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.
Question for Evolutionist's
page: 33share:
Originally posted by RevelationGeneration
reply to post by Hydroman
Why do you keep saying "your god" like this is some sort of exclusive book club?
He is your Creator as much as he is Mine. .
NO HE IS NOT, WE ARE HIS CREATOR!!!!
In every area of the world every race has their god(s) they all have creation stories etc those are all different, they cant ALL be right BUT they can ALL BE WRONG!!!
Man created god(s) more often than not to explain something they could not understand eg Thor the Norse god of thunder, they did not understand how thunder was created so a god was given the task.
All god(s) came about because of a lack of understanding by man at that point of the natural world around them.
Here is a little link to god(s) from around the world, ALL have just as much right as any other to be believed in all created by MAN.
Have a look at the link thousands to choose from take your pick!!!!!!
www.lowchensaustralia.com...
Originally posted by RevelationGeneration
reply to post by Hydroman
DNA records and fossil records are NOT Repeatable, Observable, Testable....... scientific analysis of evolution.
What you are doing is the very definition of ignorance. You refuse to accept that there is even the possibility of evolution, despite the fact there is nothing that has disproven it. On the contrary there is a lot of evidence to support it, but because it conflicts with your religious beliefs you start frothing at the mouth anytime someone mentions the 'e' word. What does the brain do when it's asked to hold 2 conflicting ideas? It goes into denial.
You think you are defending your religion and holding true to your beliefs. In reality, you are preventing yourself from reaching further enlightenment and having a firmer sense purpose and a better relationship with your creator. Evolution doesn't invalidate your God! Open your mind and learn how God and science can coexist instead of being at war in your mind. But you aren't going to find any answers until you start asking questions.
Originally posted by RevelationGeneration
reply to post by constantwonder
Nope theirs much more proof then just genealogy. I could provide factual evidence by scientific means to support a young earth but by doing so i'd be wasting my time.
"don't bother me with the evidence, since i've already made my mind up" - that should be the atheist's creddo.edit on 16-9-2011 by RevelationGeneration because: (no reason given)
No no no... please do... I would love to see this factual evidence that the earth is 6000 years old... please, enlighten me? I refuse to let you cop out by saying you would be wasting your time....... and to claim what you claim in that last sentence, is just ludicrous.... given the 33 pages I have just sat and read through......
PA
edit on 16-9-2011 by PerfectAnomoly because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by RevelationGeneration
reply to post by Youji69
So there's nothing actually observable? We have to just believe that one fossil became another without seeing it happen? I know its supposed to take "millions and millions of years" but if that's the case wouldn't we see animals even today evolving and becoming a knew kind? How come we never see this? I think it takes alot of faith to believe one animal genus became another with no one ever seeing it happen.
Ok. the observable evidence your're looking for is at the freak show and the mental hospital. Evolution happens in two ways: long, slow, gradual changes and quick, sharp mutations. People in the freak show, born with two heads or with a tail, those are the quick, sharp mutations. Sometimes, over millions of years, you luck out and someone gets born with a freakish mutation of color eyesight - quite a beneficial mutation. Perhaps this is the function of certain forms for functional autism and idiot savants. Maybe some crazy people were just born with mutated, out of balance sense ratios. Either way, some mental diseases are examples of the sharp, sudden mutations in evolution.
Or, a change in species or biological processes come from long, slow and quite boring passages of generations. Take body hair. Probably a long slow transition as the Earth warmed from an Ice Age and we started climate control by harnassing fire. Or, like archaeologists do, take our skull size. It grew gradually until the missing link. Then we become suddenly more human with a larger brain. The next step, like in any technology, was to evolve a smaller and more efficient version. Sprinkle some art fueled self awareness and a dash of technological tinkerer and BAM! you got modern humans.(My Emeril As God Impression....apologies)
This all being said. I believe in both. Evolution and Creation. Heres how I see the story. Monkeys are totally content evolving over millions of years. They're walking more upright, but its a slow process. Then, someone (take your pick) comes and ZAP! monkeys can self reflect, speak, create stories and pass on history. This explains the gap in the fossil record. The missing link is always going to be a missing link. Why? Because instead of choosing creation 100% or choosing evolution 100% realize that real life happens in the grey area, between the either its this or its that. Its both. Evolution and creation. Besides. this is the only explanation that fits the fossil evidence.
