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.

 

EVOLUTION IS FALSE!! Mathematics proves everything is created

page: 5
12
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by spy66
 


So where's all the proof for a creator...you said you had tons, so care to share?


NO i dont care to share them with you


If you cant figure things out on your own why should i do all your work?

If you know about math and matter as much as you proclaim by your rejection. I shouldn't have to prove anything to you, you should have understood.


edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 10:52 PM
link   
When are people going to wake up to the fact that Evolution VS Creationism is Not a black and white issue. It cannot be all or nothing. The answer lies in a balance of the two.

Lets say a creator did set things in motion.. that creator created many animals plants other forms of life to Evolve. We have proof of evolution in nature easily found and backed up by science. Does this discount the possibility that an overall creator set things in motion? No. that would be silly.

Would a Divine Creator come down and say science is all hogwash because everything is done by miracles? Nope that too would be silly. If this creator exists He has given Man the ability of reason and thus Science to help us understand our world ( to the very limited amount that it actually does this)

If this Creator does Not exist does this mean that with all the many billions of processes happening each second in the whole universe, that many of the same mathematical constants can never be duplicated? That too would be silly.

From a science point of view we simply lack the knowledge and understanding to explain a God concept. From a religious point of view we believe that God exists outside the so called hard facts of science and must be believed on faith. The two do not ever contradict each other and cannot because that is comparing apples and oranges.

There is room for both belief systems together and they do not cancel each other out. A true scientist who is objective can never say there is no God. A true believer in God can never say Evolution had no place in the universe because everything is possible with God. There is only prejudice and ignorance of both issues that cause division.



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 06:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by spy66

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by spy66
 


So where's all the proof for a creator...you said you had tons, so care to share?


NO i dont care to share them with you


If you cant figure things out on your own why should i do all your work?

If you know about math and matter as much as you proclaim by your rejection. I shouldn't have to prove anything to you, you should have understood.


edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)


In other words, you have zero proof of a creator beyond wish thinking, personal experience, and faith. Goose egg!

I was a christian for over 20 years until I realized that what I thought was proof was nothing more than my own bias confirming my desire for a sky daddy that watches over and protects us all. I would really like to hear what you consider proof. I am completely open to evidence of a creator but I doubt you have anything that is objective, logical, or hasn't been thoroughly refuted numerous times.



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 06:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by RadeonGFXRHumanGTXisAlien

Originally posted by spy66

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


You call them gaps we can't explain. Why dont you just admit they are gaps you dont have the mind set to grasp.





Given that you don't seem to care about rationality, logic, and objective facts when forming your opinions...I strongly disagree


It seams that you are rather more obsessed by trying to make fun of me than you are trying to see the logic and rationality in what i asked you.

I guess that is logic for people like you with your level of understanding


My questions and this topic is way to difficult for you
You have nothing to bring to this discussion. Because your are not the person who is capable of answering properly.



Many of these evolutionists write insults and ridicule as their main focal point if you've noticed their arguments,
they really can't refute anything you say spy
.


That is funny because I haven't seen any insults from people who understand the theory and fact of evolution.

You must be referring to he fact that your inane and ignorant statements are so easily refuted with logic and known facts.

You have displayed an enormous ignorance of biology, evolution, and mathematics so don't be offended when those who know better take you to task for that ignorance.

That isn't a personal insult. It's just the way it is. You have made silly arguments that crumble to pieces with even a minor application of critical thought.



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by megabytz

Originally posted by spy66

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by spy66
 


So where's all the proof for a creator...you said you had tons, so care to share?


NO i dont care to share them with you


If you cant figure things out on your own why should i do all your work?

If you know about math and matter as much as you proclaim by your rejection. I shouldn't have to prove anything to you, you should have understood.


edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)


In other words, you have zero proof of a creator beyond wish thinking, personal experience, and faith. Goose egg!

I was a christian for over 20 years until I realized that what I thought was proof was nothing more than my own bias confirming my desire for a sky daddy that watches over and protects us all. I would really like to hear what you consider proof. I am completely open to evidence of a creator but I doubt you have anything that is objective, logical, or hasn't been thoroughly refuted numerous times.





I was a christian for over 20 years until I realized that what I thought was proof was nothing more than my own bias confirming my desire for a sky daddy that watches over and protects us all.


