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: 8
26
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 04:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by edmc^2
 


f) One is known to be man-made, the other is naturally occurring.

Your quiz is highly flawed.


So if a simple pencil requires a maker (man-made) then the bird does not require a maker because it's naturally occuring. In other words, the one known was "caused" while the other more complex "thing' was not caused.
Am I understanding you correctly?

ty,
edmc2


Actually:
Pencils do occur in nature.
en.wikipedia.org...
Sure, they have no "made by god" printed on the side, and no wood encasing, but in all other aspects they are perfectly servicable pencils.
Now what is complex about galaxies and stars?
It's a simple cloud of hydrogen, doing pretty much what gravity tells it to do, fall towards more hydrogen, and in some places getting dense enough to start fusing into helium.




posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 04:30 AM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


TROLL!

Your points are based on conviction.

Your reasoning based on NOTHING but faith.

Your arguments are designed to bait those who don't agree with you into a flame war.

Your debate topic isn't even worth considering, let alone debating.

Go away and do some research on proper theological / philosophical arguments - for example the 'Patterns in the chaos' argument. I would debate you if you researched and understood that argument. But you wont, because you ARE that creationist in that picture with your fingers in your ears, even though you try to passively deny it.

Good Sir 'Deacon', have a nice time Trolling!

Parallex.

[edit on 18-7-2010 by Parallex]



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 04:47 AM
link   
This thread reminds me of why people are such morons.


One side thinks evolution is the answer to everything, the other side thinks God is the answer to everything. And of course, lots of insults of each others intelligence to convince the other party to go away.


Acting more or less like monkeys.


Would be nice to see a debate about this that is not Fox News-style, so if you can manage that... you all might get something from this thread.




[edit on 18-7-2010 by Copernicus]



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 05:40 AM
link   
reply to post by OnceReturned
 


Bingo

I'm glad that someone made this point, and on the 1st page no less. I may not need to read further here.



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 05:57 AM
link   
All of the figures are answered by C. Both were made.

All items exist, therefore were made somehow. Otherwise they wouldn't exist.

You don't need anything but common sense for that.

All other answers were complete assumptions lacking any evidence.



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 06:07 AM
link   
This is so lol. So let me tell you a little story.

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!

The made a flood because he loves us, then he made us as stupid as possible so we can live on a war planet for 1000000 years. Then he decided to make judes, christs, moslems etc. so they can kill each other, - because it was so extremely boring on earth without action.
So he decided to get two flying vehicles and throed them into some big buidlings, - because god hates fags. He hates more the hatreds, but thats another story. So the pedo bishops buyed fox news to tell the mankind the only absolute truth:

Creationism is pure Logic - and the only way how dog's can unerstand the world (because they can not calculate algebra).

THIS IS SO ENDLESS STUPID I CANT GET IT!



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 07:21 AM
link   
I have a hard time believing in evolution. One has to necessarily believe that a parent species can give birth to an offspring of different genetic composition. Then this offspring then has to find other offspring of similar genetic traits in order to reproduce. Do any of you think this is a probable event?

This phenomena has never been observed in nature. It is a corollary to the "missing link" critique. There is a lack of evidence of any transitional forms.

When Darwin came up with "Origin of Species" he didn't even know there was such a thing as DNA.

Believing in evolution is AKIN to believing a chicken will lay an egg and a duck will come out of it. (What came first the chicken or the egg?)

I find it ironic that now-a-days when scientists play with genes they are actually indulging in intelligent design.

I am not religious. I do not necessarily believe in 'intelligent design'. But, evolution strikes me as a very weak theory. You might as well believe in magic.



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 07:30 AM
link   
oops! sorry!

[edit on 18-7-2010 by Deuteronomy 23:13]



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 08:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Deuteronomy 23:13
 


Erm... having different genetic makeup than the parents is pretty much the point of sexual reproduction. My mum and dad claim to be the parents of me, as well as of my brothers and sisters (Wasn't there, can only take their word for it) yet, funny enough all of us look different. And its not just the haircut. Different hands, facial features, feet, skin, hair etc...

Google "speciation" We have observed it for short lived species (Makes it easier to observe, since there are more generations in timespan x.)

Ever heard of this religious nutter?
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 08:24 AM
link   
Evolutionism refers to the biological concept of evolution, and has nothing to do with how life first arose in the first place, or how stars or the earth were made.




An inanimate device requires a 'creator' while a human brain does not require one. Makes sense?


Why do you think that is what evolutionists believe? That is abiogenesis vs creation thank you wery much.

In other words you need to recheck what evolutionists believe. and not tell them; "this is what you believe", cause you're wrong.



You think someone intelligent has to create everything? Next you'll be telling me that waves are made by god,
the wind is god blowing,
and lightning is thrown by Jezeus?

WHY do you think stars need an intelligent maker?? Stars form all the time, quite naturally.



