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.

 

Evolutionist I can prove to you that what you believe (evolution) is based on illogical reasoning, i

page: 10
26
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 01:11 PM
link   



In answer to #2, which came first the chicken or the egg, it was the chicken. Recently scientists discovered that there is a hormone and enzyme that is required for the production of an egg in the chicken.
#1, the Larger primates, evolved from a primate that looked like a lemure.
Now I am not going to say if there is or is not a god, however, I believe this is what most have to consider when looking at such questions.
Henry Drummond: Yes there is something holy to me! The power of the individual human mind. In a child's power to master the multiplication table there is more sanctity than in all your shouted "Amens!," "Holy, Holies!" and "Hosannahs!" An ideas is a greater monument than a cathedral. And the advance of man's knowledge is more of a miracle than any sticks turned to snakes, or the parting of waters. But are we now to halt the march of progress because Mr. Brady frightens us with a fable? (to the jury) Gentlemen, progress has never been a bargain. You've got to pay fo rit. Sometimes I think there's a man behind a counter who says, "All right, you can have a telephone; but you'll have to give up privacy, the charm of distance. Madam, you may vote; but at a price; you lose the right to retreat behind a powderpuff or a petticoat. Mister, you may conquer the air; but the birds will lose their wonder, and the clouds will smell of gasoline!" Darwin moved us forward to a hilltop, where we could look back and see the way from which we came. But for this view, this insight, this knowledge, we must abandon our faith in the pleasant poetry of Genesis. (Inherit the Wind)




posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 01:27 PM
link   
Ah, the same old creationist arguments proven wrong long ago, just wrapped in new freshy fashion with pretty pictures..


www.talkorigins.org...

www.talkorigins.org...

www.talkorigins.org...

www.talkorigins.org...

www.talkorigins.org...

www.talkorigins.org...

www.talkorigins.org...

www.talkorigins.org...

www.talkorigins.org...

www.talkorigins.org...

www.talkorigins.org...



All things in those pictures were made by evolution, in fact, even those on the right side - they were made by organisms which evolved.


[edit on 18-7-2010 by Maslo]

[edit on 18-7-2010 by Maslo]



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by evil incarnate
 


Double Slit Theory.(google it)

once again,,,matter behaves as a wave when not observed
how does anything exist without a observer?

you sheeple think man is soooo important,,,no way WE can have creators,huh? theres no one over me!!

dont confuse religious dogma,with common sense.whats so funny,, is for you to be an ATS member, you sure do lean on what the powers that be tell you regarding evolution.



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo



All things in those pictures were made by evolution, in fact, even those on the right side - they were made by organisms which evolved.


"made by evolution " that makes absolutely no sense.that robot didnt evolve from a "naturally occuring" microchip.but we evolved from a single celled organism,to reptile to mammal?

[edit on 18-7-2010 by consigliere]



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 01:47 PM
link   




Thats the "double slit experiment", not a theory.
It was an attempt to prove the wave or particle theory of light.
And you might want to google it yourself, it does not say what you think it says...



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by consigliere
 


Matter behaves like a wave when not INTERACTING, not when not observed by intelligent observer.




you sheeple think man is soooo important,,,no way WE can have creators,huh? theres no one over me!!


Noone said we cant have creators. You cannot prove a negative. But there is not a single objective evidence that we have a creator, other than evolution. Burden of proof is on the creationists.



dont confuse religious dogma,with common sense.whats so funny,, is for you to be an ATS member, you sure do lean on what the powers that be tell you regarding evolution.


I lean on what scientists and reason tells me about evolution. Not believing a proven theory because its mainstream is the same fallacy as not believing everything in the alternative realm because its not mainstream. You just morph from all mainstream sheep to all alternative sheep. Deny ignorance!



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by consigliere
 




"made by evolution " that makes absolutely no sense.that robot didnt evolve from a "naturally occuring" microchip.but we evolved from a single celled organism,to reptile to mammal?


Life is capable of evolution, microchips are not. So yes. Life - robot (microchip) analogy is false, because microchip does not have all capabilities of life important for the cause - it cannot evolve. Life can.



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by debunky
 


it says just that!!!!add the link or the video debunky, so everyone can see. im not a proponet for god or anything else, however,,, if it exist it was created,,,,there is nothing and there is something.

you see i believe in evolution,,,its a naturally occuring process,,,not to mention obvious,,,but something/someone created it all



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by consigliere
 


As you wish:



A coherent light source (e.g., a laser) illuminates a thin plate with two parallel slits cut in it, and the light passing through the slits strikes a screen behind them. The wave nature of light causes the light waves passing through both slits to interfere, creating an interference pattern of bright and dark bands on the screen. However, at the screen, the light is always found to be absorbed as though it were made of discrete particles, called photons.[1][2] If the light travels from the source to the screen as particles, then on the basis of a classical reasoning, the number that strike any particular point on the screen is expected to be equal to the sum of those that go through the left slit and those that go through the right slit. In other words, according to classical particle physics the brightness at any point should be the sum of the brightness when the right slit is blocked and the brightness when the left slit is blocked. However, it is found that unblocking both slits makes some points on the screen brighter, and other points darker. This can only be explained by the alternately additive and subtractive interference of waves, not the exclusively additive nature of particles, so we know that light must have some particle-wave duality.[3]


en.wikipedia.org...
Has nothing to do with Heisenbergs uncertainity principle or the observer effect.



