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.

 

Do 6 Out of 10 Americans Really Not Believe In Evolution?

page: 9
8
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Matrix Traveller

Evolution is Not a Fact, but is only the product of human understanding involving an obsession, to explain away their obsessive insecurity regarding the identification of Life (component) in the true sense of the word.


thats deep

also apacheman.... you just proved my stupid god exists by that post
god being defined as some kind of intelligence not some bearded guy in the clouds




posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by dannyfal
 


It said nothing of the sort. I have a button that describes this conversation perfectly:

"Arguing with you is like dialing a series of wrong numbers."

We use the same words, but the don't seem to mean the same things.


I leave you to your delusions, and resent the fact that you make Americans look like ignorant idiots to the rest of the world.



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by apacheman
 


you cling to your beliefs like religion lol



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Solomons
reply to post by bl4ke360
 


Consciousness only feels special because we have it...there are many other traits we among other primates have that somehow do not come up on the *special* radar.Although people may like to think of being conscious ie the realization of self is special...it really isn't.It is simply like many other things the product of evolution which has helped us immensly as a species.Sure it is a complex and baffling trait,but that by no means distinguishes itself from any other trait we have.


I have to disagree, consciousness is very very special, in that we are the first species on this planet to have it and without it who knows if we would have survived. Consciousness is entirely unique to us (as far as we know) and it stems, mainly, from having language, because of our complex languages we can name things, describe them, and think abstractly the way no other animal can. The question is where did language come from, how did it develop, was it something humans always had or something that evolved in us only, did other apes branch off our line that also may have developed language? Its all still a mystery...

As for the OP, I'm not surprised that most Americans don't believe in Evolution, because its been misrepresented to them as an explanation for how life began on Earth when really Darwin never wanted to explain where the seeds of first life came from. People confuse Evolution with biogenesis, the origins of all life, and therefore religious people toss the idea of evolution out...

You have to admit its a seemingly fantastic theory that a massive prehistoric beast with razor fangs could become a harmless seed eating bird, it takes leaps of imagination especially when science sends mixed signals by claiming the dinosaurs went extinct. Well if they went extinct how in the heck did they evolve into birds? Yes, yes I know a certain branch of theropod dinosaurs managed to survive but to most people it does get confusing, science claiming they all died one minute and claiming they evolved the next...

Anyway evolution is pretty obvious, the idea that adaptation is a natural mechanism makes sense. One thing that does bother me though, I still don't understand how we went from a few microbes to millions and millions and millions of different species, there are so many varieties of life it doesn't seem to add up...



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by KarlG
 


Just because someone says, in all caps, that the theory of evolution is
"unproven", does not mean it is actually unproven. It means only it remains unproven to that person.

Evolution has been suscessfully proven for most people to accept.

Creation is accepted on faith. Nothing is wrong with that.

The two can peacefully coexist, and do in many people's minds, including my own.



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by dannyfal

Originally posted by The Matrix Traveller

Evolution is Not a Fact, but is only the product of human understanding involving an obsession, to explain away their obsessive insecurity regarding the identification of Life (component) in the true sense of the word.


thats deep

also apacheman.... you just proved my stupid god exists by that post
god being defined as some kind of intelligence not some bearded guy in the clouds


Have you understood ???

Where have I claimed that a God, god or gods do or do Not exist???

However I do Question humankind's interpretation of the writings they have made a religion of.....

Every person has a god according to each of their own understanding and ignore the expressions or feelings of the philosopher who was originally the storyteller but I am Not a philosopher.

Don't jump off the deep end, as I am Not suggesting you are or are Not religious but......

First understand this about Human religions... It is humanity that has chosen, to either try and express their feelings about something they are trying to understand, or have created a religion to use in politics to monitor and even control the less informed, superstitious, or those that desire to be controlled.

The Roman Church was near the top of the Structure of Power regarding The Holy Roman Empire as some choose to name it...

The Roman Church was very much of Roman Politics and still is today.

But in say this, the question whether God god or gods exist, is your free will but what ever you chose to believe in or not, does Not change Truth in any way shape or form.

Truth shall remain in spite of human belief or interpretation.

