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.

 

Does the Central Limit Theorem prove a Creator/Deity?

page: 25
8
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 09:39 AM
link   
reply to post by John Matrix
 


I don't know if you missed the offer, but it still stands. I can find the article on this fish I just read about the other day that shows clear undeniable signs of evolution at work.




posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by John Matrix
 


I may not be completely convinced of YEC, but I am fully confident that I am on the right side in this debate. I am also confident in saying that evolution caused a moral decline, and it's principle teachings of natural selection and survival of the fittest resulted in more mass killings in 150 years, than all previous human history combined.

Even if that wasn't completely false and laughable, morals of people don't invalidate the science.

The people who say that Hitler and Stalin were inspired by Darwinism, it robs people of divinity, morals, and kills people are the same people who just plain hate it so say smack about it. It's childish.

1) Higher atheistic and irreligious and more secular countries are the more well off one, have less crime and are happier.

2) If Hitler was inspired by anyone, it was Martin Luther. ML wrote a book called 'On the Jews and their Lies' which Hitler wrote about in 'Mein Kampf'. BUT you don't hear me saying that Protestantism caused the holocaust.



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Welfhard
 


Hey guys, I'll look at your so called proof.

In the meantime....remember I said the scientists that preach evolution do it to ride the money train of government funding?




posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 11:04 AM
link   
Just to clarify, I don't believe everything talked about in the video above. I posted it to demonstrate that there are others who don't believe in evolution and he mentions the evolution scientists who "follow the money". The guy in the video above believes there was no transitions from one ape like species to humans....he calls them complete transformations or genetic manipulations by aliens who created the human species.



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 11:07 AM
link   
reply to post by John Matrix
 


Hey guys, I'll look at your so called proof.


Start here. Virtually everything creationists claim is covered in the archives.

(click)

Also don't miss AronRa



The guy in the video above believes there was no transitions from one ape like species to humans....he calls them complete transformations or genetic manipulations by aliens who created the human species.

It's a silly thing to say that there are no transitional forms found in the fossil record because everything in the fossil record are transitional. Every form is in the process of change, the change doesn't stop, so one thing is always transitioning into something.

[edit on 30-9-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by John Matrix
 


I'm in safe mode right now (computer problems up the ying yang), so I don't have sound, but I will take a look at the video when I get the chance.

Remember when I said people will say anything to the gullible? Check into those claims before you blindly believe them, chances are you might learn something *shocking*, such as it's a pile of BS so stinky god himself wouldn't be able to stand the stench.



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Welfhard
 


There are NO transitional forms in the fossil record. Nothing has changed other than the size of some species and the extinction of others. Sorry, I read too many articles by too many scientists that say, "there are no transitional forms in the fossil record." The so called Coelacanth was said to have been extinct for millions of years. Last century a living Coelacanth was found off of the coast of Africa....identical to the extinct one's found in the fossil record. This is proof that millions of years of natural processes did nothing to effect change. There are other living fossils as well.....unchanged in 50 million years...LOL!!






posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by John Matrix
 


There are NO transitional forms in the fossil record.

For a fossil to be a transitional form, it needs to be in a state of change. Everything alive is in a state of change (even when you don't believe in macroevolution, microevolution is still change), therefore everything in the fossil record is transitional by the very definition of transitional - there is no escaping that.

I can use youtube as well.




This is proof that millions of years of natural processes did nothing to effect change.

Things don't have to change. When a species finds a niche that doesn't change then the species isn't pressured to change. That's why sharks haven't much changed or crocodiles - their hunter niche doens't make them need to evolve.

[edit on 30-9-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 11:51 AM
link   
Here is part one, three, and four of the video series above:





posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by John Matrix
 


Again you seem to think that evolution says that everything must continue to evolve at a steady rate. Living fossils aren't impossible at all in evolutionary theory. Besides, just because an organism has the same form now as it did in the past (if only remote) doens't mean that they would be genetically compatible - genetic change would still occur even if the phenotypes stayed fairly similar.

[edit on 30-9-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by John Matrix
 


Whoa, back up a minute! Your wrong on the coelacanth!

It is not the same coelacanth as found in fossils. It has most certainly changed over time.

en.wikipedia.org...

What did I tell you to do? Check out what your sources are saying because they are flat out lairs who wish to bank on those who don't bother thinking for themselves. Stop feeding them!

Here is that article I was talking about early. LINK

[edit on 30-9-2009 by sirnex]



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 12:15 PM
link   
Sorry, I no longer accept wiki as a reliable source. Any moron can sign up and edit in their information on Wiki.


Coelocanth was only one example I gave anyway. Look at all the others in that series of videos.



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by John Matrix
 

Don't make me repost Aron Ra!


Sorry, I no longer accept wiki as a reliable source. Any moron can sign up and edit in their information on Wiki.


Take the citations then! Wiki isn't authoritative, it's whole point is that claims are cited appropriately.


Coelocanth was only one example I gave anyway. Look at all the others in that series of videos.

It doesn't matter because even if they were all unchanged, evolution allows for stagnation, environmental pressures can stop pressuring things to change so no example of living fossil will ever stand as evidence against evolution.

