Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

why I hate evolution..

page: 21
11
<< 18  19  20    22 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 08:58 AM
link   
reply to post by john_bmth
 


You are ignoring my point.
How can you prove the legitimacy of human's senses without using any??
Too much to ask of science i think. lol.
I will reiterate my stand, i appreciate science but don't adhere to it always for my answers as i know there are some questions which it will not answer ever.
I am curious beyond science.




posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by deepankarm

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by deepankarm
 


The point is, those technologies work...while creationism has ZERO proof and often is demonstrably wrong. For example, we know for a FACT that the global flood never happened and we know people can't survive inside whales...yet there's billions of people believing in a book that states just that. That's CRAZY!!

Here's what I think:

You are a creationist, and to give your belief more credibility, you pretend that science is just as much a "guess" as your irrational non-backed-up faith. That's nuts, sorry!
You are just ignoring my point.
How can you prove those things work without using your senses??
And if you can't do that, then you are just a slave of your senses .
That's exactly what i want you to acknowledge.


Again, we are using technology to make up for the shortcomings of our senses. For example, we can't see radiation...yet we can measure it thanks to technology.

Your approach is basically "# it, anything's possible"...which of course is complete and utter nonsense.


Walk up to a doctor and tell him "your science is just as credible as religion xyz"...he's gonna burst out laughing



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by deepankarm
reply to post by john_bmth
 


You are ignoring my point.
How can you prove the legitimacy of human's senses without using any??
Too much to ask of science i think. lol.
I will reiterate my stand, i appreciate science but don't adhere to it always for my answers as i know there are some questions which it will not answer ever.
I am curious beyond science.


Nobody adheres to science, it's not a religion! It is a method of fact gathering and it works. It's not biased, religious or faith based. Science, very often, DOES answer the why. Sure it can't answer the ultimate WHY, as of yet, but why does there have to be a why and why do you think the why will never be found? That's nothing more than an appeal to ego, thinking there has to be a why. It's not just about using the 5 senses. It's about using your brain and critical thinking skills. If you can run a test and it yields a result that can be repeated numerous times and confirmed, it holds weight. It seems like your only argument is that the senses might not be real or reliable? Are your eyes reliable enough to read this text? Can your brain analyze it? If science was just guesswork, do you realize how unreliable most technology and medicine would be?

"Well sir, we think this anesthesia will knock you out for the surgery, but we're not sure. Just let us know if you wake up screaming in agony. Looks like this hook will the right tool to fix that hernia. That's my guess."
edit on 23-6-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 02:08 PM
link   
This thread is a good example of why objective evidence matters!



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tbrooks76
reply to post by milominderbinder
 


You know I hate biology, I really do. I'm a physical science type, love E=mc2, atoms, and theroical physics...but
I at least give Evolutionist creidt that they could produce a protein, RNA is but one amino acid in a protein.


LOL... Genetics IS ONE OF THE "PHYSICAL SCIENCES" given that bio-CHEMISTRY is part-and-parcel to it's study. Likewise...RNA is only an "amino acid" until it begins to self-organize and self-replicate at which time it forms....PROTEINS!!! Link: www.thefreedictionary.com...

Sorry dude...but science can now at will create "life" from "nothing" in a simulated primordial soup ANYTIME THEY DESIRE TO DO SO!!

For years scientists tried simulating various environments of the primordial earth in terms of temperature, atmospheric composition, water, mineral contents, etc...and failed each and every time. The new approach simply incorporates the presence of lightning.

That was the missing catalyst to knock a couple of those electrons from their exterior valence shells to sort of kickstart the recombination of the organic molecules.

If you're going to continue to argue for Creationism you are simply going to have to drop the whole argument that science can't explain or replicate how "life" came from "nothing". The debate on that is over and quite simply the Creationists were dead-wrong.

Sorry, man. That's the way that it is.



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs

Originally posted by deepankarm
reply to post by john_bmth
 


You are ignoring my point.
How can you prove the legitimacy of human's senses without using any??
Too much to ask of science i think. lol.
I will reiterate my stand, i appreciate science but don't adhere to it always for my answers as i know there are some questions which it will not answer ever.
I am curious beyond science.


