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.

 

evolution: The greatest conspiracy

page: 13
16
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 07:43 PM
link   
reply to post by nomorecruelty
 


If evolution were true, we would have half cooked animals, and humans, all over the planet. We don't.


Half cooked?

You may not believe it, but the ancients did. They bread strong cows, horses, cats, dogs, caribou, sheep, etc. using evolutionary principles. Have a dog? Descended from a wolf.




posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by nomorecruelty
reply to post by andrewh7
 

But I still stand firm that mankind did not evolve from anything but Adam and Eve.

If evolution were true, we would have half cooked animals, and humans, all over the planet. We don't.


I can't respond to this because it doesn't make sense. Could you translate that into English please?



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 07:43 PM
link   
And to be honest, Christians don't need to "prove" to atheists or non believers that God exists. As time goes on, God Himself will be all the proof you will need. In the meantime, I would suggest that anyone that isn't sure of our origin, or our Creator, to read the Bible - at least know what you are rejecting.

Because there's going to come a time, I can assure you, when the doors to Heaven will close. Right now we all have time. But we don't know when things are going to hit the fan in Israel, and for the rest of the planet.

Just saying........



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by andrewh7

Originally posted by nomorecruelty
reply to post by andrewh7
 

But I still stand firm that mankind did not evolve from anything but Adam and Eve.

If evolution were true, we would have half cooked animals, and humans, all over the planet. We don't.


I can't respond to this because it doesn't make sense. Could you translate that into English please?


Do you see any half ape half men anywhere on the planet?

No.




posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 07:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by nomorecruelty
 


If evolution were true, we would have half cooked animals, and humans, all over the planet. We don't.


Half cooked?

You may not believe it, but the ancients did. They bread strong cows, horses, cats, dogs, caribou, sheep, etc. using evolutionary principles. Have a dog? Descended from a wolf.


You can inbreed, sure - but can you take a dog and watch it day to day and see it change into anything but a dog?

No.

According to evolution, mankind started as dirt or sludge or whatever it is they claim - and evolved from that into what we are today.

That is physically, and scientifically, impossible.



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by Pauligirl
 


well after looking for it again, i think i found the right area, the pages seem familar but i wasn't able to find the exact spot. may have just skimmed over it or it was linked from one of the pages i have yet to research.

but here's something that approximates the idea by referencing certain types of pottery should only be found in a certain age strata. therefore, it is a reliable marker for chronology references. since the section in question is regards learning what is and isn't contamination and how to pretreat it, and the quote suggests the reliablity of a date can be assessed by simply assuming the age of the strata it is "reliably" found in.......well you get the rest of the picture. see quote and link below



Similarly, the date may be assessed using reliable cultural and stratigraphic markers as chronological reference points. For example, in Mycenean, Minoan and Cycladic archaeology, reliable chronological markers exist in the form of pottery, which varies both stylistically and temporally through the bronze age, providing a useful reference.


tiny.cc...

i'll keep looking


With pottery, they pretty much know the dates, unless its a new site. But, according to this, they still don't just toss it out.



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by nomorecruelty
And to be honest, Christians don't need to "prove" to atheists or non believers that God exists. As time goes on, God Himself will be all the proof you will need. In the meantime, I would suggest that anyone that isn't sure of our origin, or our Creator, to read the Bible - at least know what you are rejecting.


That's convenient. I know a lot of arrogant people who also don't need to demonstrate proof that they can do the things they claim they can do. I would guess that very few people have been featured in the Guinness Book of World Records based on a 'fish story.' It's a shame too because as I kid I caught a 500lb bass, but it slipped off the hook as I pulled it out of the water. What a shame.

If the Bible has no other evidence other than itself, I won't waste my time. I'm sure there's a guy out there trying to convince people that Vampires exist because Twilight said so. Harry Potter is probably a good book too, but I don't think there's a cloaked wizard school in England either.

Science is observable and testable in the real world. You do not need to refer to a book to prove it.

[edit on 4-10-2009 by andrewh7]



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 07:50 PM
link   
I would go so far as to say that our genes could be considered 'evolution' as our traits progress over generations -

But you have to have a sperm and egg before you are going to get a life/mankind.

The cloning thing......... I haven't looked into that as I don't believe we should be messing with God's creation. He had a reason for creating a life, it isn't our place to try to genetically screw with it.



