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: 13
26
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 04:22 PM
link   
I am going to post a few short excerts from a book called

If Darwi had known about DNA

IT is a book promoting the teachings of Allah

then the readers of thread might know where some of this tripe possibly is coming from.

HOW THE EVALUATION DNA
INVALIDATE THE THEORY
OF EVOLUTION

The theory of evolution faces a major
impasse at the molecular level. With evi-
dence from such fields as paleontology, ge-
ology and anthropology, the origin of life is
a major problem for the theory of evolution.
The insuperable problem facing its adher-
ents is not limited to the building blocks of
life, such as protein. There is also the ex-
traordinary complexity of the living cell-
which is not a mass of amino acid-based
proteins, but one of the most complex sys-
tems that science has yet encountered.

What evolutionists maintain was
achieved by chance goes far beyond this analogy, yet despite
all the illogic and impossibility of
claims of chance, those who re-
main blindly loyal to Darwin's
legacy still say, "But chance
accomplished it."

The Origin of Genetic Information Cannot
Be Ascribed too Chance

Evolutionist accounts try to explain every perfection as the work
of chance. The cell's magnificently complex structure is the result of a
successfully accurate selection. Darwinists regard chance as the creatorof all things, without thinking about what chance really is. Thus they
assume that disorder gave rise to the first cell, upon which they base all
their theories. However, not even the cell itself, let alone the simplest
organism, can assemble itself by chance, in the manner assumed by ev-
olutionists.

Just a wild guess

but seems logical




posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 04:38 PM
link   
I know that you have been mentioning your tests...well all those items can be manipulated by me even though i may not be the one whom created them

Take the pencil for example....i break it

well i did not create it but i affected it's role in life.

I pull the power source from robot it no longer functions i never created it but i had an affest on it's function.

the birds...i decide i am hungry....i take out my 410 shotgun...and i shoot them...i cook them up...i never created them...but i had an affect ontheir lives....not only that..

i called myself god the creator at that point as not only had the ability to take their life source from them...i was able to create a meal so i could therefore live longer.

you are not god an almighty creator if you just manipulate what already exists.

just as human are not creators cause we can put together things from that which already exists.

now when i write i put thing in easy to understand terms for the reader.

i could put it scientifically and try to make myself out to be more intelligent...but heck...why do that.

shall i post some letter to show my degrees.

i should think not......

shall i cut and paste from other sources to make it sound better...

i should think not....

shall i try to make things simple and and logical so things make sense...

i should think so.




posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 04:49 PM
link   
I am sorry to say to the OP your thread is nonsense:

1. Evolution is the incremental advancement of the biological form by tiny amounts over millions of years.

2. Your citation of human creations are the result of incremental advancements over time albeit at a much faster pace but all of the advancements have been as the result of human choice to 'perfect' designs and processes. In showing the latest version of human inventions you have failed to show the initial prototypes, where is the first human pencil? - Would that be a charred stick? Has that evolved into a pencil as we know it now?

Evolution of the race can be proven by the comparison simply of the average height of people 100 years ago and today. We are taller, where is the creator causing this? Would this not be evolution of a biological entity for many different reasons - better food, medicine. How did a creator increase the average height of the human race? And if it is by design why did a creator not make people taller 100 years ago?

Evolution of biology and technology is incremental.



[edit on 19-7-2010 by spacedonk]



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 04:52 PM
link   
Oh yes just one more tidbit

No doubt that the data recorded in DNA have an incomparable
structure more complex than the sentence. In the beginning was the
Word, and that this complex structure cannot possibly have come into
existence spontaneously or by chance. Moreover, all the trillions of
DNA molecules possessed by billions of living things for millions of
years have all been encoded with a perfect system, placed within an ar-
ea too small to be seen with the naked eye and yet used in the most ra-
tional manner. That being so, there is a Creator Who plans and arran-
ges human beings, their cells and their DNA in that flawless and per-
fect manner. That Creator is Almighty Allah. To maintain the opposite
is to ignore the facts, reason and logic.

just to show the line of reasoning going here.

source

IF Darwin Had Known About DNA

My job on this plain of existance to to wake the world

and expose the religious and political and govermental agendas so we can start to just be HUMAN

[edit on 19-7-2010 by plube]



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by Not of this Earth
reply to post by edmc^2
 


OK here is my last post on the subject.

I do not have a problem with faith or religion. If your beliefs get you through the day great. We all need that.

BUT If you are going to start a thread on a public form like this and expect a response do not dismiss everyones comments because they do not follow your beliefs


I'm not dismissng it but looking for a logical, common sense answer.

