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.

 

Charles Darwin film 'too controversial for religious America'

page: 23
29
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 05:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by John Matrix
Evolution is the biggest conspiracy/scam ever perpetrated on the public.
It's impossible for even one branch of evolution, let alone the thousands of parallel evolutions that would have had to take place for us to have the thousands of so called evolved species.

Remember, It's government funded scientists that are the evolutionists. They believe in evolution because that's where the money is, and they don't have to accept accountability to a creator for their actions and deeds.

Also remember, it's the government funded scientists that revived or cloned the Spanish flu. Just another retarded move by morons that won't accept the obvious I.D. from a creator.

However, I would like the video to be shown here in North America so creation scientists can debunk it.



[edit on 12/9/09 by John Matrix]


I find it astonishing that in the 21st Century people can think as you do. Deluded and laughable.

Don't you feel even the slightest embarassment having said what you have?




posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 05:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stylez

Originally posted by muggl3z
I am officially embarrassed as a proud American.

The biggest problem in this country is ignorance, complete absence of information.


Really? wanna go at me? lets see how smart you are about ole chuckies so called theory


Tell you what, you talk big but i haven't seen any proof to your claims.

I'd be ashamed to think as you do. And have some damned respect, the mans name was Charles.



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 05:46 AM
link   
reply to post by refuse_orders
 


very interesting, I wonder what could have been in it. but are we really that religious?

[edit on 20-9-2009 by ineverknew]



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 05:58 AM
link   
I was reading on some information of darwins works. I think i remember something of the likes of how some of his theories were flawed. But its like its the newton, and we need an einstein to put the rest together.

I think some of the evolution theory is right and some wrong.

But I do love how, people who haven't even read any of the actual theory of evolution by darwin accept the idea and do not question it and consider it perfect and laugh at anyone who tries to bring another point of view. They are just like the people who accept the bible and do not question it and laugh at anyone who brings another point of view.
I think it comes down to the seven achetypes of personalities.

If you dont question something, then how can you learn, and how can we advance as a civilization. I Galileo did not question the world being flat, science would not have advanced at that time.



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 06:43 AM
link   
Here are some proofs of evolution. Deny this creationists!:

www.talkorigins.org...

www.talkorigins.org...



[edit on 20-9-2009 by Maslo]



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 06:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

However now that scientists have discovered the very evidence that creationists have complained was missing from the fossil record, they now want to state that that's not proof either?

In any case people of intelligence can look at that evidence and make their own decisions regarding what it demonstrates. We have apparently come to different conclusions about the meaning of that evidence. So if that doesn't convince you, I'm afraid there's not much more I can say that will, we will just have to agree to disagree I guess.

Regards.





However now that scientists have discovered the very evidence that creationists have complained was missing from the fossil record, they now want to state that that's not proof either?



Yes because this is the same argument given when they found evidence called Java man, Colorado Man, Pilt Downman. Someone finds a dead lemur and they go bannanas saying Proof this a transitional fossil. That one wasn't too long ago and I read how cocky the evolutionists were in their short lived but very disappointing celebration. Now when you read about that same lemur, they say it is just a another lemur.

Now what evidence do you have to suggest the transition to whales from a land mammal.



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 07:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo


Here are some concrete proofs of evolution. Deny this creationists!:

www.talkorigins.org...

www.talkorigins.org...





hehehe I remember Royal Truman destroyed that old stuff.

Tell you what, give me the best example from that site and then we well see if we can't test it.

I like the part he says something about a new species of mosquito in the underground of london.

I laughed because I started out saying the only thing we observe is:

Sharks evolving into sharks

Turtles evolving into turtles,

Dogs into other dogs and

Mosquito's into what? hehehe

[edit on 20-9-2009 by Stylez]



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 07:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by phoenix103

Originally posted by Stylez

Originally posted by muggl3z
I am officially embarrassed as a proud American.

The biggest problem in this country is ignorance, complete absence of information.


Really? wanna go at me? lets see how smart you are about ole chuckies so called theory


Tell you what, you talk big but i haven't seen any proof to your claims.

I'd be ashamed to think as you do. And have some damned respect, the mans name was Charles.


His name is Chuck, and I owe him no reverance as if he is the Pope.

I talk big because I know more about this than you do and I am still waiting for proof of Their claims. I am not here making claims I am exploiting the real flaws in this silly theory. You got something I can check out?

Chuck was nothing special guy and he never wrote a damn thing he didnt steal from someone else.



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 07:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by phoenix103


Don't you feel even the slightest embarassment having said what you have?


He most likely DOES feel embarrassment as I do, but it is embarrassment for YOU.

If you think we have a reason to feel embarrassed, then by all means, rub our faces in what ever it is we are so stupid or denying.

Then Ill show you why you should deny it.

[edit on 20-9-2009 by Stylez]



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by phoenix103

I find it astonishing that in the 21st Century people can think as you do. Deluded and laughable.

Don't you feel even the slightest embarassment having said what you have?


Not at all.....because I have studied that math. Evolution is considered mathematically impossible by mathematicians who take the time to work out the probabilities.

I don't understand why you snipe me with your cheap shots?

