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.

 

"Intelligent Design" is a conspiracy.

page: 14
6
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 8 2009 @ 07:29 AM
link   
reply to post by R13sg0
 


"They act like you, or Gawdzilla. Never go into facts, always point to some vague reference and i have to look it up for myself. "

You want to be spoon fed? Good luck with that. If you want to get an education, try following the links we've provided for you. Start with talkorigins.org. There is a well structured guide to all the creationists' claims there, with a thorough debunking of them, done by scientists who work in the fields daily.

As for the presentation of evolution, please, get real. The problem is that you object to it, not how it's presented. And scientist have to be flexible, whether you want to admit it or not. The best way to "survival of the fittest" is to cling to a theory that has been proven wrong. A little study into the history of science will clarify this for you.




posted on May, 8 2009 @ 11:25 PM
link   
Gobbledegook. Blorch. BS Supreme. You're fooling yourself pal. I detect a lot of that on this site. You are a waste of time. In some ways you're worse than the evangelical aholes because you've sort of ventured toward understanding how we and all organisms on the planet have evolved but ya just can't quite get over the hump into acceptance. It's OK you can just roll back down on your side and be saved by them god fearin bible thumpin' creationist intelligent design poser scientists. Enjoy the tumble. See you in Hell!



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 11:44 PM
link   
reply to post by amazed
 


It's all belief in the end amazed. Whether you believe what the Pope tells you or Richard Dawkins. Just varying shades of plausability. And even then, you just never know.

[edit on 9-5-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 11:46 PM
link   
The above post is a response to that stiffy-nimrod R2D2 or whatever it is a few posts up. R2 have you figured out yet that your assertion that living things on the planet have stopped evolving exposes you as not actually understanding how evolution works. It's an ongoing process and we're in the midst of it. Cooooooool. I love that fact. I can't wait till humans begin to guide evolution according to our needs. Darn it I'd like to be around to see that. Good Luck R2 if you want specifics try earth science and biology for starters. The fossil record is fun, solid and clear cut. It's like a puzzle that real scientists have been assembling since before Darwin. It's a masterful piece of work showing us where we came from. Wow. It's so much better than some mumbojumbo transcribled through a gazillion regurgitated versions which appears today as the bible. Who's bible is it? Not mine. Thank goodness for scientists and their collective hard work. Anyone espousing intelligent design and/or creationism is either a money grubber, a sucker or just plain dumb.



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 11:52 PM
link   
reply to post by FeedingTheRat
 

Amongst the other propaganda I find this to be the most ignorant.

The fossil record is fun, solid and clear cut.

It most certainly is not solid or clear cut, the fossil record has holes in it. As rightly it should due to the simple fact that fossilization takes a very specific set of circumstances to happen. And then we have to be lucky enough to actually find them. This is coming from someone who has been fascinated by palentology for a VERY VERY long time.
Oh, and, generalizations are generally wrong, especially when you are talking about large groups of people.

[edit on 8-5-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by FeedingTheRat
The above post is a response to that stiffy-nimrod R2D2 or whatever it is a few posts up. R2 have you figured out yet that your assertion that living things on the planet have stopped evolving exposes you as not actually understanding how evolution works. It's an ongoing process and we're in the midst of it. Cooooooool. I love that fact. I can't wait till humans begin to guide evolution according to our needs. Darn it I'd like to be around to see that. Good Luck R2 if you want specifics try earth science and biology for starters. The fossil record is fun, solid and clear cut. It's like a puzzle that real scientists have been assembling since before Darwin. It's a masterful piece of work showing us where we came from. Wow. It's so much better than some mumbojumbo transcribled through a gazillion regurgitated versions which appears today as the bible. Who's bible is it? Not mine. Thank goodness for scientists and their collective hard work. Anyone espousing intelligent design and/or creationism is either a money grubber, a sucker or just plain dumb.


Well, things stop evolving only to evolve within a short period of time. It's not a gradual process and i actually looked it up in the great bible talkorigins.org. let me quote from there:
"Genetical "gradualness", a much misunderstood term, is a mode of biological change that is dependent on population phenomena; it is not a statement about the rate or tempo of evolution. Truly genetically gradual events are changes within the range of biological variation expected between two consecutive generations. Morphological change may appear fast, geologically speaking, yet still be genetically gradual"

So basically it says that dna gradually evolves but you only see it when it's done.

And it goes on about how common decent is the proof for macro evolution. Linky

And we are trying to guide evolution to our needs for about a few thousand years now. We are are forever busy with our domestic animals and plants. And we had wonderful micro evolutionary results. Instead when we really want results we have to alter things on a DNA level. Then maybe we get cows that produce milk by photosynthesis.

