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.

 

why I hate evolution..

page: 12
11
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by KnawLick

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope

Originally posted by KnawLick
reply to post by LesMisanthrope
 


What is there to adapt to?.... The Bible says God created life. THATS IT


That's right, and you believe it because you're told to and you feel you have to. There's not a shred of inquiry whatsoever in believing that ancient assertion. If there were at least some observations or evidence of god, you might have something to prop up your theory, but until you do you are believing something someone told you to believe. Nothing more.



I understand what your saying.... But there is also not a shred of evidence to DISPROVE it either. I chose to believe God created all life, without any evidence.

You chose to believe God didn't create life and you can't prove your beliefs either... Whats the difference?


Did you personally theorize evolution? Have you gone to dig sights and personally studied the fossil records?

No... your believe what your science teacher told you.... So cast not the first stone sir.
edit on 19-6-2012 by KnawLick because: (no reason given)


The evidence I rely on is that I have never experienced anything that you call god. No scientist or any man of inquiry has either. I don't choose to believe God didn't create life, I am forced to by the overwhelming evidence against such a theory. If God showed himself, made himself noticed or answered a single prayer, I would be inclined to believe like you. If I ever come across one case of resurrection, one case of a virgin birth, one case of people walking on water, one case of talking bushes, one case of a healing touch and one case of angels, devils and talking snakes outside the confines of a book, I might start to doubt my own belief. But until that time I would be doing great injustice to myself if I immediately believed something because I was told to do so.

Why do you believe the bible? Because you read it and it sounded realistic? I doubt that.

Did I theorize evolution? No, I read the evidence and came to my own conclusion based on my own inquiry and critical thought. Is that so wrong? Have you ever read the Origins of Species? (you should, there's no dogma there, just observation) I have read it, and the old and new testament.

When the theory of evolution is changed, built upon, or completely discredited, I will look at the evidence and further refine my own beliefs based on my conclusions.

I don't cling to the foundations of my belief system. I destroy them and build anew. Its a case of constant upkeep. Why would I let someone incept a belief system and allow it to stand for my entire existence? If I did, it would because I was weak and fearful.




edit on 19-6-2012 by LesMisanthrope because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by LesMisanthrope
 


I respect your argument. Forgive me for just copying and pasting my response to the last gentleman but it was basically the same argument.

My point is the world is a complicated place. Right now every atom around us, and probably in us, is vibrating while in a quantum state. Allowing these atoms to be in more than one place at a time. This implies there could be infinite Me's in infinite universes that are all different.

Its not as simple as "oh i'm an evolutionist" "oh I'm a creationist" thats so simplistic and outdated. The truths that we will EVENTUALLY arrive on will blow the image of some dude on a cloud and a whacky scientist named Darwin out of the water.

Imagine if every universe has a different way it arrived at life? Let's not get ahead of ourselves with all these absolute statements.... There are shades of grey in life.

Who really cares if your an "evolutionist" or "creationist" those are no different than political parties or sports rivalries. Let's just see how it plays out before we start calling each other idiots.....



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tbrooks76

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by Tbrooks76
I see so many things I want to reply too, between you all posting too fast and work getting in the way, I haven't had time to post much today. The good news I might be going to holland for 6 weeks to work on some electricaly wind farms, I don't know when I leaving yet, but I'm sure I'll be missed here...lol

Ok, one question a few pages back was how did the fossils links posted disprove evolution....well if the fossils of "millions" of years ago are the same as animals today, where was the evolution, they are showing proof those animals didn't evolve as the theory....hypothesis prodicted.


If you read my reply you'd know that they are NOT the same


I missed what reply you are talking about, I looked back but didn't see anything about this, can you please point out the post.


The links you listed are all blatantly wrong! Take that crocodile example of theirs for example. They omit to mention a FACT that completely obliterates their entire argument. Those ancient crocodiles had DIFFERENT DNA! What does that mean? They couldn't mate with today's crocodiles! They're a different species...in fact, there were two different species back then. And their skeletons were different too...

Also, I have to ask: If you have a stroke, do you go see your mechanic or pastor? Because if you post obviously biased sources like "islamickorner" that equals seeing a pastor when having a stroke. Guess who knows most about fossils! The people who actually STUDIED the subject... palaeontologists!

