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: 16
11
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 07:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by PerfectAnomoly

Originally posted by iWantToBeelieve
reply to post by Tbrooks76
 


Lol @ all these blind people in here attacking you. They talk about a theory, as if it is fact. These evolutionists need to realize their evolution theory, is as far fetched as us believers in God. To base a belief on a theory, not facts, sound a little bit like religion, does it not? Evolutionists have created their own religion, and it has its own god, "science". These people.... lol. Somebody needs to switch on our junk DNA and fast, to save these retards.


God help us! (Irony)...

I also now officially give up with these threads.... ignorance is a powerful ally... downright blatant denial of facts is rife and I just can't compete with that....

PA

PA


Religion really is the opiate of the masses.




posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 08:11 AM
link   
reply to post by PieKeeper
 


if you didnt notice, these types of threads are up for debate, so now I don't need to get a biology book.

Thanks though.



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 08:13 AM
link   
reply to post by PerfectAnomoly
 


/All I can say to that, is there are many things similar in nature to our own structure. You know, I honestly believe Evolution could have happened, even being a christian, whos to say god didnt set the universe to work like that ya know, have ourselves evolve from the pure essence of the universe.



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 08:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by PieKeeper
reply to post by iWantToBeelieve
 


Read a biology textbook.

It shouldn't be our job to give every new poster a crash course in Evolutionary Theory.


Hey Pie, the textbook he'd use probably has a skull-and-crossbones sticker on it that says, "Warning! This book teaches evolution" or something just as stupid.



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 08:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by iWantToBeelieve
reply to post by PieKeeper
 


if you didnt notice, these types of threads are up for debate, so now I don't need to get a biology book.

Thanks though.


It helps when you're informed about the topic before entering a debate to begin with. It's suggested that you do your homework first, so that we're not holding your hand through the subject matter.
edit on 20-6-2012 by CoherentlyConfused because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 08:42 AM
link   
reply to post by CoherentlyConfused
 


Youre not holding anyones hand. Get off youre horse, you're no Carl Sagan. People talk on here as if they are the Gho'ul from stargate thinking they're gods. Such ignorance.



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 08:50 AM
link   
reply to post by iWantToBeelieve
 


The horse he is justifiably riding is named "logic"..... I've got a horse that I'm on as well, it's named "reason"..... maybe you should have a look at getting yourself a horse?

PA



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 09:02 AM
link   
reply to post by iWantToBeelieve
 

Theoretical science goes way over my head, I had one semester in biology, anthropology and geology in college. I hardly know anything.

BUT--I do know the basics about the theory of evolution and understand the facts it is based on. I also can comprehend the very basic understanding that so many seem to be missing, which is the difference between regular and scientific theory. This was taught to me in grade school science class. My horse is pretty low.


edit on 20-6-2012 by CoherentlyConfused because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by PieKeeper
reply to post by iWantToBeelieve
 


Read a biology textbook.

It shouldn't be our job to give every new poster a crash course in Evolutionary Theory.


Dude, he took biology in college for business admin. He clearly knows more than scientists about it.



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by iIuminaIi
reply to post by Anonymous404
 


Science is not irrational.Some models of science is irrational.You need to eliminate the models.

For example :

Theory of evolution


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


How does a post this bad get 3 stars? Are you guys really just starring every single post that is against evolution regardless of intelligence or rational discussion? Here's another guy that thinks he knows more than a scientist, yet won't back up his claims or point out the science behind modern synthesis that is faulty. You can't just repeat yourself over and over and hope it becomes true. Evolution is based on PEER REVIEWED facts. Denying this is like denying gravity or that the earth revolves around the sun (which the OP already did). You need facts behind your posts if you want anybody to take what you are saying seriously. All you guys do is make all religious people look bad.



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tbrooks76
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.


No, technically it is NOT correct to say the sun revolves around the earth. It does not. Look up the definition of revolve. The earth and all planets revolve around the sun. This is proven fact. The sun revolves around the center of the milkway galaxy, not the earth. The motion is not relative and not even open to interpretation. When you say something like this, it becomes painfully obvious that you don't even have a basic grasp on science.


edit on 20-6-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by AllIsOne
A few words to creationists.

As far as I know we don't know what caused inorganic chemistry to become organic. But once that step was done, the scientific model of evolution is able to explain what happened after that. The theory has stood the test of time mainly because it is based in causal logic. Simply said: one thing leads to another ...