So far the best I got, is - "inanimate objects" are man-made while "nature" is naturally occuring. No explenation why nature is naturally occuring - where did it come from if it's naturally occuring?

ty,
edmc2



just because science may or may not have the exact answer you are looking for right this moment does not mean the only logical answer is then "god". The pencil example you use is a little misleading in that the pencil itself is an 'evolutionary step' in and of itself as the pencil is not the worlds first writing implement. Pens and quills were widely used long before pencils came around and an intermediary aspect was using graphite to mark sheep in 16th century Cumbria. Graphites inherent softness required a harder encasement hence the more modern pencil. The pencil itself isn't so much a creation of man as an adaptation of a naturally occurring item that was of use.

I would also like to ask a question going back to page 2 or so of this thread... if the energy that created the universe is sentient or "god" then where did this energy come from? who created your god? if "god" creates everything how did "god" come to be?



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 08:03 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 08:57 PM
link   
reply to post by peter vlar
 


peter vlar you said:


just because science may or may not have the exact answer you are looking for right this moment does not mean the only logical answer is then "god". The pencil example you use is a little misleading in that the pencil itself is an 'evolutionary step' in and of itself as the pencil is not the worlds first writing implement. Pens and quills were widely used long before pencils came around and an intermediary aspect was using graphite to mark sheep in 16th century Cumbria. Graphites inherent softness required a harder encasement hence the more modern pencil. The pencil itself isn't so much a creation of man as an adaptation of a naturally occurring item that was of use.


Peter, you are correct in your explanation about the pencil, but what I was trying to point out is the origin. That is, if an inanimate thing like the pencil requires a maker, would it be logical also to believe that we who made it (into whatever form) requires a maker?
Common sense tells me yes otherwise it will not make sense.
Now, let’s consider your question below.


I would also like to ask a question going back to page 2 or so of this thread... if the energy that created the universe is sentient or "god" then where did this energy come from? who created your god? if "god" creates everything how did "god" come to be?


I’m not sure if you read my older post dealing with the same question.
Anyway here it is. I’ll expand it further though.

‘What kind of answer are you looking for?

For if I say God has no beginning and no end then you will say what?

On the other hand if i say God was created by someone higher than him, then the next obvious question will be who created the higher being, then who created the one higher than the higher....on and on.

A very illogical reasoning imho.

So the only answer is He always existed. He always was.

The Bible speaks of him as being ‘from everlasting to everlasting.’ He was the great supreme cause.” Thus He was the “‘always-existing first cause.’

Does this seem hard to comprehend Peter?

Now think about this very carefully, if there’s no “always-existing first cause”, what is the alternative?

The answer would have to be, nothing, absolutely nothing. If that were so, where would the first thing to exist come from? It just couldn’t exist because there was nothing, not even a cause, to bring it about. So there must have always been a causing power in existence—and there would have to be a thinking power, a person, to bring about all those things in nature.”

So the ULTIMATE ANSWER to the question “WHERE DID GOD CAME FROM” is He always was.

Is this scientific?

Consider this:

In science and mathematics we have this concept called "infinity'.

We can imagine infinite space, and as far as astronomers can tell, the universe may be infinite, boundless. The farther their telescopes enable them to see, the more galaxies they behold.

Then, going in the other direction, into the infinitesimally small, physicists still cannot find the ultimate particle. When the atom was discovered, it appeared simple: The atom was the indivisible particle, scientists thought. Experiments with the atom, however, have shown their theory to be a fallacy. The list of particles, or supposed particles, making up the atom has grown quite long, and the end is not yet.

With this same line of logic, can we not, then, conceive of a God who had no beginning—who existed forever?

This is what he declares of himself. (Deuteronomy 32:40; Romans 16:26) If we accept this claim from God, we can believe that he could infuse life into persons who obey him, and could sustain that life forever.

Consider another concept: E = mc2. This equation says that the amount of energy released when an atom is split equals the loss of its mass times the speed of light squared.

According to this formula also, energy can be transformed into matter. And based on scientific finding energy (light) was/is always present. Can you understand this concept?

Where’s the energy coming from? Who posses this energy? Sadly, science is still at a lost as to the source of energy.

The only available source for answer is the Bible (Isa 40:26) “Raise YOUR eyes high up and see. Who has created these things? It is the One who is bringing forth the army of them even by number, all of whom he calls even by name. Due to the abundance of dynamic energy, he also being vigorous in power, not one [of them] is missing.”