What you believe or did believe in disproves nothing. It only proves how easy your are fooled by your own mind and science. What you believe and understand sure as hell dont disprove anything i have said.

All you have to do is disprove what i have talked about. "I have posted questions". You have posted no answers, just accusations.

You are a waste of time. Because you don't do your own thinking, you have to search the nett for answers you have no understanding of. If you did have understanding, you would have posted a proper reply with proof of just that.





edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


You call them gaps we can't explain. Why dont you just admit they are gaps you dont have the mind set to grasp.




And you do? Care to show us any evidence?

The "questions" you posted had nothing to do with evolution or creationism. In fact, when I asked you to show how your "questions" were pertinent, you went strangely silent.
edit on 9-9-2011 by john_bmth because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


You call them gaps we can't explain. Why dont you just admit they are gaps you dont have the mind set to grasp.




And you do? Care to show us any evidence?

The "questions" you posted had nothing to do with evolution or creationism. In fact, when I asked you to show how your "questions" were pertinent, you went strangely silent.
edit on 9-9-2011 by john_bmth because: (no reason given)


If my questions dont have anything to do with evolution, creationism and math. Than i guess there is no difference between finite and infinite "right"

To my knowledge there is a great big difference between finite and infinite. One of them actually dont change all that often.

How often does the infinite change according to your knowledge?

In math infinite is used as a constant. How often does a constant change when it comes to math?

Does a constant ever change?



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by megabytz

Wow! You would think a person would try to keep up with things that they comment on.

Evolution of humans is based on far more than "a box of bones".

Evolution 'hoaxes' are not rampant and the hoaxes of the past are not in modern textbooks. Not only that, the hoaxes were not perpetrated by evolutionary biologist but they were shown to be hoaxes by scientists.

There is mountains of evidence that species have evolved into new distinct species. We have witnessed it, multiple times.

One last thing, evolution has been proven and has withstood scrutiny for the past 150 years. Creationism on the other hand doesn't even begin to resemble science. It makes no predictions, no coherent statements, and cannot stand on its own without misrepresenting evolution with falsehoods. Similar to your previous post.

Now if you would like to learn something about evolution before you make tremendously false statements I would suggest you start by looking over this website and then maybe pick up any Stephen Jay Gould book.


I have read about evolution. It was taught to us in school. I later learned to think for myself and logic said that evolution was a pathetic farce.

Box of bones, yes and evolutionists themselves agree.

"It is important to remember that when paleontologists talk about “human fossils” they generally aren’t talking about complete skeletons. Often they are talking about one or two bones, a partial skull, or a few teeth. One can’t even be sure that the teeth and bones go together. This is why there are so many arguments. The models of our “human ancestors” that are displayed in museums are based on a few bones and a lot of speculation based on the presumption of evolution."

Here is his self-contradictory summary.
(my note: following are the words of the evolutionist)
"Looking at the whole array of bones, then what do we have? Clearly, indisputable evidence for human evolution from apelike ancestors. Granted, we can’t yet trace out a continuous lineage from an apelike early hominid to modern Homo sapiens. The fossils are scattered in time and space, a series of dots yet to be genealogically connected. And we may never have enough fossils to join them. 8"

www.ridgenet.net...

"4. Many Evolutionists Have Admitted that the Fossil Record Contradicts the Theory of Evolution and that Science Has Been Unable to Genuinely Duplicate Evolution Even in Highly Controlled Circumstances in Sophisticated Laboratories."
karws.gso.uri.edu...

And then we have Artists to the Aid of Evolution. Based on a single bone they construct a whole creature.


"WHAT DOES THE RECORD SHOW?

Why is there so much confusion regarding human origins, and what does the fossil record actually show? We think Jeremy Rifkin summed it up accurately.

What the “record” shows is nearly a century of fudging and finagling by scientists attempting to force various fossil morsels and fragments to conform to Darwin’s notions, all to no avail. Today the millions of fossils stand as very visible, ever-present reminders of the paltriness of the arguments and the overall shabbiness of the theory that marches under the banner of evolution (1983, p. 125)."

www.apologeticspress.org...


edit on 9-9-2011 by OhZone because: to make corrections



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by OhZone
 


Since evolution is so patently false would you care to explain how we have been able to observe speciation in a lab environment?