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by andrewh7

Originally posted by nomorecruelty
And to be honest, Christians don't need to "prove" to atheists or non believers that God exists. As time goes on, God Himself will be all the proof you will need. In the meantime, I would suggest that anyone that isn't sure of our origin, or our Creator, to read the Bible - at least know what you are rejecting.


That's convenient. I know a lot of arrogant people who also don't need to demonstrate proof that they can do the things they claim they can do. I would guess that very few people have been featured in the Guinness Book of World Records based on a 'fish story.' It's a shame too because as I kid I caught a 500lb bass, but it slipped off the hook as I pulled it out of the water. What a shame.

If the Bible has no other evidence other than itself, I won't waste my time. I'm sure there's a guy out there trying to convince people that Vampires exist because Twilight said so. Harry Potter is probably a good book too, but I don't think there's a cloaked wizard school in England either.

[edit on 4-10-2009 by andrewh7]


See, Andrew, you are just looking to argue - and you can look elsewhere for that.

I'm just not an 'arguing' type of gal.

If you are satisfied with your beliefs, then be satisfied. Simple as that.





posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by nomorecruelty
The cloning thing......... I haven't looked into that as I don't believe we should be messing with God's creation. He had a reason for creating a life, it isn't our place to try to genetically screw with it.


If everything in nature is exactly how "God intended it to be," why did he make species that were unable to compete in their environment and later driven to extinction?

Have you ever eaten a cow or a pig? You should know that man has been genetically screwing with these animals for thousands of years through selective breeding in order to produce better meat. We've been doing the same thing to cats and dogs as well in order to create better pets.

Also, have you ever known anyone who had their appendix removed by a doctor and at some later date that person had children? Under your philosophy, that person should have been permitted to die because God intended them to. Without the doctor's intervention, that person would never have lived to have children and pass on the genes that increase the likelihood of getting an inflamed appendix. Looks like mankind has just challenged your God's plan. The same logic goes for any fatal disease that is too powerful for the human immune system, such as those treatable with vaccines. The same logic goes for Chemotherapy given in response to uncontrolled cell growth known as cancer. A friend of mine really messed with God's plan by having laser eye surgery to correct his vision problems.


[edit on 4-10-2009 by andrewh7]



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 08:06 PM
link   
reply to post by nomorecruelty
 


You can inbreed, sure - but can you take a dog and watch it day to day and see it change into anything but a dog?

No.


That's not what evolution is. Hundreds of generations and you may see moderate change If that population is being pressured to.


According to evolution, mankind started as dirt or sludge or whatever it is they claim - and evolved from that into what we are today.

Proto-life in the primordial ocean.


That is physically, and scientifically, impossible.

No it isn't. Not that science has much to with it - you believe man was made as he is from dirt via magic. Science is not your realm.

[edit on 4-10-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by nomorecruelty
See, Andrew, you are just looking to argue - and you can look elsewhere for that.
I'm just not an 'arguing' type of gal.
If you are satisfied with your beliefs, then be satisfied. Simple as that.


It's fortunate for the species that many significant historical figures were not as apathetic as yourself. Even the most die hard Christians believe that God gave them a mind and a voice. I would think your religion would consider it a serious insult to your creator to not use them.

[edit on 4-10-2009 by andrewh7]



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by nomorecruelty
I know there has already been serious talk in the last few years re bringing the guillotine back - for the prisons. Reason being, beheading is cleaner than pumping poisons in the body, and after beheading an inmate, their body can then be used for science, transplants, etc.

Ga. I know has already wrote a bill to bring it back ......... scary.

You can read the bill here





And you can read where it never passed here:

law.gsu.edu.../17-1_CriminalProcedure_Brannan.htm#N_29_



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by nomorecruelty
You can inbreed, sure - but can you take a dog and watch it day to day and see it change into anything but a dog? No.

According to evolution, mankind started as dirt or sludge or whatever it is they claim - and evolved from that into what we are today.


Your description demonstrates you have no idea what evolution is, even in a very basic sense. Evolution does not assert that any change takes place during the life span of any one individual life. I'll try to keep it simple for you. Lifeform is born as ABCD, it breeds as ABCD, and it dies as ABCD. If ABCD is sufficient is allow that animal to survive and reproduce, then it is successful.

