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: 18
16
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by mthood
A common misperception is that we evolved from apes, monkeys or chimps. We did not. We share a common ancestor.


It's not a common misperception. In fact, misperception is not a proper word....not found in the dictionary.

Regardless, it's precisely what we have been led to believe by evolutionists.
goldendome.org...




The fossil record is full of transitional form.


Sorry, wrong answer. There are ZERO fossils that stand as proof that one species transformed into another new species.




If one doesn't like the "theory" of evolution, I suggest a person might want to disavow themselves from every biological and medical advance of the last century and be treated by witch doctors.


Not at all, many good Christians that believe in creation are represented in those categories.

The desire to know one's Creator is a powerful impetus for scientific research and advancement.....much more so than just looking into things from an evolutionists point of view.



Maybe take a look at Gravitational "theory". See if we can throw that one in the garbage too. I hate it when things fall on the floor.


Why not just give us your best evidence for believing in evolution.


[edit on 5/10/09 by John Matrix]




posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Not at all, many good Christians that believe in creation are represented in those categories.


No doubt! I mean thanks alot public school, for convincing an entire generation of students that for the last 100 years, christians have just been sitting around watching "scientists" work.


ARGH!



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by John Matrix
It's not a common misperception. In fact, misperception is not a proper word....not found in the dictionary.
[edit on 5/10/09 by John Matrix]


Misperception is a word according to four different dictionary websites

www.merriam-webster.com...

Pronunciation: \ˌmis-pər-ˈsep-shən\
Function: noun
: a false perception

Now if you can't take the time to actually look up a word with 1 second Google search, why should any of us take you seriously with regard to any other opinion you might have?


Originally posted by John Matrix
Why not just give us your best evidence for believing in evolution.
[edit on 5/10/09 by John Matrix]


Apparently, you also can't take the time to scroll to the bottom of the screen and click the little numbers to go back to previous pages. I think some of the best arguments have already been made on this thread. No one has yet responded to any of them with an intelligent rebuttal.

Hint: dropping Bible quotes and posting a youtube video of some whacko is not an intelligent rebuttal. I respect peer-reviewed academic journals written by educated people who work in the fields they write about.


[edit on 5-10-2009 by andrewh7]



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo
No doubt! I mean thanks alot public school, for convincing an entire generation of students that for the last 100 years, christians have just been sitting around watching "scientists" work.


Most polls show that about 90% of the general public believes in a personal God; yet 93% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences do not. This suggests that there are few modes of thinking less congenial to religious faith than science is.


Source


Americans as a whole may not be getting too much religion, but a significant constituency must be getting fed up with being routinely marginalized, ignored and insulted. After all, unbelievers are concentrated at the higher end of the educational scale--a recent Harris American poll shows that 31 percent of those with postgraduate education do not avow belief in God (compared with only 14 percent of those with a high school education or less). The percentage rises among professors and then again among professors at research universities, reaching 93 percent among members of the National Academy of Sciences. Unbelievers are to be found concentrated among those whose professional lives emphasize science or rationality and who also have developed a relatively high level of confidence in their own intellectual faculties. And they are frequently teachers or opinion-makers.


Translation: Religion and Ignorance are polar opposites. The smarter a person becomes, the less likely they are to believe in God.



[edit on 5-10-2009 by andrewh7]



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by andrewh7
 


sorry, i don't believe that, nor will i accept that all these years, only atheists worked in the sciences! sorry!



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by andrewh7
 


sorry, i don't believe that, nor will i accept that all these years, only atheists worked in the sciences! sorry!


That's great. I would expect nothing less. Science is about searching for the truth. Religion is about settling on a rosy delusion and ignoring everything that speaks to the contrary. The national academy of sciences is 93% atheist. If you have an alternative explanation for that, please share.



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by John Matrix
reply to post by Lookingup
 

Defending Hitler's belief in evolution by attacking Christianity really doesn't help your cause. Hitler was not a Christian and he justified his killing spree with his belief in evolution. Beliefs have consequences, and the consequences of believing in evolution have proven to be disastrous.
www.youtube.com...


Fallacy: Guilt by association
Guilt by Association is the attempt to discredit an idea based upon disfavored people or groups associated with it. This is the reverse of an Appeal to Misleading Authority, and might be justly called "Appeal to Anti-Authority". An argument to authority argues in favor of an idea based upon associating an authority figure with the idea, whereas Guilt by Association argues against an idea based upon associating it with disreputable people or groups.

