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: 4
26
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by soleprobe
 


hey they have been my life all year...all year i have been lurking through the bible and its lost books...mythologies ancient civilizations! filtering the b/s the gov feeds us through "experts" and taking all the logical pieces and fitting them together!

nothing makes more sense then the very thing that people fear to believe...ever heard that saying truth is a mother f*cker




posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by jimmyx

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.



see, this is the problem with you people...scientific testing is THE EXACT OPPOSITE of anything political...religion and the belief in god is totally political...why???
because nobody can DISPROVE A BELIEF!!! it's...a... BELIEF!!!


You mean FAITH? Anyway faith or belief is totally based on this fact:

True Faith and Blind Faith.

Here's the Bible diffinition of faith:

(Heb 11:1-2) “Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld. For by means of this the men of old times had witness borne to them.”

This type of faith/belief is not an ignorant readiness to believe something on weak or insufficient evidence.

On the other hand blind faith/belief is self explenatory - faith founded on unreality - something that does not make sense and illogic.

ty,
edmc2


This argument is fundamentally deficient because it fails to take into consideration the differences between knowledge and belief.

Even worse, it seems to imply that there is no such thing as knowledge, that everything exists at the level of thought or belief.

And such a limited perspective prevents an understanding of the fundamental conflicts between the Gnostics and the Christians.

The word "Gnostics" comes from the word "Gnosis" for knowledge. The Gnostics, then, had no interest in belief. What they were interested in is the Knowledge Revealed through Revelations.

To the Christians, the conflict was all about belief: the Gnostics believed that the "resurrection" is the Doctrine of 'Rebirth', while the Christian followers of Pharisical-Paul believed in the physical raising of a dead body from the grave.

But that was not the issue.

The issue is that some of the Gnostics received the actual revelation of the memories of previous lives. That was not at all a question of belief. It was something that they had actually experienced, just as Jesus received the revelation of the memories of previous lives as well.

A belief cannot be proven nor disproven.

But the conflict between knowledge and belief is quite lethal.

That is why the Pharisees and Sadducees had to have Jesus murdered.

It was not because he believed something different than they believed. It was because he told people that they could actually receive the Knowledge that they were sons of God directly and personally through Revelation...

In which case, of course, there would be no need for any priesthood with their witless doctrines and rituals for the purpose of making money.

And the same goes with the conflict between the evolutionists and the Creationists: the evolutionists believing in a purportedly scientific theory; the religionists believing in a theological 'theory' that man was Created by God.

They are both beliefs.

But, at the same time, a person can receive a Revelation of the Memory of Creation--that is what Genesis 2:7 is all about--not any belief that God Created man in his image; but an actual Memory of Creation.

And that Revelation includes a dimension of consciousness whose very existence must be contradicted and ignored by the scientific method which is based upon the 'fallen' consciousness.

So, ultimately, the conflict between evolutionists and Creationists parallels the conflict between the Sadducees and the Pharisees--neither of whom had any Knowledge of what the "resurrection" is.

In other words, while they believe that man was Created by God; the religionists have no Knowledge of what precisely that means in terms of consciousness.

Hence the conflict.

Michael Cecil



posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Your idea that we simply replicate what we see(i.e. the stuffed monkey) is not at all an argument. We, being humans, used what we saw and duplicated it through our own creation. This DOES NOT mean there is a higher power that created that monkey.

So you know you are not smarter than us(and I am not calling you stupid), but you say that 'truth is truth', what is this truth? I can claim, "I know that the ice cream is still in the freezer." Even though I didn't check. THAT DOES NOT MAKE IT TRUE!!!!!!

As for Albert Einstein and his belief of a universal higher power I think that his statement is either misinterpreted or he was trying to explain a universal law that was not yet solved.

[edit on 7/17/2010 by Misoir]



posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by Misoir
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Not another creationist who thinks he/she is smarter than an evolutionist. So your argument is that a higher intelligence which has absolutely no evidence of even existing has created our entire world? I think trying to say, "It's too complex for me to understand, so something smarter than us created it!"

So people like the OP seem to pride themselves on pure ignorance and not knowing anything. It truly is a huge surprise that civilization has survived this long with thoughts like that.

If there were any reason for me to believe in a higher being is that people are still alive after millenniums of thoughts like that being the rule. It truly must be a miracle.



Misoir - do you believe that Einstein, Sir Isaac Newton, Gallilleo, Dr. Stephen Hawkings and other great men of science posses higher intellegince than us? Yet most of them say that there's intelligece when the universe was put together. Why is that?

For instance, Albert Einstein was convinced that the universe had a beginning, and he expressed his desire

“to know how God created the world.” Yet Einstein did not admit to belief in a personal God; he spoke of a cosmic “religious feeling, which knows no dogma and no God conceived in man’s image.”

“It is enough for me 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.”


