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: 37
13
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 06:31 AM
link   
reply to post by RevelationGeneration
 


OK, I get it now man

I think I'm going to agree to disagree. I'm not going to try and debate with a fanatic.

You are free to believe what you want. Even if it makes you sound a bit looney.

I wonder now if you really believe what you're saying or are you really just being cynical.

Taking the extremist view just to be defiant and sarcastic. You enjoy the conflict that an extremist view creates.

Well, I guess every village has their idiot.




posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 06:36 AM
link   
WARNING: YOU ARE WASTING YOUR TIME WITH GENERATIONREVELATION!

There have been MANY posts in this thread that have PROVED evolution, and guess what???

He IGNORED them all! - This is what he does in all of these threads, he ignores the truth & proof..

NOTHING anyone says will EVER change his mind - he is BEYOND HELP and is dedicated to converting (brainwashing/trolling) people into his beliefs.

Case Closed



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 06:37 AM
link   
reply to post by RevelationGeneration
 


And ive looked at evolution, studied it, researched it, grasped it's concepts, ...

Given that the evidence you ask for in your OP isn't inherent to evolution, I find this very hard to believe. Couple that with you asking the old chestnut in a previous post about "if mammals evolved from fish, why are there still fish" and I'd say that it's impossible to believe.


but it made absolutely no common sense to me.

Of this I have no doubt. Many concepts in science defy common sense -- Aristotelian mechanics make common sense while Newtonian mechanics are often counterintuitive, but it's the Newtonian model that more accurately describes what we observe. The only reason you select evolution for special attention as a target is because you believe that it directly contradicts what you believe to be the ineffable word of God, regardless of the evidence to contrary. Evidence that is generally accepted by theists and atheists alike. Your denial of evolution has nothing to do with common sense.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 06:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by UniverSoul

Originally posted by undo

Originally posted by UniverSoul
reply to post by undo
 

haha well not all
but you can tell a lot by someones demina
if you look like you have something to prove well your probably trying to convince yourself not others



well since i've caught you in a light hearted mood, would you mind terribly answering a question for me (i mean, to the best of your ability)? the question is: if science requires empirical process, is there any point at which the process can be skipped during the accumulation of data for testing?


some things require testing to learn, but once we test and get an answer it becomes logical and evidential
some things are already logical and can be seen all around us without need to test anything


alrighty. i'll fine tune the question, now we're getting down to the meat of the issue:

here's a scenario. you have a chunk of dirt 40ft x 40ft x 40ft. you've excavated it out in one big chunk, from a geological layer of clay like soil, that's been predated to, oh let's say 50,000 BC. inside that chunk of clay you find the following: the broken off blade of a forged steel dagger, a tiny fragment of a ceramic vessel of some kind, a bone, what appears to be a tab from the top of a soda can, and a small patch of woven fibers that look like tweed. is it safe to assume that the blade, ceramic fragment, tab like object, and small patch of woven fibers is contamination and doesn't require any empirical process other than the process of tossing them in the waste bin?



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 07:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration
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.
It's the ole "I'm being persecuted for my beliefs" tactic. It's interesting that you started the persecution against those who think evolution is possible. You call them Evo-Heads, and Evil-lutionists. Does the bible say anything about christians persecuting others as well? You poor baby. Ooops, I persecuted you.

You want to talk about evolution, so we talk about it, then you're persecuted all of a sudden. You name call, just as much as the next guy, and you're the one who is persecuted. Give me another break.

I'm starting to wonder if you're really an atheist troll, just having fun with us.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 07:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by MamaJ
 


Please please please these conversations would be so much smoother, but so much less entertaining, if you people actually understood the scientific principles you are trying to use.

And this is why creationists fail so badly and resort to because I say so because they don't even have a basic grasp of terminology.

A fact, is an object, event, etc that can be oberved by anyone. Fact is I was at a baseball game last night. Can I prove it? Yes. Does it change the world? not really.

A SCIENTIFIC fact has been studied, blind studied, modeled, and scrutinized and vetted by peers who come to a consensus. And considering no scientist will put a stamp on something unless they approve, it is not easy to come to an acceptable consensus.

A helium balloon goes against gravity. Is it magical? Is its God's balloon? No. Some scientists got together, studied helium, realized it wasnt' air, that it was lighter then air, that it makes your voice sound really funny for a moment, and they all agreed it was a cool element.