Edit to add: The Big Bang Theory only hurts the evolutionist cause. To think that the universe, everything in existence, in all its complexity, rarity and beauty sprang from NOTHING....from NOTHING...FOR NO REASON is to believe in miracles. . Remember Newton? Matter cannot be created or destroyed. You cant get something from nothing. Thats a miracle, thats the Big Bang theory and its not science
Theres your direct, observable proof. /editby]
edit on 16-9-2011 by doctornamtab because: (no reason given)
edit on 16-9-2011
by doctornamtab because: (no reason given)
reply to post by PerfectAnomoly
No comments per say, atheist's will forever be looking for self proclaimed "flaws".
It boggles the mind at how evolutionists can be so convinced that there theory is correct yet would it not be more logical or stronger for a species to be self reproductive but yet we find in nature that it consists of a male and female to produce an offspring.
Why if evolution is all about the survival of the fittest or the evolving to become the strongest yet it takes two and not one to procreate which is diametrically at odds with the evolution of the strongest.
Lastly are the chances of inorganic matter becoming organic matter and then eventually evolving into a life form that just so happened to meet another life form in its lifespan with no idea how to procreate and they somehow managed to create a species must take an unbelievable amount of faith.
No comments per say, atheist's will forever be looking for self proclaimed "flaws".
It boggles the mind at how evolutionists can be so convinced that there theory is correct yet would it not be more logical or stronger for a species to be self reproductive but yet we find in nature that it consists of a male and female to produce an offspring.
Why if evolution is all about the survival of the fittest or the evolving to become the strongest yet it takes two and not one to procreate which is diametrically at odds with the evolution of the strongest.
Lastly are the chances of inorganic matter becoming organic matter and then eventually evolving into a life form that just so happened to meet another life form in its lifespan with no idea how to procreate and they somehow managed to create a species must take an unbelievable amount of faith.
edit on 16-9-2011 by RevelationGeneration because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Akasirus
Originally posted by RevelationGeneration
reply to post by Hydroman
DNA records and fossil records are NOT Repeatable, Observable, Testable....... scientific analysis of evolution.
What you are doing is the very definition of ignorance. You refuse to accept that there is even the possibility of evolution, despite the fact there is nothing that has disproven it.
How can i disprove something that's never been proven?
reply to post by doctornamtab
Sorry but telling me to visit the freak show is not observable evidence.
Sorry but telling me to visit the freak show is not observable evidence.
reply to post by wmd_2008
The fool has said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that does good. - Psalm 14:1
The fool has said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that does good. - Psalm 14:1
Originally posted by RevelationGeneration
reply to post by PerfectAnomoly
Why if evolution is all about the survival of the fittest or the evolving to become the strongest yet it takes two and not one to procreate which is diametrically at odds with the evolution of the strongest.
You repeat this again and again, saying that it needs a male and a female to reproduce. Obviously you don't know much about life here on earth.
Start with the life cycle of the aphids. You will be astounded!
reply to post by Akasirus
For sure... But Evil-lution is not science im afraid.
God and science can coexist
For sure... But Evil-lution is not science im afraid.
reply to post by RevelationGeneration
www.pbs.org...
www.pbs.org...
Asexual Reproducers:
For most living things, sexual reproduction has proven the best overall strategy to perpetuate a species in the rough-and-tumble, unpredictable fray of natural selection. With two partners combining varied genes, a species has more flexibility to adapt to changing environments.
There are, however, rare examples of asexual species that reproduce by cloning. Each offspring is genetically identical to the parent, with little variation generation after generation. (Mutations do create a minor amount of change.)
If asexual reproduction survives at all, conditions must sometimes favor it, even in competition for a niche with sexually reproducing species. Some insects, like aphids, are both asexual and sexual reproducers. Though rare, those species that reproduce asexually tend to persist.
Efficiency, for one thing, is on the side of asexual organisms: Without the need for males, every clonal individual passes a full set of identical genes onto the next generation. In addition, a single female can establish a new population. This gives asexual creatures on the fringes of a habitat an edge in colonizing a new one.
Clonal organisms with tolerance for a broad range of conditions also exist. Even if they do not vary much genetically, they possess what scientists have dubbed "general-purpose genotypes." One example is a type of minnow found in Minnesota that tolerates both highly oxygenated and poorly oxygenated waters. Able to survive in an unpredictable environment, this minnow outlasts more specialized strains.