Can't you make a point without belittling someone?

For several decades scientists have attempted to calculate the mathematical probability for the random-chance origin of life.

In the 1970's Sir Frederick Hoyle calculated the odds of the spontaneous generation of a single bacterium to be 1 in 10 to the 40 thousandth power.

If an event has a mathematical probability of less than 1 chance in 10 to the 50th power, that event is considered by mathematicians to be mathematically impossible.

It's important to note that for his calculations Hoyle considered a primordial soup......with only left-handed amino acids........because he knew that the mathematical probability of the origin of all left-handed proteins from a right and-left handed primordial soup would be zero.

Sir Frederick Hoyle stated(paraphrased):

"The probability of the spontaneous generation of a single bacterium is about the same as the probability that a tornado sweeping through a junk yard could assemble a 747 from the contents therein.................... The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40 thousand zeros after it. It is enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence."
www.origins.org...

Hoyle only calculated the probability of the spontaneous generation of the proteins in a single cell. What about the chance formation of DNA, RNA, or the cell wall that holds the contents of the cell together?


Mathematical odds of the spontaneous generation of life disproves evolution.

So why should I be embarassed when God and his Math are on my side and the odds against evolution make it look like the biggest waste of time and resources this planet has ever encountered?

www.faizani.com...


[edit on 20/9/09 by John Matrix]



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 01:36 PM
link   
Stylez:


Now what evidence do you have to suggest the transition to whales from a land mammal.


Atavism (whales with legs and babies with tails)

John Matrix:



Mathematical odds of the spontaneous generation of life disproves evolution. So why should I be embarassed when God and his Math are on my side and the odds against evolution make it look like the biggest waste of time and resources this planet has ever encountered?


Holye's fallacy



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by John Matrix

So why should I be embarassed when God and his Math are on my side and the odds against evolution make it look like the biggest waste of time and resources this planet has ever encountered?

www.faizani.com...


[edit on 20/9/09 by John Matrix]


Yeah, well you can't get evolutionist's to consider such arguments John, and is one of the reasons Prof. John Lennox Oxford shut out the Rev. Dawkins in their debate over his book "The God Delusion".

One of the more clever comebacks by Dawkins after hearing the argument from a mathematical probability is when he says "Yet here we are" as if that cinched it lol. He then goes on describing what we should consider as an infinite amount of chances at it as if evolution gets another shot at this happening again using an infinite amount of opportunities and infinite amount of times or chances. What he doesn't realize of course is that it having another shot at it doesn't matter, the probability is the same with each one and doesn't increase the odds an iota. In fact the odds become even less not greater as Dawkins seems to think probability has memory and it doesn't.

He wrote this book climbing mount probable where he actually has a program to demonstrate how many generations it would take a species to evolve using as his mechanism "random mutations" something I am surprised to see is still being used by some of evolutionists here as the latest discoveries in DNA and how it deals with mutations has destroyed the idea of using mutations as a mechanism driving evolution.

Continuing, he uses the phrase "me thinks it’s a weasel" as random mutating letters are flying by and every so often one of the letters fits in with the given sentence and eventually they all do and we are supposed to go Ga Ga over this tripe. Then they want to say ID isn't science? Ha ha ha. The problem of course is Natural Selection is blind, aimless, directionless, it wouldn't even know their WAS the sentence "me thinks it's weasel" much less have someone with a intelligent mind assist in giving it the direction it has to go creating it and spelling it out beforehand.

As you might recall one of the highlights of the kitzmiller VS Dover Trial was that awful portrayal of it PBS did which was so far from what actually happened during that trial it is shameful. In the PBS documentary they are trying to explain irreducible complexity using Michael Behe's famous mouse trap analogy where if take one of the parts of the mouse trap, the mouse trap is useless. The attorney for the evolutionist’s side takes the mouse trap and applies it to his tie and says well it might not make a good mousetrap but it makes a great tie clip.

Everyone even scientists were so impressed by that and call it a classic among lawyers with case killing comebacks.

Yet if I were to ask that same lawyer how that new tie clip species demonstrates survival of the fittest in a world of competing mouse traps not to mention competing mutations and what intelligent agent would their have been to direct the useless mousetrap to its tie?

If the attorney did anything, he proved natural selection and mutation arrives at its target destination using a lot of word smiting and slight of hand. Then as it is still being done today, what we invariably see is evolutionist using the prospect of evolution using illustrations which are like aiming an arrow at the side of a barn, walking up to it and painting a target around it.

When evolutionist can act like scientists again, is when they can tell me what science is and what isn’t because if they think what they got is science they are crazier than the creationists.

Having a consensus does NOT a science make

Discriminating and black listing any papers for peer review so that claims for having no peer reviewed papers can be leveled against any other creation model can be made, does NOT a science make. The NAS was found guilty of doing this and they continue to do it to this day. If they had their way, they would make it unconstitutional to challenge Darwin’s theory. That isn't science THAT, ironically, sounds more like religion.

Having colorful adjectives to describe the size and scope of the evidence you have such as "tons" or "mountains" of it, does NOT a science make.

Using a broad range of ridicule toward any challenge of the theory DEFINATLY does NOT a science make.