So are you gonna suddenly tell me that helium isn't a fact because you decide that God just likes balloons because that is the fact you prefer? Does he prefer red, green, or blue?


Please Please Please do not get confused on my attempt to show that the definition of "Fact" is based on observation and experience.

I am telling you (actually was not speaking to YOU per say) that a few Scientist's can stamp something while his peers disagree with the observation he or she observed. I mean....come on. I have read A LOT of scientific papers/publications and theories that some will try to prove as fact while others try to show another perception of said "fact".

So for every evolution theory there is one community member or more that come along and so ....that is all it is....a theory and not a fact. The only way the word "fact" comes into play is because it is observed.




Since Discovery Institute first published its statement of dissent from Darwin in 2001, more than 300 scientists have courageously stepped forward and signed onto a growing list of scientists of all disciplines voicing their skepticism over the central tenets of Darwin's theory of evolution and urging "careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." "A growing number of scientists around the world no longer believe that natural selection or chemistry, alone, can explain the origins of life, and while they are still a minority, they are a growing minority," said Bruce Chapman, president of Discovery Institute. "It is an important day in science when biologists are bold enough to challenge one of the leading theories in their profession." During recent decades, new scientific evidence from many scientific disciplines such as cosmology, physics, biology, "artificial intelligence" research, and others have caused scientists to begin questioning Darwinism's central tenet of natural selection and studying the evidence supporting it in greater detail. The full statement signed by the biologists reads: "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." "Darwin's shrillest defenders continue to claim there is no scientific debate and no legitimate scientists who question neo-Darwinian evolution and yet again that claim is shown to be false," said John West, associate director of Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture.





Evolution is a "theory" in the scientific sense of the term "theory"; it is an established scientific model of a portion of the universe that generates propositions with observational consequences. Such a model both helps generate new research and helps us understand observed phenomena. When scientists say "evolution is a fact", they are using one of two meanings of the word "fact". One meaning is empirical: evolution can be observed through changes in allele frequencies or traits of a population over successive generations.

www.discovery.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

With all that said and quoted, the theory of Evolution cannot be proven as fact, I remain on the fence. It is cool to ponder on and speculate and form an opinion, however I have no opinion in its regards until there is proof beyond a shadow of a doubt and for me.....it hasn't happened yet.

The Scientific Community are somehwhat biased. They do not like it when fresh Scientists/Biologists begin to think for themselves and begin questioning Darwin. There will come a day though when Darwin's theory/theories are thrown out the window and the welcome of fresh theories are looked upon with an open mind. Come on Science you can do it!



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 07:46 AM
link   
I absolutely LOVE Science but I do not like how they are like the dang Vatican! They get stuck in the old ways, old ways of thinking and the new, fresh minds that are ready to blow their peers socks off do not have a chance. Why? Because like a bunch of old geezers they get stuck in their old ways of thinking and will NOT LET GO of some theories that hold us back big time. I have heard it time and time again from people who are in this field.

Take a Dr. for example who has a cancer patient and they are going by "protocols". These protocols may indeed hinder the life expectancy because they are stuck in a rut with an old protocol. This happens all the time and I have seen with my own eyes the loss of life because of this. I hate it. It is really sad.

The Scientific community does the same thing to their peers and the world really. They keep their old ideas because they are in the text books. In order to change the old way of thinking they will have to make a really big case against it. They are not ready and until they are ready we will teach evolution to every generation.

I am not saying I think Evolution is wrong. I really do not see how it cannot be both creationism and evolution. Neither have made me think...oh yeah...I see it....thats it!
They both have good points to be made but neither are 100% in my opinion and I await the day when the bias is put aside and we form a true FACT based on FACTS.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 08:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by MamaJ
From the quote you posted:

"A growing number of scientists around the world no longer believe that natural selection or chemistry, alone, can explain the origins of life, and while they are still a minority, they are a growing minority," said Bruce Chapman, president of Discovery Institute.

The problem here is that natural selection does not have anything to do with the origins of life. Chemistry does, not natural selection.


..and another..

Originally posted by MamaJ
"It is an important day in science when biologists are bold enough to challenge one of the leading theories in their profession."

Yes, it is very important that scientists challenge evolution. They should, and do. It is good to challenge it. That's how we learn.

