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.

 

should "Evolution" be considered a sign of Ignorance ?

page: 2
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 05:52 PM
link   
Also, if we are going into the realm of microevolution and such:





posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by polarwarrior
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact
 


This is like your fourth thread on it today? Dont worry then, it seems you have an agenda and your mind is already made up.


this is my 4th, my agenda is discussion...

does this offend you ?
edit on 12/14/2010 by Cosmic.Artifact because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 05:53 PM
link   
Belief in anything is subjective. What fits best for an individuals frame of reference, based upon unique experience and ability to logic is what best suits that person.

The insanity and ignorance comes from people being unable to respect the belief choices of others.

~Heff



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact
 


That's the most ignorant thing anyone has said to me on this board yet. I was taking a pretty objective approach to your "discussion". But tell me, where exactly do you think this discussion is going to go? What is your goal/point?

Because in my eyes, parents who tell their children that everything in the museum is untrue seems damaging to their future objectivity, education, forming some grasp of tolerance, etc. The people I know who are religious live in guilt because so many things are considered a sin. Either that or they think it's okay to sin because they'll just be forgiven. They preach from their books but they treat people badly. Churches throughout history have oppressed people, killed people, stolen from people, fostered superstitions that further got people killed, etc. You are arguing a battle that you will inevitably lose.

At least evolution leaves room for people to have their own belief systems incorporated into the science, which provides a door to tolerance, which could provide a door to peace. What is wrong with that?

If religion is the end all be all and it's existed for so much longer (well not really if you think the earth is only a few thousand years old) than science, then please tell me what has religious doctrine done for the greater good of humanity? What has it given us that hasn't done people harm in one way or another?
edit on 12/14/2010 by SpaceJ because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact
 


How is evolution a sign of ignorance? Please, demonstrate to me why evolution is ignorant and I will be able to go on from there.

At least in my thread, which you are clearly making a mockery of, I put forth that creationists tend to have an ignorance of basic scientific terms and even an ignorance of the theory of evolution. Though you should have titled it "The Ignorance of Evolutionists"

Why are people who accept evolution ignorant?

With your spamming of this board with a bunch of threads that are veiled and shallow mockeries of threads against creationism, you're somehow trying to make a point that we might be doing an injustice to creationists. Or something like that.

Here's the thing...we actually have arguments and evidence to back up our statements. I can say Creationists are ignorant because I've encountered and can cite their general ignorance. Now, where's your evidence that people who accept evolution are ignorant?



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 06:20 PM
link   
Online Interview with Illuminati Satanists
www.arrivals.technocrazed.com...

I think its part 14 but all worth a watch

Satan personnally tutuored Darwin

Its a theory .... We were created by God ... Eyes Open at this statement .. As we have been told !!
But thousands of years of propaganda make you doubt ..
Watch and open your eyes toi the truth thats always been in the truth in the Bible, Koran, Torah and every other ancient text...



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 06:25 PM
link   
One argument against the Evolution theory: Cambrian explosion.
Nuff said.



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by imnessie
 



Originally posted by imnessie
One argument against the Evolution theory: Cambrian explosion.
Nuff said.


I'm sorry, but the Cambrian explosion doesn't refute evolution. Please, explain how it does before parroting a creationist talking point.

I get sort of tired explaining this, so I'll let a YouTube user explain it.




posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 06:35 PM
link   
reply to post by robertauthor
 



Originally posted by robertauthor
Online Interview with Illuminati Satanists
www.arrivals.technocrazed.com...

I think its part 14 but all worth a watch

Satan personnally tutuored Darwin



...wait, you're serious?
Seriously?

If he did then Satan is pretty damn good at science.



Its a theory ....


So are circuits...and you're using electronics aren't you?



We were created by God ... Eyes Open at this statement .. As we have been told !!


Please provide scientific evidence for this.



But thousands of years of propaganda make you doubt ..


...evolution has been around for about 150 years. Prior to that, creationism was the vast majority's view due to ignorance.



Watch and open your eyes toi the truth thats always been in the truth in the Bible, Koran, Torah and every other ancient text...


Yes, those same texts that say the Sun goes round the Earth, the Earth is flat, there was a global flood, and all other such nonsense.



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by imnessie
 


But the Cambrian explosion would require that the earth not be only thousands of years old. The Cambrian explosion happened like 500 million years ago.
edit on 12/14/2010 by SpaceJ because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by SpaceJ
 

If some primates evolved in people, why do we have monkeys and other primates today? Why didn't they evolve as well?! And why are people's internal organs more similar to pigs internal organs than those of monkeys? How did that happen?
edit on 14-12-2010 by imnessie because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by CanadianDream420
Is this in retaliation of the other thread that sparked major debate?...

Evolution happens, Micro-evolution.

Scientists cannot create life in labs even today...
Even if THEY DID, wouldn't that prove it takes intelligent life to create life??

=)


great answer, I starred you for that. I am still waiting for proof of evolution to be displayed using the 'scientific method' which is proven fact through experiment.

No one has yet provided this so I must keep on believing that it is only a theory. I am not saying I do not believe in evolution because I do.

I believe in alot of things...



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by polarwarrior
What if your god


and there you have it folks, the ignorance of the evolutionist attacking what they do not understand.

Have I stated anywhere in these 4 topics about my religion or my God ?

The evolutionist are a bunch of ignorant bashers who fear what they do not understand and even refuse to try to understand the opposing side (if there is one) by dabbling into religion/philosophy.

"Our mission is one and the same" I mean cummon ! haven't you guys watched that movie Contact ?