And just so you know, I'm not as smart as you or any of the posters here - but I know this. Truth is truth no matter who has it.

So my simple test is just a test of the truth.

That is if a pencil requires a maker, why not a more complex 'thing'?

ty,
edmc2





Here, let me put it to you in a way you will understand, by using your own sense of "logic"

A diamond is pretty difficult to make is it not ?? It requires the proper conditions over thousands of years to be created right ??

It did not require a "maker", it did not magicaly appear in the ground one day did it ?? In fact one could say that it "evolved" into a diamond.

Now is it so hard to understand that the same thing can happen biologicaly ??


OWNED

- missing link discovered www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 17-7-2010 by IntastellaBurst]



posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2

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

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


You just answered your own question, it occurs naturally. Please don't ask for the definition of naturally.



posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 06:41 PM
link   
reply to post by OnceReturned
 


Don't they still teach in science class that evolution is still a theory. That's why the chapters inscience books that are about evolution are labeled as the theory of evolution. The conclusion of evolution is argued with the exact sane type of argument that the op used to state his case. You just take one thing and compare it to something similar and say that they evolved from each other. There still hasn't been that link or smoking gun that makes it a fact instead of a theory.

There is still no direct scientific proof that proves evolution.

Apes inherit 22 chromosomes from each parent, if we were to have evolved from apes naturally according to the theory then we would have inherited 20 or 24 chromosomes from each parent, not 23. If we are related to apes and evolved from them then there must have been an influencing outside factor for that to occur.



posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by elfulanozutan0
 


thats why the indians say apes might be your ancestors but there not our ancestors relatives maybe!



posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by soleprobe
reply to post by edmc^2
 



If miracles could not convince many to believe, how will mere words?


Funny thing about "miracles" soleprobe, just because something is beyond our present understanding it is treated as a "miracle". For example something that defies the law of gravity is mistakenly treated as a "miracle".
But due to advancement of technology and knowledge, more and more scientist now are admitting that things that are impossible then - say 100 years ago are now possible.

Case in point: superconductivity - it defies the laws of gravity through manipulation of matter and energy.

Side note: notice the year this was said.

Professor John R. Brobeck of the University of Pennsylvania stated:

“A scientist is no longer able to say honestly something is impossible. He can only say that it is improbable. But he may be able to say that something is impossible to explain in terms of our present knowledge. Science cannot say that all properties of matter and all forms of energy are known. . . . [For a miracle] one thing that needs to be added is a source of energy unknown in our biological and physical sciences. In our Scriptures this source of energy is identified as the power of God.”—Time, July 4, 1955.


Google - cloak of invisibility and other fantastic threads here about "quantum physics", "quantum teleportation", "entanglement theory", etc...

500 years back - these subjects will be probably considered as "miracles"

ty,
edmc2



posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by elfulanozutan0
 


Of course its a theory, because unlike some, science try's to keep an open mind, we can't go back in a time machine and witness evolution happening now can we ??

I think I'd rather gather my "proof" from things that can be observed and studied, rather than from the opinion of a guy who dies thousands of years ago (bible). which do you think seems more logical ??

... and the theory of evolution does not claim we came from apes, that is a naive notion and only shows lack of study and understanding.

It is only believed that humans and apes MIGHT share a far off common ancestor.

geeez, can't some of you just pick up a science book every now and then, ... or even look it up on wiki.



posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by elfulanozutan0
reply to post by OnceReturned
 


Don't they still teach in science class that evolution is still a theory. That's why the chapters inscience books that are about evolution are labeled as the theory of evolution. The conclusion of evolution is argued with the exact sane type of argument that the op used to state his case. You just take one thing and compare it to something similar and say that they evolved from each other. There still hasn't been that link or smoking gun that makes it a fact instead of a theory.

There is still no direct scientific proof that proves evolution.

Apes inherit 22 chromosomes from each parent, if we were to have evolved from apes naturally according to the theory then we would have inherited 20 or 24 chromosomes from each parent, not 23. If we are related to apes and evolved from them then there must have been an influencing outside factor for that to occur.

Evolution is both a theory and a fact, much like gravity.
You need to look at the difference between a scientific theory and the common theory.



posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by IntastellaBurst
 


you knew eventually i was gonna reply to you lol..this aint gonna be nothin to get upset about usually we pis* eachother off...

speaking of science books remember in science or biology cant remember which they said if the earth could be condensed down into one day man would only have been around for a couple of minutes...

digest that!

where do you think we are in universal time...now how many intelligences were around before us



posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 06:53 PM
link   
I agree, so called Evolutionists are borderline brain dead.