I have witnessed the effects of micro-evolution in labs while studying science and I understand how a species adapts and alters their design based on environemental factors and therefore I understand that once life was created the Theory of Evolution provides a "most likely explination" based on "casual logic" for scientists.

But the truth about the design of all things may not be a "most likely scenario" based off of "casual logic" by observing the fact of genetic modifications, adaptation, mutations and speciation (scientifically).


An honest god forbids his followers to lie. If you truly believe in god's commandments you must seek the truth. If one keeps denying what is on display in most museums of natural history one is a liar, or blind to the truth. Both circumstances would make it difficult, theoretically speaking, to enter god's heaven. Please consider that when you keep denying what is evident.

You are correct in that no lie is of the truth and all men of God are commanded to not lie.

What is on display in museums are fossils found in the Earth that were brough to an Archeologist or a Historian and they determine the age based on carbon dating (sometimes) layer of the Earth found (sometimes) material it consists of (sometimes) or they begin to test it in preparation for a new theory regarding the finding.

It is usually assumed that history is solely a matter of collecting factual material, judiciously evaluating it, and recording it for posterity. This is not fully true. A historian is not a scribe, but a judge of the evidence that is brought before him. He is his own final authority. He is not judged by, but sits in judgment of, history. Whatever evidence does not conform to the commonly accepted beliefs of the age or community in which he lives he summarily rejects. History, in other words, is based only on that part of evidence which agrees with the prevailing opinions of the society in which a historian lives.

"The selection of sources still rests upon the discretion of the individual historian. What he chooses as relevant depends upon his conception of the period he is studying. In this the historian is limited by his own temperament and guided by the spirit of his age." So writes C. W. Ceram in Secret of the Hittites.

I understand this will not make a difference in how others see history, but to take what is displayed in a history museum by historians/archeologists that are forced through pressures recieved from the modern day scientific community to conform their findings with modern theories as FACT can lead to a misunderstanding of true history.


As a side note: many people used to think (and still think) that we have a "mind", or a "soul" that is in charge of our behaviour as a human being. Religion clearly states that there is an afterlife where our "souls" will go after death. Neuroscience has pretty much "debunked" that notion. The brain itself is capable of creating all the phenomena that we normally associate with a "soul". Maybe this is foretelling about the ultimate question of the origin of life ... ?

The truth of what happens after death in this age as written in scripture is that you die and your body returns to the Earth afterwards. Your mind (spirit) returns to God, but it has no life in it, you are not an immortal being. In God's time there will be a resurrrection to immortal spiritual life for 144,000 individuals that lived on Earth in the last 6000 years and died having learned to willingly obey God's laws in life.

After the 1000 year reign of Jesus Christ another ressurection phase will occur and many more will become immortal spirit beings (those that lived and died in the 1000 years); AFTER that event all of mankind that has ever lived or died (countless billions) will be ressurected to physical life a second time (unless already made immortal)! They will live a full life under God's rule with all the memories from this age with them (your mind is placed in a second physical body) and afterwards they will either become immortal spirit beings (learned to love God's laws) or they will cease to exist (die forever, never to return to life again) because they choose their own way of thinking rather then the way of Godly thinking.

This is what the Bible actually says occurs after death, traditional christians have much to learn about God's ways.

God Bless,



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by PerfectAnomoly
reply to post by iWantToBeelieve
 


The horse he is justifiably riding is named "logic"..... I've got a horse that I'm on as well, it's named "reason"..... maybe you should have a look at getting yourself a horse?

PA



This reminded me of one of my favorite scriptures...

You have your horse, I have my armor.

Helm of Wisdom
Breastplate of Righteousness
Boots of Peace
Leggings of Truth
Shield of Faith
Sword of the Word of God

I like your horse of reason and logic, but I must admit both of those qualities are subjective and only exist within the individual. What is reasonable and logical to one is irreasonable and illogical to others.

Anyway thanks,

God Bless,



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by iWantToBeelieve
reply to post by Anonymous404
 


another wannabe ANON, who does nothing yet makes claims as if they're ATS gods or something lol. I love this cute online culture. If you're a so called hacker, do something good for the world, get evidence. Don't complain on stupid conspiracy theory websites like us losers, makes you a loser just like us, if not an even bigger one!


And if you knew anything about Anonymous, you'd know we are just like you. We are most of you. There are more of us than you think, and this is a very off topic personal attack.

Complain? I've done nothing of the sort here. Claim to be a god? You said it, not me.