Notice the source of the energy “Due to the abundance of dynamic energy, he also being vigorous in power, not one [of them] is missing.” E= mc2

Another side of this formula is the Einstein’s special theory of relativity, published in June 1905, disagreed with a fundamental belief of scientists such as Isaac Newton—that the measurement of time is a constant throughout the universe. The implications of Einstein’s now generally accepted theory seem quite bizarre.

For example, imagine that you and a friend perfectly synchronize your watches. Your friend then flies around the world, while you stay at home. When he returns, the time displayed by his watch will lag a fraction behind the time shown on your watch. From your perspective, time slowed down for your traveling friend. The difference is, of course, infinitesimal at human speeds. However, when approaching the speed of light, not only does time slow down significantly but objects also become smaller and their mass increases. Einstein’s theory maintained that the speed of light, not time, is constant across the universe.

Yet we believe this concept.

Consider this too: According to current estimates, normal matter accounts for about 4 percent of the mass of the universe. The two big unknowns—dark matter and dark energy—appear to make up the balance. Thus, about 95 percent of the universe remains a complete mystery!

Do you believe they exist? Can you even explain them or know what they are and where they come from?

cont...

edit: spell check

[edit on 19-7-2010 by edmc^2]



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 09:00 PM
link   
...

Now Peter, does the above examples bother you?

Einstein was not bothered by it, notice what he said:


It is enough for me to contemplate the mystery of conscience life perpetuating itself through all eternity; to reflect upon the marvelous structure of the universe, which we can dimly perceive, and to try humbly to comprehend even an infinitesimal part of the INTELLIGENCE MANIFEST IN NATURE.”—What Has Religion Done for Mankind?, p. 23.


Then finaly consider this one last thought:

In human experience, order never results from confusion. Is it, therefore, logical to believe that the order visible on earth, with its seasons and cycles so necessary to plant, animal, and human life, could have come about by chance? Rather, do not these things give evidence of design and purpose?

The Bible states: “This is what Jehovah has said, the Creator of the heavens, He the true God, the Former of the earth and the Maker of it, He the One who firmly established it, who did not create it simply for nothing, who formed it even to be inhabited.”—Isaiah 45:18.


Side note:
Think about this simple day to day real life example. Can you explain to me electricity – in simple terms what it is and where did it came from. We know the mechanics of how it’s being generated, but can you explain what make electricity – electricity? Is it the voltage, is it the Amperage, is it the Power? Without the terminologies we used to define it, what is electricy? Yet it’s part of our daily life.

(I’m not sure if you believe the Bible but I included it so that you know where I’m coming from).

Please let me know what you think.

Ty,
Edmc2

Later…

edit: missing words added.

[edit on 19-7-2010 by edmc^2]



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 03:29 AM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Interesting you should mention seasons.
We have seasons because this little ball of rock is tumbling.
Mars has seasons too.
... what are they good for over there?

Electricity, of course, is made by Thor when he gets drunk.

Do you have anything to say on my statements concerning plutonium decay and my dice experiment?



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 04:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2
Where’s the energy coming from? Who posses this energy? Sadly, science is still at a lost as to the source of energy.

The only available source for answer is the Bible (Isa 40:26) “Raise YOUR eyes high up and see. Who has created these things? It is the One who is bringing forth the army of them even by number, all of whom he calls even by name. Due to the abundance of dynamic energy, he also being vigorous in power, not one [of them] is missing.”

Notice the source of the energy “Due to the abundance of dynamic energy, he also being vigorous in power, not one [of them] is missing.” E= mc2




Hahah the Bible?
But which one?
Because I guess your version must be a very special one...
I mean... stuff like "dynamic energy" mentioned in the bible.. yeah... right... LOL.


Anyway... even if there is a creator, how does this disprove the theory of evolution in any way, makes it illogical?
I still don't get it, never will.



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bottom

Anyway... even if there is a creator, how does this disprove the theory of evolution in any way, makes it illogical?
I still don't get it, never will.



I would have to agree with you on this one bottom....just cause there may or may not be a creator does not mean evolution does not appy

If anything it actually makes an agruement more for the act of evolution.

just as many many inventions first come out they tend to almost always go through a state of evolution from their first appearence.

have the vacumm cleaner stayed the same.

has the airplane stayed a rickety twin winged structure.

Even if there was a creator....how come evolution could not be part of the entire process.


[edit on 20-7-2010 by plube]



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2
Peter, you are correct in your explanation about the pencil, but what I was trying to point out is the origin. That is, if an inanimate thing like the pencil requires a maker, would it be logical also to believe that we who made it (into whatever form) requires a maker?
Common sense tells me yes otherwise it will not make sense.


I am curious if common sense ever told you that two pencils cannot make a third one and you cannot build a person?



