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: 33
13
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 06:32 AM
link   
reply to post by The Matrix Traveller
 


Not oops. Allow me to say very simply I am human and flawed. To state that was wrong of me. But it is wrong of you to assume what you think.

I only know my soul as much as God permits. Only God knows the soul and the heart.

A contradiction not. Your assumption, yes. Another sign of haste of a false prophet.

It means mankind is banned from What God does not want him to know. It does not mean you know if you exist. Knowing you exist and knowing yourself are two totally alien concepts and I'm afraid your confusion of the two gives light to your ignorance of both.

I am saying you can only know your own soul through the human perspective you have.

If you can't deal with contradictory or partial existences it's not my problem. This week they managed to make a set of drums moving but not moving in a quantum state. Contradictory existence. It exited though. If you cannot comprehend it, not my problem. You can only know your soul based on what you do. You cannot know your whole soul. Only God can know the soul. The heart.

Your haste to assume makes it quite clear you are a false prophet. You can only see whole numbers. You cannot see the in betweens. You rush to assumptions based on out of context statements of now both me and the bible.

Again, who can take the one who is desperate at face value?

I cannot. And you're rush is certainly signs of desperation.

The rest of your post, like always, is mindless drivel and assumptions of a false prophet.

I only claim to know me. I am not claiming to know anything else. And I am not claiming to know me 100% I can know me, but not know me. In the same way I can know a room is square, but not see all of it.

One can know how electricity works but nothing of the nature of the electron. Similarly, i can know my soul, but nothing of how it works or is.

If you cannot understand such a simple statement, then I guess I'll watch for entertainment purposes your next rush to assumptions.

[edit on 7-9-2010 by Gorman91]




posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 


Beneficial mutations:
the items you listed (and if you want to list the other, thats fine with me) are showing that God planned ahead. those capabilities/abilities are what organisms pull out of their gene code to survive... their existing gene code mind you.

and i understand that this process can product a new species... im not arguing with that. im arguing that this process over millions/billions of years will not turn bacteria into everything we see today.


as for M-U
if what you are claiming is true, an oxygen free atmosphere would render a harmful out of water environment to life in. destroying just any sort of life trying to surface itself.
and i notice that in all experiments i have done... in water nothing collects together, try it at home, and see what you get. just put a drop of food coloring in a glass of water, you will see what im talking about. in order for these molecules to collect together in these huge oceans is impossible. with thermodynamics and law of diffusion, gas laws etc. it doesnt seem to come together how life can, by chance, spontaneously generate from within the oceans. if it were on the surface it would have been fried. (no ozone, no oxygen, no protection)
it just doesnt make sense.
they cant even do it in the laboratory where you have controlled environments and you can even filter out your products and manipulate them however you want.

the video posted here on youtube says that you can take a cell and bust it open in a controlled environment with the right amount of water, salt, ph etc... and you will never be able to put it back together again. watch the video for exact words.


FACT: Micro Evolution happens
FACT: Mutations happen

I dont argue this for one minute

what i do argue with is the notion that

micro causes macro
and
mutations create something brand spankin new

adaptation = God planning ahead
micro evolution is limited to the existing information stored in the DNA/Genes
it does not cause macro and has never been observed to cause macro



Pseudomonas have developed an enzyme which renders them capable of utilizing nylon oligomers as a food source.


your body can do the same thing with carbs and protein, they came out with a diet years ago where you take in no carbs and lots of meat and your body has the information already built in to process protein and convert it to usable energy...

beneficial mutation argument is still a very valid argument and if it werent, we would see beneficial mutations listed in text books instead of on forums like this.



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Methuselah
 


The problem is that creationists misuse the term "macroevolution"
Fact is, we have actual proof for what you call macroevolution...