[edit on 30-9-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by John Matrix
 


Oh for the love of Easter Bunny! LOOK IT UP! LOOK IT UP! LOOK IT UP!

Do you just believe any creationist garbage you read? They are ALL lies. All of it, every single "claim" they have ever made. You need to learn how to think for yourself for once. I haven't had a chance to fix the PC today, but if I get a chance I will certainly look at the other claims in the video, but I can tell you right now it's all BS and your buying it because you refuse to learn something for yourself. You'd rather have someone else come up with the answers. Man I wish I could accept such a cozy lifestyle, but I prefer to be a freethinker and not have other people dole out garbage to me.



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 12:35 PM
link   
So what? The Coelacanth's found in the 1900's is a new specimine from a 450 million year old order of fish. That takes nothinhg away from the creationists argument because it's still a FISH.


If 450 million years hasn't caused one specimine from that order of fish to evolve into something quite different, then it's safe to assume the entire order of coelacanth's did not evolve into anything different. Show me a transitional form where I can examine a coelacanth changing into a new species.

And again, their are many examples of living fossils that demonstrate species that existed hundreds of millions of years ago were the same as they are today.



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by John Matrix
 


Do you not listen?

Evolutionary theory is NOT a theory stating that all life *must* change into a new species. Please read the theory again before you accept the garbage that creationists dole out to people who have the highest disregard for thinking on their own.

Yes, I get it ... I can get lazy myself to, everyone does. That is no excuse however to be knowledgeable in whatever topic your trying to argue against, and if you don't know the topic you look like an ignorant fool. We're trying to help you out here, point you in the right direction, correct misunderstood terminologies, but somehow, some reason, your clinging on to these erroneous ideas as if your very life depended on it.

Look, here's an example *myself*. I used to religiously believe the big bang was the absolute truth of where our universe came from, yet by not accepting everything said by those who claim authoritative knowledge I've come to determine that most if not all of the theory is total BS. It creates more paradoxical contradictions than it does answering the nature of the universe.

Yes, you can to become a freethinker and develop your own ideas, yes people may call you a flipping idiot for thinking certain ways, I share that same problem myself. Yet there is nothing wrong with thinking for yourself, this is how we learn and grow knowledge as a people.

But then we're met against others who harbor a stale mind, incapable of furthering their own abilities to think, reason and utilize logic.

You've been told what evolutionary theory is *again*, now please argue from that defined standpoint, as the current standpoint your arguing IS NOT EVOLUTIONARY THEORY as the creationist garbage is trying to tell you. Look it up and learn something.



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 01:27 PM
link   
When I was younger....I think I was about 21...I thought a lot like you, except I did not believe in evolution.

By not accepting everything said by those who claim authoritative knowledge I used my own brain to determine that most if not all of the theory of evolution was/is total BS. It creates more paradoxical contradictions than it does answering how all the species including my own got here.

Yes, I became a freethinker. I like to be this way even if people call me a flipping idiot for thinking I am the product of special creation and have a divine purpose. I share that same idea with many others God has predestined to know Him. There is nothing wrong with believing what I believe, this is how I learn and grow in the knowledge of God.

Sometimes I run into people who are incapable of furthering their own abilities to think, reason and utilize logic. But I try to help them if they will listen.

Unfortunately, it's difficult to discuss a theory that morphs with each individual proponent of evolution that comes on this thread....because it gets so darn confusing.....each person seems to have their own ideas for believing evolution, and their own interpretation of what evolution is. So I speak to one's view, and another comes back and says "No, No, that's not evolution ....this is evolution...you got it all wrong, you are brainwashed by creationists garbage, bla, bla, bla"


Back to micro-evolution which is an old Evolutionist term used in the early 1900's. Small adaptive chances within spieces I accept.....that's what micro-evolution is.

I do not accept macro-evolution. There is no proof of it. No proof of speciation. No transitional forms in the fossil record.


[edit on 30/9/09 by John Matrix]



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by John Matrix
 


Yea! Because that little story aptly answers the retorts to your claims.



I do not accept macro-evolution.

Because you don't want to.


There is no proof of it.

Willful ignorance.


No proof of speciation.

Except observed speciation events.


No transitional forms in the fossil record.

Except for every single last fossil that exists.

Please review:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 30-9-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by John Matrix
 


So by your own admission, you would rather argue against evolutionary theory using outdated terminology developed during a period of time where little was known about the process leading to the development of those two terms.

And somehow you wish to be taken seriously in the matter.

That would be like me arguing the world is flat on the back of a giant turtle because ancient cosmology said so.



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by John Matrix
 


So by your own admission, you would rather argue against evolutionary theory using outdated terminology developed during a period of time where little was known about the process leading to the development of those two terms.


No.



And somehow you wish to be taken seriously in the matter.


Yes, but if you don't care to, at least take the many sources I have provided seriously. They make some very good scientific observations concerning the flaws in evolutionary theory.



That would be like me arguing the world is flat on the back of a giant turtle because ancient cosmology said so.


You are funny. I am considering a role for you in my next video. It's called 'Dead End'.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join