Figure 1: The body = Maker needed. From an evolutionst perspective this means that one body is made by another body. You werent made by god, you were made by your mother and father.

As for the brain...
IT WASNT MADE LIKE IT IS TODAY, WHEN BRAINS FIRST CAME ABOUT. It was smaller and more primitive... simpler. Then it has evolved from that into what it is now.




Please, all creationists... why all these dishonest misinformation? Why the refusal to learn basic science so you can understand how your own god's creation works? Why reject you own gods creation like that?

You reject your gods reality when you refuse to learn basic science, like evolution, and instead believe scripture written by men, who could have been lying. You are choosing man over your own god when you choose scripture over reality.

Scientists and evolutionists love and adore reality, and wish to understand this reality you believe was created by your god. I admire that reality, I am inspired by that reality and I want to know all about it. Those like you shun your god's own creation while obsessing with a man-made book which contradicts the reality you think god created

[edit on 18/7/2010 by Daniem]



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 08:27 AM
link   
this thread has run its course...one can only try and convince another through the words he uses, in order to convey a concept that makes sense to that person. when the discussion reaches a point where one person is sure that the concept he is trying to get the other to understand is not going to happen, the thread ends.



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 09:10 AM
link   
I do not think you can say a pencil or any other objected was created by humans. All we have done is put together material and elements that already exist. Your "god" apparently formed all this from absolutely nothing. Humans are not creators we are skilled thinkers and laborers. We made microchips, and pencils and whatever else you named all from materials already existing on earth.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 09:13 AM
link   
And you can not say I am politically motivated because I am fairly conservative and I used to believe in god. My hand has been changed by a massive amount of information that is now available to everyone.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2
So OZ are you saying that a simpe pencil requires a maker while the super complex universe with all of its stars and galaxies does not require a maker? Just happen to be?

Hmmm, highly illogic and unscientific don't you think?

ty,
edmc2


And so you conclude that we had a maker because we dont require one.That is skewed at best if you dont mind me saying,it certaintly lacks a lot of logic.


We do not require a creator because we do not have on ,has that thought ever crossed your mind? If you where not so biased you would have at least mentioned that especially since it is the most likely truth.As for those objects you presented .We designed those objects to be used by us, it is their intended purpose,intended by us.



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 09:48 AM
link   
The bare essence of the original poster's idea is this:

Manmade objects are complex
Natural objects are complex
Manmade object are created
Therefore, natural objects are created

Even disregarding the fact that there are also simple natural objects and simple manmade objects, this is an utter fallacy: just because A and B are both members of set C, it doesn't automatically follow that B must also be a member of set D, simply because A is.

This can be illustrated by a simple substitution analogy:

Plants occur in nature
Animals occur in nature
Plants have root systems underground
Therefore, animals have root systems underground

It is about as transparently childish a form of reasoning as one could imagine.



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 09:53 AM
link   
Well Evolution is fine....but why create when you can just manipulate what already exists...

after experimenting on various earth bound creatures....

Hence the Platypus



then you just mess with the DNA of the neanderthalman as you know now a smarter mining creature who obeys orders and can learn is what you need

you create a humanbeing



now you teach this being that you are god and you are their creator and that they must listen.

like teaching a child that cold is hot and hot is cold

now you use this being as your flunky and they are well adapted to under take the task that you need to accomplish on the planet with very little cost and effort on your part.



not only that you have instant friends

now i know that i will suffer the wrath of many for this light heart interpretation but bring it on as we learn we shall overcome.

but there is one fatal mistake....

the damn human being starts to become self aware and your higher ups are starting to get pissed at the mess that has been created and are having a dilemna as the council needs to decide what to do with the human race.

well we currently await your decision.

[edit on 18-7-2010 by plube]

[edit on 18-7-2010 by plube]

[edit on 18-7-2010 by plube]



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 09:58 AM
link   


So OZ are you saying that a simpe pencil requires a maker while the super complex universe with all of its stars and galaxies does not require a maker? Just happen to be? Hmmm, highly illogic and unscientific don't you think?


What is highly illogic is your ignorance towards the composition of stars and the four forces(electromagnetic, gravity, nuclear strong and weak forces) that makes them always on the move(at molecular level) than a pencil carved from wood. We are just dust compared to the timeline of the universe. 13.7 billion years to be precise.

Knowing the maker and knowing how he did it are 2 different things. That's why evolution is not supposed to contradict creationnism. God gave us a world to live in and a brain to study it. I found that evolution makes the world perfect. Isn't it what God intended ?

Maybe off topic, but why God asked Noah to save himself and the animals by building a boat. Isn't he supposed to be all powerful or did he want us to learn new things by achieving something great by ourselves.

You can question the basis of evolution as long as we can question the basis of faith.



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Deuteronomy 23:13
I have a hard time believing in evolution. One has to necessarily believe that a parent species can give birth to an offspring of different genetic composition. Then this offspring then has to find other offspring of similar genetic traits in order to reproduce. Do any of you think this is a probable event?