Comparing it to and attaching it to, the coat tails of other more proven more reliable theories such as gravity, does NOT a science make and I have not seen anyone coming to these threads boasting of the latest object a scientist raised high above the ground to claim it fell back to earth at 120 miles an hour.

Using linguistic programming, merging words like macro and micro to mean the same thing or getting everyone to use the latest slogan using the same means of linguistic programming to call it a "fact", does NOT a science make, much less make that science, a fact.

Finding a tooth and creating an entire skeleton around it to look like a caveman rather than the extinct pig the tooth really came from does NOT a science make.

Gluing feathers to a lizard to substantiate the dino to bird idea does NOT a science make.

Inventing plausible alibi's and ways evolution "could" have happened, "might" have happened, or even suggest it happened, as if that's the way it actually DID happen, without proving it, does NOT a science make.

They are as varied and as faulty an excuse to call Darwinian evolution a science as those they use to claim intelligent design is a religion.

If a designer designed the digital computer that is DNA and their is plenty of reasons to think that may just very well be the case, then what right does anyone have assuming that creator has a religion, REGARDLESS of what schemes they think ID'ers are up to trying to back door religion into the science room, whether it is or isn't who cares of the religious implications it may bring, last I checked, religion was something MAN created and not God and Darwinists have said this for a hundred years.

Well if its good enough to keep God out of politics using separation of church and state then its good enough to keep religion out of science for the same reason, then by god (no pun) it is good enough to keep religion out of God and let the evidence speak for itself rather than the anti religious worst fears of the atheist scientist having no shortage of excuses to avoid such evidence




[edit on 20-9-2009 by Stylez]



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Stylez
 


Lmao! Wall of rage!


"Does NOT a science make" How many times do you have to say the same thing? Repeating it does not make it correct.





posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 02:10 PM
link   
Here's an interesting Video called evolution IS a blind watchmaker.

Check this link if you have not heard of the Watchmaker Analogy .




posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by refuse_orders
reply to post by Stylez
 


Lmao! Wall of rage!


"Does NOT a science make" How many times do you have to say the same thing? Repeating it does not make it correct.




Are you a post critic? or do you somehow, some strange way have the idea that I actually believe if I reiterate that, I believe it will make it correct? Is that what you want the readers to think?

They are going say "WoW" he sure nailed styles with that zinger!

Ya know what they notice hotshot?

They will notice, that is ALL you could come up with as a counter argument. Whats next? Telling me my mother wears army boots?

Grow up

[edit on 20-9-2009 by Stylez]



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Stylez
 


I was not counter arguing, I was commenting on the post. Oh and yes I am a post critic, just as much as you are and everyone else is. Both points I made were in fact true, It was a wall of rage and you repeating the same few words over and over does not make you correct.

Why would I accuse your mother of wearing army boots? I do myself...




posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Connector
Holye's fallacy



Of course it's denied and rejected by evolutionists! In fact, I expect denial from a cult that has successfully brain washed billions of people.

I'll match you and raise you one better:

1. www.faizani.com...

2. www.abovetopsecret.com...

Hoyle is not the only mathematician. I used Hoyle as a start. There are many, many more.



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by refuse_orders
reply to post by Stylez
 


Lmao! Wall of rage!


"Does NOT a science make" How many times do you have to say the same thing? Repeating it does not make it correct.


He did not repeat the same examples. He had many examples and explanations to demonstrate the terms "does not a science make".

There is a big difference between what he actually did, and what you think and say he did.

You didn't get it. You jumped to conclusions based on your schema!

To learn about your faulty schema, click here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by refuse_orders

I was not counter arguing, I was commenting on the post.


You weren't countering the argument? Ya don't say?

No you were not and I said that that you made that your point also.

By the way, you were not commenting, you were ridiculing, so lets not play any further childishness using semantics as some thin veneer to tip toe out of it and just man up and admit it.



Oh and yes I am a post critic, just as much as you are and everyone else is. Both points I made were in fact true, It was a wall of rage and you repeating the same few words over and over does not make you correct.

Why would I accuse your mother of wearing army boots? I do myself...




If you are going to criticize using ridicule because I broke your arbitrary rule for how many times one can say "does Not a science make" while reading my mind suggesting I did it because, "Welp Jeethus Jathper, I figure if I says it nuff times, it will make me correct"



Why would I accuse your mother of wearing army boots?


Hell I dunno guy, I'm still trying to figure out why you said any of that at all. It is off topic, and has nothing to do with the rest of the post. It doesn't make you look like you made any point to refute my argument other than to suggest It was saying something science that happens to be a quite true. In fact through this entire thread you have used this tactic.

When you want to give up the sophistry and kid games let me know



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by John Matrix
 


Did you even read the link? It explains the "hole" in that line of reasoning. And yes "they" the biological evolutionist are a smart bunch to brainwash billions of people( as you suggested).
Just like religious figures who have "brain washed" billions of people into believing in a unprovable deity.

And no, giving a link to a creationist website and a thread here at ATS is not going one better....it's going backwards.


Oh and hey Stylez....I gave you the answer to your question about whales and you don't even thank me....geez.



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join