The Discovery Institute is a biased organization towards creationism, much like RevelationGeneration. Of course everything they believe will be based on biblical readings and understandings.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by MamaJ
With all that said and quoted, the theory of Evolution cannot be proven as fact, I remain on the fence. It is cool to ponder on and speculate and form an opinion, however I have no opinion in its regards until there is proof beyond a shadow of a doubt and for me.....it hasn't happened yet.
What would convince you? Seeing an animal actually evolve before your eyes? Does micro-evolution not suffice for you, only macro?



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 08:42 AM
link   
Here's a few examples of Macroevolution:

Evidence


More Evidence

But, I do this in vain, you will simply discard any, and all evidence presented to you regarding evolution.

“Today, the theory of evolution is an accepted fact for everyone but a fundamentalist minority, whose objections are based not on reasoning but on doctrinaire adherence to religious principles”
James D. Watson

Reminds of "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink"

Just for the record a Theory is not an idea.

p.s.

Evidence of a common ancestor.
Fused Chromosome

edit on 16-9-2011 by Engafan because: Link



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo
that's likely because the text in genesis 1, verses 1 and 2, are talking about the creation of the galaxies, via super massive blackholes, and wormholes were associated with the gods, so the creation of the galaxies was associated with the gods.

How in the world do you come to that conclusion?



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration
reply to post by Siddharta
 


Evilution is a creation of Satan not a creation of YHWH.

If you support it, you are not one of God's flock.

It is pure evil.
edit on 16-9-2011 by RevelationGeneration because: (no reason given)


So now you say, evolution exists, but it is Satan's idea?
How do you think, something like Satan exists? (Scientifically proven, I guess.)
Are you trying to become a famous tv preacher to make the fools send you a lot of money to fight the Satanic evolution?
Of course I am not God's flock. What a stupid idea.
Either you are absolutely immature or you are a very dangerous person with a sick mindset.

This is not the right place and not the right time for religious fundamentalists with weird ideas.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo

Originally posted by UniverSoul

Originally posted by undo

Originally posted by UniverSoul
reply to post by undo
 

haha well not all
but you can tell a lot by someones demina
if you look like you have something to prove well your probably trying to convince yourself not others



well since i've caught you in a light hearted mood, would you mind terribly answering a question for me (i mean, to the best of your ability)? the question is: if science requires empirical process, is there any point at which the process can be skipped during the accumulation of data for testing?


some things require testing to learn, but once we test and get an answer it becomes logical and evidential
some things are already logical and can be seen all around us without need to test anything


alrighty. i'll fine tune the question, now we're getting down to the meat of the issue:

here's a scenario. you have a chunk of dirt 40ft x 40ft x 40ft. you've excavated it out in one big chunk, from a geological layer of clay like soil, that's been predated to, oh let's say 50,000 BC. inside that chunk of clay you find the following: the broken off blade of a forged steel dagger, a tiny fragment of a ceramic vessel of some kind, a bone, what appears to be a tab from the top of a soda can, and a small patch of woven fibers that look like tweed. is it safe to assume that the blade, ceramic fragment, tab like object, and small patch of woven fibers is contamination and doesn't require any empirical process other than the process of tossing them in the waste bin?

have you ever noticed how we can ask you the simplest questions and never get a real answer. but you feel the need to ask us questions like this..
there are a million answers to this



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 09:17 AM
link   
Hope I dont get another wrist slap here as I dont believe what I am about to write is off topic. It is pertinent to understanding how the OP'ers brain works. First off...RevelationGeneration is only 20 yrs old, ( he stated in another thread that he has never had a sleep paralysis episode in 20 yrs of life) so he has not orbited the sun enough times to have a good grasp on anything IMO and its patently obvious he is having some doubts about his line of religious thinking. That is a good thing, whatever decision he makes in the end.
RevGen has started a few threads here at ATS with the sole purpose of promoting his religious beliefs...just as a poster on a previous page stated. Some comments in various threads he has made follow....

" Not everything has to be seen to be real."

" Hell is actually on our planet though in chambers under the earth near the dead sea."

" Aliens are not intergalactic they are demonic"

He scoffs that many posters here at ATS are brainwashed. He believes in the NWO and Illuminati. Once again...good on him! Whatever floats ya boat. But....he would never consider himself to be brainwashed. Oh no. Not he.
But...WE cannot possibly believe in evolution, after all the earth is only 6000 yrs old.


