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.
Originally posted by Orderamongchaos
The Influenza virus, providing a clear example of evolution every year for over 2000 years.
Originally posted by Masterjaden
I'm sorry, you're just wrong...
I don't even know what creationist websites state. I don't visit them.
The holes in much of science is clear with an historical analysis of their own published theories.
It would literally take volumes to illustrate those holes here.
I'm not going to.
You just keep on worshiping the god of Man and listening to the falsehoods he indoctrinates you with.
Or, you can look at the history of these theories and look at how the theories have evolved to see that they are all circular in argument and just not logical at all.
The only evolution is in the theories over time as they have been proven incorrect and modified to fit new information instead of being discarded as they should have.
Jaden
So, you don't have any evidence to combat evolution with, good to know. Someone gives you an intelligent answer to your misgivings and all you have left is "you're just wrong"? If you can't defend your own asenine beliefs, then you shouldn't have them.edit on 6-6-2012 by Orderamongchaos because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Barcs
Originally posted by ElohimJD
I am a scientist, I have studied a multitude of scientific material. Your tone is so revealing of your character, I have never known a truely intellegent person who is so quick to talk down to others intellect, that character is not a smart one.
What field of science do you study? Kent Hovind was technically a "scientist", but he was dead wrong on everything he's ever said about evolution. I'm not talking down to anybody, I'm defending science, which is constantly under attack by fundamentalists in this section. Your view of theories and laws in science are simply not correct, and when I see people misunderstanding the scientific method, I'm going to correct them. It's nothing personal. It's called denying ignorance, the purpose of this web site. Biogenesis is NOT a scientific law. It may have been originally proposed as one but it is not a law, today. Today, it is known as Recapitulation theory and is considered a disproven hypothesis.
en.wikipedia.org...
Biogenesis is the belief that living things come only from other living things, e.g. a spider lays eggs, which develop into spiders. It may also refer to biochemical processes of production in living organisms.
en.wikipedia.org...
The theory of recapitulation, also called the biogenetic law or embryological parallelism—and often expressed as "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny"—is a disproven biological hypothesis that in developing from embryo to adult, animals go through stages resembling or representing successive stages in the evolution of their remote ancestors.
"Life can only come from life." is an unproven, unfounded statement in science, and has absolutely NOTHING to do with evolution. You are getting into abiogenesis now, which deals with the origin of life. Evolution is a process of change over time, not how life began.
Originally posted by Lionhearte
Originally posted by Erectus
It is a fact that 1 in 2 adults never reach the final stage of cognitive development. They are incapable of reaching original conclusions. Instead they believe what their trusted institutions tell them. Such institutions include family, government, and church. This is not a belief, but is, unlike some things, empirically supported (that means there is actually evidence). This is a fine example of what is wrong with this nation. Half the population can't even think for themselves.
I agree with this statement - it's a shame 54% of America still believes in fairytales and clings to their Religion of Evolution.
Poor guys :\
"God said, ‘Let there be light,’ and there was light."
If you think of whitte light as a metaphor of infinite, formless potential, the colors on a slide or frame of film become a structured reality grounded in the polarity that comes about through intelligent subtraction from that absolute formless potential. It results from the limitation of the unlimited. I contend that this metaphor provides a comprehensible theory for the creation of a manifest reality (our universe) from the selective limitation of infinite potential (God)...
If there exists an absolute realm that consists of infinite potential out of which a created realm of polarity emerges, is there any sensible reason not to call this "God"? Or to put it frankly, if the Absolute is not God, what is it? For our purposes here, I will indentify the Absolute with God. More precisely I will call the Absolute the Godhead. Applying this new terminology to the optics analogy, we can conclude that our physical universe comes about when the Godhead selectively limits itself, taking on the role of Creator and manifesting a realm of space and time and, within that realm, filtering out some of its own infinite potential...
Viewed this way, the process of creation is the exact opposite of making something out of nothing. It is, on the contrary, a filtering process that makes something out of everything. Creation is not capricious or random addition; it is intelligent and selective subtraction. The implications of this are profound..
If the Absolute is the Godhead, and if creation is the process by which the Godhead filters out parts of its own infinite potential to manifest a physical reality that supports experience, then the stuff that is left over, the residue of this process, is our physical universe, and ourselves included. We are nothing less than a part or an extension of that Godhead - quite literally.