Of course not. Without talking snakes, donkeys, and bushes, magical boats, and incest that does not matter, it just sounds so stupid.



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Please, all creationists... why all these dishonest misinformation? Why the refusal to learn basic science so you can understand how your own god's creation works? Why reject you own gods creation like that?

You reject your gods reality when you refuse to learn basic science, like evolution, and instead believe scripture written by men, who could have been lying. You are choosing man over your own god when you choose scripture over reality.

Scientists and evolutionists love and adore reality, and wish to understand this reality you believe was created by your god. I admire that reality, I am inspired by that reality and I want to know all about it. Those like you shun your god's own creation while obsessing with a man-made book which contradicts the reality you think god created


I too is inspired of the magnificence of creation around us. And contrary to your post, I studied science and nature with an open mind.

Now I’ll show you how illogical evolutionist are and can’t reason with common sense but insults. Watch the reaction to this post.

Consider this please and let me know if this is a product of chance / evolution or a masterful Creator:

The incredible DNA.

Fact: Each of us begins life as a tiny single cell that some 20 years later yields a full-grown adult. From that one minuscule cell come all the
various body parts:
heart, stomach, liver and other internal organs; the intricate eyes and ears; the versatile fingers.

Question: Have you ever contemplated the sheer volume of information contained in that original single cell and its positively amazing yet exquisite design?

Now consider how amazing the DNA is:

Fact: The DNA is only about 0.00000008 inch (0.0000002 cm) wide. However, the total length of the DNA strands in a single human cell is 5 feet 8 1⁄2 inches (1.74 m). Each gene is a tiny section about 0.00001 inch (0.00003 cm) long. Imagine: all the information to make a complete human body is stored on strands less than 6 feet long and only 80 billionths of an inch wide!

Incredibly, this 5 feet 8 1⁄2 inches of DNA is contained in a nucleus that is only about 0.00004 inch (0.0001 cm) wide! We can more easily comprehend how amazing that is by visualizing the DNA as 600 times larger, a thread 0.024 inch (0.06 cm)—about 1⁄40 inch—wide. On this scale the nucleus would be a ball about a foot (30 cm) in diameter. This ball would contain lengths of thread totaling in all 330 miles (530 km)! To get an idea of the genetic complexity of the human body, picture yourself walking 330 miles and seeing a new gene every 5 inches.
Do you agree so far? Now here’s a challenge for you - how do you package the DNA so that it is just the exact size.

Consider this - take a 24 mil diameter thread 330 miles long and roll it into a yarn. Compact so tight that it’s a size of tennis ball. Is it doable? If so, please prove it.

Now let’s take it one step further.

How is all this DNA packaged into the cell nucleus?

Because the cell must be able to consult its “blueprint” by “reading” the genes along its DNA, these strands cannot simply be crammed into the tiny tiny itty bitty space. Even though there are so many long, thin strands, no strand can become tangled up in any other strand. The DNA is so neatly arranged that small sections of any strand can be quickly and easily “read” whenever necessary.

Think about this too, the DNA blueprint is vital to a cell. Why?
Consider again, when a cell divides, each of the two new cells will need its own blueprint. Any idea what this means?

This means that before a cell can divide, all the DNA must be copied to generate a duplicate set of genes. After the DNA has been carefully copied, the strands are coiled back and forth on themselves into very dense bundles. As the cell divides, these bundles are divided equally between the two new cells so that each receives an identical blueprint. Once inside the new cells, the bundles are uncoiled. Interesting.

More amazing, all these manipulations are performed in such a meticulous manner that no sections of the strands— mind you none of the vital genes — are accidentally knotted up, broken off or lost. Can chance do that?

Yet these processes occur inside a cell nucleus only a tiny fraction of the length of the DNA. What an extraordinary feat of design! Do you agree?
OK, but many other features of the cell and its DNA remain a mystery to scientists. Adult humans have 90 to 100 different types of cells, each with a distinctive shape and size, and each specialized to perform a different task. Since almost every cell in the human body contains an identical copy of DNA strands, why do certain cells become skin cells and others become muscle, nerve or bone cells? In other words, how does the cell know which part of the DNA to “read” and when to “read” it?

Now did all of these happen by chance? Blindly, accidentally or whatever terminology evolutionist will use to explain how it became a cell, a human?
Pondering over the cell and its DNA, we become awed by the creativity and intelligence of the One who designed this marvel, Jehovah God. As was Job, we are moved to say: “I have come to know that you are able to do all things, and there is no idea that is unattainable for you.”—Job 42:2.

Final thought.

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!

Final question:

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?

Now - we have not even scratch the surface, but I think this will be more than enough.

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

Ty,
Edmc2
Ps.
Will come bake later…gotta go.



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


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?



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join