Go figure.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by MamaJ
I absolutely LOVE Science but I do not like how they are like the dang Vatican! They get stuck in the old ways, old ways of thinking and the new, fresh minds that are ready to blow their peers socks off do not have a chance. Why? Because like a bunch of old geezers they get stuck in their old ways of thinking and will NOT LET GO of some theories that hold us back big time. I have heard it time and time again from people who are in this field.

The constant publication of new papers in the multitude of journals suggests otherwise. What specific theories are "holding science back" and where is your paper that overthrows those theories with new, compelling evidence?


Take a Dr. for example who has a cancer patient and they are going by "protocols". These protocols may indeed hinder the life expectancy because they are stuck in a rut with an old protocol. This happens all the time and I have seen with my own eyes the loss of life because of this. I hate it. It is really sad.

What specific protocols are you talking about? Protocols are not science, they are protocols. I am sorry for your loss but it is an issue to take up with the ethics committee at your local hospital (or whomever is responsible for the implementation of hospital protocols).


The Scientific community does the same thing to their peers and the world really. They keep their old ideas because they are in the text books.

You do realise that a massive part of any scientist's career is publishing new research? How exactly does that tie in with your baseless notion that "they keep their old ideas because they are in the textbooks"? Scientists don't write textbooks. Scientists do not learn from textbooks (they are at the cutting edge of research, textbooks are not and cater for a different audience). Every scientist would LOVE to overthrow an established theory as it would make their career and put them in the history books.


In order to change the old way of thinking they will have to make a really big case against it.

Well, obviously. Why would a perfectly valid theory be thrown out unless a compelling case was made against it?


They are not ready and until they are ready we will teach evolution to every generation.

Who is "not ready" and what are they not ready for?


I am not saying I think Evolution is wrong.

Good, because it's not. There is not a single shred of evidence that suggests the theory of evolution is wrong.


I really do not see how it cannot be both creationism and evolution. Neither have made me think...oh yeah...I see it....thats it!
They both have good points to be made but neither are 100% in my opinion and I await the day when the bias is put aside and we form a true FACT based on FACTS.

1) Creationism offers nothing to science. It is not science as it has absolutely zero supporting evidence and is not falsifiable. It doesn't make any useful predictions nor can it be tested. It is a religious belief that dresses itself up as science to try and get itself into science classes through the back door.
2) A scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation. A scientific theory explains and interprets the scientific facts. The scientific theory of evolution is supported by a massive body of scientific facts. There is no doubt in the scientific community about evolution because it has stood the test of time and been developed for over 150 years.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration

edit on 16-9-2011 by RevelationGeneration because: (no reason given)



Take a look at THIS video with some home truths about your Mr Pendleton. If you want to provide youtube vids as your proof...I offer this to counteract your claims.


edit on 16-9-2011 by annella because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration
reply to post by Siddharta
 


Evilution is a creation of Satan not a creation of YHWH.

If you support it, you are not one of God's flock.

It is pure evil.
edit on 16-9-2011 by RevelationGeneration because: (no reason given)



"Satan" is a human invention. Simply the 'personification' you have given to all the Negativity that has existed on this beautiful planet. You didn't know who to 'blame', and as you could not find it within yourselves to take any of the responsibility, "Satan" was created to absolve yourselves.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 09:34 AM
link   
reply to post by RevelationGeneration
 


I've been reading through the mass of replies since I've been away and I have to say that sheer amount of self Pride and Arrogance on your part is staggering.

How dare You try to say that you know the mind and how God works. That's essentially what you're doing when you say that evolution is a lie or a faith-based belief when the evidence was left all around us to put the pieces together.

You continually ask to show a plant growing legs without the basic understanding that plants and animals did not necessarily evolve from one to the other. Multicellular life took divergent routes at some point creating life that would eventually change into a plant or animal. You also ask to show a fish evolving into a land animal, but when presented with the mudskipper, an animal that is quite clearly a fish that has adapted to walk on the land, you throw it out. Evolution happens in stages and if you took even a fraction of the amount of time that you spend pridefully talking down your nose to everyone that doesn't subscribe to your own interpretation of a 2000 year old book of Man then you might start to comprehend that His work is far beyond your comprehension or the description of your book that was written by a group of ignorant savages in an attempt to make sense of the confusing world they found themselves in and put out a system of Control on those they would subjugate with it.

The evidence for types of evolution is all around and is present in practically every facet of existance, not just in the evolution of life. The evolution of the solar system, galaxies, the entire universe. Even our cultural habits and technology experience a type of evolution.

