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.

 

a question for evolutionists

page: 7
5
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 7 2009 @ 06:39 PM
link   
ohhh i never saw this thread before.
resonance was getting his @$$ handed to him in the ID thread so made a new one.

i want to see some actual refutation of evolution that isnt:
1) religion based.
2) just saying "that doesnt happen"
3) that actually involves real knowledge of evolution.




posted on Nov, 7 2009 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by ELECTRICkoolaidZOMBIEtest
 


And I want a pony.

We all want things!



posted on Nov, 7 2009 @ 07:07 PM
link   
Why bashing evolution? I don't see any creationists providing any real evidence for their supernatural position.

Why do you have a coccyx? Why are we so genetically close to chimpanzees? Why do flu viruses evolve and becomes resistant to antibiotics?

This tread, like so many others is the wrong way around. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. The evidence for creationism is confined to argument not evidence.



posted on Nov, 7 2009 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by K-Raz
reply to post by savagediver
 


*sigh* You ID folks really grasp at any little straw you can find.

The earth pretty much recycles everything, because it's the smartest thing to do. If you have unused resources lying around, something will evolve to make use of it.

It's sad that i know more about the bible, than the ID folks know about evolution. You folks need to stop your constant trolling and educate yourselves.

Religion is the biggest conspiracy of all, so what the hell are you doing on a conspiracy site with the motto "Deny ignorance?"


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry if I hit a raw nerve with you . I wasnt trying to grasp at any straws.
I was actually amused at the irony of words used by one on here that is an evolutionist. I was just pointing out something that made me laugh.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In one post from nixie_nox:

think these discussions emulate what Christians or creationists can't handle the most,t he idea that things have occurred by accident. Then it negates the reason for existence.

In a post just down from the above nixie_nox:

See, fossil records are the mutants and the exceptions to evolution. Because the Earth's ecology is designed to recycle everything. energy, nutrients, are not wasted.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cant you see the humor in an evolutionist saying how creationist and ID'ers cant handle how things just happened by accident, then in a post down say that that ecology is DESIGNED that way?

I just found humor in that , should have kept it to myself as I didnt know it would upset you so much or led to you or nixie trying to give me an education on evolution.

I am not part of any "organized" religion. Mine is a more personal relationship I am working on at the moment. I am intrigued and wonder sometimes how and why everything came to be, but I am not so hung up on it that I let it detract from the most important time in life for any of us and that is I believe the present.

As ignorant as it may seem to some or even most, I believe that if indeed evolution is completely true then that is the way the creator went about creation.

Again sorry my comments got you emotional Raz and to nixie , thank you for your civility and your effort to educate me. It is refreshing to see someone with opposite views act in a gracious manner.

PS: The strawman and bible thumper comments are getting kinda old. Would be nice for some original phrases and belittling comments that didnt come from the likes of dawkins





posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 01:38 AM
link   
The Creationist can see everything that is around him,

because everything that is around him was created.

The Evolutionist closes his eyes to all that was created,

as if everything was created around him.



posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 01:49 AM
link   
obviously god, it goes without saying, it must be god, a question that we do not know the answer to, definitly god, without any doubt, god. a question to all creationist's, HOW DOES GOD "explain things changing from reproducing asexually to reproducing sexually...what did the first thing that reproduced sexually mate with..

also, how did it come about that various species give birth in different ways..inside the body, outside the body

the first human-esque creature, did it have an umbilical cord, if not how did the offspring get the nutrient rich blood

help me understand what evolution says about these things ",

try and make it interesting please, with a decent explanation not just something written nearly 2000 years ago by people with no understanding of sciences, only religion,

by the way i am not an evolutionist or a creationist, just a man with a question



posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 03:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by THELONIO
obviously god, it goes without saying, it must be god, a question that we do not know the answer to, definitly god, without any doubt, god. a question to all creationist's, HOW DOES GOD "explain things changing from reproducing asexually to reproducing sexually...what did the first thing that reproduced sexually mate with..
the first human-esque creature, did it have an umbilical cord, if not how did the offspring get the nutrient rich blood


i cant answer all of your questions but i will answer these the best i can.

sexual reproduction has existed all the way back to single cell organisms. so it isnt as if there was the first male horse looking for female horses to mate with, the slow gradual changes that lead to the horse included sexual reproduction.

the "first humanesque creature" is a tough call to make. its pretty subjective what is human like and what isnt. but umbilical cords are found in (as far as i know) all other mammals. mothers didnt carry their young without having a way to give them nutrients. the umbilical cord developed alongside live birth.


randyvs: your contribution is profound beyond belief. science discussions could not exist without nifty little sayings.


[edit on 8-11-2009 by ELECTRICkoolaidZOMBIEtest]



posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 05:48 AM
link   
reply to post by ELECTRICkoolaidZOMBIEtest
 


thats all well and good but how does god come into that???



posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 06:29 AM
link   
reply to post by THELONIO
 


All those question have already been asked and answer multiple times previously in this thread. I'm not sure what you mean by how does God come into all that, the answer's I am referring to aren't religious and require no God.



posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 09:16 AM
link   
reply to post by savagediver
 


I apologize if bible thumper offends you. It is just a much simpler way for me to say:" someone who devoutly believes in the bible and continues to use it as proof without searching out external resources."



posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by moocowman
 





So did adam and eve have belly buttons ?

Oh no please not that old redundant cleche crap.
Where did it's Daddy come from Mommy. Get out.

Hm redundant ?

So where did daddy come from then ?















posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by savagediver
 


I apologize if bible thumper offends you. It is just a much simpler way for me to say:" someone who devoutly believes in the bible and continues to use it as proof without searching out external resources."