Evolution was a prank for the retarded peons. It is also a racist theory made by the scum of he Earth.



posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 06:56 PM
link   
I don't have enough time to read all of the replies, but Im sure there are a few intelligent ATS'ers here saying the right thing. Reasoning is something that you learn, whether through experience or teaching. If your teaching deals with a biased towards creation, your reasoning will be damaged. This is very faulty reasoning. You ask us to answer a question with a set of predetermined answers... that you made. And then you interrupt answering for US. An answer that is quite strange really.

The fact that you say it is impossible for complex designs to happen by chance is irrational. For that specific statement, you cannot prove. But for your following theory, creation, is in place for being proven. So your job is to prove creation. This silly antic did nothing but bring your input of creation without any proof.

[edit on 17-7-2010 by SinsMayburn]



posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by IntastellaBurst

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by Misoir
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Not another creationist who thinks he/she is smarter than an evolutionist. So your argument is that a higher intelligence which has absolutely no evidence of even existing has created our entire world? I think trying to say, "It's too complex for me to understand, so something smarter than us created it!"

So people like the OP seem to pride themselves on pure ignorance and not knowing anything. It truly is a huge surprise that civilization has survived this long with thoughts like that.

If there were any reason for me to believe in a higher being is that people are still alive after millenniums of thoughts like that being the rule. It truly must be a miracle.



Misoir - do you believe that Einstein, Sir Isaac Newton, Gallilleo, Dr. Stephen Hawkings and other great men of science posses higher intellegince than us? Yet most of them say that there's intelligece when the universe was put together. Why is that?

For instance, Albert Einstein was convinced that the universe had a beginning, and he expressed his desire

“to know how God created the world.” Yet Einstein did not admit to belief in a personal God; he spoke of a cosmic “religious feeling, which knows no dogma and no God conceived in man’s image.”

“It is enough for me 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.”


And just so you know, I'm not as smart as you or any of the posters here - but I know this. Truth is truth no matter who has it.

So my simple test is just a test of the truth.

That is if a pencil requires a maker, why not a more complex 'thing'?

ty,
edmc2





Here, let me put it to you in a way you will understand, by using your own sense of "logic"

A diamond is pretty difficult to make is it not ?? It requires the proper conditions over thousands of years to be created right ??

It did not require a "maker", it did not magicaly appear in the ground one day did it ?? In fact one could say that it "evolved" into a diamond.

Now is it so hard to understand that the same thing can happen biologicaly ??


OWNED

- missing link discovered www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 17-7-2010 by IntastellaBurst]


Yes I agree that the ingredients to form a diamond, a quarts, an onyx and other gems require "proper conditions" or else they will not be formed. But my point is the foundation of all these these things.
Through manipulation of matter and energy (E =mc2) a thing is transformed into one form or another. But going back to my original point - do the elements that make up a diamond - created or was it allways there?

In what form - matter or energy? Who transformed it?

ty,
edmc2



posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wise Man
I agree, so called Evolutionists are borderline brain dead.

Evolution was a prank for the retarded peons. It is also a racist theory made by the scum of he Earth.


Are you saying this because you can't falsify evolution yet evolution falsifies your religion?
I also like how off-topic this thread has gotten, this was supposed to be a rebuttal to evolution, now it's a first cause argument by E=mc2, a nice way to manuveur out of having to answer for being wrong.

[edit on 17-7-2010 by hippomchippo]



posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 07:02 PM
link   
Evolution is not 100% fact. We have not found enough transitional fossils yet.



posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


actually bub if you watch how the universe works - supernovas series you will see exploding stars created everything stars are factories!




posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by SinsMayburn
I don't have enough time to read all of the replies, but Im sure there are a few intelligent ATS'ers here saying the right thing. Reasoning is something that you learn, whether through experience or teaching. If your teaching deals with a biased towards creation, your reasoning will be damaged. This is very faulty reasoning. You ask us to answer a question with a set of predetermined answers... that you made. And then you interrupt answering for US. An answer that is quite strange really.

The fact that you say it is impossible for complex designs to happen by chance is irrational. For that specific statement, you cannot prove. But for your following theory, creation, is in place for being proven. So your job is to prove creation. This silly antic did nothing but bring your input of creation without any proof.

[edit on 17-7-2010 by SinsMayburn]


Then by all means answer the question the way you see fit. Don't use the
"predetermined answers... that I (you) made.

So my question - let's pick one: Microprocessor.

We both agree that a microprossesor was made by someone which is a fact. But on the same token, a brain does not require a maker?

Why is that?

I await your answer.

ty,
edmc2



posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


So just because we are intelligent enough to produce a micro processor, you believe someone had to create us?? That's a very illogical way to think



posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by copper5661
Evolution is not 100% fact. We have not found enough transitional fossils yet.

And we don't need to, allele frequency change in a population over generations IS 100% proven, what we aren't very sure of is the mechanisms behind it, but we're working on it and have a pretty good idea of how it is done backed up by evidence.



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join