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 11:15 AM
link   
Faulty Analogy... enough said?



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by plube
 


I cannot agree with you more. Even if the universe was in the beginning created by intelligent entity, or even if the first life cells were added artificialy by this entity, it still does not disprove biological evolution (or darwinism).
In the end, what is more worth of higher intelligence, creating the world in 7 days from nothing (thats how man would do it), or setting a few laws (one universal ToE law?) before the big bang and let the universe unfold itself? There is nothing in christianity in other religions saying it cannot have been this way (of course, if you dont want to take bible literally, but that would be just insane in the light of current knowledge).

en.wikipedia.org...

Creationism (meaning rejecting biological evolution) does not have any scientific basis, neither in natural sciences, nor in theology.



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 11:46 AM
link   
I wonder.

Is it logical to believe in an imaginary man in the sky?

Is it logical to follow something that is over 3000 years old without any sort of positive effect on your life, other than the plecebo effect from thinking faith actually helps you?

Your test proves nothing, it proves that we have natural things and artificial things. It doesn't prove that a "creator" made us any more than it proves that we came from a premordial soup.

Any attempt to decipher and explain God or our existance or our origins is an exercise in futility, we aren't capable of comprehending this junk.

~Keeper



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 12:04 PM
link   
The issue here is we can not prove that before our Universe, there was nothing.

We can not prove that the Universe is not based on a cycle and order, that recycles itself....based on energy that forms, reforms, has always been, and will always be.

Everything of nature....recycles. So I dont shrug off the idea that the entire Universe, is a emanation of a recycling event.



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 11:55 PM
link   
reply to post by debunky
 



Interesting you should mention seasons.
We have seasons because this little ball of rock is tumbling.
Mars has seasons too.


Debunky, scientifically speaking, “this little ball of rock is” not “tumbling” but it’s rotating upon its axis. Accurately speaking, the earth tilt of about 23.4 degrees which causes the annual cycle of seasons, moderate temperatures and allows for a wide range of climate zones.

Sure, Mars do have seasons and climate but can you compare it with earth’s climate and seasons especially in supporting life. And speaking of life, why is it the earth (as indicated by studies and research) is the only planet that is teeming with life from great to small. It is as if it was meant to sustain life. Don’t you think?

If evolution is truly the foundation of life, why is it that it’s not evident on other planets? Say like Mars. Just to be clear – evident means similar to earth.



... what are they good for over there?


I know the answer why but you won't believe me anyway.


Electricity, of course, is made by Thor when he gets drunk.


Very funny answer to a serious question.


Do you have anything to say on my statements concerning plutonium decay and my dice experiment?

What about 'plutonium decay'?

As for your dice experiment -

Don't think so, know so.
To make it a bit clearer a experiment:
I have a dice here, and will now throw it 10 times.
I get:
1,4,5,4,2,(fell off the desk) 5,1,5,6,4

Now the propability of me throwing this particular sequence is 1/6^10=1,6*10^-8 or
0,000000016
Yet, i just did it.


Excellent!

As for this statement.


Propability is meaningless for things that have already happened.


I agree it's meaningless if you don't care about the truth and the facts.

Now since you are an expert on probabilty, can you at least answer my original DNA question.

Here it is:

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?

Remember, there are over 100 amino acids, but only 20 are needed for life’s proteins. Moreover, they come in two shapes: Some of the molecules are “right-handed” and others are “left-handed.” Should they be formed at random, as in a theoretical organic soup, it is most likely that half would be right-handed and half left-handed. And there is no known reason why either shape should be preferred in living things. Yet, of the 20 amino acids used in producing life’s proteins, all are left-handed!

To understand the question clearly, let me please illustrate for you. Let's use the evolutionist often quoted 'organic soup'.

Here's your illustration: Drop pile beans in a bucket containing equal numbers of red beans and white beans. Now thoroughly mixed it. Remember there are also over 100 different varieties of beans. Now, plunged a scoop into this pile, what do you think you would get?
To get the beans that represent the basic components of a protein, you would have to scoop up only red ones — no white ones at all! Also, your scoop must contain only 20 varieties of the red beans, and each one must be in a specific, preassigned place in the scoop. Still with me?
Now, according to geneticist, in the world of protein, a single mistake in any one of these requirements would cause the protein that is produced to fail to function properly.

So 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?

Would any amount of stirring and scooping in our hypothetical bean pile can you the right combination?

Please be aware that this illustration is based on real findings. If you find it a joke then you just prove my point about evolutionist having no logical foundation on what they believe.

I await your honest reply. Please try not to include Thor if you can.

Ty,
edmc2



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 12:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2

So 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?