Humankind are very funny Primates indeed, they love to make a storm kicking bones around making as much dust as they can...

They love big bangs and fire works and some love fairy stories, so let them enjoy their experience for now...

But this has no effect on where, how or what The All has come out of.

To judge me on this is a little sad to say the least, as I am the smallest and least significant of The All.... LOL...
I am the one who is Not heard... LOL..
I am the "little one" you can Not know... LOL..
I am Nothing......


Whatever humankind may judge of me, I Am still here... and Love this experience as well as the true function that is taking place.
I am Not religious, but that does Not mean, I turn my attention away from the nature of humankind and the beliefs and needs of those I Love... The whole human race...


[edit on 1-7-2009 by The Matrix Traveller]



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by thegagefather
5 out of 10 Americans still believe a 2000 year old guy that preached meditation and reincarnation is going to come save them, even though it's clear his messages were altered completely 800 years later by some guy named Paul.

Yes, the majority of Americans are slightly retarded.
Does this really surprise you?


Anyone can make a statement based off philospophical beliefs. Anyone can claim anything they want. But what are the overwhelming majority of even SKEPTICAL liberal scholars saying about Jesus.

1. That the historical Jesus existed
2. That he did die on the cross
3. That eyewitnesses gave EARLY testimony to his resurrection
4. These eyewitness where willing to give their life for their belief in the resurrection
5. The tomb was empty and the body could not be produced by the enemies of Jesus (i.e Jews)

Even atheist scholars accept these facts. It is only a small step in faith to accept that the resurrection really happened. It is a large leap in faith to believe they did not. Check out the facts yourself before you start posting with such confidence that others are retarded

www.leaderu.com...
www.garyhabermas.com...



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 11:18 PM
link   
reply to post by stuff1
 



1. That the historical Jesus existed

The "historical Jesus" term used by scholars is a vague idea. There are hundreds of candidates as to who the real life inspiration for the character of Jesus in the Bible was.

2. That he did die on the cross
Crucifixion was the Romans preferred way of execution. Any man trying to instill a revolt against the empire would have suffered this fate.

3. That eyewitnesses gave EARLY testimony to his resurrection
Please show me one credible source, that isn't using apologetics, that there is historical testimony to the resurrection of Jesus. That can go for 4 and 5 as well.



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 11:49 PM
link   
reply to post by stuff1
 


I don't mean to be Ignorant, but what was the Family or Christian Name of Jesus, as the Name Jesus was a common name, I am persuaded to believe.

Or are the writings about something entirely different, than what Roman Doctrine implies today?

In theology The Name Jesus Christ is accepted as a State of Office....

The Romans have extremely good Death records, for example they recorded how many died in the Pompeii (spelling is probably wrong) Catastrophe (eruption), near the time, of the death of Jesus, down to the very last person, as well as the Names of those who died I am told.

There is one thing that the Romans must be commended for, and that is their Roman Government records.

Do they have the senses, that records The death of Jesus? if so you will find his family name... If Not then....... ??##@@%%$$??

Even though Jesus was reported to have dodged the senses, by his parents actions in the year he was supposedly born, they would have caught up with Him later in his Life, seeing he was so Unpopular with many of the Romans and the Jews yet very popular with many others.

But they are still arguing over the exact dates involving the times of carpenter Jesus today. At present all is guess work, by the clergy and religious scholars.

What happened to those, who took part in the first resurrection, when Jesus rose, as there is no mention in the Roman collection of Greek and Hebrew writings called the bible to what happened after their resurrection ???

On the Resurrection of Jesus, it is written that many of the saints who slept in the ground, arose and went into Jerusalem to tell people they had risen from the dead!

So where are these that were resurrected?

They will be able to tell you surely???

I am Not saying that this event, did or did Not take place but perhaps you can throw a little light on the subject ???

I would have thought, the Resurrection, would be a very important part of Christianity today, but apparently this is Not the case!

So where are the rest of the Greek writings, has the Roman church destroyed these writings.

Yes, I am aware that the head of prophecy, was cut off in St. John...

But do people understand correctly ???

I don't think so!

People are still waiting for the 1st resurrection today, but they have missed the bus that went past nearly 2,000 years ago...

