 11)

embryology.med.unsw.edu.au...

Darwinian evolution was not dependent on pangenesis. But it was/is dependent on a mechanism of heredity. Darwin later went for pangenesis as a mechanism - he wuz wrong.

The evidence it was not dependent is the fact Darwin published Origins in 1859, there was no mention of pangenesis. He published his ideas on pangenesis in 1868 in another book.

Dose da facts.



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fundie

Originally posted by iWork4NWO



You said you have worked in a uni now for 5 years in the bioscience dept ...


No I didn't and that's besides the point anyways..

[edit on 10-3-2009 by iWork4NWO]



Considering it's my 5th year in a University I'd hope to know what scientific methdod is. Apparently to you it's obvious that I don't. Well great. I really don't care. Let's move on..



Yes, I am a scientist. Going on my 5th year in a faculty of biosciences in a large European university. This makes me think that I understand the theory of evolution a lot better than you do. TOE, by the way refers to "theory of everything"..


OOPS... you see the point is, how can we believe anything you say? You are right, it's over with you.


To point out the obvious. At which part do I say that I've worked for 5 years? Can't it be that it's my 5th year of, oh I don't know, studies?


[edit on 10-3-2009 by iWork4NWO]



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Darwinian evolution was not dependent on pangenesis. But it was/is dependent on a mechanism of heredity. Darwin later went for pangenesis as a mechanism - he wuz wrong.



That's the one thing I was aware of. I think he used the word "blending" or something similar but realised that it would just lead to homogenisation. If only, he had met Mr. Mendel



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.
Sorry, you'll never convince me to believe in The Theory of Evolution. No use trying. Unless you want to waste your time.


Of course I won't because you have faith. You believe in a God and that he created life, you want this to be true. Anything that contrasts your belief, you will not accept regardless of the evidence. You will pick and choose more favourable answers based on your belief instead of factual answers based on empirical observations.

You are biased.

Faith after all is 'belief without evidence', it's not something that men of science deal in when it comes to studying reality.



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by iWork4NWO
To point out the obvious. At which part do I say that I've worked for 5 years? Can't it be that it's my 5th year of, oh I don't know, studies?


I think I :heart: you.

As I said, reverse Einsteins, lol. Dey are gonna change the scientific world by spouting tripe on a conspiracy forum, lol.

So meaningless, but so much fun.


Originally posted by iWork4NWO
That's the one thing I was aware of. I think he used the word "blending" or something similar but realised that it would just lead to homogenisation. If only, he had met Mr. Mendel


Aye, wasn't really for your benefit. Just for lulz.

[edit on 10-3-2009 by melatonin]



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 05:35 PM
link   
Since it looks like this thread has gone on way to long about the obvious heres a simple solution someone post 5 facts proving evolution and someone post 5 facts proving creationism. Then at least you have something to argue other than semantics.



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 05:42 PM
link   
iWork4NWO:

A ten year old kid is brainwashed in the public school by a brainwashed neanderthal, knuckle dragging, hunched backed, thick skulled, empty headed, ape man, evolutionist, teacher.



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by dragonridr
Since it looks like this thread has gone on way to long about the obvious heres a simple solution someone post 5 facts proving evolution and someone post 5 facts proving creationism. Then at least you have something to argue other than semantics.


There are no facts that prove either side. The best either side can do is take the evidence and explain how it fits in their model.

Creationists always win because there explanation is more reasonable and does not result in secondary assumptions and changes to their theory.



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Welfhard
 


You have faith in a very VERY old earth and eons of time required for the evolutionist theory. You have faith in neanderthals being your ancestors.
You have faith in non intelligent non life particles magically coming together to turn themselves into a living being.
You have faith in evolutionist preachers and teachers and their foolish explanations for what is.


A belief in a supernatural all powerful, eternal, infinite, creator God requires far less faith than evolution does.



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 06:04 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard

Originally posted by B.A.C.
Sorry, you'll never convince me to believe in The Theory of Evolution. No use trying. Unless you want to waste your time.


Of course I won't because you have faith. You believe in a God and that he created life, you want this to be true. Anything that contrasts your belief, you will not accept regardless of the evidence. You will pick and choose more favourable answers based on your belief instead of factual answers based on empirical observations.

You are biased.