Show me a transistor magically changing into a computer. Oh you can't...so I guess we're communicating by a magic box that has always existed since Man discovered electricity. Obviously this is ridiculous, because you can show me the steps it takes to develop a computer from the invention of the transistor. Other types of evolution are the same, but life is infinitely more complex and has had billions of years to get where it is today. If a fish could just magically change from swimming in the water to a human, that would be more evidence for the existence of God than anything the bible has put forth. Also, all humans are essentially female and then mutate into men during development in the womb. Otherwise I guess God felt Nipples on Adam were attractive or gave him some meaningful method of telling when it was cold outside and just decided to evolve them (oops) into something even better, useful, and more attractive when he gave Eve breasts.

You keep speaking of Jesus and forget the fact that if you truly are worshipping him, then you are committing the sin of Idolatry. Whether you believe Jesus is 'God made flesh' or the 'Son of God', he is still not the spiritual and omniscient manifestation of God the Creator. The bible says that no one can reach the Kingdom of Heaven except through Him...ok sure, let's say he died for our sins...which were actually the sins of our forebearers that we had absolutely nothing to do with in the first place...the Original Sin. He still was not God as God didn't just leave the Kingdom of Heaven unattended while he paraded around down here and hooked up with Mary Magdalene.

You are also arrogantly try to antagonize every other organized religion except for your own particular interpretation, yet you cry out about being persecuted. You started this thread sir with the specific intent of sparking this debate...if you can't take the heat, well then I guess you shouldn't have lit the fire. I'm sure you feel all self-righteous like the second coming for enduring it (Pride again) Though I seriously doubt even your model of Jesus went around purposely trying to piss everyone off.

I'm well familiar with your particular type of Christian. You sir, are not better than the rest of us despite how your tone obviously suggests you think you are. Even your religion has evolved over time as the bible was rewritten several times since it's first inception.

You don't want to accept the truth of the evidence put before you, fine. Go, enjoy your Pride and continue with your Idolatry. You see, my faith is that spiritually one can believe in God how they choose...it's their personal relationship, but if you hypocritically go against your own stated beliefs, well...no sin is greater than that of a Hypocrite and regardless of the ability for Forgiveness...most hypocrites commit their sins thinking they can just ask for forgiveness later. That's actually one of the main attractions of that type of Christianity...the "I can sin all I want!"

Lastly, Creationism is not Christianity...it's a cult of Christianity fitting every possible definition listed for a cult.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Dashdragon
 


Nicely said! Thank you.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 10:14 AM
link   
Hey Everyone,

This is my first post and I have been reading everyone’s threads for a few months. I am glad to see that there are people out there with an open mind.
There is no more proof that needs to be given to such a closed mined person as it’s rejected before it’s even consumed. I would like to say that this subject is very simple in my mind. I don't need to see evolution in its process to see the evidence of its order.
I will ask the reader if he has ever witnessed any new form of a species take place. Does that mean that mean it does not? We need to look at what we know and evolution is as close as we have to an understanding. It does not need a supreme being to set this into motion as the diverse universe could have caused that on its own. You could then say, “well who created the universe ". This again will lead to the understanding of what we know of how galaxies are formed. Is it all an illusion of our perception? Did a God create all we know? Are Aliens responsible for our existence? I feel that making those assumptions close are minds and prevent us from getting closer to the truth. I feel that our beliefs have no positive effect when they are used to create an argument or as a one way of life for all to follow. Religion and Evolution should not be in my opinion debated together. Religion is not science as you would have to discredit what we know to be false in order to have faith as living in a whales belly would indeed need divinity.
It is the purpose of one’s belief to create a relationship with their God or to find the truth of our existence in science in order to better our lives. We can better our lives through logic as neither science nor religion is even needed but should be used as a tool.
The earth travels around the sun, have you seen it otherwise to say it has not? Science has brought the truth on many levels and without it we would still be the center of the universe and worried about falling off the earth. Just as science has evolved so has religion and will continue to do so.
I would like to close in saying that I don’t understand why we need to try and discredit each other in our beliefs as though they are weapons or more than just beliefs. I will never tell someone they should not believe in there God. But I am entitled to my opinion of religion and am willing to share my views when asked in a positive way. Let’s not fall prey to those who don’t even follow their own beliefs and then disrupt others. They are not looking for answers but are trying to make themselves feel justified with their own beliefs by putting others down.




top topics



 
13
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join