Observed Instances of Speciation
Some More Observed Speciation Events

Of course I expect the Creationist crowd to ignore these once again and claim that evolution has never been replicated in a lab.



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
When are people going to wake up to the fact that Evolution VS Creationism is Not a black and white issue. It cannot be all or nothing. The answer lies in a balance of the two.

Lets say a creator did set things in motion.. that creator created many animals plants other forms of life to Evolve. We have proof of evolution in nature easily found and backed up by science. Does this discount the possibility that an overall creator set things in motion? No. that would be silly.

Would a Divine Creator come down and say science is all hogwash because everything is done by miracles? Nope that too would be silly. If this creator exists He has given Man the ability of reason and thus Science to help us understand our world ( to the very limited amount that it actually does this)

If this Creator does Not exist does this mean that with all the many billions of processes happening each second in the whole universe, that many of the same mathematical constants can never be duplicated? That too would be silly.

From a science point of view we simply lack the knowledge and understanding to explain a God concept. From a religious point of view we believe that God exists outside the so called hard facts of science and must be believed on faith. The two do not ever contradict each other and cannot because that is comparing apples and oranges.

There is room for both belief systems together and they do not cancel each other out. A true believer in God can never say Evolution had no place in the universe because everything is possible with God. There is only prejudice and ignorance of both issues that cause division.



Evolution and the study of it directly contradicts what is said in the bible about Creation. If we are to assume the bible as the word of God evolution also challenges gods accredited infallibility. They are black and white unless you are to discount central parts of the bible as unthruths in which case whats the point of reading past the first page?

"A true scientist who is objective can never say there is no God."

This i sympathise with as do many scientists who will refer to themselves as agnostic rather than athiests. Science is a quest to find answers through experiment, I cant prove or disprove the existence of the Flying Spagetti Monster but I can exercise logic and say its very unlikely.



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Fretless
 





I cant prove or disprove the existence of the Flying Spagetti Monster but I can exercise logic and say its very unlikely.


Your logic is no good, there is not one believer who believes in a Flying Spaghetti monster. Unless you have the impression that the creator is a flying spaghetti monster?

Don't compare our logic with yours. You are way of the page.



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


They're the same, though. Neither have any evidence. You can't seriously claim that some sky pixie who knocked up some goat herder before sending his son to earth to turn into a zombie is any more plausible or less absurd than a flying spaghetti monster waving his noddles to create the earth and suns.



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 

You're talking gibberish. You're stringing a load of sentences together that to the untrained ear sound vaguely "sciency" and "mathy", but in reality your words are absolute nonsense.



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by Fretless
 



I cant prove or disprove the existence of the Flying Spagetti Monster but I can exercise logic and say its very unlikely.

Your logic is no good, there is not one believer who believes in a Flying Spaghetti monster. Unless you have the impression that the creator is a flying spaghetti monster?
Don't compare our logic with yours. You are way of the page.


So how many people would have to believe in the flying spagetti monster for you to accept it as fact?
Your post implies that the number of believers constitutes a truth, it does not.
Also I never compared my logic with yours, you did that...
edit on 9/9/2011 by Fretless because: correction



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by spy66
 


They're the same, though. Neither have any evidence. You can't seriously claim that some sky pixie who knocked up some goat herder before sending his son to earth to turn into a zombie is any more plausible or less absurd than a flying spaghetti monster waving his noddles to create the earth and suns.


No, i dont think a sky pixi knocked up some goat herder. I dont believe the content of the Bible is the word of god or your sky pixel/spaghetti monster.

I dont believe God scraped some dust of the ground and shaped Adam.

And i have never implied that i have. I am saying something totally different about creation.



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


Spy can you clarify exactly what you are saying in this thread please? You confusing me, you haven't made a point yet, just conjecture.

Such as:
"If the string is a constant "infinite" a force of some kind within the string must exist to create the changes that formed us out of this string. Because a constant can not change on its own.

If the string is a constant and a infinite, it must also be intelligent to be able to create changes."

So if a constant is something that cannot change then a constant force string must have and intelligence which allows it to change resulting in something no longer constant, but it is still a string and is therefore a constant?