Nobody adheres to science, it's not a religion! It is a method of fact gathering and it works. It's not biased, religious or faith based. Science, very often, DOES answer the why. Sure it can't answer the ultimate WHY, as of yet, but why does there have to be a why and why do you think the why will never be found? That's nothing more than an appeal to ego, thinking there has to be a why. It's not just about using the 5 senses. It's about using your brain and critical thinking skills. If you can run a test and it yields a result that can be repeated numerous times and confirmed, it holds weight. It seems like your only argument is that the senses might not be real or reliable? Are your eyes reliable enough to read this text? Can your brain analyze it? If science was just guesswork, do you realize how unreliable most technology and medicine would be?

"Well sir, we think this anesthesia will knock you out for the surgery, but we're not sure. Just let us know if you wake up screaming in agony. Looks like this hook will the right tool to fix that hernia. That's my guess."
edit on 23-6-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)
You guys are repeating the same arguments again and again.
Either you can't comprehend the scope of my question or you are dumb.
Mind and five external sensory organs, both come under the same group.
You didn't programmed any of them, yet you blindly believe everything they tell you.
Now plz tell me, which why questions does science answer??
And plz spare me with the meaning of science and how it works.
I know them probably better than you.



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 11:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by deepankarm
Now plz tell me, which why questions does science answer??
And plz spare me with the meaning of science and how it works.
I know them probably better than you.


The answer science can answer:
- Ask science about Why some kids born blind? And then ask god for the answer
- Ask science why children born with thousands of possible fatal conditions... and then ask god for the answer (karma, to test you, or other BS ).
- Ask why a tsunami killed thousands people in Japan, 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake etc... and then ask god for the answer...

Sorry but the answer from science is better than your god's version

Every single safe/secure measure we do these days like seat belt, building construction regulations, prenatal care and millions of others we don't ever think a second about are because of science. They didn't come from your god.

Science gives rational answers to the "whys" and "hows" of natural phenomena (human being included) and your god doesn't. This remind me about little kids asking whys and hows to parents that are ignorant about a subject, get angry, and just say "because I said so" and threat to spank the kid if he ask more.



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 12:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 





Nobody adheres to science, it's not a religion! It is a method of fact gathering and it works. It's not biased, religious or faith based.
You are just as fanatic as the religious ones. So you want to say, because science is the opposite of religion, it is the truth.



Science, very often, DOES answer the why. Sure it can't answer the ultimate WHY, as of yet, but why does there have to be a why and why do you think the why will never be found? That's nothing more than an appeal to ego, thinking there has to be a why.
You are ignorant. Science doesn't answer why. It creates why's.
Again you are being judgemental by saying that i am am egoistic in my point of view.
Am i being judged because i have different thoughts??


It's not just about using the 5 senses. It's about using your brain and critical thinking skills. If you can run a test and it yields a result that can be repeated numerous times and confirmed, it holds weight.
Now you are talking nonsense.
I have repeated several times that a lie after being repeated n times doesn't become truth.
The lie seems to be truth because you haven't got any way to experience the truth.



It seems like your only argument is that the senses might not be real or reliable? Are your eyes reliable enough to read this text? Can your brain analyze it? If science was just guesswork, do you realize how unreliable most technology and medicine would be?
If i make a program, i will try it to be as reliable as possible.
But does that program can tell you how reliable a person i am??



Well sir, we think this anesthesia will knock you out for the surgery, but we're not sure. Just let us know if you wake up screaming in agony. Looks like this hook will the right tool to fix that hernia. That's my guess."
I can't stop laughing at the stupidity of your example.



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 12:23 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Again, we are using technology to make up for the shortcomings of our senses. For example, we can't see radiation...yet we can measure it thanks to technology.
You are trolling.
I answered you in the previous post but you are ignoring the answer.




Your approach is basically "# it, anything's possible"...which of course is complete and utter nonsense.
I guess that is the motto of science.



Walk up to a doctor and tell him "your science is just as credible as religion xyz"...he's gonna burst out laughing
Yeah and i will too.
But on his idiocy. lol.



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 01:00 AM
link   
reply to post by blackcube
 





science about Why some kids born blind? And then ask god for the answer
And what about asking science why should eyes exist at all??
I have n number of why's to follow.
As for God, you won't believe his reasons as you want some hocus pocus which could be analyzed by your senses.





science why children born with thousands of possible fatal conditions... and then ask god for the answer (karma, to test you, or other BS ). - Ask why a tsunami killed thousands people in Japan, 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake etc... and then ask god for the answers.
I don't need answers from him about the destinies of others. Why should i??
What do i know about those souls??