Faith after all is 'belief without evidence', it's not something that men of science deal in when it comes to studying reality.


What I believe in is just the same as what you believe. You have faith in the Theory to the point of bias, there is no evidence that the Theory is correct, that's why the Theory keeps changing.

My God is always the same, never changes.

This:

Originally posted by John Matrix
A belief in a supernatural all powerful, eternal, infinite, creator God requires far less faith than evolution does.




[edit on 10-3-2009 by B.A.C.]



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by John Matrix
A belief in a supernatural all powerful, eternal, infinite, creator God requires far less faith than evolution does.

The science of evolution requires no faith, simply observation.

I've asked this question before in these topics seeking to refuse the clear evidence science has given us -- but there's no reason not to ask it again, simply because I've not receive a cogent answer.

No matter your stance as a religious person, there is no doubt that science has present a compelling argument combined with an overwhelming body of evidence for biological evolution. With that in mind, why would you (the rhetorical "you" in this case being the religious who would refuse the science of evolution) not consider that your God had created evolution as the process to naturally perfect his creation?

There is no doubt, if we are to consider the notion of creation, that your God is responsible for creating that which gives us the science of geology.

Similarly, there is no doubt your God is responsible for creating that which gives us the science of chemistry.

And similarly, there is no doubt your God is responsible for creating that which gives us the science of geology.

So then why would you not consider your God is responsible for creating that which gives us the science of evolution.

After all, a God who as create all we see must be a superior scientist.

This, it would seem, would simplify the argument so that both "sides" may coexist in peace. No?



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 06:59 PM
link   
Why I think it's a conpiracy against a Creator or anyone who disaproves of the science involved:

www.scienceagainstevolution.org...

Unfortunately, the benefits of science for money come at a high price. One might reasonably question the conclusions of a scientific study of the effects of smoking on health if that study was sponsored by the tobacco industry. Pharmaceutical companies routinely sponsor studies to determine the safety of drugs they intend to market, which might possibly influence the conclusion. It is possible that the conclusion of a study of global climate change might reflect the political views of whichever side paid for the study. If you want to keep getting paid, you have to keep the sponsor happy.

It is certainly a good thing that the pursuit of scientific knowledge has been opened up to the masses. The more scientists there are at work, the more will be learned. We could not have made the first trip to the moon without the cooperative effort of thousands of scientists whose salaries were paid (directly or indirectly) by the United States Government. Few people could afford to conduct as much medical research as national governments can. Most professional scientists today work for somebody else, doing whatever that somebody else pays them to do.

Scientific research always has social and political consequences to a greater or lesser degree. Evolutionary research is one of those areas where the social and political consequences are great. The scientists involved are keenly aware of that fact, and it affects how conclusions are reached and presented.

Quote from Altenberg Meeting:

As Stephen Gould discovered, creationists seize on any hint of splits in evolutionary theory or dissatisfaction with Darwinism. In the past couple of decades, everyone has become keenly aware of this, regardless of their satisfaction or otherwise with the modern synthesis. "You always feel like you're trying to cover your rear," says Love. "If you criticize, it's like handing ammunition to these folks." So don't criticize in a grandstanding way, says Coyne: "People shouldn't suppress their differences to placate creationists, but to suggest that neo-Darwinism has reached some kind of crisis point plays into creationists' hands," he says


Scientists are afraid to tell the truth because creationists will publish it. That’s why the reports in the popular science tabloids (Scientific American, National Geographic, Discover, New Scientist) often differ from what is written in the real science journals (Science, Nature, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science) that only professional scientists read. You probably won’t read about post-modern evolution in Scientific American until they can figure out some way to spin it properly.

The fact that we are even talking about “junk science” and “good science” is evidence of a change in the definition of science. Fifty years ago, “science” meant the discovery of truth using the scientific method. A scientist was one who made an observation, formulated a hypothesis about the observation, proposed a theory that explained the observation, then performed experiments designed to prove or disprove the theory. The wonderful thing about science was that it was free of human bias. It didn’t matter if the scientist was a Republican or Democrat, Christian or atheist, Yankee fan or Red Sox fan, the experiment always gave the same result. Science earned a reputation for credibility because it was based on experimentally verifiable results, not somebody’s opinion.
Today, “science” has been redefined so that inference is given equal credence with experimentation. Now “Science” is whatever a scientist believes. The key word here is “believes.” In modern society the phrase, “Scientists believe …” has more credibility than, “Plumbers believe …” or, “Grocery clerks believe …”. Why should this be the case?