Maybe you can provide and equation?



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 

Prove the Flying Spaghetti Monster (PBUH) didn'tcreate the universe.



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 01:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by spy66

Originally posted by megabytz

Originally posted by spy66

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by spy66
 


So where's all the proof for a creator...you said you had tons, so care to share?


NO i dont care to share them with you


If you cant figure things out on your own why should i do all your work?

If you know about math and matter as much as you proclaim by your rejection. I shouldn't have to prove anything to you, you should have understood.


edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)


In other words, you have zero proof of a creator beyond wish thinking, personal experience, and faith. Goose egg!

I was a christian for over 20 years until I realized that what I thought was proof was nothing more than my own bias confirming my desire for a sky daddy that watches over and protects us all. I would really like to hear what you consider proof. I am completely open to evidence of a creator but I doubt you have anything that is objective, logical, or hasn't been thoroughly refuted numerous times.





I was a christian for over 20 years until I realized that what I thought was proof was nothing more than my own bias confirming my desire for a sky daddy that watches over and protects us all.


What you believe or did believe in disproves nothing. It only proves how easy your are fooled by your own mind and science. What you believe and understand sure as hell dont disprove anything i have said.

All you have to do is disprove what i have talked about. "I have posted questions". You have posted no answers, just accusations.

You are a waste of time. Because you don't do your own thinking, you have to search the nett for answers you have no understanding of. If you did have understanding, you would have posted a proper reply with proof of just that.


edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)


It is laughable that you seem to think you are a freethinker and do think for yourself.

You have accepted as fact, probably through indoctrination, a series of myths that are not backed in the least by evidence of any sort just because you happened to be born in a nation where the predominate religion is christianity, and I can't think for myself?

Yes I listen to science, you know why? Because it works!! If you think it doesn't than throw your computer away, throw all your technology away, the next time you get sick pray instead of going to the doctor, don't drive cars, don't eat food from modern agriculture, just move away from society all together.

I never said the fact that I personally changed my belief disproves or proves anything. What I realized is that everything that I said was proof, the same type of things you refer to, is nothing more than my own biases. It is not objective proof but pseudo philosophical nonsense with a little pseudo science mixed in.

What makes you think I have to search the internet for information "that I don't understand" is beyond me. You don't even know who I am.

Actually I will search the internet for things I don't understand. I, unlike some, am not afraid to admit when I don't know. However, you have said nothing that requires me to research and I doubt you will. From your posts I can fairly confidently deduce that I have forgotten more about science and religion than you will ever know.

Now, what would you like me to disprove? I will be more than happy to give you an example of evidence and rationality.

You really haven't asked any coherent questions. Your posts reflect a person that has spent far to much time reading pseudo science websites and is now unable to distinguish it from real science. You are trying far to hard to sound intelligent and in the process sounding like a fool.
edit on 10-9-2011 by megabytz because: (no reason given)


See the second thread in johns signature.
edit on 10-9-2011 by megabytz because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 02:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by spy66

Originally posted by john_bmth

Originally posted by spy66

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by RadeonGFXRHumanGTXisAlien
 


No, pi is a mathematical concept that describes the ratio of a circle's circumference to it's diameter. Such geometric shapes exist in nature, therefore they can be described with mathematics. This has absolutely nothing to do with evolution whatsoever. The fact you think it does only shows your ignorance of the fields of evolution and mathematics.


It sure is. But what you say tell us nothing about how these circles/twists came to be.

The string theory is about vacuums, different types of vacuums. How did the absolute vacuum form the circles and twists that gave us "pi" ?

And what exactly do you mean by "tells us nothing how these circles/twists came to be"?




A absolute vacuum would equal a straight neutral string without circles and twists.

If the absolute vacuum is thee string, within string theory. How did the string change on its own and create circles and twists?



See this is why I haven't responded to your questions. You are not making any sense and are showing a misunderstanding of a young science that hasn't proved itself yet and may never prove itself.

Maybe put down the Brian Greene books until you get a solid foundation in quantum mechanics and general relativity.



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 02:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Sailor Sam
 

I am so tired of hearing how the aliens created us. That does not answer the fundamental question of creationism vs big bang science. That just adds 1 more layer. So who created the aliens?




top topics



 
12
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join