Sorry but the answer from science is better than your god's version Every single safe/secure measure we do these days like seat belt, building construction regulations, prenatal care and millions of others we don't ever think a second about are because of science. They didn't come from your god. Science gives rational answers to the "whys" and "hows" of natural phenomena (human being included) and your god doesn't. This remind me about little kids asking whys and hows to parents that are ignorant about a subject, get angry, and just say "because I said so" and threat to spank the kid if he ask more.



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 01:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by CoherentlyConfused

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by Tbrooks76
 

Why I HATE STUPIDITY!


We all hate stupidity. But ignorance is not the same thing as stupidity because ignorance can be fixed. Like taking 30 seconds to learn the difference between regular and scientific theory.

Theory (regular): An idea linking facts to one another but based on speculation.


My theory is that anyone should be able to find a job after getting a degree.



Theory (scientific): A set of rules explaining observed phenomenon rooted in fact.



[align=center] Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity draws upon the principle that light has a speed limit. [/align]

I hate ignorance. Now your ignorance is fixed.
edit on 20-6-2012 by CoherentlyConfused because: funky code
edit on 20-6-2012 by CoherentlyConfused because: (no reason given)
So....You find me IGNORANT? That is especially funny to me since my post was a JOKE that you seem not capable of getting. LOL! Now there is STUPIDITY that I CANNOT HATE since I must admit I enjoy laughing! LOL! I am...of all people...Specific to understanding exceptions as well as UNIVERSAL REALITY as well as Chaos Mechanics dictate that NOTHING IS CAPABLE OF BEING FIXED as how it applies to your obvious Insult. But that is OK...because without people such as yourself...I would not have anyone to TEACH. Oh...and incidentally...you should recheck your data which you quoted on the Speed of Light which in normal Space travels at about 186,300 Miles per second...IN NORMAL SPACE. You have completely ignored Einstein's Exceptions to S.O.L. which he himself understood and yet also...did not. You see...Space/Time is expanding and just in the same way that if you are traveling in a car at 60 mph and throw a baseball at 60 mph forward over the removable top of the car...the baseball would be traveling at a speed of 120 mph...but even that is not true since if you trough it in the direction the Earth was spinning which is about 1000mph...then the ball would be traveling at 1120 per hour...and even that is not rue since the Earth is traveling around the Sun at about 65,000mph so if the car and the ball were in line with the Earth orbit of the Sun the baseball would be traveling at 66,120 mph but still then you have the Sun's orbit around the Galactic Core...our Galaxies Rate of Speed as it travels away from the Center Point of the Big Bang and then you have to take into account the increase of Galactic Velocity in which Dark Energy is increasing Galactic Velocity thus Universal Expansion EXPONENTIALLY! But then again...what do I KNOW? I am IGNORANT!

NOTHING IS FIXED....NOT EVEN YOUR STUPIDITY! Split Infinity



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 04:04 AM
link   
reply to post by deepankarm
 


Answer my questions, already. What are the answers that religions give and why are they all different? Come on, you've made the claim, now back it up with substance.



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 04:09 AM
link   
There's tons of theories all based on the 3d universe. Leaving out the other 7 dimensions and pretending as if none of those even exist.



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 06:16 AM
link   
So why do people believe and fight for evolution…well for a few reasons..
1. They have been convinced by what they think is good a science. They have been convinced by a book that was written years ago by a bunch of nomads...
2. They just blindly believe whatever the popular opinion is. They just blindly believe what they read in that book, even if it makes no sense whatsoever logically.
3. I can’t see God, so the logical explanation is evolution. I can't understand evolution, so the only logical explanation/alternative is God.....
4. They don’t like the alternative (God) so they use denial to continue to believe in the evolution. They don't like someone messing with their cosey little world of faith and order and "everything happening for a reason", so they use denial, ignorance and pure naievety to beleive in God .....

Seriously... your argument is ridiculous.... I hope I have shown that above...

How you can accuse scientists of "blind belief" is beyond me, and smacks of extreme ignorance not to mention ironic hypocrisy...

