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.

 

Debunk evolution once and for all

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

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 12:05 AM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


so I suppose that means you do not have an education and we should not waist our time replying to you because you are a member of ATS. That is really a pompous statement, you are insulting yourself, everyone else, and the website all in one foul swoop - Just saying.




posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 12:11 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Wow, thank you your input and debate you really have me convinced now.... Do your research and stop being a troll.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 12:15 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Where does it specifically say that birds came before the reptile in Genesis?

Do you refer to all creeping things as being a part of your interpretation of reptiles?

The first signs of life was first formed in the sea. after earth brought for grass and seeds.

21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

According to verse 21 birds did come last?



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by nottheonlyone
reply to post by spy66
 


so I suppose that means you do not have an education and we should not waist our time replying to you because you are a member of ATS. That is really a pompous statement, you are insulting yourself, everyone else, and the website all in one foul swoop - Just saying.


Well only you can be the judge of that.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 12:24 AM
link   
Wow so it seems I am arguing with both an Atheist or similar and a Christian or similar? Both of which have contributed nothing to my knowledge base ,and seem to be arguing with each other. So I'm done for the evening Goodnight.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 12:25 AM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


Genesis has it all wrong, in fact there's a well done and very informative video series on just how wrong it is:



If Genesis was right we would also have to believe in talking snakes that seduce women into eating magic fruit


Genesis is mostly borrowed from earlier Mesopotamian creation myths, this is why there are two differing Creation accounts in the first two chapters.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 12:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by nottheonlyone
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Wow, thank you your input and debate you really have me convinced now.... Do your research and stop being a troll.


You mean do research and links to back it up like you...oh...wait


Read the links I posted, and then edit your posts in shame



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 12:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by spy66
 


Genesis has it all wrong, in fact there's a well done and very informative video series on just how wrong it is:



If Genesis was right we would also have to believe in talking snakes that seduce women into eating magic fruit


Genesis is mostly borrowed from earlier Mesopotamian creation myths, this is why there are two differing Creation accounts in the first two chapters.


To get it you have to see the difference between Genesis chapter 1, 2 and 3. And you can do that scientifically. That is how you distinguish what makes sense and what does not.

Genesis chapter 1 makes sense. Chapter 2 does not. That is the clue to why so many get this wrong.

Chapter 2 is about Lord God and what he creates. Lord God creates his stuff after God has created heaven and earth. Its just hidden with clever sentences to make people get it wrong.

The talking snake/serpent is the Man which Lord God formed from the dust on the ground. Why??? A snake cant talk. You know that to.

Lord God plants a garden eastwards in the Already existing Garden. Than he puts his Man there. "The talking snake". A snake is also used to describe a man who has bad intentions.



[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 01:50 AM
link   
One big problem with evolution is that it is bound to temporal linearity, and while it does a fairly good job of explaining variations within species, it's not all that good when it comes to wild divergences/mutations in morphologies that would be too radical to allow successful interbreeding.

Time is not linear, regardless how it appears. All the time that ever was an ever will be is right now. Now suppose the "form" of a thing, the shape it is supposed to be at a particular point in space and time, is not necessarily something passed via genetics from one generation to the other. It may be that the form of a living thing is actually part of a spectrum of potential virtual-to-real forms that extends not only forward but backward in time.

That is to say, if at some point in the future, a crow must be colored bright orange in order to survive, then the "orangeness" of the future crow projects or stretches itself back in time as a kind of intention or expectation. The expectation or resonance of this future form reflects back through time and slowly changes the color of a crow so that when it is necessary for it to be completely orange, then that's what it will be.

It's not magic. It's physics. Think of it as a kind of "quantum pre-echo" of things to come making its way back to what we consider to be the present, that ultimately influences the future.

That would not only work for new species arising from existing ones, but also for the formation or "appearance" of life, itself. That's something evolution has no solution for. A non-living blob of chemicals can't evolve into something living. Not if you keep thinking of time as a line instead of a "quality."



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 11:56 AM
link   
So basically the majority of the idiots on this forum believe we are here by chance, right? Because thats what evolution teaches. That everything happened by chance, am I right?



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by ShakeNBake
 


You're wrong. While genetic mutations may occur by chance, evolution itself does not. Natural and sexual selection are not random. Specific traits are better adapted to survive in certain environments, just as mates will look for certain traits. Animals with these traits will then be sought after as ideal mates and as a result these traits will be passed on to the next generation while undesirable traits don't get passed on.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShakeNBake
So basically the majority of the idiots on this forum believe we are here by chance, right? Because thats what evolution teaches. That everything happened by chance, am I right?


I love these 100% if-then statements.

Several of those "idiots" already suggested that God could have "created" evolution and yet some people are never satisfied.

Accept that people have different opinions that you cannot change and move on; trust me there are better things to do with your time than debate the existence of supreme beings.

[edit on 8/26/2010 by eNumbra]



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShakeNBake
So basically the majority of the idiots on this forum believe we are here by chance, right? Because thats what evolution teaches. That everything happened by chance, am I right?


No, that's what creationists teach other creationists about evolution. Evolution isn't based purely on chance, and if you don't understand that, you really have no clue about evolution.