I suggest you get your science information from people who actually studied the subject instead of pseudo-scientific nonsense sites who blatantly lie to you



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 03:44 PM
link   
"Evolution has a few supernatural events"

Da fuq is this #?



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by KnawLick
Its not as simple as "oh i'm an evolutionist" "oh I'm a creationist" thats so simplistic and outdated. The truths that we will EVENTUALLY arrive on will blow the image of some dude on a cloud and a whacky scientist named Darwin out of the water.

I'll bite.

Perhaps one day it will. That's how science works if new evidence is discovered. Perhaps one day we will know the full cause behind evolution. It still won't mean evolution will be wrong, it will just be part of something bigger. Nobody is denying that possibility. They are merely denying the silly invalid assumptions people are making about evolution itself while blatantly ignoring the science behind it. The "silly" half man half monkey thing has been found already.
edit on 19-6-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by KnawLick
reply to post by LesMisanthrope
 


Who really cares if your an "evolutionist" or "creationist" those are no different than political parties or sports rivalries. Let's just see how it plays out before we start calling each other idiots.....


You're right. I always presuppose that labels are ridiculous. People even go so far as to die for their labels.

I appreciate your civility and thanks for the discussion and brain excercise.



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Julio
"Evolution has a few supernatural events"

Da fuq is this #?




Magic can be found everywhere


I know...blasphemy!! But hear me out


In my opinion there's 2 options:

A) he/she/it has a sick sense of Southpark-like humor.

B) he/she/it really don't exist. Because if something like that really pissed off an all-powerful being, he/she/it would NOT let this happen in the first place.

If option A) is correct, he's probably cool with me posting that pic. If it's option B), I got nothing to worry about.

edit on 19-6-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 04:01 PM
link   



That's complete and utter nonsense...and a gross misinterpretation of Einstein's theory


Modern cosmology (and that includes Einstein and Hubble) state that there is no centre, and it just seems as if things in the distance move faster because of Hubble's law. So sure, you can consider earth the centre...but then you also have to believe the illusion you see in the desert is real water


LINK


You missing the point, your correct there is no center of the universe. All motion is relative to it's frame of reference, so if this is fact. Both the sun moves around the Earth, and Earth moves around the sun is true, however what is more closely your frame of reference the sun or earth? So techinally is more correct to say Sun revolves around the Earth, but in math and in terms of thinking its just easy to say the Earth revolves around the sun. Its not like we are teach people general relative in elementary schools, most grown up don't know it. And Further more if I were on the moon i could techinally say both the earth and sun revolve around the moon, and it would still be true.



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 04:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Tbrooks76
 

Please try and understand what science is before posting what seems to be no more than a desperate attempt to defend your ever decreasing faith in God in the face of an ever increasing amount of evidence that God is nothing more than a mythical creature. God is far more prevalent the more ignorant a society is about science and/or why things are as they are......go figure !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by Tbrooks76

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by Tbrooks76
I see so many things I want to reply too, between you all posting too fast and work getting in the way, I haven't had time to post much today. The good news I might be going to holland for 6 weeks to work on some electricaly wind farms, I don't know when I leaving yet, but I'm sure I'll be missed here...lol

Ok, one question a few pages back was how did the fossils links posted disprove evolution....well if the fossils of "millions" of years ago are the same as animals today, where was the evolution, they are showing proof those animals didn't evolve as the theory....hypothesis prodicted.


If you read my reply you'd know that they are NOT the same


I missed what reply you are talking about, I looked back but didn't see anything about this, can you please point out the post.


The links you listed are all blatantly wrong! Take that crocodile example of theirs for example. They omit to mention a FACT that completely obliterates their entire argument. Those ancient crocodiles had DIFFERENT DNA! What does that mean? They couldn't mate with today's crocodiles! They're a different species...in fact, there were two different species back then. And their skeletons were different too...

Also, I have to ask: If you have a stroke, do you go see your mechanic or pastor? Because if you post obviously biased sources like "islamickorner" that equals seeing a pastor when having a stroke. Guess who knows most about fossils! The people who actually STUDIED the subject... palaeontologists!

I suggest you get your science information from people who actually studied the subject instead of pseudo-scientific nonsense sites who blatantly lie to you


So when DNA is the same, 98% the same DNA as chimp, that supports evolution, but when DNA is different like in crocodiles it supports evolution. So similarities and differences both support evolution but we are not making observation fit a theory….make perfect sense now. DNA seem to prove what you want it to prove.
ok, so I guess the shrimp was completely different then shrimps of today....and yet you wonder why people like me question this reasoning.