If a mutation or a combination of its parents genes, make that offspring a little taller or faster AT BIRTH, and that feature permits that offspring to be more successful at surviving and reproducing then its counterpart either within the species or in comparison to another species, then that trait will be encouraged by nature. If a mutation or combination of genes is detrimental to that lifeform's survival and reproductive success, those disfavored genes will not be passed on. It's that simple.

Evolution doesn't say people came from dirt but it shocks me that you would have a problem with that idea since you are claiming that life was produced out of thin air by a wizard. If you don't like the idea of life coming from sludge, I'm sure there are many species of algae weeping somewhere in the world right now. The bacteria living in your digestive track that help to break down your food are probably feeling betrayed as well. You might consider reevaluating your understanding of the human reproductive process as well - there was some mixing of "sludge" involved in that process as well. LOL


[edit on 4-10-2009 by andrewh7]



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by nomorecruelty
...In the meantime, I would suggest that anyone that isn't sure of our origin, or our Creator, to read the Bible - at least know what you are rejecting....


Ok, I will read it:

1. Humans were created AFTER the other animals.
Genesis 1:25-27.



And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image.... So God created man in his own image.


2. Humans were created BEFORE the other animals.
Genesis 2:18-19.



And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam....



3. Adam and Eve were created TOGETHER.
Genesis 1:25.




So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.


3. Adam and Eve were created SEPARATELY.
Genesis 2:18-22



...God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.


Thanks, that really clears it up for me!
Honestly, I have to wonder if Christians ever read the Bible. It is FULL of contradictions. This is just the beginning, so to speak. If God can't get his own book straight, why should I believe this is anything but a myth?

If anyone in science published anything remotely as contradictory as this, they wouldn't be allowed to clean the toilets in a lab, let alone do any more scientific work.



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by nomorecruelty
Do you see any half ape half men anywhere on the planet?
No.


Humans are apes. So, Yes! Among the apes, humans have the most in common with chimps. In fact, go back 5 or 6 million years and you'd find a common ancestor that both humans and chimps share. We also currently share between 94 and 99 percent of the same genes, depending on the study.

So, the label "half ape half man" would really be unfair for chimps - it's actually 99% man, 1% non-homosapien ape genes.

Keep dropping your absurd comments - this is getting fun.


[edit on 4-10-2009 by andrewh7]



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 08:32 PM
link   
reply to post by andrewh7
 


translation: humans with one leg or one arm, or 4 arms or no arms, with fur (hehe), with whiskers, with no whites in the eyes, with polka dotted tongues,
with scales, with shells, with feathers, with wings, with gills, with antennae, with various types of locomotion, with extremely long noses or no noses, etc. all that is possible through genetic manipulation or genetic damage but doesn't occur naturally otherwise



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by kingofmd
All theories remain theories, until evidence comes along that disproves them... with the exception of macro/darwinian evolution.


False. "Evolution" is not a theory, it is data, fact. You must understand that. Evolution has happened and is happening, and is as undeniable as the Sun rises in the east and a clear sky is blue. Theories are advanced to explain how and why phenomena occur, not their existence.

Darwin's theory revolutionized biology, but was not the only theory available at the time and did not get everything right 'first try'. But work done in the 150 years since Darwin published has not only confirmed him as one of the superstars of scientific thought, but advanced the theory much further and necessarily incorporates the thought of many other researchers, before Darwin, contemporary with Darwin, and modern.

By the way, the currently accepted theory is NOT "Darwin's Theory of Evolution" as presented in "The Origin of Species". It has incorporated the work of many people besides Darwin and is now called "Modern Evolutionary Synthesis" (MES) and is as far beyond Darwin as Relativity is beyond Newton.



How can you falsify the theory that now says: either evolution happened slowly over millions of years, or it happened quickly. Keep in mind the latter (puntuated equillibrium) was developed because there is no evidence for the 1st... Seriously? 2009, and no one is calling BS? You are ignoring your common sense, to side with a man who had no formal scientific instruction? In fact he wanted to be what many of you cringe at the thought of, A PASTOR!


OK, I call BS right here and right now.

BS One: the theory does NOT say "either evolution happened slowly over millions of years, or it happened quickly". It says BOTH happen.

