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: 28
29
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by John Matrix

Originally posted by phi1618
if evolution could have been debunked someone much smarter than most of us....would have done it already..end of story. i would have to say the same for creationism.....hence circular argument.

check please?



We presented the sources which have debunked it using Math....people with Phds in Physics etc. I think they more than qualify. Check the links on my profile page and enjoy the wake up call.


how many days did it take god to create....everything..again? forgot honestly, was it like 7 days?

let your Physics phd's chew on that for a while see what they say.




posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 08:29 PM
link   
reply to post by zazzafrazz
 


Im gonna reply to me, cause its the same kinda of way of debating for blind faith...lol, and Ill keep doing that on this thread, see how it works to argue for in ones beliefs only, instead of researching to find truth.

Did hominoids evolve from Adapids. This is a 'missing link' argument in scientific circles regarding our development
books.google.com.au... i=MmkGStb5C6HksgPBn6WwBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5

Based on research headed by the President of the US Paleontological Society of a 37million year old Adapid.
A fossil found in Germany that is similar to but NOT a lemur is speculated to be the 'Missing link'. The small primate (adapid) is believed to have evolved into monkeys, apes and human beings.

Pro creationalists have yet to present the 'creation' skull or skeleton and this is the unfortunate bi product when you believe that Homo Sapiens were 'created' rather than evolved. Paleontological remains of hominoids have been able to time and again map the hominoid development tree, admittedly not finished yet (or for some time) but its is filling up.

The remains of a 1 year old female highlights that more and more intermediary adaptations are found and never has one 'original man/woman' been found.
The interest in this latest find in Germany is that scientists may be able to settle the argument as to where humans have evolved from:



Roger Thomas, secretary of the US Paleontological Society, said: ‘According to one group of thought, we are descended from the same primates as lemurs. Another argument is that hominids evolved from another small primate, the tarsiidae.’


www.dailymail.co.uk...


I suppose I am trying to grasp, do ID believers say that god touched every creature to instigate the change each time? and that oxygen, weather, food etc had nothing to do with it? As an example, the biological changes of modern Humans, such as fair hair in the north, and dark skin in the sunny south were 'touch and designed' and not a biological reaction?

I've never engaged in a debate on ID versus Evolution but this new find has got me thinking:
How can Evolutionists keep filling in the 'gaps' (there are still more to go), but the scientific evidence is simply ignored by ID believers?

This animal had features which link indirectly to higher primates, such as dry v wet nose, nails v claws, 4 incisor teeth in each jaw approximating to each other the midline, long foliate canines separated from the incisors by a diastema and blunt molars.





[edit on 21-9-2009 by zazzafrazz]



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 08:30 PM
link   


yey!



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by phi1618
how many days did it take god to create....everything..again? forgot honestly, was it like 7 days?

let your Physics phd's chew on that for a while see what they say.


Is that somehow relevant?

The Book of Genesis says six days. Whether literal of not, I don't know. But with God I do know all is possible.

The evolutionist theory of "punctuated equilibrium" is much more absurd. Chew on that.



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 08:43 PM
link   
reply to post by zazzafrazz
 


Much of what you have stated was delt with by Stylez a few pages back. If you had read all the posts, and links to sources, many of your questions would have been answered already.



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 08:47 PM
link   
reply to post by zazzafrazz
 


Zazzafrazz, I like your logic. you back it up with hard science, but what do you have to say those who say god created in 6 days?

Thx Zazz Im glad you asked.

I can carbon date human activity to over 250 000 years.
Hominoods were the only creatures to master fire.
Also skeletal remains in caves.
Cave art.
A 100000 year old flute like instrument made of bone.I can list a ats server full of remains.

Just as a mountain was not created in 6 days, nor were we.
We changed over time.

Thanks Zazzafrazz, was there a spark to it all?
Good question zazz, thanks for asking.
Who knows...I certainly dont. No one does.
We are certainly the result of something, a reaction to, but it could just be a fluke. It could have been gifted.
Either way, the universe is way too big to think it was done for humans by a benevolant god that does not intervene in the least. Look at the world around you zazz, how much god can you see there? I see lots of human results, but not a benevolent loving creator.