The fossil record is not clear cut, it could never be. But it makes a case for common decent. It can how-ever never make a connection between dna-mutation + natural selection = macro evolution. Why not? because we see dna mutation every day, we tried to cross breed species and made selections. Alway bigger, and always smaller (it's something we do). but there are limits. Evolutionist solved this dilemma with time. Add enough time and somehow limits disappear. That's not a strong case.
It's like saying that with enough time we can solve pi. And then believe that pi is finite. It is not and time is not going to change it, time has no magic.

It is not a secret that we have no proof for macro evolution other then the sum of micro evolution and common decent. On which you can make no assumptions, but yet Dawkins especially, claims that it's the holy grail and there is no God. Life is a coincidence. And if we find enough transitional fossils, the case is done and over. He acts like it is that way anyway.

But yes certain features (designs) cross to the next level of design. And certain designs are used over and over again. There is no proof that random mutation + natural selection caused all this.



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 

Any so-called "holes" in the fossil record are inconsequential. It's a missing the forest for the trees thing. Generalizations on the topic of origins and evolution are usually spot on if coming from the side of science. Those would be that the other god based concepts are incorrect. It's an either, or situation. So, it's perfectly ok to say that the people who espouse god based theories of origins are all immersed in a giant non-productive cluster f*#@. R2D2 is a perfect example.



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by FeedingTheRat
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 

Any so-called "holes" in the fossil record are inconsequential. It's a missing the forest for the trees thing. Generalizations on the topic of origins and evolution are usually spot on if coming from the side of science. Those would be that the other god based concepts are incorrect. It's an either, or situation. So, it's perfectly ok to say that the people who espouse god based theories of origins are all immersed in a giant non-productive cluster f*#@. R2D2 is a perfect example.


When someone brings up "gaps" I show them this:

Can you tell which cards are missing?



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 10:24 AM
link   
Brother where have you been? ID is a smoke screen for the American Taliban. Be honest, do you really want to go plunging back to the dark ages?



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


I get what you're trying to say, but gaps in the fossil record should simply be that. That doesn't disprove or prove anything really.

What are the odds that law and order even in chaotic systems would just suddenly be?

Why is this all here?

What is this place?

What is it all for?

Can we find out?

Is that not what drives scientists?

I ask those questions all the time, but the Bible just adds meaning to the existence. I find the God of the Bible to be more real than any "demi-god" or "enlightened figure." It states we were made in His image. Therefore we have all of those qualities which obviously also includes anger, for what would peace and tranquility be without the opposite? That's more philosophy but at the same time it has to make sense. There is nothing in the Universe that is not structured, and anything we do find shows structure and design. To think that this is all just here is kind of arrogant to me. Sure there are many many stars and things so big they are hard to comprehend, but they are perfectly round by influence of gravity and force. Which drive the Universe, but they were laws or possibilities before we ever knew.



[edit on 9-5-2009 by watchtheashes]



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by watchtheashes
 


I was pointing out that the "gaps" in the record are not so puzzling when you examine the system as a whole. As a layman can recognize the pattern in the "suits", paleontologists can recognize the patterns in the fossil record. I made that image to illustrate this point to my mother, and it's been going around since I uploaded it.



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


I know it's so obvious its not even funny. I got the message. So it proves your point there, but can science disprove a Creator or only prove it further?



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by watchtheashes
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


I know it's so obvious its not even funny. I got the message. So it proves your point there, but can science disprove a Creator or only prove it further?


Why would science even try to prove a creator? I don't see the necessity for that. There's no science I know of that requires a creator, and definitely none that require a "miracle" performed by a creator. (It would be a miracle, however, if I could understand string theory. :lol



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 10:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


From what I get out of it there are small small pieces of "strings" that could be light years long or less than an atom long but they are spread out and make up the basic basic basic basic structure of all things, but they help quantum mechanics find "sense" in some sort of way. There are different kinds and I don't quite understand any of them, even the scientists don't know that much. From what I know about quantum physics particles of matter can just appear without reason, but that is in an already pre-existing environment that is structured. It doesn't explain the BANG!!

EDIT:

I just feel constantly attacked for my beliefs so I feel I need to defend them. I'm in no way trying to force you to believe in God, rather sparking a thought to any of you who has an ear to listen.

[edit on 9-5-2009 by watchtheashes]

[edit on 9-5-2009 by watchtheashes]



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla

Originally posted by watchtheashes
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


I know it's so obvious its not even funny. I got the message. So it proves your point there, but can science disprove a Creator or only prove it further?


Why would science even try to prove a creator? I don't see the necessity for that. There's no science I know of that requires a creator, and definitely none that require a "miracle" performed by a creator. (It would be a miracle, however, if I could understand string theory. :lol


Do you believe that common decent rules out design and therefore a designer?
In other words, is mutation and natural selection the only possible conclusion for common decent?



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by watchtheashes
 


Ah, the "nothing comes from nothing" theory is coming, yes?

