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 proved by Biologists Scientists from Cambridge, Lots of Bad Science and Frauds.

page: 2
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 12 2009 @ 07:08 PM
link   
reply to post by VitalOverdose
 


It wasn't an argument, was I saying you were wrong? No. I was wondering what your better idea was. But you don't have an idea. You're just rejecting the given "options" and then condemning those who actually are arguing and debating over the topic.




posted on Jul, 12 2009 @ 07:48 PM
link   
Well, aren't you just a fantastic philosopher and scientist.

Taking a resource from ONE source: Cambridge, which has been known to have weird discoveries, and using them to prove intelligent design is real.

Let me ask you one simple question which would settle all of this.

Have you seen God in the flesh before?

No?

Didn't think so.

Can you see the resemblance between us and primitive primates?

No?

Are you sure about that?

Look closer, and look in the right places.

[edit on 12-7-2009 by KarlG]



posted on Jul, 12 2009 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by PieKeeper
reply to post by VitalOverdose
 


It wasn't an argument, was I saying you were wrong? No. I was wondering what your better idea was. But you don't have an idea. You're just rejecting the given "options" and then condemning those who actually are arguing and debating over the topic.


Trying to claim that your idea has to be right if you can find faults in an opposing idea is not debating its just silly. Its the sort of tactics people resort to when they have nothing to back up their own claims.

Trying to put forward the idea that im not allowed to say both ideas are implausible if i cant produce something that is plausible is childish.

How many facts do you know in the world that are unprovable?

If either of these theories were correct then we would have been able to prove them by now.



posted on Jul, 12 2009 @ 08:21 PM
link   
reply to post by VitalOverdose
 


Evolution does happen, that is a fact. You can say whatever you want, just please bring facts to back it up. We have the fossils, we win.

[edit on 7/12/2009 by FSBlueApocalypse]



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 05:01 AM
link   
reply to post by KarlG
 


I dont know who you were adressing, but seen God? no, and what does it have to do with any thing ?

It is seriously some thing wierd about you Evo Dudettes...

The evolusion is a LIE , dont you get it yet ??
FICTION, bad fiction..

There isnt much likeness between ape and humans, they walk almost human-like in some moves they have, but that is it.

What is the case, is that the Illuminati has made a 'false' history and emplemented the illogical Evotheory by 'mason brother' C.Darwin as an attempt to make conflict between the 'normal' guy that swallows everything that is said raw, without even thinking one once for them selfs, and the brotherhood of the Church and people that cling to the Lord.

You realy do not know what shait the Illumasons have in store for us.
What will happen when most people figure it out !?

I gues Ignorance is Bliss after all..



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 05:04 AM
link   
reply to post by FSBlueApocalypse
 


You have fossils ??
My golly, how old are they? 100 years ? 500 Years, 10 years ?
Dont give me Corbone dating, its junk science !!!Dosnt work ..

C14 dating actually gives two different dates on one and the same animal, then it cant be accepted as science, but wait, it does, it goes strait in the school books if it fits the 'fairytale'..

.. What a sick world... You be monkey all you want , Im not ..



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by ChemBreather
 


Lol you're too ignorant. You seem to think that all that proves evolution is fossils. Well there are MANY factors that makes fossils plauible evidence for evolution.

The relative age of fossils is determined from their position in sedimentary rock. In undisturbed sedimentary rock the bottom layers are the oldest and the top layers are the youngest.


By dating fossils and examining geologic strata, scientists have been able to put together a time scale for the history of life on earth called The Fossil Record, which coincidently fits VERY NICE.


If a bat, a human, an alligator, and a penguin all evolved from a common ancestor, then they should share common anatomical traits. In fact, they do. WEIRD!

Some organisms have structures or organs that seem to serve no useful function. For example, humans have a tailbone at the end of the spine that is of no apparent use. WEIRD!

Biochemistry also reveals things that support evolution.

And even if we had no fossils that wouldnt mean evolution is false. You see biological evolution is a FACT, FACT, FACT... get it? It means change in populations over time. Do you deny that too maybe?


Try reading about about evolution maybe, and THEN let me see you deny it... that would realy confirm human stupidity.


bioweb.cs.earlham.edu...



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 07:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Daniem
 


I started commentiing on the points you bring up, but I got tired of trying to explain every point...

Evolusionists fake evidence, they make fake fossils and they hide and ignore things that contradict what they have previously said,they have too.

Big Bang never happend either, and still it is what commonman thinks.
Like logic it self say, something huge as the universe cant come from nothing, explosions do not construct , it destruct, simple logic.



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 08:06 AM
link   
reply to post by FSBlueApocalypse
 


You dont win , there are no more evidence one way or they other.
The differense how ever, is that the creationist use FACTS from the evolusionists and that is why they get stuck on cretionists backround and grammar to debunk they claim , rather than just admit being wrong.