McCarthyism was a specific version of Guilt by Association in which an individual, organization, or idea was associated in some way with communism. An association was made between the target of McCarthyism and communism by linking both through some shared idea. For instance, in the 1960s some anti-communists attacked support for civil rights by pointing out that the Communist Party of the United States also supported the civil rights movement. It was then argued that anyone who supported civil rights was thereby supporting communism, whether they intended to or not.

Nice try John Matrix - You aren't going to fool anyone with half a brain. Consider getting a job with Fox News. That kind of foolish argument will get you a prime time slot.

[edit on 5-10-2009 by andrewh7]



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by andrewh7
 



Women, Minorities and People with Disabilities in Science and Engineering statistics.

Ages 5-9 51.1%

that's right, 5 year old females are more likely to be in science and engineering than 40 year old men! so says the government statistics!



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by andrewh7
Most polls show that about 90% of the general public believes in a personal God; yet 93% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences do not. This suggests that there are few modes of thinking less congenial to religious faith than science is.

Or it could mean that the religious make up over 90% of the general population because those that don't believe in religion are being removed by natural selection.



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 10:40 AM
link   
Evolution debunked. Science proves God exists.


Christian contributors to Science:


Mathematical Proof the First Law of Creation: "one"



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 10:46 AM
link   
reply to post by andrewh7
 


I wasn't arguing "guilt by association".

I simply provided the evidence from Hitler's own words to demonstrate

that in fact he was NOT a Christian, and he did in fact believe in evolution.

If you read and understood, you would have seen that the person I was

debating was the one associating Hitler with Christians and attempting to

make Christians guilty by association.

I hope you are not a trial lawyer.


Edited to add:

PS: I don't like FOX news. Are you stereotyping? That requires a "guilt by association" mindset too.


Me thinks you should take a good look at yourself.


[edit on 5/10/09 by John Matrix]



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by John Matrix
reply to post by andrewh7
 

Evolutionists have moved away from the chimp to human belief. They now believe that what the fossil record is showing are variations within the same human species.....human species being separate from the chimpanzees and the chimpanzees' fossil record also shows variation of that species.


Evolutionists have never believed that men were chimps. Chimpanzees and human shared a common ancestor millions of years ago - a fact proved via the genetic similarity (99%) between the two species. At this point in history, chimps were not even a species yet. Everything you state there is a fabrication. You have no academic peer-reviewed journal articles written by scientists to support your false assertions about either evolution or a change in evolutionists fundamental arguments. You are a pathetic conman who has no place in civilized discourse. Save your lies for children - they might believe them. I have more respect for someone who has chosen to remain ignorant than a man who purposely spreads falsehoods to forward his own agenda and discredit his opponents.

Evolution is driven by mutations and novel outcomes when two individuals produce a child. If the resulting child has an advantage in their environment over other members of their species, they are more likely to survive and reproduce, passing those genes on to the next generation.

If all the species that live today existed in the past, why are there no 65 million year old modern human skeletons in the ground from that time or any other skeletons that appear even remotely human?

With one sentence your absurd logic comes crashing to the ground!

[edit on 5-10-2009 by andrewh7]



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 10:53 AM
link   
people of faith in science:

Max Planck
Johannes Kepler
Leonhard Euler
Werner Heisenberg
Edward Jenner
Gregor Mendel
Isaac Newton
Louis Pasteur
Nicolaus Copernicus
James Watt
James Clerk Maxwell
Orville and Wilbur Wright
Antony van Leeuwenhoek
Guglielmo Marconi
Alexander Graham Bell
Alexander Fleming
John Dalton
www.adherents.com...

to name a few





[edit on 5-10-2009 by undo]



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 11:04 AM
link   
the only and the biggest mistake scientists make is to exclude the consciousness from their pitiful faulty mathematical equations

The Evolution is evolution of consciousness

not of the body




[edit on 5-10-2009 by donhuangenaro]



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo
people of faith in science:

Max Planck
Leonhard Euler
Werner Heisenberg
Edward Jenner
Gregor Mendel
Isaac Newton
Louis Pasteur
Nicolaus Copernicus
James Watt
James Clerk Maxwell
Orville and Wilbur Wright
Antony van Leeuwenhoek
Guglielmo Marconi
Alexander Graham Bell
Alexander Fleming
www.adherents.com...
to name a few


That's funny. I don't recall saying that all scientists are atheists. Yet, your rebuttal would only seem to be sufficient if that were in fact the argument that I made. The fact that you can list a few well-known examples is a textbook example of the availability heuristic. People tend to judge the probabilities of types of event by using this heuristic.

