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: 11
26
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 03:54 PM
link   
I think this Guy is Right on the Money !!

Lloyd Pye


Challenge this guy for a Evolution Theory to me he makes more sense

with the fusion chromosomes from 48 to 46 chimp to human
and all the flaws of humanoid design of man


what about the 4 percent what is that ? what are we from that 4 percent ?
Chimps, Humans 96 Percent the Same, Gene Study Finds

news.nationalgeographic.com...




Despite the similarities in human and chimp genomes, the scientists identified some 40 million differences among the three billion DNA molecules, or nucleotides, in each genome.



Lloyed Pye; Everything You Know iS Wrong Part 1/12



My personal Belief we were manipulated molded to what we are now
from a genome of a Ape altered from something a Creator for sure as a God of your choice or those that came from heaven(space) Dimension) to earth AKA Annunaki in Sumerian and why not this theory ? Christians will frown upon but they believe the Book of Genesis nephilim aka giants , Super men David & Goliath

Christains look for this in your KJV

Genesis 6:4 (Original KJV):
Deuteronomy 3:11 Original KJV:


The Nephilim
www.bibleprobe.com...

Sure there were many races of humans Giants to Little People
and now there is more New Species of Human beings found ! !

Giant do exist Robert wadlow near 9 foot
Little People exist ping ping 2 foot
some sources



en.wikipedia.org...
www.guardian.co.uk...
www.sciencedaily.com...

my Advice if you have not seen the video
Lloyed Pye; Everything You Know iS Wrong

give it a chance to see it

Humans are Genetic Mutant of a Rodent to Ape to what we are now
evolution to some degree with a boost from other source more like

God or Alien's playing with a Gene / Cell Chem Set


with all the world Ancient Anomalies who can really say



[edit on 18-7-2010 by Wolfenz]




posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 04:16 PM
link   
This thread has become the equivalent of the OP staring at the sky and telling everyone that the sky is RED.

The OP is also wearing red sunglasses.

Everyone is yelling at the OP, ..... the sky is BLUE, .....


YOU ARE WEARING RED SUNGLASSES !!!! TAKE THEM OFF !!!.

The OP says, " Well I got these from a reliable source which tells me these glasses are clear (bible) ..... so all of you must be wrong, according to my logic the sky is red" .... " dddeeerrrrrrrrr" .


TAKE OFF YOUR DAMN SUNGLASSES ALREADY !!!

YOUR BLIND !!!.



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 04:21 PM
link   
Yet another one of those creationist threads.

Just because something is complex, doesn't mean that someone had to have created it.

Isn't it time to move on from these creationist arguments and the creationists actually provide some evidence?



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 07:00 PM
link   
sdcigarpig, regarding your last answer by which you quoted me, and me to now you without quoting directly due to the excessive quoting topic, which I was unaware of...

You made me think of a very interesting thought which I have never thought of before, that being: Is it possible Adam and Eve were once children?

Which leads to the question could they of actually been born, and if so then who gave birth?



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by soleprobe

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]


Well I'm just saying, evolution and climate change are NOT political at their roots. They started out rooted in science and scientific debate and have now become VERY well accepted and supported amongst scientists.

The people who have turned these things into politics have typically been religious right-wingers who seek to deny their existence using pseudo-science and scare-tactics.



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by OzWeatherman

Originally posted by edmc^2
One thing is becomming apparent already from 'evolutionist', they can't explain in logical and simple terms why a simple inanimate object requires a maker but a highly complex and advance 'organism' does not require one.

OZ - "big bang" - are you saying that the universe have a beginning? A caused? Why that's why I know and believe based on scientific facts.

Again pls correct me if I'm wrong.


Sigh

I give up...if you cant understand the theory of the big bang or what Im actually getting at (or what everyone else is trying to say)there's no point in even replying to this thread...so again I simpy bring back my first post



Its true...you creationists really do the above



Richard Dawkins: One Fact to Refute Creationism



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
Imagine this:

4.5bil years ago, a space ship with a purple race of space bugs landed on earth to stock up on water. While there, one of them called "Qrzwi-q45" had to take a leak and pissed into our oceans. Evolution took over, and BAM, we're here


The above theory would prove that we have a "creator"...although I wouldn't understand why you would pray to Qrzwi-q45. Funny enough, that theory is about just as likely as every single religion on this planet.

The self-importance of certain believers is beyond hilarious. "God spoke to me...", "It's God's will...", "God will answer our prayers..." and so on just show how important they think they are. We're ALL made of the same stuff, some base elements. We AREN'T special...and no, I'm not sorry to burst your bubble there.