The term "macroevolution" frequently arises within the context of the evolution/creation debate, usually used by creationists alleging a significant difference between the evolutionary changes observed in field and laboratory studies and the larger scale macroevolutionary changes that scientists believe to have taken thousands or millions of years to occur. They may accept that evolutionary change is possible within species ("microevolution"), but deny that one species can evolve into another ("macroevolution").[1]

Contrary to this belief among the anti-evolution movement proponents, evolution of life forms beyond the species level ("macroevolution", i.e. speciation in a specific case) has indeed been observed multiple times under both controlled laboratory conditions and in nature.[10] The claim that macroevolution does not occur, or is impossible, is thus demonstrably false and without support in the scientific community.

Such claims are rejected by the scientific community on the basis of ample evidence that macroevolution is an active process both presently and in the past.[5][11] The terms macroevolution and microevolution relate to the same processes operating at different scales, but creationist claims misuse the terms in a vaguely defined way which does not accurately reflect scientific usage, acknowledging well observed evolution as "microevolution" and denying that "macroevolution" takes place.[5][12] Evolutionary theory (including macroevolutionary change) remains the dominant scientific paradigm for explaining the origins of Earth's biodiversity. Its occurrence is not disputed within the scientific community.[13]

While details of macroevolution are continuously studied by the scientific community, the overall theory behind macroevolution (i.e. common descent) has been overwhelmingly consistent with empirical data. Predictions of empirical data from the theory of common descent have been so consistent that biologists often refer to it as the "fact of evolution".[14][15]

Nicholas Matzke and Paul R. Gross have accused creationists of using "strategically elastic" definitions of micro- and macroevolution when discussing the topic.[1] The actual definition of macroevolution accepted by scientists is "any change at the species level or above" (phyla, group, etc.) and microevolution is "any change below the level of species." Matzke and Gross state that many creationist critics define macroevolution as something that cannot be attained, as these critics describe any observed evolutionary change as "just microevolution".[1]


LINK

Lastly: Even if we didn't have proof (and we do), there is ZERO proof that a divine deity is responsible for creation. You might WANT to BELIEVE it, but fact is, there's no proof whatsoever


Oh, and regarding that video: They start of by stating an experiment from 1953...the result of which has been completely debunked 2 years ago through another experiment when they created "life from nothing" in the lab under conditions similar to those when life first formed. Another crucial flaw of the video is that the absence of proof, doesn't automatically proof the existence or intervention of a god...even if the video hints at that. Look up the "god of the gaps"


[edit on 7-9-2010 by MrXYZ]



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Methuselah
 


What happens when a misplaced gene causes a human to have disconnected brains. What happens if he passes it down? Macro evolution through micro evolution.

The simple fact is all life forms start off micro. And you claim you believe in micro evolution.

Macro evolution does not exist. Species do not change their genetics at the macro scale. Only the micro scale, which the macro follows from, not interdependently develops from.



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 04:52 PM
link   
ooyzim, totally weak first post I must say.

You'd been better off saying there is a form of evolution, however Darwinism is whats flawed and wrong, you should maybe watch David Wilcock and regurgitate what he says you know waves of "cosmic energy" that alter dna, roughly every 62 million years...




But yeah Epic Beard God created man outta play dough, you are completely right, feel better?




or rather Wilcock says its a field of consciousness... meh IDK he talks about zapping lasers through duck eggs and chicken eggs and altering the dna.

To each their own.




[edit on 7-9-2010 by Lysergic]



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


I am Very, very patient and Not in any hurry...

I will always respond to your Questions and remarks as I am very Old and have time for everyone...

You wrote… Quote;


A contradiction not. Your assumption, yes. Another sign of haste of a false prophet.

You certainly do have a few issues with your beliefs don’t you ???

I will say it again for you… Can You read This ???

I AM NOT A PROPHET as you continually call me…

I HAVE NEVER CLAIMED TO BE A PROPHET… OK... Got it ???

It is YOUR FANTACEY… And YOUR FAUSE WITNESS….