Is it because they do Not believe in the Resurrection, that took place reported in the bible ???

Hmmmmm...

The writings are in parable form and are in fact, Not about the Human primate the descendants of A'Dam, but are about the Soul called Man and Not A'dam the Flesh.

I am Not mocking you, but only reporting, what is written in the Roman bible and other early Christian writings.

I personally know, the original Greek writings, were in fact talking about things that are entirely different, than what is being propagated today by both the layman, and the church!

Also Jesus makes No mention whatsoever, of any human church, such as the Roman Church, Catholic church, any other denomination, or breakaway group of the Roman church!

Why Not ???

The words used as "the assemblies of lights" was translated into reading in English the church which is nothing more than deception on the part of the scribes!

Something is Definitely Not right here, with what is being taught by the people of today, especially the clergy!

I think humankind has to dig a little deeper, before they can find the truth don't you ???


[edit on 1-7-2009 by The Matrix Traveller]



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 12:15 AM
link   
The Theory of Evolution is not a scientific law. A scientific law must be 100% correct. Failure to meet only one challenge proves the law is wrong. The Theory of Evolution fails many challenges, not simply one. The Theory of Evolution will never become a law of science because it is wrought with errors. That is why it is called a theory, instead of a law.

Life did not start with a bolt of lightning striking a pond of water as claimed by evolutionists. That is pure childish fantasy.
Hmmm...... reminds me of another book, do I dare say which one.

Charles Darwin admitted that fossils of the transitional links between species would have to be found in order to prove his "Theory of Evolution."
Well, these transitional links have never been found. We only find individual species. You can try to form these individual species into a link according to similar major features such as wings or four legs, but this simply proves the Theory of Evolution to be a fraud. Darwin was hopeful that future fossils would prove his theory correct, but instead, the lack of transitional links has proven his theory to be wrong.

The presence of individual species actually proves they were not developed by an evolutionary process. If evolution were true, all plants, animals and insects would be in a continual state of change. No two creatures would be identical, because they would not be separate species. All life forms would be a continual blend of characteristics without a clear definition among the species. Everything would be changing, and every animal, insect and plant would be different.All species are locked solidly within their DNA code.

Evolutionist fail to admit that no species has ever been proven to have evolved in any way. Evolution is simply pie-in-the-sky conjecture without scientific proof.



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 01:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Darth Logan
 


You are wrong about everything you just said.

1. Evolution is not a theory. It is an observable phenomena. It's a 100% undeniable scientific fact. We know it happens, we see it happen. It has been proven countless times.

2. The Theory of Evolution is an explanation as to why and how evolution happens. It also attempts to give us a means of predicting when evolution will happen. A Theory, in terms of science, is an explanation of an observable phenomena.

3. Your understanding of a Scientific Law is flawed. Theories do not become Laws. A Law is basically a statement of something that happens. 2+3 is 5. It is always 5, it is never 4 and it is never 6. In the same way, something that is a law is something that always happens the same way. Not surprisingly, most laws are mathematical equations, and the Theory of Evolution doesn't contain any math that I know of.

4. You do not know how life started, and evolutionists are not claiming that is how it started. It is merely a guess as to where a source of energy may have come to form a self sustaining organism. This energy could have put together a molecule essential for life. It is merely a hypothesis.

5. We do have transitional fossils. Archaeopteryx.

6. Species are evolving and changing constantly. This has been observed.

7. Whales have leg bones. That itself proves that whales evolved from creatures that had four limbs instead of 2. So evolutionists don't have to admit anything.



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 05:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by PieKeeper

You are wrong about everything you just said.

1. Evolution is not a theory.


You are correct, it is NOT a theory it is a Hypothesis and it has been over 150 years which is plenty of time to conclude what we DO observe in the fossil record STASIS! Fossils of animals fully formed and intact. Has it not occured to you that EVERY SINGLE SOLITARY living fossil or creature once believed to be extinct, some thought to be extinct for a million years, that ALL of them look EXACTLY the way they have always looked?



. It is an observable phenomena. It's a 100% undeniable scientific fact. We know it happens, we see it happen. It has been proven countless times.