So, you've probably seen this before, but, please, if nothing comes from nothing, where did "god" come from?



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 11:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


I know I get that question a lot I notice. Imagine nothing though. You really can't because our whole perception is based on the concept of something. With nothing you have nothing not even the concept of the concept of nothing. There would be no life to perceive it, but there would also be no law or order. God makes His own claim that He is eternal. Eternal means no beginning and no end, not just no end. Time and space came into being at the moment of the first millisecond of the Big Bang or whatever is smaller than that. At the same time, as we know time and space are almost like, if not, one in the same. Meaning that before they came into existence these things did not exist. Therefore there had to be an origin. In a "timeless space" there would be no concept of origin and thus where did any of this come from? God is eternal meaning no beginning and no end He simply is. In such a place of non-existence(as defined by what we perceive here in this universe,) God would be self-existent as is the claim of the Bible. In such a place with no logic the Originator of logic would have the logic as logic itself. God IS logic, love, a being, ALIVE. Alive in a self-existent eternal sense. I can't even begin to comprehend how it is possible because I'm a resident of the Universe, that is just how I can explain what I'm trying to make sense of. Science works on logic and reason, and the flaw is that before these things occurred there was no reason or occurring. Only the self-existent and eternal. Something can only be eternal if it is not bound by the laws of the Universe, so a self-existent.



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by watchtheashes
 


Okay, then. "God" can come from nothing, but the Big Bang can't come from nothing? Not at all clear on the logic of that one.



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by FeedingTheRat
 




Any so-called "holes" in the fossil record are inconsequential. It's a missing the forest for the trees thing. Generalizations on the topic of origins and evolution are usually spot on if coming from the side of science.


Negative!! Science which makes its bed on generalizations is not science. It is religion...with a priesthood.

No reputable scientist would stake their name on a generalization. They must be able to demonstrate a clear path in their reasoning...point to point to poiint. If they do not, another scientist with better skills than generalization will eat them alive.
Science is not based on generalizations..it is based on facts which can be demonstrated/measured.
There is very stiff competition for limited funds by science. This means that for funds, another religion is often at play...a very devout , zealous seductive, and often deceitful religion called politics. Think this through carefully.

There are indeed gaps in the fossil record. We know this because whenever science finds something new...they will often state that certain items or theories will have to be rethought or reexamined. It is consequential sufficient for science to rethink what they have previously stated. Meaning they want to be responsible for what they put out..not just general.


As for the Grand Canyon, ever been there? 300 miles long, IIRC, worn into SOLID ROCK. It didn't happen in any one flood.


The Grand Canyon is not solid rock. It is sedimentary. Thus meaning it was laid in in layers. Hydraulically. This is obvious when one looks at a cross section of the walls. There is alot of debris fallen to the bottom in many area of the canyon and all about the mesas..even out in the desert areas. Thus indicating it is not as solid rock as we are given to think. The tops are flat...meaning laid in Hydraulically..sediment.
This whole area of the soutwest and up into Colorado, Utah, etc ...was underwater. We even know this about many world wide mountain ranges...by the fossil record of sea creatures today found at great altitudes..that this area was at one time underwater.

You can clearly see the layers of mud or debris ...laid layer upon layer in the walls of the canyons and even out in what is today desert mesas...Flat on top except for the occasional radio station or cell phone/pager towers.
You can see the sedimentary layers here in spite of the water through the canyons

www.terragalleria.com...

www.terragalleria.com...

look at the highest point..in the background here.

www.worldofstock.com...

flat a a ruler...straightedge. The rest was worn away by water action...and very rapid water action. The whole area was underwater at one time...all over the southwest and up into Colorado Utah...etc. Water is the only known force which can put layer upon layer..line upon line over such a huge area....like a stack of hotcakes.

It is the same in many parts here in the Appalachian Mountains. Laid in in sediments. Except also in many areas it is obvious that something very violent happened. The sediments are not flat as out west....but pushed up at a 45 degree angle or so. Thus indicating a very violent upheaval at one time...but nonetheless laid in hydraulically by water action as was done out west.

Both mountain ranges are indeed a spectacular site to behold.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by orangetom1999
 


"Negative!! Science which makes its bed on generalizations is not science. It is religion...with a priesthood. "

At least you wish it was. But scientists love to "one up" each other, so bad ideas get pounced on quickly. Hard to keep a dogma up like that.

As for the rock in the Grand Canyon, You have to have several thousand feet of sediment compressed into a few hundred feet of rock. That takes a bit more than a few thousand years.

Another point. The rock in the Grand Canyon is just the exposed bits. The rock layers themselves extend for hundreds of miles in all directions. So saying it got laid down, compressed, ossified, and then worn away is one flood is babblelicious.




top topics



 
6
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join