[What] would emerge would be an increased understanding that all of us are immersed, both as living and physical beings, in an overall interpenetrating and interdependant field in ecological balance with the cosmos as a whole, and that even the boundary lines between the physical and "metaphysical" would dissolve into a unitary viewpoint of the universe as a fluid, changing, energetic/informational cosmological unity."
Akasha (a . ka . sha) is a Sanskrit word meaning "ether": all-pervasive space. Originally signifying "radiation" or "brilliance", in Indian philosophy akasha was considered the first and most fundamental of the five elements - the others being vata (air), agni (fire), ap (water), and prithivi (earth). Akasha embraces the properties of all five elements: it is the womb from which everything we percieve with our senses has emerged and into which everything will ultimately re-descend. The Akashic Record (also called The Akashic Chronicle) is the enduring record of all that happens, and has ever happened, in space and time."
Originally posted by Morg234
reply to post by Osiris1953
Creation and evolution are both just theories, based on two completely irreconsiliable sets of evidence. Yet still, just theory.
Creationists need to be banned from this "Deny Ignorance" website. It is social trolling.
Originally posted by Misoir
As for South Korea, may I remind all those here who enjoy bashing us Creationists that the South Koreans are arguably the highest academic achievers in the world, especially in mathematics and science, along with the ethnic group holding the highest IQ level. To conclude they are ignorant truly represents the height of intellectual elitism. Funny how this intellectual elitism comes from the same group of people most commonly defending and advocating for equality.
Originally posted by theconspirator
It seems like everyone on here loves ron paul and the idea of liberty and freedom, but if you hear about someone beleiving in god, that goes out the window, and you all talk about how its dumb to beleive in that stuff. If someone beleives in god, why are you butt hurt. Why does it matter if religion is their freedom.
Originally posted by Masterjaden
I'm sorry, you're just wrong...
The holes in much of science is clear with an historical analysis of their own published theories.
It would literally take volumes to illustrate those holes here.
I'm not going to.
Science has nothing to do with people's personal beliefs. I personally don't mind if you belief in the giant space turtle creating everything. As long as you use that belief to make your life and others better, more power to you. I just absolutely get annoyed when people talk about science as if its some religion and isn't based on facts. If not for science, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.
You just keep on worshiping the god of Man and listening to the falsehoods he indoctrinates you with.
Or, you can look at the history of these theories and look at how the theories have evolved to see that they are all circular in argument and just not logical at all.
That last part about the theory of gravity versus the law of gravity makes me laugh... You don't even realize you made an argument AGAINST the theory of evolution there do you???
The theory of gravity states that gravity is caused by the mass of an object...
PLEASE check historical reference for gravitational theory and the motion of bodies.
ALL estimates for the composition of planets and their masses are based on the theory of gravity, INCLUDING OUR OWN and the relationship to mass. Formulae were created with this in mind and as the formulae were proven inaccurate over time, new numbers were plugged in to get the formulae to work for the variables. New compositions were established etc...
You are sure quick to call me wrong, and not back up a single thing you mentioned. No the theory of evolution does not include the hypothesis of abiogenesis, nor is any part of the physical process of evolution based on it.
Wrong again. Evolution as an observable phenomena is as you defined.
The THEORY of evolution includes abiogensis. It is separated as the theory of abiogenesis, but it is still a part of the theory of evolution at least as evolution is commonly referred to.
Originally posted by Tbrooks76
Evolution vs Creation….Dumb debate…
You all do realize it’s 100% speculation. None of us were there, no go good accountable records with details were taken so anything someone choses to believe about it is pure speculation based on what ‘facts’ the want to believe.
Originally posted by NewAgeMan
Just as I thought - completely ignored, while the thead rolls on for another 10 pages of absurdity and strong contemptuous bias, on either end of a spectrum of ignorance and stupidity.
edit on 6-6-2012 by NewAgeMan because: typo
Originally posted by Masterjaden
Evolution: defined as: Change over time to adapt to the environment.... That is true science. It can be observed and as you have pointed out, it HAS been observed...
Evolution: defined as" MASSIVE change over MASSIVE UNOBSERVABLE periods of time... That is where there is all kinds of problems and where it is ABSOLUTELY correct to say it is just a theory... It is NOT fact, it is NOT observable and it is asinine to make the huge leaps in logic necessary to state that it is anything other than a belief.