PS: I talk to Qrzwi-q45 on a daily basis. He wants me to tell you that he's better than your god!


[edit on 17-7-2010 by MrXYZ]


Ironical there was sort of a movie like it way before district 9

Quatermass & the Pit or 5 Million Years to Earth (1967) trailer
same movie different name



The Bug !


[edit on 18-7-2010 by Wolfenz]



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 08:34 PM
link   
reply to post by NoHierarchy
 


Every real person on this site knows global warming is a fraud... and those who say that it's real science along with evolution in the same breath reveal the single source of these frauds



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 09:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


Maslo, may suggest that you summarize the links instead of posting them. It takes a lot of time to go thru them and difficult to discuss if others are not aware of the contents. This way also, we can see where you are coming from.

But as a reply to your post I’ll discuss one here:

Here’s one of them:
www.talkorigins.org...


Claim CI101:
Complexity indicates intelligent design.
Response:
This is a quintessential argument from incredulity. Complexity usually means something is hard to understand. But the fact that one cannot understand how something came to be does not indicate that one may conclude it was designed. On the contrary, lack of understanding indicates that we must not conclude design or anything else.

Irreducible complexity and complex specified information are special cases of the "complexity indicates design" claim; they are also arguments from incredulity.

In the sort of design that we know about, simplicity is a design goal. Complexity arises to some extent through carelessness or necessity, but engineers work to make things as simple as possible. This is very different from what we see in life.

Complexity arises from natural causes: for example, in weather patterns and cave formations.

Complexity is poorly defined.


Definition: www.skepticwiki.org...

Argument from Incredulity is an informal logical fallacy where a participant draws a positive conclusion from an inability to imagine or believe the converse. The most general structure of this argument runs something like the following:
1.I can't imagine how P could possibly be false
2. Therefore, P.
A simple variation on this is
1. I cannot imagine how P could possibly be true
2. Therefore, not-P.
This is a fallacy because someone else with more imagination may find a way. This fallacy is therefore a simple variation of argument from ignorance. In areas such as science and technology, where new discoveries and inventions are always being made, new findings may arise at any time.


This is a quintessential argument from incredulity. Complexity usually means something is hard to understand.


Agree, hard to understand but not impossible to understand (at our level of current understanding - example: quantum physics)


But the fact that one cannot understand how something came to be does not indicate that one may conclude it was designed.


This argument or statement is factually inaccurate because it’s assuming that all believers of Creation or for that matter a Creator (which I assume the author was talking about) are not aware of the facts. Of how things are, thus blind faith.

Reading the statement one more time:

But the fact that one cannot understand how something came to be does not indicate that one may conclude it was designed.


So in other words if I don’t understand how the space shuttle was put together, how it came to be or how gene splicing works, how it came to be , etc, then I’m supposed to conclude that it was not designed?

Make sense, logical?

Am I understanding the author correctly?


On the contrary, lack of understanding indicates that we must not conclude design or anything else.


On the contrary, it is the lack of looking at the facts with an open mind that one is lead to the wrong conclusion.

Case in point: The Incredible DNA that I posted.

Maslo,
I hope you read that post because here’s my question to you.

Do you agree that the DNA - its function, its components, its remarkable process to sustain life was a product of design?

Is it scientific?

If not please let me know how it came to be?

(please don’t post another link if you can)

In addition:

What chance is there that the correct amino acids would come together to form a protein molecule? What is the chance of even a simple protein molecule forming at random?

Can you please tell me the probability number?

Side note: one of you friends said this:


Debunky

I can tell you the propability: 1

Propability only matters in things that have not yet happened.
If you win the lottery, do you give back the money, since the chance is too small?


Do you think science and mathematics and common sense will back up his opinion?

Almost forgot:

Complexity arises to some extent through carelessness or necessity, but engineers work to make things as simple as possible.


Again, factually inaccurate, just because something is complex does not necessarily mean “carelessness or necessity”.

Case in point:
Ford model T vs. 2010 Bugatti.

www.topspeed.com...

Which one is complex to design and build?

Need I say more?

I await your response.


Ty,
edmc2

edit: added last quote.


[edit on 18-7-2010 by edmc^2]



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 09:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
Well ED, I've been following your cool little thread here, that seems to have some emotions running a bit high. I flagged it right off, now I've
stared and may as well chime. I think you absolutly have shown with
this illustration. That while illogical reasoning does run deeper, the
closer we look at it. I don't believe you have shown it is actually bsaed on illogical reasoning. That's just IMO.