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by consigliere
 




you see i believe in evolution,,,its a naturally occuring process,,,not to mention obvious,,,but something/someone created it all


Thats a perfectly valid opinion. But till we dont know, or dont have at least a hint of the nature of the ultimately first cause of the existence, we cannot assume anything about it, certainly not scientifically (ID). Much less antropomorphise it and assign attributes such as inlelligence, personality, will or complexity to it (god).

Postulating a designer does not solve anything, because if the designer does not need a designer to create it, why should other things?



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


Ok Maslo (who by the way was brilliant),

i understand having to prove ones theory.i can also appreaciate a good debate. in which case i thank you.

now regarding the Double Slit EXPERIMENT

observation IS interaction,and its this interaction that "snaps the reality"
for the record, i have never believed in the "god" of yor.its only as of recently i have had to rethink my position,,,,i do believe in evolution(evidence IS there),,,,on another note though,,,, i strongly feel we are not as big as we think,,,,,like how we have microorganisms on and in us,,,,or planet is a grain in a desert,,,or entire universe(in the grand scheme) may infact be minute ,,,,with an observer

[edit on 18-7-2010 by consigliere]



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 





Again, watch how evolutionist will react to this - if there’s any logic at all in their reasoning.


Why do you ask evolutionists?? Evolution explains life from life, not how life first came about.



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 02:24 PM
link   
people believe what they WANT and will find reasons to continue doing so....its our 'nature'.


my grandpa used to say 'a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still'



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by debunky
 

double slit experiment
www.youtube.com...



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


would you say an alien stopping on our planet to take a %^&* is the type of creator your imagining.... no i dont think so.... you want someone with special powers who can read your mind and grant wishes and give you an afterlife.

Even if by your logic your god could have been a peice of alien ^&*(. Its so sad to see the ignorance paraded by.



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by consigliere
reply to post by debunky
 

double slit experiment
www.youtube.com...


Ah, that one.
Whoever made that animation, decided to sex it up a little.
You get a wave pattern with one slit too.
(If you doubt it, just do a simple google image search for "single slit pattern")



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by consigliere
reply to post by evil incarnate
 


Double Slit Theory.(google it)

once again,,,matter behaves as a wave when not observed
how does anything exist without a observer?


Perhaps you should google it because I have no idea how you come to the conclusion existence is proven reliant on observation from this. The experiment shows that observation alters interaction, not existence.


you sheeple think man is soooo important,,,no way WE can have creators,huh? theres no one over me!!


I really do not see where anyone is saying that. It seems more likely that people such as yourself are more in need of someone over you. Atheists are not walking around feeling super self important just because they have not been shown a god yet.


dont confuse religious dogma,with common sense.whats so funny,, is for you to be an ATS member, you sure do lean on what the powers that be tell you regarding evolution.


Being on ATS, I see a lot of brainwashed religious zealots who refuse to listen to reason or have a civil debate.

For your viewing pleasure...



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by metalholic
god is an alien otherwise an all loving god would have been astounded that man came together as one...but no god is actually an alien who was afraid to lose power!!!


That was done to keep them from destroying themselves prematurely as the world is on the brink of doing today all in the name of coming together as one ...or globalism.



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by soleprobe
Good job.... but the evolution theory is very similar to the climate change theory... it's roots are political... thus only logic that directs towards that political objective will be used.



Actually, you're a bit backwards. The ROOTS of both the theories of Evolution and Climate Change are SCIENTIFIC, they have been made INTO political/ideological arguments (when the actual scientific debates have essentially ended). Usually they're turned into political/ideological arguments by those with a mistrust and without a clear understanding of science. The religious take the cake on this, and most of the anti-science, pro-religion, pro-big-business propaganda is initiated and sustained by the right-wing. The right-wing and many religious people have turned what was a scientific debate, then discussion, into a new senseless debate including conflicts of interest via theology, economics, and closed-minded ideology.



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by NoHierarchy

Originally posted by soleprobe
Good job.... but the evolution theory is very similar to the climate change theory... it's roots are political... thus only logic that directs towards that political objective will be used.



Actually, you're a bit backwards. The ROOTS of both the theories of Evolution and Climate Change are SCIENTIFIC, they have been made INTO political/ideological arguments (when the actual scientific debates have essentially ended). Usually they're turned into political/ideological arguments by those with a mistrust and without a clear understanding of science. The religious take the cake on this, and most of the anti-science, pro-religion, pro-big-business propaganda is initiated and sustained by the right-wing. The right-wing and many religious people have turned what was a scientific debate, then discussion, into a new senseless debate including conflicts of interest via theology, economics, and closed-minded ideology.


All that sounds rather confusing to me... but I don't I have it backwards

[edit on 18-7-2010 by soleprobe]



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join