Sounds like a bible thumper to me, what's amazing to me is that it is possible for a thumper to take offense. One would have though that such a highly enlightened human would be above taking offense, obviously they've got a long way to go in emulating their invisible friends in the sky.



posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 10:11 AM
link   
reply to post by mithrawept
 





This tread, like so many others is the wrong way around. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. The evidence for creationism is confined to argument not evidence.


The evidence for evolution is also borne out by the bibles themselves.

Although the bibles firstly say the each tribe had their own language they then go on to contradict this with the tower of babel myth.

In this myth it is claimed that all men spoke the same language and then the gods (plural) created new separate languages for, in order that they may not understand each other, for whatever strange reason.

However, what we can no see is that, if there was any truth in the gods creating these languages, languages evolve .

So not only have the bibles evolved but the language that the gods created have evolved, no theory there just simple observation of evolution in action courtesy of the jesusyahweh gods.



posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by THELONIO
 


god doesnt.
if you want an answer how thats explained by religion all you can get is "god did it"



posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by savagediver
 


I can see the humour in it, but i also knew that that word alone would make some ID folks come and pick that one word out completely out of context. You chose to interpret it in another way than the poster meant.

I too like to study how we all came around, but i can deal with the fact that we are not special little beings, and that everything actually happened by chance.

To me, the mechanism that triggered the big bang is by definition "god" - Don't know what it is yet, but quantum science might have the answer.

I've studied a lot of creationism the last few days, since you guys seem to pop up almost everywhere i go on the net, and you're ignorance is really starting to piss me off.

Creationism, Religion and the bible disgusts me.

[edit on 8-11-2009 by K-Raz]



posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by savagediver
 


I apologize if bible thumper offends you. It is just a much simpler way for me to say:" someone who devoutly believes in the bible and continues to use it as proof without searching out external resources."



I am not offended at all. I only said it was getting old , as in boring. As I said it would be nice to see some original belittlements of us lumped together ignorant "monkeys"



Everyone of us is guilty of making false judgments and assumptions I see , even the intelligent "monkeys". I studied wildlife ecology and conservation as well as soil and water conservation in college back in the 80's. I tried to never miss Carl Sagan on nova and I have always enjoyed the nature shows that David Attenborough has done. I studied and still do study the sciences but I also study not only the bible but the so called lost books of the bible. Some very interesting stuff there especially the Pistis Sophia which I am studing now.

Lost books list: www.thelostbooks.com...

Pistis Sophia: www.pseudepigrapha.com...

I say all that to say this , maybe it would be "intelligent" not to assume that everyone has the same characteristics and behavior who believes in a Creator and Christ.

Some of us who believe in God and Christ also enjoy science and trying to learn the way things are and how they work. Until one has all the answers to all the secrets and mysteries of this world and beyond I would think it folly to consider one uneducated because they believe in the Creator.

There have been , there are and there will be many brilliant scientists who believe in the creator.

Now, please forgive my intrusion into this post , I would just hope as people continue on here they would do so with civility and show that they are "intelligent" not with just their knowledge but also with their communication with fellow "monkeys".





posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by K-Raz
reply to post by savagediver
 


I can see the humour in it, but i also knew that that word alone would make some ID folks come and pick that one word out completely out of context. You chose to interpret it in another way than the poster meant.

I too like to study how we all came around, but i can deal with the fact that we are not special little beings, and that everything actually happened by chance.

To me, the mechanism that triggered the big bang is by definition "god" - Don't know what it is yet, but quantum science might have the answer.

I've studied a lot of creationism the last few days, since you guys seem to pop up almost everywhere i go on the net, and you're ignorance is really starting to piss me off.

Creationism, Religion and the bible disgusts me.

[edit on 8-11-2009 by K-Raz]



For me to be so ignorant and you to be of such high intellect , I find it quite sad that you would let someones words typed into a thread on the internet upset you so much emotionally.

Try and remember you are the wise one here and that you have power and control over your emotions. You may want to try meditating , deep breathing , or maybe a nice walk in the park to calm down. Stress has been scientifically proven to cause many health problems.

This anger is something I think we are just not "evolving" away from fast enough.


Rant away fellow "monkeys" I bow out of this discussion and wish you all the best in your search for truth.



posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
The Creationist can see everything that is around him,

because everything that is around him was created.

The Evolutionist closes his eyes to all that was created,

as if everything was created around him.


I dont know what that means. Surely the person who looks for evidence and forms an opinion based on the facts they find is the person who has their eyes open to the world. A persons theory based on dogmatic religious beliefs that wont be swayed no matter what the evidence may show is blind to the world.



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 04:31 AM
link   
Those are some good questions!
Not being a remotely religious person I tried Darwinism. I really did.
I'm now beginning to consider it's just played out in the mainstream against Religious Creationists as a distraction.
Seems to be theory first, evidence second.
I now find it pretty amazing that Dawkins is absolutely convinced evolution is the key answer to how we came to be.
I actually used to like the guy and respect him for his battle against religion, however the theory of evolution seems quite laughable and I think Dawkins and other evolutionists are too far down their rabbit hole to eat humble pie.
Theory against evidence. Not very scientific.


Edit note: Smiley..

[edit on 9-11-2009 by IrnBruFiend]



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 06:50 AM
link   
reply to post by K-Raz
 





I've studied a lot of creationism the last few days, since you guys seem to pop up almost everywhere i go on the net, and you're ignorance is really starting to piss me off.

Christ !! not related by any chance are we ?



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join