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 07:49 PM
link   
reply to post by imnessie
 


Like the distinction of "micro" and "macro" evolution on the basis of the [creationist] construct of the species, this relies on the [creationist] construct of a heirarchy in phylogeny. The term "higher" animal is misleading - assuming a single origin of life, all extant life-forms are equally evolved.

Assuming, as I believe to be true, that humans represent a fourth genus of great (literally meaning large, not better in any way, just large) ape, the ancestral animal that gave rise to us when its cousins gave rise to other apes would be considered "the fittest" occupant of our particular niche that it occupied. Based on human morphology, I would suggest that we occupied wetlands and the surrounding plains, which would have arisen with the decline of pleistoecene forests. The other apes are better - or were, until we developed guns - than us at surviving in their respective niches, as the various other primates are better at doing what they do than we are, as we are better at doing what we do than they are.

So we didn't evolve from the ones we see today. We may have evolved from an ape, and we may have evolved from a monkey - but then so would they have done. They simply did it under different selective pressures.



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 07:50 PM
link   
reply to post by imnessie
 



Originally posted by imnessie
reply to post by SpaceJ
 

If some primates evolved in people, why do we have monkeys and other primates today?


Well, we actually share a common ancestor with the other monkeys and primates. They haven't evolved into people because there wasn't the necessary mutation or selective pressure for it to happen.



Why didn't they evolve as well?!


They did, just not into people. Evolution takes many directions, humans are only one possibility. They evolved into what they are now, species that survive incredibly well in their situations.



And why are people's internal organs more similar to pigs internal organs than those of monkeys? How did that happen?


According to who?
Also, we have an incredibly similar internal structure to chimps and bonnobos.



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact
 


We have pointed you towards observed instances of speciation numerous times. It has been observed both in the wild and in the lab. So, how is one species being observed to change into another not empirical evidence for evolution? Well, here you go 29 Evidences for Macroevolution. Although, I get the feeling you're going to ignore this, just like every other time we've presented you with what you've asked for.



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWill
 

The Evolution concept does NOT state that the concept that some life forms may be alien in origin. Do you think the Opabinia might have been alien in origin? It sure looks like something out of this world.



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact
 


Contact, the movie based on the novel that was written by Carl Sagan.

Carl Sagan, the great champion of science.

The same Carl Sagan that was responsible for this (slightly outdated) explanation of evolution:



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact
 


We have pointed you towards observed instances of speciation


this will not do to [prove] evolution to me, I need to see actual results.

Otherwise I will believe in evolution none the less because I already do, I have faith in evolution and what the proponents are saying.

straight-up results please...
edit on 12/14/2010 by Cosmic.Artifact because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by ACTS 2:38
 


I don't know why you didn't bother ever posting any of this in my "FALSIFY IT!" thread...but I'll address it all here anyway.


Originally posted by ACTS 2:38
reply to post by Planet teleX
 


Well lets see for evolution to have had happen you need long periods of time to have past. We have no proof of long ages. Radio carbon dating is flawed and uses assumption to work,


Ok, prove it. I know you can't, we can show that radio carbon dating is proven.



Solar decay would have the earth to hot only millions of years ago


Again, prove it. There should be evidence of this.



magnetic decay would have the earth a magnetic star only 20,000 years ago,


Nope, this is actually demonstrably false. The magnetic field doesn't constantly decay, it fluctuates. At points in the past it was actually stronger than it had been prior.



deserts grow at a know rate and the Sahara is only about 4000 years old which fits to the flood,


The flood is fiction, the Sahara's growth has been influenced by humanity, and climatological and tectonic forces aren't constant throughout history. The Sahara wouldn't have existed several million years ago, so that's sort of a silly argument to make.



tree ring is a flaw science as it is know that some years produce several ring yet the oldest tree is about 4,400 years old.


So...because trees die the Earth can't be so old?
Trees die, your argument is invalid.



fossils do not prove old age as it has been proved that a fossil can be produced in years,


Prove it.



fossils do not prove evolution as dead bones can not tell you what they came from and what they reproduced,


You can tell by morphology. If there is one species and then it disappears but is replaced by a slightly different species that has only a slight difference we can infer that one species produced another. We can also combine fossil data inferences with genetic data to prove common ancestry.



the moon is receding at a know rate and only millions of years ago the moon would have been so close that the tidal wave would have washed the land free of any life forms,


Mathematics, work them out and show them to me. They aren't that complex. And when you do it, they definitely support the Earth being billions of years old.



the Top of Grand canyon is over 7000 feet above sea level and the area where the river enters is only 2800 feet so water did not flow up hill for million of years to create the canyon, but a lake was behind the ridge and broke over like a dam breaking and created the canyon probably in less than 100 years. Also where is the delta?


Seriously? Did you just ask where the river delta for the Colorado River is? How about you take a look at it for yourself.

As for the rest of your claim, here's the long form of the explanation, it's getting late and I'm a bit too tired to get all of it done myself.



The land is eroding at a know rate yet the mud in the bottom of the ocean is not deep enough for this long period.


Tectonic subduction.



There has never been an account of a farmer planting corn and peas grew out, or his cow and bull mating in a sheep is born.


That would not be evolution, Spontaneously changing phyla in one generation would actually disprove everything we know about evolution.

There's actually a good guide rule, if a creationist says it would prove evolution it would probably disprove evolution.



Evolution is a faith based science that is false you are a trained person as the indoctrination centers would have you,


No, evolution is an evidence and reason based science like all other sciences. It follows the exact same method as the science that gave us computers and the internet.



Know matter how much evidence against or proof that the so called evidence for is show to be false you will not except is for you have been train not taught in this area.


You haven't provided any evidence against evolution, you've just spouted off a list that looks like it's from the repeatedly discredited ramblings of Kent Hovind.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join