100% undeniable fact is it? Sorry that ignorance is denied.

You have never observed a male to female species transmutating into another species and EVERY attempt by man to assist in proving this, some even being celebrated as lenski's citrate consuming e-coli, later were found to be adaptations already coded in their DNA. Macro evolution is an absurdity and as I have already shown the damage the frauds of science teaching bad science has proven once again, YOU are the product of such ignorance and are totally un-aware of it.



The Theory of Evolution is an explanation as to why and how evolution happens. It also attempts to give us a means of predicting when evolution will happen. A Theory, in terms of science, is an explanation of an observable phenomena.


It is the most elaborate and ever evolving "just so" story ever told and not one prediction has turned out to be true. Even the PBS dover vs kitzmiller hatchet job on ID where they use tiktaalak was a complete fallacy



Your understanding of a Scientific Law is flawed. Theories do not become Laws.


Are you saying Newtons law of gravity came before his theory?


Not surprisingly, most laws are mathematical equations, and the Theory of Evolution doesn't contain any math that I know of.


No Math ?? ha ha ha yes Math is imperative to evolution and is why Proffessor of Mathmatics at Oxford Prof. Lennox shut Dickie Dawkins out in his debate using math to prove unequivocally that Dawkins book the God delusion was the delusion man is left to drown himself in the book of romans saying they profess themselves to be wise but are as fools and are without excuse.



You do not know how life started, and evolutionists are not claiming that is how it started. It is merely a guess as to where a source of energy may have come to form a self sustaining organism. This energy could have put together a molecule essential for life. It is merely a hypothesis.


Just count the number of calls to speculation in your last paragrapgh and you will understand why hearsay is not allowed as good testimony in a court of law and sure as hell doesn't make for good science either.

Science like that, you may as well be saying "God did it"



5. We do have transitional fossils. .


O-Rly??? Care to show me one and Ill show you another fraud of science.


6. Species are evolving and changing constantly. This has been observed.


Examples ? and please nothing like getting s suntan or losing our hair or finch beaks that only change back to the way they were when the rainy season ends.



Whales have leg bones. That itself proves that whales evolved from creatures that had four limbs instead of 2. So evolutionists don't have to admit anything.




Sorry, the whale tale is not proof of anything it doesn't prove it because it was cartilege and national geographic has already written a retraction on so many so called missing links the whale being one of the most well known stretch's of the imagination by Darwinists or anyone else who believes in the vestigile body parts scam. You would think not now that we know DNA doesn't allow for that. What we know for a fact now is that DNA can't and does NOT coninue making mulitple mutations in the same species and that all it ever does is continue to create "templated" creatures following an exact transcription code where if a mutation is expressed and even by the almost impossible odds, it is a "beneficial" mutation, a second one causes the DNA to "reboot" itself and goes BACK to its original templated design. This discovery has evolutionists scrambling to come up with yet another tall tale or plausible mechanism as Natural Selection is seen as having no part in such a reach beyond what is already coded in a species DNA and mutations just don't cut it anymore in light of the latest DNA information.

What baffles me is that evolutionists continue to preach these same tired old debunked ideas about a theory which has been neutered and is now defunct.


MILLIONS OF YEARS FOR THE COW TO CHANGE INTO A WHALE
I am still worried about that cow. She had to stay out in that water, swimming, and chomping on orchard grass that might, by chance, float by while her calf nursed underwater; and she and her descendants had to continue on like that for A MILLION YEARS before that cow could change into whale!

"It takes a MILLION YEARS to evolve a new species, ten million for a new genus, one hundred million for a class, a billion for a phylum and that’s usually as far as your imagination goes.

"In a billion years [from now], it seems, intelligent life might be as different from humans as humans are from insects . . To change from a human being to a cloud may seem a big order, but it’s the kind of change you’d expect over billions of years."—*Freemen Dyson, 1988 statement, quoted in Asimov’s Book of Science and Nature Quotations, p. 93 [American mathematician; caps ours].

Another evolutionist agrees: millions of years before the cow would change into a whale.

"The change in gene frequencies of populations over the generations in time produces new species. Darwin called it [the change of one species to another] ‘descent with modification’: a slow process, usually operating over HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS, and even MILLIONS, of years."—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 157 [caps ours].