As I said I SnF the thread. I think it is quite significant and you are as close as any one can be to dispelling. Put a book together, I would say.

Randyvs

Here we have a perfect illustratration of blind ignorance undeniable.


Cushy



There was a man called god in a empty, black universe. Then he came and sniped with his finger. Light was there and planets. And then he made animals, girls and boys on only this planet in the whole universe. After a while he became a long white beard and wrote a book on wooden paper, this is because he invented trees, so he can write a bible. That he snapped again with his fingers and made us bad. THANKS DADDY!


[edit on 18-7-2010 by randyvs]


Thanks randyvs for the s&f and your input.

Your observation is spot on - saw the undeniable blind ignorance on some of the posters. As for the emotions running high, I was expecting it on the outset because the test that I presented was a challenge, an upfront to the very foundation of the theory of evolution. As for the thread I was gonna go with a more complicated presentation but choose a very simple one instead to show the unreasonableness of the evolution theory. I don’t know how far this thread will go but we’ll have to see. Hopefully by now though, the emotions have died down and cooler heads prevail. One thing I was hoping for though is a good rebuttal of the facts presented on the side of creation, instead meaningless psycho babble like ‘since we are complex therefore we are not created”. I wish they can explain logically why a complex ‘thing’ does not require a maker - instead of just ‘because we are naturally occurring”. What does that even mean. Anyway - I intend to unravel this statement further.

Btw,
I’m interested in your input and if you can, please spot any illogical statements - including mine of course.

Check with you later - a lot of links to read and watch to reply propely.

ty,
edmc2



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by OnceReturnedMutations occasionally occur that result in a novel genetic trait, although inheritence is the dominant factor in an individual's genetics.

mutations have not, do not, and WILL NEVER cause a species or organism to "evolve". mutations are not "novel genetic traits" but rather are destructive 'defects' that will either be eliminated by the species dying out, or fixed thru a process called "DNA repair".

oh but .. but .. what about "natural adaptation" you ask?

that may result in SLIGHT changes common within a species .. but never a species changing into another. if this had indeed happened .. there would be an abundance of evidence .. in the form of GAZILLIONS of transitional lifeform fossils. instead, there are none.

having said that, we dont have many ways left how a species can 'evlolve' into another. not to mention zero proof.

[edit on 18-7-2010 by upstateman]



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by upstateman
 


whales used to be four legged dog lookin creatures before they turned into todays whale!

you sure you know what your talkin about?

nvm i see what u mean never a bug turning into a bird...but reptiles turned into birds! and ampibians are very close to being reptile!

[edit on 18-7-2010 by metalholic]



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by UmbraSumus

Originally posted by edmc^2




If it takes a team of engineers, scientist and programers to 'create' a robot what would it take to 'create' a human body?



What would it take ? ........time.

If you have Variation

........................ Selection

........................... and Heredity

................................... you MUST get Evolution



Well didn't We humans created a synthetic cell ? that can replicate and are humans perfecting advance Nano bots

Sources
Immaculate creation: birth of the first synthetic cell
www.newscientist.com...

Nanotechnology
www-lmr.usc.edu...

pretty soon we could have synthetic human beings the new Android (slaves)
The Replicant (BladeRunner Nexus-6 ) Roaming around our earth

so is it possible for this to happen i would believe so
could we do it now i would say NO but... in the future i can see this Happening we already have the Asimo Robot and the creators are improving improving the Asimo every year

now if only if there's a Mad Scientist like Dr Moreau or Dr John Hammond and his InGen team or even someone like Dr Eldon Tyrell

[edit on 18-7-2010 by Wolfenz]

[edit on 18-7-2010 by Wolfenz]



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 10:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Wolfenz
 



Would be nice if you can participate in the discussion intelligently instead of childish display of ones understanding of things.


OK, I take that back - after reading and looking at your posts most are are indeed intelligent and challenging.

ty,
edmc2

ps
'did not mean to question your level of intellect.
my apologies.

signin - off...


[edit on 18-7-2010 by edmc^2]



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by Wolfenz
 


Would be nice if you can participate in the discussion intelligently instead of childish display of ones understanding of things.

ty,
edmc2

ps
'dont mean to question your level of intellect.


Childish ? ok what part are you referring too please point out



if your talking about that i am referring Science fiction writers I can show a Site The Dreams of Science Fiction that came to a Reality because of those Science Fiction Writers Inspired Inventor's and Engineer's to Create
those very same things !