NewScientist July 9 - 15, 2005 Issue

If ID ever came to be accepted, it would stifle research. Molecular biologists would call a halt whenever they came across a biological structure they could not explain and hence must be the work of the “designer”. Science as an open-ended pursuit would come to an end, halted by an impenetrable barrier labeled, “the designer did it”.


In fact, belief in evolution is more likely to stifle useful research than belief in intelligent design. You perhaps know that if a starfish loses one of its five arms, it can grow a replacement arm, just like a lizard can re-grow a tail. If a person loses an arm, it won’t grow back.

A scientist who believes in Intelligent Design is likely to recognize that it was a smart decision to design the starfish this way. The next logical step is to try to figure out how the designer did it. Once that is known, the next logical step is to try to figure out how to make human cells respond like starfish cells, so that not only arms, but other body parts could be made to re-grow from the surrounding tissue.

A scientist who believes in evolution is likely to recognize that starfish and lizards both have the ability to re-grow lost body parts, so they must have evolved from a common ancestor. This could lead him to try to construct an ancestral tree to find this common ancestor. The speculative tree is published, and a bunch of other evolutionists spend lots of time arguing about whether the tree is correct or not. That’s what we call “stifling research.”


That's what this thread is about. Nothing Else.

The Theory of Evolution is not a fact. It shouldn't be presented as if it was. I consider this a conspiracy. Not just against Creationists, but also against Scientists that question the Theory.

Remember I said The Theory of Evolution, not Evolution the fact.


[edit on 10-3-2009 by B.A.C.]



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by mister.old.school
The science of evolution requires no faith, simply observation.

With that in mind, why would you (the rhetorical "you" in this case being the religious who would refuse the science of evolution) not consider that your God had created evolution as the process to naturally perfect his creation?


That is a great question.

I don't understand why people think the fact of evolution negates god.

In the scientific community their is no debate about evolution. It is an observable fact of our reality.



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by mister.old.school
The science of evolution requires no faith, simply observation.

With that in mind, why would you (the rhetorical "you" in this case being the religious who would refuse the science of evolution) not consider that your God had created evolution as the process to naturally perfect his creation?


That is a great question.

I don't understand why people think the fact of evolution negates god.

In the scientific community their is no debate about evolution. It is an observable fact of our reality.


Again, people getting mixed up with "The Theory of Evolution" and "Evolution".

Evolution is a fact, who said any different?

It's the Theories that explains evolution that i don't believe.

"Evolution" the fact is compatible with my belief in God.
"Evolutionary Theories" are not compatible with MY beliefs in God. Though they may be for other believers, you'd have to ask them.



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 09:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by John Matrix


Why answer your own question?

The creationist science view uses the exact same evidence to demonstrate their view is a logical and rational explanation, and I see nothing that disproves their model either.


Well its not that nothing proves evolution wrong, its that so much proves the general outline right, whereas creationism only has one non-scientific text to support it and NO science.

Also, the fact that PORTIONS of evolutionary theory have been proven incorrect, amended, and then upheld or put through another round of amending say that what is there is closer to fact. Creationists refuse to put their "theories" to a test they could fail whereas evolutionists put their most cherished theories on the chopping block all the time. Creationists simply ignore evidence which prove them wrong... or lie about it (which should be a shame to a Christian).



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.
What I believe in is just the same as what you believe. You have faith in the Theory to the point of bias, there is no evidence that the Theory is correct, that's why the Theory keeps changing.


No the theory keeps changing as new information is discovered. That's how science works- refine our knowledge as we learn more things about the universe!

Also just so you know, I was a christian creationist a few years back, then I decided to learn a thing or two about it. I believe it to be true because it explains everything so well and goes hand in hand with all the findings, and other fields of science. There is a kind of harmony in it all.

Most of the theists I know believe it too, they see it as a mechanism of creation.



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 10:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Welfhard
 


I have no problem at all in your belief in the Theory. To each his own. I wouldn't try to convince you of any different. Unless you asked.

With MY belief it isn't compatible and never will be.




top topics



 
14
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join