Oh, you’re worried about the calf? Needn’t fear. It was holding its nose shut with its hoof while it nursed. Calves have to be persistent, you know, or they don’t live very long.
www.pathlights.com...

www.tccsa.tc...






5. We do have transitional fossils. Archaeopteryx.


Ha ha ha oh NOoooOO NOT Archy again! C'mon guy get with the times you are proving my point Science in our public schools is producing ignorant students


THE CHARGE OF FRAUD



Dr. Lee Spetner of the Weizman Institute, Israel, long suspected that the London specimen was a fake and eventually persuaded the British Natural History Museum authorities to let him examine the actual specimen. Museum specimens of the calibre of the Archaeopteryx are securely squirreled away in vaults only accessible to the eye of certified believers; the public sees a mere plaster copy. British scientist Sir Fred Hoyle had also expressed reservations about the London specimen's authenticity and Dr. Spetner invited him to co-operate in the examination of this fossil. Just before Christmas 1984 the precious artifact was exposed, perhaps for the first time in this century, to the skeptical eye of unbelievers. To forestall charges of fraud, an International Archaeo Archaeopteryx Conference had been held at Eichstatt just three months earlier where 80 of the faithful had gathered but they were denied the chance to see either the London or the Berlin specimens; the London Specimen was claimed to be "too fragile to travel" and the Berlin Specimen was said to be "in Japan" [16].

During Spetner and Hoyle's examination physical contact was not permitted but a great many photographs were taken using techniques intended to highlight the contours. This was important because the surface upon which the fossil impression lies is three dimensional; published photographs leave the viewer with the impression that the fossil lies on a two-dimensional plane. The results were most revealing but when it came to publication the ranks and hinds of the scientific press were solidly closed! In the end, Hoyle and Spetner and their associates published their findings in a series of photographic articles in The British Journal of Photography [17-20]. The charges led to counter-charges by Alan Charig and others of the British Museum [21]. In the meantime, the public press, reminded of the Piltdown affair at the same museum in 1953, smelled the makings of another scandal and eagerly fanned the flames of contention. Sir Fred Hoyle quickly published a little book containing some very interesting photographs and documentation of the charges and counter-charges [22]. Finally, in late 1987, the museum put their most famous fossil on display with a list of rebuttals to the charges of hoax in an attempt to regain the public confidence. From that day to this the public had heard nothing more of the debacle.

Hoyle and Spetner concluded that the London Specimen was actually a genuine fossil of the Compsognathus, an extinct reptile,

www.talkorigins.org...


Nice try but sorry, you have only proved you use fraudulent manufactured evidence long believed to be a hoax and those fossils following it were no better off. Your Archy example was even tried several more times using actual birds but they, like those fakes earlier, were finally given the concensus among evolutionists that they are in-fact not very compelling evidence for the dino to bird scam.


When you learn that you cannot trust your science and start actually looking at this so called theory as a skeptic rather than a religious zealot, you may find out that it wasn't the poster you responded to that was totally wrong about everything he said.

it was you.





















[edit on 2-7-2009 by DASFEX]



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 10:09 AM
link   
[edit on 2-7-2009 by stuff1]



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by FSBlueApocalypse
reply to post by stuff1
 



1. That the historical Jesus existed

The "historical Jesus" term used by scholars is a vague idea. There are hundreds of candidates as to who the real life inspiration for the character of Jesus in the Bible was.

2. That he did die on the cross
Crucifixion was the Romans preferred way of execution. Any man trying to instill a revolt against the empire would have suffered this fate.

3. That eyewitnesses gave EARLY testimony to his resurrection
Please show me one credible source, that isn't using apologetics, that there is historical testimony to the resurrection of Jesus. That can go for 4 and 5 as well.



Skeptical Critics to Resurrection

Don't you think its a little biased that you will only accept atheists interpretations and disregard Apologetic sources, as if atheists are eager to post their positive historical opinions on the resurrection of Jesus. Regardless, here is the quote from the skeptical scholar you requested. Instead of one I did three, there are ofcourse more. They are referring to his post death experiences:

1. Norman Perrin, the late NT critic of the University of Chicago:

"The more we study the tradition with regard to the appearances, the firmer the rock begins to appear upon which they are based." This conclusion is virtually indisputable.