The Availability Heuristic: The easier it is to remember, or to imagine, a type of event, the more likely it is that an event of that type will occur.

The Anecdotal Fallacy occurs when a recent memory, an unusual event, or a striking anecdote leads one to overestimate the probability of events of that type occurring―especially if one has access to better evidence of the frequency of such events.

The Volvo Fallacy
Let us suppose that you wish to buy a new car and have decided that on grounds of economy and longevity you want to purchase one of those solid, stalwart, middle-class Swedish cars—either a Volvo or a Saab. As a prudent and sensible buyer, you go to Consumer Reports, which informs you that the consensus of their experts is that the Volvo is mechanically superior, and the consensus of the readership is that the Volvo has the better repair record. Armed with this information, you decide to go and strike a bargain with the Volvo dealer before the week is out. In the interim, however, you go to a cocktail party where you announce this intention to an acquaintance. He reacts with disbelief and alarm: "A Volvo! You've got to be kidding. My brother-in-law had a Volvo. First, that fancy fuel injection computer thing went out. Had to replace it. Then the transmission and the clutch. Finally sold it in three years for junk."
Would you still buy the Volvo?

If the vividness of your acquaintance's anecdote about his brother-in-law's experience is enough to change your decision to buy the Volvo, you have committed the fallacy.

Naming a few historical figures who you believe were not atheists is insufficient to disprove anything that I have previously stated.


[edit on 5-10-2009 by andrewh7]



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by andrewh7
Evolutionists have never believed that men were chimps.


Your statement is completely false. There are plenty of articles on the Internet to support the FACT that evolutionists did in fact teach their monkey to man belief. They may be distancing themselves from it, but they cannot straight faced deny it without proving they are liars.

www.ccel.us...



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by John Matrix

Originally posted by andrewh7
Evolutionists have never believed that men were chimps.


Your statement is completely false. There are plenty of articles on the Internet to support the FACT that evolutionists did in fact teach their monkey to man belief. They may be distancing themselves from it, but they cannot straight faced deny it without proving they are liars.

www.ccel.us...


www.ccel.us... = The Evangelical Christian Library

The Evangelical Christian Library is not a peer-reviewed academic journal. I asked you for one article from a peer-reviewed academic journal and you you give me a Christian bookstore.

Men are not monkeys. Chimpanzees are not monkeys. Both species are apes. The fact that you lack even a rudimentary grasp of basic terminology like this indicates the level of your ignorance.

Within the suborder of anthropoids, primates are grouped into monkeys, apes and hominids. The easiest way to distinguish monkeys from the other anthropoids is to look for a tail. Most monkey species have tails, but no apes or hominids do. Monkeys are much more like other mammals than apes and humans are. For example, most monkeys cannot swing from branch to branch, as apes and humans can, because their shoulder bones have a different structure. Instead, monkeys run along the tops of branches. Their skeletal structure is similar to a cat, dog or other four-footed animal, and they move in the same sort of way. On the evolutionary line leading to humans, monkeys split off long before apes did.

The only people have ever claimed otherwise are confused Christians who think they understand Evolution. I wait for "monkey" to be dropped because it immediately demonstrates that the person has no idea what they are talking about.

[edit on 5-10-2009 by andrewh7]



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by andrewh7
 


your argument is confusing. why would you use statistics and then complain cause i proved there have been plenty of people of faith in the sciences over the last 100 years and clearly, having faith in a supernatural power did not stop them from creating the foundation of almost every science today. only to have some guy they never met, generations later, call people who have their worldview are not intellectual, are uneducated, or don't represent the top researchers in the fields of science. how can you say that? read those names again.


might want to listen to this too. it's an interview about a book called the scientific dictatorship. it's not complaining about science. it's talking about what happens when it gets turned into the one size fits all of every single aspect of what makes a human a human, even more all encompassing than the holy roman empire.
www.pidradio.com...

[edit on 5-10-2009 by undo]



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by andrewh7
 


Undo is not a child and is well aware of how confirmation bias works. Your

little story would be amusing to children, but it's clearly condescending to

adults. It doesn't matter how she got the list of scientists to support her

position and prove some of the posters to be ill-informed.

Spin it however you like, but facts are what they are and your rant does

nothing to prove otherwise.



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 11:21 AM
link   
Andrew needs to review, or perhaps 'read', about the John Scopes trial in Dayton, Tn.

News Articles

That entire circus was staged by the "evolutionists" and the ACLU.

And yes, evolutionists have always believed that mankind evolved from animals - by way of sludge.




new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join