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 11:19 AM
link   
Years ago, science though v=ma was so strong of a theory it became law. In 1905 - 1915 Einstein published his paper on relativity which challenged these laws of motion and it took almost another 15 years or so before it was widely accepted. Popular opinion is always a strong opposition to the truth, and popular opinion’s best weapon is denial. That was almost 15 years of the information being right there, and was not accepted. Evolution is no different than v=ma there is it’s some good science mixed in with allot bad and it’s muddy the waters to allow people to see I different perspective. It’s a lot of assumptions being pasted off as fact and any opposition is considered the enemy of science.

It’s been so engraved in you from time you were a kid dinosaurs where here 3 billion years ago that it’s assumed a fact without questioning it, and any opposing view seems ridiculous. And yet, the information is right there but denial kicks in and it cannot be accepted and the excuses roll out. We have 100s of text accounts and drawings from all cultures of our ancestor saying dragon (a.k.a. dinosaurs) were there, and this is attributed to an over activities imagination, which is truly remarkable we consider that our ancestor in China had the same imagination as those a continent away. Human fossils were found in similar layers as dinosaurs, but denial once again saves the day and says we can’t have that so they had to be ancient miners. Hummm….Apparently cavemen around the world were excavating dinosaurs for warship which explains both these fossils, drawings, and text accounts for them. I guess when the denial is strong enough you can create any excuses.

I posted 4 pages of fossils that appear the same “millions” of years ago as the animals do today, thus they didn’t evolve. Denial kicks in, and the reply I get is they tested the DNA and it’s of a different spices, this is remarkable, consider you can only get DNA from fossils that still have soft tissue intact, and even then it so degraded its almost useless. These were impression type fossils not soft tissue bones. Not to mention me and a chimp is related based off DNA because we are 98% similar, yet fossil of a crocodile can’t be related to a crocodile because the DNA is different. So not only can you not get the DNA but assuming they did, similar DNA equals diversity (chimp = man) while different DNA equals similarity (crocodile = crocodile). Amazing that two different blueprint (DNA) can build the same thing (crocodile). DNA can prove commonalty which a creationist would not disagree with, but can’t and has not proven that a few tiny little changes over a millions of years can add up to a person.

It hasn’t even proven that tiny little change has added any new information into the gene pool. But here come denial again and one such evidence proved was bacteria. Evolutionist told us bacteria evolve an immunity, creationist said nope it had the immunity already there your just killing off the one without it. But Evolutionist denied this until some other evolutionist owned up to it and said there no way bacteria can evolve this fast, which is a fact, but it’s still popular belief those bacteria evolved an immunity.

I didn’t even get into the flood because some creationist have made bad claims about it, like water can flow up hill in the grand canyon, that is an incorrect statement, but that aside there is over welling evidence for a massive flood. I bet many of you didn’t know that even some non-Christian geologist is considering a more rapid formation for the Grand Canyon based on flooding, not one worldwide flood but many small floods. Obviously denial prevents one lager flood so let’s use a bunch of smaller floods, other evidence is ignored. I could go on and on, and continue to post evidence but there is not point. The denial is too strong and there no amount of evidence you’re going see when your eyes are closed. You might think God is a myth, but evolutionist are masters at pulling rabbits out of hat.

I stand behind my so called voodoo science and the post that started this thread, Evolution is just bad science, anything like the big-bang, laws of mass conservation, chemical evolution, life creating itself that can’t be explain or proven is omitted from the theory, any evidence that can contradicts the concepts is denied, and observations are manipulated to fit the theory.

In 1905 you would be the same group standing outside some university hold up signs saying “V=MA !!!” today the sign reads “Evolution!!!”



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 11:24 AM
link   
Scientists don't turn theories into law. Scientific theories explain why/how something happens, Laws only explain that it happens.

Newtons Laws, for example, don't state how it works, just that it works with a formula and observable evidence.



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Anonymous404
 


what a law is...
chemistry.about.com...



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Tbrooks76
 


That's where I got my definition from as well.



A law generalizes a body of observations. At the time it is made, no exceptions have been found to a law. Scientific laws explain things, but they do not describe them. One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain 'why'.


Theories explain Why.
edit on 6/20/2012 by Anonymous404 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Tbrooks76
 


Theories and laws are fundamentally different. Theories do not become laws. A scientific theory is actually more comprehensile than a scientific law anyway. If you're going to attack science, at least try and get the terminology right.
edit on 20-6-2012 by john_bmth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 12:02 PM
link   
And they're not going to change centuries old terminology because deniers don't understand the definitions.

These have been in use for a very long time and still serve a very real purpose to this day.




top topics



 
11
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join