There are no human remains of white toga wearing arians dropping out of trees fully fomed and building a city after a flood.

Great chatting with you again thx zazz.
a



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 08:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by John Matrix
You ignored the Math bud. The math buried Darwin and the whole of evolution theory several pages back. You should have got up to speed before you opened your mouth. Spock would be embarrassed by your having put your mouth in gear before having engaged your cranium.

Spock (the TV and movie character) was great at Math. By your avatar one would expect that you have a respect for that character and the intelligence portrayed....so go to it bud.


Ad Hominem much? If you wish to engage in intelligent debate, I'm all for it, but if all you wish to engage in is a 'mud slinging' contest, I have far better things to do. Keep the personal attacks out of this. It only shows a lack of Class...

Now, on to the "meat" of your position. The old 'odds are against it' argument. First of all, this has absolutely NOTHING to do with Darwin or Evolution. It is an argument against abiogenesis, which is NOT part of Evolution. But let's debunk this tripe anyway. While the odds are against it, they DO NOT make it impossible, just improbable. And that was based on the current scientific data of the time. One of the things about science is that they discover new stuff everyday. One recent discovery was the creation of amino acids in the lab through research concerning meteor strikes:


Over 4 billion years ago the young and barren Earth was being buffeted by meteor strikes, and that violent bombardment could have created the first amino acids that then gave rise to the origin of life on the planet, a new study suggests. The hellish temperatures and pressures generated when an extraterrestrial object strikes Earth at speeds of several kilometers per second are enough to shatter and vaporize rock…. Yet part of such an immense burst of energy can trigger chemical reactions that generate complex organic substances from basic inorganic ingredients, says Takeshi Kakegawa [Science News].

...

In the study, published in Nature Geoscience [subscription required], the researchers fired meteorite-like balls of iron and carbon into a mixture of water and ammonia, meant to resemble the oceans billions of years ago. In the experiment, the researchers found that the iron and carbon were heated by the impact and reacted with hydrogen and nitrogen to form biomolecules, including fatty acids, amines and the amino acid glycine [Cosmos Online]. Amines are the building blocks for more complex amino acids, and fatty acids are found in cell membranes.
Source.

Just another piece of the puzzle. Add this into the calculations, and the emergence of life from lifelessness becomes more probable. In fact, it would be surprising if the entire Universe was not teeming with life.



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 08:49 PM
link   
reply to post by zazzafrazz
 


Zazzafrazz what about the way your questions were answered here.
Thx zazz, I say no they werent.
Theory was presented that is not accpetable to science.
OK zazz continue with your WWWF smackdowns, but dont hurt yourself these creationalists look bigger than you, these real humans made by a god. Your just from a lowly hominoid.



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by John Matrix


The evolutionist theory of "punctuated equilibrium" is much more absurd. Chew on that.


I thought you'd subscribe more to the Theory of Creeps and Jerks, but you might miss the joke



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 08:59 PM
link   
reply to post by zazzafrazz
 


zazzafrazz engages the ZAZZ bot.
From this point on I will open and run file for 'standard responses' to creationalists. They never listen to learn anyway.

Zazz moon walks out of thread and leaves zazz bot idling.


[edit on 21-9-2009 by zazzafrazz]



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 09:13 PM
link   
reply to post by zazzafrazz
 


beep bop beeep..

Zazz bot engages.
Whiiirrrll brrr
We dont mind when we get facts wrong...brrrr beeep beeep

Welcome to zazz bot, pleaseread the following information:


Ancient remains, once thought to be a key link in the evolution of mankind, have now been shown to be 400,000 years too young to be a part of mans family tree. The remains of the apeman, dubbed Little Foot, were discovered in a cave complex at Sterkfontein by a local South African team in 1997. Its bones preserved in sediment layers, it is the most complete hominid fossil skeleton ever found. Little Foot is of the genus Australopithecus, thought by some to be part of the ancestral line which led directly to man. But research by Dr Jo Walker and Dr Bob Cliff of the University of Leeds School of Earth and Environment, with Dr Alf Latham of Liverpool University's School of Archaeology, Classics and Egyptology, shows the remains are more than a million years younger than earlier estimates.


news.bio-medicine.org...