You wrote… Quote;


I am saying you can only know your own soul through the human perspective you have.

Oops…

Here you go again…
What you quoted in past posts Quote;

a.

He cannot know the soul, he can only know the truth of his own heart. And even then that's blurred. Only God knows the true Heart.

b.

Only God knows the true soul.

c.

You do not.

d.

That is why I say I know my soul.

e.

Because I have come to know it through Jesus. Claiming to know THE soul automatically means you do not know your own soul, because in order to know your own soul, you need to know what it is. And that is not what you claim it is, therefore how can you know your own soul?

and now you say… Quote;

f.

I am saying you can only know your own soul through the human perspective you have.

And further on in your Last Post...
g.

You can only know your soul based on what you do.

h.

You cannot know your whole soul.

i.

Only God can know the soul.

j.

I only claim to know me. I am not claiming to know anything else.

k.

i can know my soul, but nothing of how it works or is.

As you can plainly see the accumulation of Your CONTADICTIONS..
Which is correct and which of your statements are incorrect ???
Or is it all just according to your child like desires ??? Depending on the moment…
You are definitely LOST aren’t you ???

You wrote… Quote;


If you can't deal with contradictory or partial existences it's not my problem.

I see now you now admit you are making CONTRADITORY statements…
At last you may be waking up to yourself…

You wrote… Quote;


You can only know your soul based on what you do.

Oh now you say You are in Control of God… i.e. all is dependant on the Laws of Gorman91
Now what was that you were saying about false prophets ???

You wrote… Quote;


You cannot know your whole soul. Only God can know the soul. The heart.

But you said... You knew the Soul...
And Now you say only God can Know the Soul...
Make up your Mind for goodness sake...

You wrote... Quote;


You cannot know your whole soul.

I see another of your misguided rules…
Jesus said, “MAN know thy SELF”…

You wrote… Quote;


Only God can know the soul. The heart.

So as you say YOU KNOW THE SOUL, this means you are saying again, YOU are God… That is if Only God knows the Soul ???

You wrote… Quote;


Your haste to assume makes it quite clear you are a false prophet.

I have never said I hate you in fact I LOVE YOU as it is written…
Jesus said "LOVE one another" and... "LOVE your Enemies".
And YOU bear FALSE WITNESS of Me again…
It is YOU who Hate both ME and The LIGHT, I have come from, as All LIFE have come From …

You Wrote… Quote;


Again, who can take the one who is desperate at face value?

Sorry to disappoint you, but I am Not desperate as it is yourself who is DESPERATELLY trying to Discredit me and the Source of the Knowledge which was given to me…

You wrote.. Quote;


I cannot. And you're rush is certainly signs of desperation.

What Rush ???
Just More of your "False Witness" I see.
Look I am OLD and I am certainly NOT in a Rush as I am bout to return to the LIGHT again…

You wrote… Quote;


The rest of your post, like always, is mindless drivel and assumptions of a false prophet.

Again you defy God with your "False Witness" worse still you Defy YOURSELF…
Ever heard of The 10 Commandments ???

Thou Shall NOT Bear False Witness…

Oh I forgot... Its OK for you to bear "False Witness" because you are above everyone else, including my God and my Christ…

You wrote… Quote;


I only claim to know me. I am not claiming to know anything else.

Oops...
Here we go again…
Don’t You know your Soul???
Don’t You know God???
Don’t You know Christ???
Don’t You know the World???
So now You deny Christ and You Deny God through your Ignorance, as You have just said… Quote;


I only claim to know me. I am not claiming to know anything else.

I see…
You are certainly Digging a Huge HOLE for Yourself aren’t You ???

You wrote… Quote;


In the same way I can know a room is square, but not see all of it.

I see You Assume things..
How can you Assume a room to be Square if you can’t see it all ???
You are certainly a Strange one aren’t you???
Never Assume or you will make an Ass out of You and Me.