Sure Ill just pretend everyone on this Site are at a Collage Level
instead of explaining to a intellectual level a child could understand

its Ideal to have Common Sence in Research you can have the Highest IQ and still have a fault within you for most its Not having the Ability to be Mechanically inclined ..

I see You like Theorist they too have Errors as Einstein was Proven Wrong
in a FEW of his Theory's

I personalty tend to go to those that create and invent Tesla is my Favorite

From your Statement you are questioning my intellect

what is Childish and what is Mature in your Own Words please explain

maybe its my writing i tend to miss a few words and letters
or is it what i show the clips of movies for Anyone can see and understand
a Visual & Vocal Statement whether From Fiction to Fact ?

I Usually throw Both in Clip's and Article's

unless you Ignored the Sources i have Posted !

by the way my IQ Level is 172 that was when i was 14 when I was Evaluated for a Classification Project Project Talent from 1980-84


back on Topic !

Go watch some Lloyd Pye Videos or Dr Neil degrasse Tyson Videos
if you need some challenging My Fav's



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 12:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wolfenz

Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by Wolfenz
 


Would be nice if you can participate in the discussion intelligently instead of childish display of ones understanding of things.

ty,
edmc2

ps
'dont mean to question your level of intellect.


Childish ? ok what part are you referring too please point out


this one:


very distracting, anyway since it's part of the thread I'll try to ignore it.

As for the vid - thanks for providing them. I'm currently watching them and come back later with my thoughts.

my apologies again if i insulted you - not my intention.

ty,
edmc2

as for IO level - I'm prolly way below your number but still learning - maybe someday i'll get at least close to yours or maybe half of it.



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 01:09 AM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


ohh i can see what you mean

about the poster pic Creationist I cant here you la la la la

i did not post that pic someone else did and i was referring to the video below it in response to the Ats member that posted the pic

with Dawkins saying the same thing !! putting fingers in the ear and saying la la i cant here you i assure you i did not post that pic the video i did

the video in case you missed it at the 1.30ish mark
Richard Dawkins: One Fact to Refute Creationism


I believe in both Creationism and Evolution some places they come together the most Intellect Design beats US Imagine if we had that ability


The perfect example is The Octopus The most unique Creature in the World ! a Shape Shifter Texture Changer Color Changer The Octopus has 2 type's of Defense's that's Poison & Black Ink



Just in case you thought the Above was a CGI Trick


Amazing Mimic Octopus



[edit on 19-7-2010 by Wolfenz]

[edit on 19-7-2010 by Wolfenz]



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 01:12 AM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


having a creator in no way detracts from evolution you goose! something starts somewhere and evolves from there, we see this every day, year after year, just look at the evolution of the wheel for a start.
don't let blind belief overshadow critical thinking, I believe in a creator but I also believe in evolution, the two exist side by side quite easily. The universe is an amazing place have a look sometime



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 01:25 AM
link   
Very interesting write-up indeed, supported by what looks to be some halfway-decent research.

But I still severely doubt we all just popped into existence out of thin air.

Can't prove that one. Can you?

Cheers!



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 02:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by mf_luder
Very interesting write-up indeed, supported by what looks to be some halfway-decent research.

But I still severely doubt we all just popped into existence out of thin air.

Can't prove that one. Can you?

Cheers!



Ill give it a shot

this universe is a Parallel from another The Creators are from another Layered Dimension ! that some how punched through this Dimension

Theres a Balance
one rule for a Physicist is!
for every Action there is a Reaction !!!!!!

you Know Matter - Anti Matter push Pull positive negative Gravity Anti Gravity Space Black Matter and the in between what we would call Ghost

its just a Guess as we have claims of UFOs Aliens Unexplained Ancient Anomalies

but still no PUBLIC proof of any existence of Life outside our Solar System None to the Public (disclosure ) except a few Astronauts and Some military officials with security clearances or CIA NSA Officals coming into the Spot light , Still no Communication Signals From Seti program set to the closest stars and Nada nothing as we are told ..


Yet Millions of Stars (Suns) are out there in our Galaxy and there is millions+ Galaxy s there got to be life out there it cant be a big waste of space could it ? why would a God/Creator make the Effort making Stars Planets Universe's Something out of Nothing The Biggest Question of all What Started the Big Bang who Started The Clock that is what i want to know Action Reaction Creation Evolution

Find a Galaxy


Welcome to the Hubble Universe: Nebula & Galaxies: A Cosmic Journey


[edit on 19-7-2010 by Wolfenz]



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join