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by zazzafrazz
 


How our acncestors affect our virus abilities today.

Brrbb beep engage
Zazz bot information release...bbbrr beep

zing zing. brrr bop beep
Scientists have recently discovered a influenza antiviral gene that our primate ancestors had around 4 million years to combat an ancient pandemic: Pan troglodytes endogenous retrovirus, or PtERV1.

We know that PtERV1 infected chimps, gorillas and old-world monkey


Further evidence of how bilogical changes took place in non human primates that through evolution affect us today. This specific anti viral defence produce a binding protein that they believe is the reason we can't defend ourselves against HIV today, fascinating!!!
news.bio-medicine.org...



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 09:34 PM
link   
Ernst Haeckel's Fraud concerning stages of evolution in the womb(recapitulation theory DEBUNKED but still being taught):
www.geocities.com...
www.christiananswers.net...
www.icr.org...

Evolution is deceit; Mutations are harmful:
www.ummah.net...

Mathematical odds against evolution:
www.faizani.com...

What came first, checken or egg? An argument against evolution.
www.fishdontwalk.com...

Creation is not science.....Oh Really?

More Evidence for Creation:
www.creationevidence.org...
www.bibleplus.org...
www.allaboutcreation.org...
creation.com...

Creation Science does not get gov. grants and gov. funding. Creation science is not taught in the schools.

Evolutionists get the grants and funding and teach their junk science and frauds in our schools.

You trust gov. funded scientists who ride a gravy train over privately funded scientists?

Come on....wake up!



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 09:43 PM
link   
reply to post by zazzafrazz
 



LOL! I like your approach. I rattled the cage for awhile, but kept getting the same response. Now I just look in, once in awhile, to see what crazy hi-jink the kids are up to



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by zazzafrazz
reply to post by zazzafrazz
 


How our acncestors affect our virus abilities today.

Brrbb beep engage
Zazz bot information release...bbbrr beep

zing zing. brrr bop beep
Scientists have recently discovered a influenza antiviral gene that our primate ancestors had around 4 million years to combat an ancient pandemic: Pan troglodytes endogenous retrovirus, or PtERV1.

We know that PtERV1 infected chimps, gorillas and old-world monkey


Further evidence of how bilogical changes took place in non human primates that through evolution affect us today. This specific anti viral defence produce a binding protein that they believe is the reason we can't defend ourselves against HIV today, fascinating!!!
news.bio-medicine.org...


Non of this proves evolution, nor is it evidence for micro or macro evolution. Adaptive response and variation of species is a feature designed into DNA. There is no evidence or proof of speciation.


[edit on 21/9/09 by John Matrix]



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by refuse_orders
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


If you had taken your time to read The Origin of Species, which I can clearly tell you have not. You would realise that "races" was by no means connected with the human race, the use of the word is now closer to what we would today refer to as "varieties" in species.

Reading a text that is over a century old requires you to understand the meanings of words as they stood at the point in time they were written.

Take your misinformation and go do some reading.

Are you kidding me dude????? The TITLE ALONE told you the man's views on races, or 'variations' of mankind if you will.

In Darwin's OWN BOOK, in Darwin's OWN WORDS in his OWN book he says that the 'European whites are the favoured race', (notice he says "race" not variation), and that Asians and Africans had 'fallen behind in the fight for survival', and that these 'races' would soon 'completely lose the worldwide fight for survival and disappear'. His OWN words in HIS OWN DAMN BOOK. Naaaah, poor Charlie mean't 'variations', that statement is beyond laughable dude.

Let's examine what else the late civil rights activist Chuck D has to say about the 'favoured races' in his book of peace and understanding:

'the natives of Australia and Negroes as being at the same level as gorillas..', and claimed that these "variations" (races) 'would DISAPPEAR'. (Or so he hoped).