If an evoman say something, it is correct, it has to , cause he is not a christian man, if that man turns and finds after 20 years that he has been barking up the wrong tree, then he all of the sudden is an christian fanatic and his work is no longer valid as creationist, but still his work is accepted from the times he was an evolusionist, you see the wrongness here??

If he is wrong , he is srong on both terfs, all his work must be revoked and removed from the schoolbooks etc. but that doenst happen, just what he claims after he turns are concidered rubbish, even if it is the excact same eveidence. HypocrisY big time......



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 08:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Daniem
 


See, just here : If the theory is true, then the world we observe should contain evidence supporting the idea that species change. Let us examine the natural world to see if such evidence exists.

Already there I see nothing new to the debate, it presents the things I tell you are Couldbe's and We think's ...

Fossile records? fine stuff, Ill make a fossile and you see I'm right..
You know as well as me that most 'links' ie.your a monkey theory are fakes and bones from different animals put together to meet theyr claims.

When my fossile is finished we could use the c14 dating proccess, sounds cool?? Oh wait, those dating methods dont work.. Hmmm, what do we do then, yea, we LIE and say it is old enough to fit the theory. Science ..


[edit on 15-7-2009 by ChemBreather]



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 08:45 AM
link   
As the changes in evolution are based on DNA code changes and mutations, then does that mean that they are just changing a configuration file which is working with an operating system of some sort beyond the DNA and physical?

For example, each person has their own unique DNA, each species has it's own unique DNA. So that means each DNA is it's own specific pattern. So, if they mutate, are they not hitting on something which was already pre-determined to yield that result?

1 small change of the DNA can yield big differences in the output of the organism.

I see this same effect in configuration files. I'll use blogs as an example of this.

If you visit many blogs, you'll probably see that most of them use wordpress. All these different blogs look completely different from one and they even function different from each other if desired.

Now, all these blogs all use the same base code, but why do they look and work so different? Well, the answer is they have their own unique configuration files. If you change that configuration file, you will see big results in what the output of the program is.

In terms of variables, to change a box that is draw the size of 20 pixels wide, to 200 pixels wide is merely a change of that configuration variable. The code which will generate both the 20 and 200 pixel wide box is exactly the same, and held within the base code. To change the color of the site from blue to green is simply a change in the configuration file. But while you get all these different and huge results, you never touch the real code.

As well, you get "junk variables" and functions which can be turned off and on in configuration files. I might have an entire section of configurations for a function, but then 1 configuration turns the function off for that particular site, and the rest of the code becomes useless. Turn that 1 function on, and suddenly they will have value in how it functions and looks etc.

So in this way, there are tons of possibilities you can get from 1 bit of base code, and a bunch of configurations. But, each specific variation is actually pre-determined by the existing base code, and there was nothing else but that specific site/look/functionality that such a configuration pattern would produce.

Same things happen with DNA exactly.

As best I can tell, DNA is programming code. Cells are self-reproducing biological nanobots that build and such based on the DNA code. And the study of genetics is an attempt at reverse engineering a very advanced technology, where you can catalog and figure out what each configuration change will bring.

I got nothing against natural selection and such. Seems survival of the fittest is rather obvious to me, and that things do adapt to their environment, and those who do so are going to be best suited to survive. Just look among humans for evidence of that. But there is more to it than is being let on by "evolutionists".



[edit on 7/15/2009 by badmedia]



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 09:25 AM
link   
reply to post by ChemBreather
 




Evolusionists fake evidence, they make fake fossils and they hide and ignore things


Some obviously did. But you said it yourself, thats BAD science, like intelligent design, and noone likes that. But thanks to the wonderful miracle of science they were busted! Cause we like the truth! And to think we are after something else is deliciously arrogant of you, i just loooove a good case of religious hypocracy.

To even try to fake stuff in science is useless, as others will soon figure you out.



You know as well as me that most 'links' ie.your a monkey theory are fakes and bones from different animals put together to meet theyr claims.


Hello?! Heard of DNA? if the bones have dna from more than 1 species its a fake.. easy to figure.




When my fossile is finished we could use the c14 dating proccess, sounds cool?? Oh wait, those dating methods dont work.. Hmmm, what do we do then, yea, we LIE and say it is old enough to fit the theory.


HAHAHA you're funny.. but in case you are beeing serious, (which would be sad).. that was blatantly ignorant of you to say.. why do you try to MISINFORM others with your lack of understanding of science? Are you telling lies?

Are you mocking scientists? those that go out in the field to figure out how YOUR god's creation works??

You shun your own gods creation when you wont even learn basic science so you can understand how your own god's creation works.



You shoulnd't be allowed to speak of science or evolution when you obviously dont know anything about it.