It says that, generally evolution happens slowly. Genetic mutations build up - some useful immediately, some harmful immediately, but most neutral - in the current conditions over long very long periods of time. A stable population is in a relative equilibrium with respect to new useful mutations and harmful mutations being chosen by natural selection. Thus change happens slowly. But every once in a while environmental conditions change relatively quickly and those changed conditions favor different sets of mutations that have been accumulated in the population's gene pool over very long periods of time.

Punctuated Equilibrium is an explanation of that process, when the previous 'evolutionary equilibrium' of slow change and gene pool building is interrupted by sudden environmental change. Previously useful characteristics are 'washed out' and 'replaced in importance' (poor terminology) by other characteristics in a population in a relatively few generations. Species often 'split' into multiple new species and the gene pool for each is reduced dramatically. A new equilibrium period begins with slow accumulation of change and genetic variation.

PE is an elaboration on the MES to explain specific data points. But it is not an either/or argument against 'slow' evolution. And it is not the only way that speciation occurs.

And the originator of the Punctuated Equilibrium idea, Stephen Jay Gould, would be the first to call your assertion BS. And he did in fact. Many times.



It's a big shell game. The paleotologists says the biologist has the evidence for evolution, the biologist says the botanist has the evidence, the botanist claims the geologist has the answers, and so on.


BS Two: They ALL have evidence. Evolution leaves its evidence all around. That is why it is said that the MES is probably the most tested and confirmed theory in all of Science. Its evidence is in virtually every scientific discipline. Evolution is a fact and MES is an extremely good explanation for how it works.



There is and will never be any proof that all creatures are descended from a common ancestor, that came from water on rocks.


BS Three:The "Modern Evolutionary Synthesis" theory, nor Darwin's theory before it, nor any other scientific candidate theory, has ever made, nor implied in any way the claim that all creatures came from water on rocks or any variation on that idea. Abiogenesis is not covered in the MES.

There is plenty of 'proof' for common descent. See 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution

And remember: The primary function of science is to demonstrate the existence of phenomena that cannot be observed directly. Science is not needed to show us things we can see with our own eyes.



Quit providing proof of micro-evolution, which was already accepted prior to Darwin, by Edward Blythe.


BS Four:Depending on how you, personally, define "macro-evolution" proof of its existence would either falsify the MES immediately or has been demonstrated in the fossil record thousands of times.

Some 'anti-evolutionists' want "macro evolution" to show a fish turning into a frog in a few generations. That would in fact falsify the MES and shows a complete ignorance of the theory.

On the other hand there are many thousands of transitional fossils in the data record that clearly show large scale changes and speciation. It is not a useful pursuit to deny the fossil record, it exists.



Irony: This site is supposed to be for out of the box thinkers that don't swallow everthing that is forced down our throats, and the biggest sham of our age skates by w/o opposition from many on here?


BS Five:"Deny Ignorance" is the motto of the ATS. Where does it say: "Ignore Fact, Reject Logic"? Who is trying to force what down who's throat here? You say people are not thinking "outside the box", but who is the hypocrite here?

Darwin was thinking outside the box when he came up with his theory, a theory which has proved exceptionally useful to thousands of researchers over the last 150 years. Those researchers are still "thinking outside the box" because they still don't have all the answers, and probably never will, and must continually "think outside the box" to resolve new problems.

You, and your comrades-in-thought-control, are the ones that are "thinking out of the book" (a very specific book) and trying put everyone else back into the box they were in before Darwin.



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 


evolutionist: "it's called the THEORY of evolution!"

student: "oh. but what about _________ (insert one of many arguments)?"

evolutionist: "the FACT is __________ (insert one of many "facts" about the "theory")

student: "wait. didn't you say it was a THEORY? why are you saying it's a FACT now?"

evolutionist: "because we all know it's a fact, but we can't prove it's a fact."

student: (scratching head) "hey, isn't that like religion?"

evolutionist: "get out of my class!"



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by sisgood
For those who disagree with the idea of "God".

Turn this over in your heads...
Now, evolution states that things will just keep getting better and better.
...


No it doesn't. It says organisms adapt in order that their genes will survive. There is no value judgment about good, bad, better, worst. Just survival of genetic information. Nothing more, nothing less.

[edit on 4/10/2009 by rnaa]



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join