Link showing Normann was a skeptic
en.wikipedia.org...

2. Bart Ehraman
"Historians...have no difficulty whatsoever speaking about the belief in Jesus resurrection, since it is a matter of public record. For it is an historical fact that some of Jesus followers came to believe that he had been raised from the dead soon after his execution. But the truth or falsity of that belief is not within the purview of the historinan

Citation
Bart D. Ehram, The New Testament, 3rd ed (Oxford:Oxford University Press, 2004), 16, 294-227

Here is a link to Barts website as you can see a MAJOR skeptic
www.bartdehrman.com...


3. John P Meir
Citing Gerald O'Collins, Meier assets that "although the 'resurrection is a real, bodily event involving the person of Jesus of Nazareth,' the resurrection of Jesus 'is not an event in space and time and hence should not be called historical,' since 'we should require an historical occurrence to be something significant that is known to have happened in our space-time continuum"


Citation
John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew vol.1: The Roots of the Problem and the Person (New York
oubleday, 1991)

As you can see he admits that the historical Jesus lived and was believed to have been raised from the dead. Here is a link to his wikipedia page. As you can tell he presupposes that Miracles might not be be possible
en.wikipedia.org...

I would now expect in the spirit of logical consistency that you would show me Apologetic Christian scholar who do not believe in the resurrection. Lets see if you can apply your skeptism to your own belief system

[edit on 2-7-2009 by stuff1]

[edit on 2-7-2009 by stuff1]



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by danielsil18
I don't buy into the "We are accidents made by chance". I do however believe that there is some type of evolution.

Example:

If one day everyone decides to stay awake at night and sleep at day then Humans will adapt and have eyes like Owls. But I don't believe how scientists say that minerals "accidently" mixed each other and created a living thing with a soul (OBE), I think God did that.


This why people think it is random when it is not. Fact is, unless there is a NEED, humans are not going to switch. But lets say there is sudden massive global warming, and it was only reasonable to be active at night, then an adaptation may happen.


but there are random mutations. Like the girl in India born with four legs, elephantitus, things of that nature. Just most mutations are not beneficial and don't make it. But some actually end up working.








I personally believe that The Gods and Goddesses or your deity of choice stirred the primordial stew and got some popcorn and watched. But they are not limited to Earth, they have a whole pool table so experiments going and can't wait till those experiments interact. XD

for the star trek fans out there, I imagine they are a lot like the Q. Only more sophisticated and holy. And yes I believe they have a sense of humor.



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox
 


You guys are still talking about mutations, micro-evolution, and adaptation. None of this has anything to do with "Evolution."

Nobody in this entire thread has provided an example of something forming a new "SPECIES." A dog has never become a cat, a virus has never become a bacteria, etc. Sure, we have Ligers and Mules, those are significant new species, but they are typically sterile, and they are specific cross-breeding, they are not evolution of a single species.

See my earlier post way back. It only takes 1 year for a bacteria colony to go through the same amount of generations as 6 million years worth of apes!

For that reason alone, it should be fairly simple to take several dozen colonies of bacteria, put them in entirely different environments and "evolve" them into definitive proof. It has never happened!!!!


They may adapt to their environment, but they do not change their DNA encoding, or become entirely different species. They do not form multi-celled organisms, they do not begin to influence their environments, or work together as units.

The theory of "Macro-Evolution" is entirely bunk. It is a misnomer and illogical extrapolation for the very obvious case of Micro-Evolution and Adaptation that is common.



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by FSBlueApocalypse

3. That eyewitnesses gave EARLY testimony to his resurrection
Please show me one credible source, that isn't using apologetics, that there is historical testimony to the resurrection of Jesus. That can go for 4 and 5 as well.



Yeah riiight, this is like picking a fight with a black belt in Karate and saying you ain't that tuff and Ill even prove it, Ill kick any black belts butt as long as he isn't using any of that Karate stuff.

I think anyone saying this kind of nonsense is just as threatened by Jesus Christ as those who found it neccessary to have him crucified.