If you had read what i already wrote earlier;
"there are MANY factors that makes fossils plauible evidence for evolution."
...not just radiocarbon dating. But you wouldn't know them would you?

You're not going to understand evolution unless you study it. Its NOT wild speculation... the scientific community is AGAINST just that..



They looked around the universe, the earth, and they found something... that something you refuse to believe in... What they DIDNT find was evidence for YOUR BASELESS ASSUMTIONS. (6000 yr old earth, creation, yahweh etc)

Thats why we have the theory of evolution, cause we found something.. not because we decided to go against all gods and make up a story about life evolving.


And just to be clear; most people who believe in evolution are christians.



So i have 1 question for you ChemBreather:
Do you believe in NOTHING about evolution? Macro, Micro?

Because if you think microevolution is true, but not macro, you think that populations change only by a little due to a barrier or limit that stops populations from diverging too much...and i'd like to see evidence of THAT BARRIER!!

[edit on 15-7-2009 by Daniem]



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 09:34 AM
link   
i think your thread rocks.
evolution to anyone w/ half a brain, is the bigest fairytale goin.
you get a star
you get the flag
and you get a cookie



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 09:41 AM
link   
hello, scientists are so stupid they that mistake encoded adaptation in our dna
for full on evolution. all they really do is look for ways to dismiss the
creator.total stupidity from the outset.there i said it.



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
hello, scientists are so stupid they that mistake encoded adaptation in our dna
for full on evolution. all they really do is look for ways to dismiss the
creator.total stupidity from the outset.there i said it.


Excuse me.. what are you talking about? "Full on evolution"??

Do you know what evolution IS? Change in population over time.

That means that when we RECORD genetic changes in living organisms over many generations, THAT IS something we can call EVOLUTION righfully as pr. definition.

Now that you know that, dont you feel smart!



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by ChemBreather
 
Disclaimer: I'm a theist but not of the Abrahamic faiths. I have minor biblical scholar and scriptural skills. Also I am not a scientific/legal or medical expert in any field. Beware of my Contagious Memes! & watch out that you don't get cut on my Occams razor.All of this is my personal conjecture and should not be considered the absolute or most definitive state of things as they really are. Use this information at your own risk! I accept no liability if your ideology comes crashing down around you with accompanying consequences!

UPFRONT Personal Disclosure: I'm an avid ID'er but mines actually backed by real science and real scientists. RE: Paul Davies and specifically his book Superforce.

Explanation: I offer up Optical Dating methods as a viable alternative to C14 dating techniques. Will you accept it as a valid measuring stick and if not then why not?

2ndry Source for Optical dating method.

Personal Disclosure: No big bang huh?
Then what the hell is this actually telling us? wmap Source and cmb Source.




posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by ChemBreather
 


Interesting, why do creationist believe that it's either / or. That if you believe in evolution, that you must not believe in God and vise versa?? I believe in BOTH God and evolution, you can also be a Christian and a Buddhist at the same time. It's interesting that only creationists have this problem.



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 08:22 PM
link   
I support OP on this thread.

The problem we have to day is that every body seams to pick and choose their own sources. And the other thing is that we tend to believe every thing we read or see. Then we defend it with all the crap we can find just to make it sound like a fact.
Most of us have no luggage to support the source we preach to believe in. We just do it. Because we have to defend what we believe in, if not it would make us look like fools.

When i think about science i think about a few things.

1. How accurate is our measuring system.
No one ever seems to care to much about that.

2. How good is our observation tools. And how good and loyal are the scientist using them.
Bull will fly as long as the money is good. And where there is good money you will have a lot of interests. Every one wants a piece of the cash flow.

A theory will pas as facts if the support is good and the money is flowing. Because we dont have the brains to know the difference between facts and theory anyways. We are brought up and thought to think the same the things.

And most important of all we are brought up to agree with the BIG BOS. Even though we dont agree with him at all. But we have to do the sacrifice so that we can get his job sooner or later. Or to stab him in the back lol.

3. Can a lab be the same thing as nature at any point. We can mix and do Trix in a lab. Nature cant do that like a scientist can.




[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 08:24 PM
link   
What a steaming pile of rubbish. This is all about probability. The probability that the universe was created by...

1. God
2. A giant intergalactic immortal lobster called Colin

.. is exactly the same. There is no scientific proof or theistic argument that would prove god over Colin. If Colin is considered absurd, then so must god be.

It's time to wake up now from the banal theist vs evolutionist argument and understand that science will eventually explain everything.



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by FSBlueApocalypse
reply to post by VitalOverdose
 


Evolution does happen, that is a fact. You can say whatever you want, just please bring facts to back it up. We have the fossils, we win.

[edit on 7/12/2009 by FSBlueApocalypse]


Creation Scientists have the same fossils and the very same evidence.


You don't win. You ignore the more reasonable explanation.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join