You should really stop posting in this thread, or at least read up before doing so. You really seem dumber post after post. First you come here and post random statements without backing it up, you insult other posters who disagree with you (even though they post proof and you just post insults), then you copy/paste someone else's post not realizing it really is a pro-evolution post disguised cleverly in an anti-evolution rant, and now you make statements about evolution that only people without a clue would make.

Again: At least read the wikipedia post on evolution, use your brain before posting...please!! Otherwise you're just wasting our time and not contributing anything to the discussion.

Shake, are you the woman in this video?



[edit on 26-8-2010 by MrXYZ]



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShakeNBake
So basically the majority of the idiots on this forum believe we are here by chance, right? Because thats what evolution teaches. That everything happened by chance, am I right?


That's got to be one of the dumbest thing I've ever seen posted on this board.

Can you please name me even 1 evolutionists that believe we are here by chance?

Damn retard.

[edit on 26-8-2010 by Firepac]



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by ShakeNBake
 




am I right


No. As others have explained evolution is not by random chance. There a great many factors that can guide evolution - environmental factors for instance.

I also find it funny that many who argue against Evolution claim that it is just unbelievable even though their own position is usually one based on myths in a dusty old tome. I'm sorry but the supernatural and magic are not a replacement for conclusions based on evidence. Evolution has evidence in support of it while Creation has none - this is why Creationists are relegated to attempting to poke holes in Evolution rather than being able to find evidence of their own to support their myth.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 04:17 PM
link   
There are 3 basic things involved...

a. The Experience i.e. your "Environment" (Universe) and the "Individual Species" which interacts with this.

b. How such an Experience is Produced.

c. What, (Not "Who") is Producing this apparently organised (or pre organised) experience, involving All.

Otherwise Nothing at all would exist, Not even what you believe to be "Nothing"...

_________________


Does "Evolution" exist without the Organised (pre-organised) experience or What (Not Who) has/is producing the Experience i.e. the "Individual Species" and the "Environment" (Universe) it Interacts With ???

The Straight Answer is..... NO!

_________________


The human Species strives to believe it is in full Control of themselves....

The Truth though, is that the human "Species" is a Slave and is at the Mercy of what has Organised or Pre-Organised the Experience, they believe they are having....

But......

The human "Species", Experiences Nothing at all but AWARENESS experiences both the "Species" and its "Environment" (Universe/s and Worlds)...

i.e. does your hand or foot or any other part of your Anatomy know it exists ???

I think Not !

Rather "AWARENESS" is Experiencing the "Species" and its "Environment" (Universe) through the Individual "Species"...

_________________


Nothing else is Aware except "AWARENESS" that is why Awareness is Called "AWARENESS".

There is NOT a Single Component of your "Anatomy" which is Aware of anything, but THROUGH the "Species" "AWARENESS" is Aware of this Organised Experience...

_________________


All the Workings of the "Species" is merely an "Interface" through which "AWARENESS" is experiencing an "Organised" (or Pre Organised) Condition Involving "Geometry" and "Communication"...

Even your writing is "Geometric Communication" involving "Stick Pictures"...

The Only thing Aware is "AWARENESS" that is why it is called "AWARENESS" !

But WHAT (NOT "Who") has produced ALL.... is another Story....

[edit on 26-8-2010 by The Matrix Traveller]



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 04:21 PM
link   
Ok, so according to evolution, if you throw half of all humans into water, then we will mutate into fish? No thats nonsense. You guys believe that creatures from the water came unto land and adapted? Thats even crazier.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShakeNBake
Ok, so according to evolution, if you throw half of all humans into water, then we will mutate into fish? No thats nonsense. You guys believe that creatures from the water came unto land and adapted? Thats even crazier.


After every post you make I think to myself "he can't seriously top that"...but you keep on proving me wrong. Your "throwing humans into water" analogy just shows that you really have NO CLUE about evolution or how it works.

You are criticizing something you don't understand, in the process making yourself sound incredibly stupid and ignorant of reality.

I mean, is this really how you believe evolution works? Who taught you that? I'm baffled and surprised anyone who went to school would ever have so little knowledge about science and evolution.

I'm NOT criticizing your lack of knowledge! I'm just criticizing how you come here spouting misinformation and claiming they're facts.

Please do yourself a favor and at least read the wiki page on evolution. Make an effort to overcome stupidity, PLEASE!



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShakeNBake
Ok, so according to evolution, if you throw half of all humans into water, then we will mutate into fish? No thats nonsense. You guys believe that creatures from the water came unto land and adapted? Thats even crazier.


Now this troll is getting more obvious.

[edit on 26-8-2010 by Firepac]



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Firepac

Originally posted by ShakeNBake
Ok, so according to evolution, if you throw half of all humans into water, then we will mutate into fish? No thats nonsense. You guys believe that creatures from the water came unto land and adapted? Thats even crazier.


Now this troll is getting more obvious.

[edit on 26-8-2010 by Firepac]


All he needs is the wiki page really...and maybe some anger management


There, I'll even give you the links:

Introduction to Evolution
Advanced info about evolution

If you read those 2 articles and still don't accept those facts, no one can help you...because clearly you don't value logic/rationality above belief.




top topics



 
13
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join