Would any amount of stirring and scooping in our hypothetical bean pile can you the right combination?

Please be aware that this illustration is based on real findings. If you find it a joke then you just prove my point about evolutionist having no logical foundation on what they believe.

I await your honest reply. Please try not to include Thor if you can.

Ty,
edmc2


No matter how you work the numbers, have you been able to come up with a probability of 0?

Logically speaking, otherwise that would mean that no matter how bad the odds, it is still probable, no?



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 12:05 AM
link   
reply to post by plube
 




I would have to agree with you on this one bottom....just cause there may or may not be a creator does not mean evolution does not appy

If anything it actually makes an agruement more for the act of evolution.

just as many many inventions first come out they tend to almost always go through a state of evolution from their first appearence.

have the vacuum cleaner stayed the same.

has the airplane stayed a rickety twin winged structure.

Even if there was a creator....how come evolution could not be part of the entire process.


plube, I think you’re confusing the meaning of “evolution” with “development” – as in improvement. And sometimes people get confused with these words.

Just to be clear, here’s my understanding of the meaning of “evolution” as defined by evolutionist (unless it evolved again - I mean the meaning changed).

Evolution: refers to organic evolution—the theory that the first living organism developed from nonliving matter. Then, as it reproduced, it is said to have changed into different kinds of living things, producing ultimately all forms of life that have ever existed on earth, including humans. And all of this is believed to have been accomplished without intelligent direction or supernatural intervention.


Here’s a broader definition:
dictionary.infoplease.com...

ev•o•lu•tion


Pronunciation: (ev"u-lOO'shun or, esp. Brit., ē"vu-), [key]
—n.
1. any process of formation or growth; development: the evolution of a language; the evolution of the airplane.
2. a product of such development; something evolved: The exploration of space is the evolution of decades of research.
3. Biol.change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.
4. a process of gradual, peaceful, progressive change or development, as in social or economic structure or institutions.
5. a motion incomplete in itself, but combining with coordinated motions to produce a single action, as in a machine.
6. a pattern formed by or as if by a series of movements: the evolutions of a figure skater.
7. an evolving or giving off of gas, heat, etc.
8. Math.the extraction of a root from a quantity. Cf. involution (def. 8).
9. a movement or one of a series of movements of troops, ships, etc., as for disposition in order of battle or in line on parade.
10. any similar movement, esp. in close order drill.

de·vel·op·ment
   /dɪˈvɛləpmənt/ Show Spelled[dih-vel-uhp-muhnt] Show IPA
–noun
1. the act or process of developing; growth; progress: child development; economic development.
2. a significant consequence or event: recent developments in the field of science.
3. a developed state or form: Drama reached its highest development in the plays of Shakespeare.
4. Music . the part of a movement or composition in which a theme or themes are developed.
5. a large group of private houses or of apartment houses, often of similar design, constructed as a unified community, esp. by a real-estate developer or government organization.
6. Chess . the act or process of developing chess pieces.
7. Mining . the work of digging openings, as tunnels, raises, and winzes, to give access to new workings, and of erecting necessary structures.
Use development in a Sentence
See images of development
Search development on the Web


In the case of many inventions, scientific achievement is not at issue here. Every informed person is aware of the amazing accomplishments of scientists in many fields. Scientific study has dramatically increased our knowledge of the universe and of the earth and of living things. Studies of the human body have opened up improved ways of treating illnesses and injuries. Rapid advances in electronics have ushered in the computer age, which is altering our lives. Scientists have performed astounding feats, even sending men to the moon and back. It is only right to respect the skills that have added so greatly to our knowledge of the world around us, from minutely small things to infinitely large ones.

So to equate the improvement of a vacuum cleaner or an airplane to the way how life existed or came to be through the process of “evolution” is quite a different story for the former requires a maker while the later is based on chance or accident.

Remember when we say “evolution” as defined by evolutionist – its organic evolution.

Question to you: is genetic mutation benificial to the "evolution" of life?

Ty,
edmc2



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 12:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by evil incarnate

Originally posted by edmc^2

So 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?

Would any amount of stirring and scooping in our hypothetical bean pile can you the right combination?

Please be aware that this illustration is based on real findings. If you find it a joke then you just prove my point about evolutionist having no logical foundation on what they believe.

I await your honest reply. Please try not to include Thor if you can.

Ty,
edmc2


No matter how you work the numbers, have you been able to come up with a probability of 0?

Logically speaking, otherwise that would mean that no matter how bad the odds, it is still probable, no?


Any idea how large the probability number is?

You should know this.

ty,
edmc2




top topics



 
26
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join