Asexual animals arose from diversified sexually reproducing ancestors. Often they are hybrids between two different species, and may possess two complete sets of chromosomes.
One such asexual organism is the whiptail lizard in the U.S. Southwest, Mexico, and South America, which consists only of females who reproduce by parthenogenesis. They appear to be the only known unisexual reptile.
Clones generally hit a dead end, going extinct when their limited variation collides with changing environmental conditions or with better-surviving sexual reproducers. With their unusual way of reproducing, they continue to fascinate scientists because they are natural experiments in interactions between fixed genotypes and varying environment.
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
No thanks, you can stick with your "religion is bull#" videos.
I do not choose to read that quote.
No thanks, you can stick with your "religion is bull#" videos.
I do not choose to read that quote.
edit on 16-9-2011 by RevelationGeneration because: (no reason given)
reply to post by RevelationGeneration
You really are not taking any notice of anything are you... up to this point I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. Well, good luck in your quest.... I reckon you're going to need it.
DFTT.
PA
You really are not taking any notice of anything are you... up to this point I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. Well, good luck in your quest.... I reckon you're going to need it.
DFTT.
PA
edit on 16-9-2011 by PerfectAnomoly because: (no reason given)
reply to post by PerfectAnomoly
I don't need luck i am not afraid of being martyred for my belief in Jesus as being the son of God.
The Bible said we would be persecuted in the last days.
It's expected.
I don't need luck i am not afraid of being martyred for my belief in Jesus as being the son of God.
The Bible said we would be persecuted in the last days.
It's expected.
Originally posted by RevelationGeneration
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
No thanks, you can stick with your "religion is bull#" videos.
I do not choose to read that quote.edit on 16-9-2011 by RevelationGeneration because: (no reason given)
Now I know why you say evolution is not science.
Because you refuse to read about it.
Originally posted by RevelationGeneration
reply to post by PerfectAnomoly
No comments per say, atheist's will forever be looking for self proclaimed "flaws".
It boggles the mind at how evolutionists can be so convinced that there theory is correct yet would it not be more logical or stronger for a species to be self reproductive but yet we find in nature that it consists of a male and female to produce an offspring.
Why if evolution is all about the survival of the fittest or the evolving to become the strongest yet it takes two and not one to procreate which is diametrically at odds with the evolution of the strongest.
Lastly are the chances of inorganic matter becoming organic matter and then eventually evolving into a life form that just so happened to meet another life form in its lifespan with no idea how to procreate and they somehow managed to create a species must take an unbelievable amount of faith.edit on 16-9-2011 by RevelationGeneration because: (no reason given)
Here is something for you to chew on then surely your god would not let this happen???
biology.about.com...
Care to explain!
Originally posted by RevelationGeneration
reply to post by wmd_2008
The fool has said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that does good. - Psalm 14:1
Quotes from the story book written by WHO yes MAN the real GOD!!!
Originally posted by RevelationGeneration
reply to post by Akasirus
God and science can coexist
For sure... But Evil-lution is not science im afraid.
Just the way you type it "evil-lution" shows how much you are actually wanting to share truth and debate your point to try and prove it. You don't care about proof or evidence its all about being righteous and the last word for you. No matter how much you scream that it isn't science it actually uses alot of different sciences to test out the theory. That is part of the scientific method....peer review, and this peer review would be through many fields not just one like genetics.
You admitted one true thing (in an earler post) finally, about science and its willingness to change with new evidence. Where as your belief will not budge for anything no matter what is thrown at you, and yet you still feel that science is a dogma and everyone else is being brainwashed.
Originally posted by RevelationGeneration
reply to post by doctornamtab
Sorry but telling me to visit the freak show is not observable evidence.
Ummmm actually it isl. Mutation. People born with three arms and mental diseases are the mutations that evolutionists speak of.
You ask for direct evidence but then write it off because its on the fringe of society. Well, mutations are on the fringe of the long, gradual process of evolution. The mutants have always been freaks. There will always be freaks. In all species, forever.
You tell me, why would God make freaks? If were guided by this super intelligent creator. (take your pick), then why would this creator make freaks and people with mental diseases. Why would he bother? Whats in it for him?
edit on 16-9-2011 by doctornamtab because: (no reason given)