You wrote… Quote;


One can know how electricity works but nothing of the nature of the electron. Similarly, i can know my soul, but nothing of how it works or is.

So now you finally admit YOU nothing at all about how your Soul works or is…
But you told me You knew your Soul ???

i can know my soul, but nothing of how it works or is.

You have just admitted You Do NOT know WHAT your Soul Is…

Quote;


but nothing of how it works or is.


I rest my Case…

LOVE and Peace …



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Methuselah
 





in water nothing collects together, try it at home, and see what you get. just put a drop of food coloring in a glass of water, you will see what im talking about. in order for these molecules to collect together in these huge oceans is impossible.


It depends on their hydrophilicity. Hydrophobic molecules do collect together. Just put a drop of oil in water. This is especially true in case of phospholipids, which spontaneously create cell-like bilayer membranes.



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by The Matrix Traveller
 


I'm still not exactly sure why you discuss philosophy in a thread talking about science...



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Methuselah
Beneficial mutations:
the items you listed (and if you want to list the other, thats fine with me) are showing that God planned ahead. those capabilities/abilities are what organisms pull out of their gene code to survive... their existing gene code mind you.


No, it isn't. That's the whole point - the traits were not present in their genetic code until mutation occurred.


and i understand that this process can product a new species... im not arguing with that. im arguing that this process over millions/billions of years will not turn bacteria into everything we see today.


Species don't "turn into" new species. They share a common ancestor. Two examples:

1. Darwin's Finches - speciation via natural selection from a common ancestor.

2. Dogs - all breeds of dog share a common ancestor - the wolf. We have speciated dogs by selectively breeding them, thus imposing artificial selection.


if what you are claiming is true, an oxygen free atmosphere would render a harmful out of water environment to life in. destroying just any sort of life trying to surface itself.


I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you're trying to say here.


and i notice that in all experiments i have done... in water nothing collects together, try it at home, and see what you get. just put a drop of food coloring in a glass of water, you will see what im talking about. in order for these molecules to collect together in these huge oceans is impossible. with thermodynamics and law of diffusion, gas laws etc. it doesnt seem to come together how life can, by chance, spontaneously generate from within the oceans. if it were on the surface it would have been fried. (no ozone, no oxygen, no protection)
it just doesnt make sense.


You need to find a better argument. If you're even remotely familiar with surfactant chemistry, you'll know that there's a concentration called the CMC (critical micellular concentration) - the concentration at which surfactant molecules will spontaneously self-assemble into micelles. Guess what the phospholipids that you're cell membranes are? Surfactants!


your body can do the same thing with carbs and protein, they came out with a diet years ago where you take in no carbs and lots of meat and your body has the information already built in to process protein and convert it to usable energy...


Because we've always had protein in our diet. My example was of an organism using a molecule that was invented in the 1930's (i.e. a molecule that didn't exist when the organism first appeared on this earth) as a food source via a mutation that allowed it to produce a wholly new enzyme. Read the research.

Further, and here's the real kicker, the DNA the species of Pseudomonas that can process nylon oligomers and the species that can't process nylon oligomers is different. This isn't some hidden genetic code that it suddenly whipped out to make a whole new enzyme. The DNA changed via mutation. New species. Observable.


beneficial mutation argument is still a very valid argument and if it werent, we would see beneficial mutations listed in text books instead of on forums like this.


They are...



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by The Matrix Traveller
 


If you are not a prophet than why do you defend your ways like one? You are right. You have mountains of proof (but not yet supplied it). You have quotes(from one source that is questionable at best). Classic fail-prophet act.

Not a contradiction to me. it's sad if you think it is. It means you cannot think beyond the basic linear logic. Which is very sad.

I will tell you again. We do not know how the electron works. We do know how to use electricity. Similarly, I can know how my soul works. I cannot know its structure or essence nor anything about it. Same way I can know how mars is but I have no idea how it is. This is not a contradiction. Mars is red, and we know its gravity, and we know much about it. But we do not know about it. We have not observed it long enough.