Not only to the histrionics prove the man walked the planet earth but the latest archaeological discoveries of the tomb and just about all the other digs that Biblical Scholars have used to substantiate his existence offer the benefit of the doubt a much more compelling argument the man yashua (Jesus) DID in fact live and was the person Christians believe was the Son of God. Looking at your past posts on this subject, I wll forego the links to further educate you on this fact as I can see you have your mind made up and are not in the frame of mind to be confused with the facts.

[edit on 2-7-2009 by DASFEX]



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by apacheman
Evolution is unproven?
Tell that to the farmers and ranchers who selectively breed pigs/cows/horses.



No, what Ill do is tell you to ASK those same farmers and ranchers who selectivley breed pigs, cows and horses, how many times they have seen those same pigs, cows and horses give birth to anything other than pigs, cows and horses.

Ill let that sink in.



Tell that to the virologists who literally watch viruses evolve.


Ask them how many times a Rhino virus has evolved into a creature needing a female who was lucky enough to have the same complimentary mutation of genitalia requiring a new kind of other mutation (we'll call this one a "male") having a mutation called a penis and lets say out of all the probabilities going against these to mutants surviving the loss of DNA they FIND each other and figure out how to join their new orifice to the appendage like mutation hanging between the virus vestigile leg nubs and they have sex! Now this is where it gets really interesting because this is what we see in the Bible happening they copulate and give birth to what?

See where I am going with this?

Here perhaps try doing a little scientific research on your own and get caught up with what we DO know about such arguments.
Error thresholds and the constraints to RNA virus evolution



Edward C. Holmes

Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford, UK OX1 3PS


Available online 30 October 2003.

Abstract
RNA viruses are often thought of as possessing almost limitless adaptability as a result of their extreme mutation rates. However, high mutation rates also put a cap on the size of the viral genome by establishing an error threshold, beyond which lethal numbers of deleterious mutations accumulate. Herein, I argue that a lack of genomic space means that RNA viruses will be subject to important evolutionary constraints because specific sequences are required to encode multiple and often conflicting functions. Empirical evidence for these constraints, and how they limit viral adaptability, is now beginning to accumulate. Documenting the constraints to RNA virus evolution has important implications for predicting the emergence of new viruses and for improving therapeutic procedures.

Linky


Tell that to the dog breeders who selectively create new breeds.


Yeah,, I remember years ago arguing this very point to illustrate evolution not really taking millions and millions of years but the most varied species of animal the domestic Dog all the variety's took only 1500 years.

The fact is however that changes can happen very fast leaving behind plenty of doggy transitional forms and do you know what we found out?

We find Dogs evolving into Dogs Evolving into DOGS evolving into Dogs, etc, et-cetera, et-cetera, et-tedious,cetera.



Tell that to the rose enthusiasts who create new rose varieties through practical application of evolution.


Yet a Rose is a Rose by any other name and these are all what again?

ROSES



There's quite literally tons of evidence supporting evolution. If you argue that it is only a theory, it simply broadcasts your ignorance of scientific terminology.


No there is not tons of evidence, the mountain you call evidence is a landfill of debunked hoax's and mis-fit data. The fact they let all this garbage acumulate and coninue to pass it off as fact, only proves my point about Science not being trusted and to read all you can about it but be very very selective about what you believe.



What kind of proof are you looking for?


If evolution were a fact, I wouldn't have to look for any proof, it be as evident as gravity is when I jump up in the air.

If you didn't always equivocate adaptation within variation (micro evolution) which is something testable and has been observed, to mean trans-speciation. I might be more inclined to believe you, but equivocation is a tactic I have seen used by evolutionary science or the act of "If X = Y then A must also equal Z too" It is a logical fallacy and I might add,

NOT very scientific

[edit on 2-7-2009 by DASFEX]



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by stuff1
 


You made the claim, and it's up to you to provide the evidence. All apologetics does is go "Ok, here's the conclusion, let's fit the facts around it." As for the wikipedia page, that's a 2 paragraph entry with poor grammar and no references.



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by DASFEX
 


I welcome the links, please, PLEASE provide them if you have them.




top topics



 
8
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join