What did Charlie say in "Decent of Man"??? Let's see:

"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes ... will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla." (Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, 2nd edition, New York, A L. Burt Co., 1874, p. 178)

Oh yeah, and we can't leave out this passage which was where the late Martin Luther King drew inspiration for his famous "I have a dream" speech:

"With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man." (Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, 2nd edition, New York, A L. Burt Co., 1874, p. 171)

You HAVE GOT to be freaking kidding me dude, at best you are GROSSLY ignorant to what the man thought and wrote IN PUBLISHED books with his name on the cover, at worst you are a liar. I'm willing to give you the benifit of the doubt. The sick piece of trash was surely a racist, well unless you define "racism" as disagreeing with a president of the United States.

I can't believe someone gave you a star for your utter ignorance to what he WROTE HIMSELF.



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by John Matrix
Ernst Haeckel's Fraud concerning stages of evolution in the womb(recapitulation theory DEBUNKED but still being taught):
www.geocities.com...
www.christiananswers.net...
www.icr.org...


Embryos do not go through 'evolution' in the womb. The continue to grow into the species they are, starting with a single cell. The simularity between embryos in the early stages of development do, however, give strong evidence to a common ancestor, thus supporting evolution. Added to the amount of shared DNA...


Evolution is deceit; Mutations are harmful:
www.ummah.net...


Again, does nothing to disprove Evolution. 99% of mutations are harmful, and thus are not passed along. But the 1% that are beneficial do indeed get passed along (which matches the theory exactly).


Mathematical odds against evolution:
www.faizani.com...


Asked and answered here.


What came first, checken or egg? An argument against evolution.
www.fishdontwalk.com...


Total Straw Man. Flashy, but no meat to it at all. And the author actually tried to use the First Law of Thermodynamics to support his 'theory', and completely misused it.


Creation is not science.....Oh Really?


'Creation Science' is an oxymoron. Science does not have an agenda or anything to prove. It merely seeks the truth as guided by the data.


More Evidence for Creation:
www.creationevidence.org...
www.bibleplus.org...
www.allaboutcreation.org...
creation.com...


Wow, could you possibly find more biased sources? Anyway, feel free to pick any of these so-called pieces of 'evidence', and I will be happy to smash them to bits one by one. There is a 10,000 character limit per post, so I could not possibly debunk them all in one post.


Creation Science does not get gov. grants and gov. funding. Creation science is not taught in the schools.


Maybe that's because it's not science! Science can be tested in a laboratory setting or mathematically.


Evolutionists get the grants and funding and teach their junk science and frauds in our schools.


Because it's real science, not based in mythology, but in discovery.


You trust gov. funded scientists who ride a gravy train over privately funded scientists?


Alot more than I trust greedy religious leaders. Everybody is on someones 'gravy train'. And privately funded scientists who did not attend BYU or Oral Roberts University tend to agree with their academic counterparts in those 'gravy train' establishments like Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Cornell, MIT, etc. etc. etc.


Come on....wake up!


We are not the one's who are asleep. If evidence were to be discovered that pointed in another direction, I for one, would change my 'beliefs' concerning the origin of the universe and of life here on Earth immediately. I have no schema that makes me cling to such beliefs. Creationists, on the other hand.... Serious schema issues...



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 10:21 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Take a read of this, It has quotes and everything! Not just half misquotes and bad understanding of what was being said by Darwin.

Anyway, lets say Darwin was a racist, though he was not. Does it make one blind bit of difference to the theory? Nope not one.

Lets say Nicolaus Copernicus was sexist, would this effect his theory of heliocentrism? I didn't think so.

"Silencing the heretics"? Hmm I smell fundamentalism... anyone else?



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 10:39 PM
link   
reply to post by refuse_orders
 
RefuseOrders, you really opened up a can of worms with this thread my friend! But it's been some good discussion. Even John Matrix now questions the moon dust theory for creation science so there's more hope for rational examination of evidence than I thought!

That link you posted is almost too painful to read with all the racism and mistreatment of humanity it portrays! But it does put the "Darwin was a racist" charges in perspective! good link!

reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 


Valid arguments! The "most mutations are harmful" argument was well addressed, that's a true statement. It actually fits evolution instead of disproving it, just as you said.



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 10:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


I am sure the link wont make one bit of difference to some peoples views on Darwin, yet I hope those who call him a racist and bigot will read it and take something from it.

As for the can of worms, well... Somebody had to open it... Right?




new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join