Failure to understand that is simply a failure of higher abstract thought on your part, and in turn, failure to be human.

Then you go into your traditional infinite loop errors that is a bore to read.



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 


ok long post... i hope you watched the video i provided.

it seems like people are not understanding where i am defining the line between micro and macro.
but i did see arguments that i do support.
all dogs come from a common ancestor and darwins finches share a common ancestor....
im not arguing against that... but that is not macro evolution
that is still micro evolution which is a stupid term because its confusing your belief with the bible making people think they are both the same when they are not.
variations happen all the time. I dont argue that.
but it will not change bacteria into a human over billions of years. plain and simple.
ok i do undestand you argument with the oil and the other substances that do collect in water... but the questions is... how did those chemicals evolve? because with a hot molten earth and then a bunch of rain, i dont see anything but black water coming from that... nothing but ash and water.

go put out a fire with a hose and then bring the ash-water to the lab and make life out of it. it wont happen.

your argument for the Pseudomonas is an example of micro evolution...
its still a Pseudomonas... its exactly what the bible predicts.


show me beneficial mutations... the one you provided was proof for the bible. and its didnt change the Pseudomonas to anything else... its still a Pseudomonas

we may just have to agree to disagree cuz i cant see how what im pointing out doesnt make sense to you.



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 07:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Methuselah
 


I don't think you even know what macroevolution is. Please do yourself a favor and read this, especially the part about how creationists misinterpret the term...because that's what you're doing.



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Methuselah

ok long post... i hope you watched the video i provided.


Yes. And in return, I'd like you to watch the entire series of evolution vs. creation videos posted by a youtube user named Thunderf00t.


it seems like people are not understanding where i am defining the line between micro and macro.


It really doesn't matter how you, personally, define micro and macroevolution or where you draw the line or how many times you, in the face of new evidence to the contrary, redefine the line to fit your arguments. Seriously, please do some reading about microevolution vs. macroevolution and how they don't really exist as distinct processes. They. Are. All. Evolution.

You can call them Rambos, or Fujis, or Macintoshes, but in the end they're all apples. Call it genetic drift, speciation, mutation, whatever. It's all still evolution.


but it will not change bacteria into a human over billions of years. plain and simple.


You're back to ignoring previous responses that you don't like. Evolution is not one species transforming into another in the way you describe. We're talking about the earliest common ancestor.


ok i do undestand you argument with the oil and the other substances that do collect in water... but the questions is... how did those chemicals evolve? because with a hot molten earth and then a bunch of rain, i dont see anything but black water coming from that... nothing but ash and water.


We already had the abiogenesis discussion, and you know full well it wasn't "ash and water". I can cut and paste the responses I posted earlier or you can go back and reread them. You yourself claimed that it would have been goo, 98% of which was toxic to the other 2%. Even though you never explained that assertion when asked to.


your argument for the Pseudomonas is an example of micro evolution...
its still a Pseudomonas... its exactly what the bible predicts.


Really? Can you show me where in the Bible it says that a new species of Pseudomonas will evolve that can use nylon oligomers as a food source? I must have missed that part. Anything else is just your interpretation of the Bible.



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 


I already posted the link to the whole macro/micro-evolution misinterpretation creationists use a lot...TWICE! Some people just ignore the truth if it doesn't fit their worldview



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 01:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


You wrote …Quote;


If you are not a prophet than why do you defend your ways like one?

The simple answer is …. I Don’t…
It is your Interpretation for what ever reason…

You wrote… Quote;


You are right. You have mountains of proof (but not yet supplied it).

If you ask the right questions... you will get the right answers…

You wrote… Quote;


You have quotes(from one source that is questionable at best). Classic fail-prophet act.


What is the Classic fail-prophet act ???
I don’t know of such an email sight and I have certainly never quoted from such a sight.