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by yorkshirelad
reply to post by Tbrooks76
 

Please try and understand what science is before posting what seems to be no more than a desperate attempt to defend your ever decreasing faith in God in the face of an ever increasing amount of evidence that God is nothing more than a mythical creature. God is far more prevalent the more ignorant a society is about science and/or why things are as they are......go figure !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


I don't know which post your talking about, but the last one was about General Relitivty and what a frame of referecen is, and if you think that is incorrect go read up on General relitivity and the go look up to see were the center all motion in the universe is. BTW God has been proven to me, I'm not defending him, I'm hoping there are some people out there on the fence taking a look at some of this and getting some info hearing more than just one side of things.



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Tbrooks76
 


Genetics has sealed the coffin for creationism. You can argue all day long, but that "discusion" doesn't make you look very smart. FIrst I suggest you learn what it means to postulate a scientific theory. Once you understand that concept we can move on.



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 06:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Tbrooks76
 





Both the sun moves around the Earth, and Earth moves around the sun is true, however what is more closely your frame of reference the sun or earth?


That's not what Hubble's law states! At no point would you consider the sun moving around the earth



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Tbrooks76
 





So when DNA is the same, 98% the same DNA as chimp, that supports evolution, but when DNA is different like in crocodiles it supports evolution. So similarities and differences both support evolution but we are not making observation fit a theory….make perfect sense now. DNA seem to prove what you want it to prove.
ok, so I guess the shrimp was completely different then shrimps of today....and yet you wonder why people like me question this reasoning.



In both cases, chimp or croc, the same thing applies...they are DIFFERENT SPECIES. Google "common ancestry"



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Tbrooks76
 

All things considered, this post is a classic example of the total failure of public education. Not a clue.



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 07:33 PM
link   

edit on 19-6-2012 by AllIsOne because: clarity



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tbrooks76

I say evolution is bad science, and you reply with a moral debate.


Fortunately for the human race...the world at large doesn't really care what you say about the matter.



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 07:50 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


There is a bottomless pit when you talk to a creationist. I don't know if it's a mental block, or worse.

When Richard Dawkins talked to creationist Wendy Wright she kept saying that there are no "missing links". He corrected her and told her to visit a natural history museum with plenty of evidence for macro evolution. 30 seconds later she said there is no evidence for macro evolution. He politely told her to visit a natural history museum ... 2 minutes later she says there is no evidence for "missing links".

www.youtube.com...

I find it amazing that people who are supposed not to lie, do it continuously to justify a god who doesn't want you to lie ... Beats me

edit on 19-6-2012 by AllIsOne because: clarity



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tbrooks76

the big bang is required to any evolution model, and there is nothing to prove wrong, a theory requires evolution to prove right and this 1st step in the evolution theory that all life was came from an single cell organisms is improven


Please explain why a theory of cosmology and physics is part-and-parcel to a theory of biological diversity. Does Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs require the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus? Does Heliocentrism require Plate Techtonics?

The argument against Evolution is incoherent.



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by AllIsOne
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


There is a bottomless pit when you talk to a creationist. I don't know if it's a mental block, or worse.

When Richard Dawkins talked to creationist Wendy Wright she kept saying that there are no "missing links". He corrected her and told her to visit a natural history museum with plenty of evidence for macro evolution. 30 seconds later she said there is no evidence for macro evolution. He politely told her to visit a natural history museum ... 2 minutes later she says there is no evidence for "missing links".

www.youtube.com...

I find it amazing that people who are supposed not to lie, do it continuously to justify a god who doesn't want you to lie ... Beats me

edit on 19-6-2012 by AllIsOne because: clarity


I know...it's crazy. The fossil record contains TENS OF THOUSANDS of samples of intermediary or transitional species across the full spectrum of plants, animals, marine life, insects, fungi, and birds. In certain cases we have even decoded portions of these animals genomes and we can literally SEE the lineage in the mitochondrial DNA. One of the most compelling of these cases is the genetic evidence illustrating that chickens are descended from T. Rex.

...yet the argument always circles back to "there is no evidence of _______". In reality there is just a refusal to acknowledge or evaluate the evidence of __________".

It's just plain crazy.







 
11
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join