You wrote…. Quote;


Not a contradiction to me. it's sad if you think it is. It means you cannot think beyond the basic linear logic. Which is very sad.

What you have written here makes no reference to anything… What are you referring to now???

You wrote… Quote;


I will tell you again.
We do not know how the electron works.
We do know how to use electricity.
Similarly, I can know how my soul works.


First Part… Quote;


I will tell you again.
We do not know how the electron works.
We do know how to use electricity.

What on earth has electricity got to do with the Soul ???

And then you say secondly… Quote;


Similarly, I can know how my soul works.


This is not making sense at all…
I guess you meant to write…
“Similarly, I can’t know how my soul works.”
But you said you knew your Soul???
If you knew what it was you would be able to tell me what it is and you haven't…

You wrote… Quote;


I cannot know its structure or essence nor anything about it.

This part makes no sense in the context with what you are trying to say… Quote;


nor anything about it

So how do you know what your Soul is ???

You wrote… Quote;


Same way I can know how mars is but I have no idea how it is.

Now that makes no sense at all does it ???
Please Read what you wrote above...

You wrote… Quote;


This is not a contradiction.

Yes it is...

just look at what you have written… Quote;

Same way I can know how mars is
but I have no idea how it is.

You wrote… Quote;


Mars is red, and we know its gravity,
and we know much about it.
But we do not know about it.
We have not observed it long enough.

This makes No sense at all… Quote again;


Mars is red,
and we know its gravity,

and we know much about it.
But we do not know about it.

Sorry you have made no sense at all with this one...
Please "pay careful attention" to what you have written above…

You wrote… Quote;


Failure to understand that is simply a failure of higher abstract thought on your part, and in turn, failure to be human.

Please "read again" what you wrote…
I think you are confused, don’t you ???

You wrote… Quote;


Then you go into your traditional infinite loop errors that is a bore to read.

Now you have totally lost the plot…

I only answer your statements…
They are your Loops Not mine…

Peace…



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 01:13 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Just replying to Gorman91

You can take over if you want to, as I am getting very tired...


When Gorman91 stops... perhaps we can get back to Science again...



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 10:24 AM
link   
ok so based on the posts before and the links/videos.
everything you have provided supports the bible.
i take blame for not have the proper/standard definition...
so basically there was some confusion in definitions... no big deal

but that doenst change the fact that what ive been trying to tell you guys the entire time and what you have been providing is in support of the bible.



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Methuselah
ok so based on the posts before and the links/videos.
everything you have provided supports the bible.
i take blame for not have the proper/standard definition...
so basically there was some confusion in definitions... no big deal

but that doenst change the fact that what ive been trying to tell you guys the entire time and what you have been providing is in support of the bible.


How does anything we posted supports the bible??? If anything, it proves that the whole genesis account is hogwash...



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by Methuselah
ok so based on the posts before and the links/videos.
everything you have provided supports the bible.
i take blame for not have the proper/standard definition...
so basically there was some confusion in definitions... no big deal

but that doenst change the fact that what ive been trying to tell you guys the entire time and what you have been providing is in support of the bible.


How does anything we posted supports the bible??? If anything, it proves that the whole genesis account is hogwash...


really? cuz everything you have told me does not contradict the Genesis account.
you have shown be of examples where adaptations happen granting the organism a new ability or use their environment in a different way.
how does that support the bible... because everything you have shown does not show anything changing past the species level. yeah it may become a new species, but its still the same kind of organism which is what Genesis said would/could happen.
id hate to repeat myself but read this post on the other thread to see what i mean.



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Methuselah
 


Well, Genesis claims god just created man and the animals...as in, we just popped into existence in our current form. We know for a fact that's not what happened. It also claims there was light on earth before the sun was created, that's also not true. Lastly, it claims all the animals just popped into existence in their current form...which also isn't true. Every single bit of evolution contradicts the genesis account in the bible



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join