Do you really think we only believe in evolution because we "can't see god"... lolololol... really, is that all you got dude? That is the most ridiculous argument I think I have ever heard.... and I read Youtube comments sections... seriously, you're gonna have to do better than that....

Dou you really believe we only choose evolution and science because we "don't like God"... lolololol... really?? this shows complete ignorance to be honest... and looks to me like you are proposing "facts" to support your own little crazy theory.... remember, deny ignorance my friend.... embrace knowledge... please...

PA
edit on 25-6-2012 by PerfectAnomoly because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 07:13 AM
link   
I haven't posted on ATS in ages but sometimes I feel the need to point out the single point which 'creationists' - for lack of a better word - seem to miss when they claim that evolution cannot take place.

Dogs.

If evolution (or Genetic Variability for any pedants present) did not exist then it would have been impossible to breed dogs from wolves. Some of the dog breeds we have today are so far removed from a wolf, genetically, that they could not produce offspring and if they did manage it, it would be sterile. Dogs and wolves are not entirely different, but they are certainly not the same, just like a human is not entirely different from a chimpanzee.

I'm not here to start a flame war, nor am I going to participate in one if it arises but sometimes this point has to be made. Selective breeding in captivity has changed so much over the years in which we have been breeding dogs, and there is no reason why this could not happen in nature.

I personally believe that the creation of life was instigated by the big bang, or some equally ambiguous occurrence, and that everything after that was just chance taking effect in an infinite universe. As for what caused the big bang, it may have been god or it may have been an inanimate object somehow releasing massive amounts of energy, but I don't particularly care which one it is.



Roswell.



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by deepankarm
You are just as fanatic as the religious ones. So you want to say, because science is the opposite of religion, it is the truth.

No, I'm saying because its backed by objective evidence that it's true. I'm not saying it is absolutely 100% undeniable truth, but it's our best guess based on evidence, and it works.



You are ignorant. Science doesn't answer why. It creates why's.
Again you are being judgemental by saying that i am am egoistic in my point of view.
Am i being judged because i have different thoughts??

I don't recall judging you. I'm merely defending science here. But I'm ignorant because I understand WHY it works.

Why does the earth revolve around the sun? Why does the earth rotate on an axis? Why does the sun give off energy? Why do we see the northern lights? Why do we have thunderstorms? All of these are easily answered by science along with hundreds and thousands of other questions.


Now you are talking nonsense.
I have repeated several times that a lie after being repeated n times doesn't become truth.
The lie seems to be truth because you haven't got any way to experience the truth.

What lie? What nonsense am I talking? You tell me about repeating things, but yet you repeat all of your points and insult me in the process, without posting any evidence.



If i make a program, i will try it to be as reliable as possible.
But does that program can tell you how reliable a person i am??

What does that have to do with science or this conversation?




Well sir, we think this anesthesia will knock you out for the surgery, but we're not sure. Just let us know if you wake up screaming in agony. Looks like this hook will the right tool to fix that hernia. That's my guess."
I can't stop laughing at the stupidity of your example.

Well I tried to make it somewhat humerus, but your claim that science is either a religion or unreliable has no base in reality. We know that anesthesia will knock a patient out for x amount of hours based on their body mass and other factors. Science has determined this and if it wasn't accurate, it would not work and wouldn't be able to be reliably used in medicine. Very simple concept.

What do you have against science? Why do you think the brain is not reliable to observe repeated tested results that never change? It sounds like you are trying to make the argument that the universe is a computer program, and therefor everything we see is subjective. That may be possible, but it doesn't mean science is wrong. In this dimension we live in, science is a reliable way to gain facts and knowledge. Do you deny this? I'm not sure what exactly you are trying to argue about.
edit on 25-6-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by deepankarm
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Again, we are using technology to make up for the shortcomings of our senses. For example, we can't see radiation...yet we can measure it thanks to technology.
You are trolling.
I answered you in the previous post but you are ignoring the answer.




Your approach is basically "# it, anything's possible"...which of course is complete and utter nonsense.
I guess that is the motto of science.



Walk up to a doctor and tell him "your science is just as credible as religion xyz"...he's gonna burst out laughing
Yeah and i will too.
But on his idiocy. lol.


No you haven't given an answer...you simply pretend humans have only their senses to rely on, which is utter BULL#!!


By the way, are you saying religion is just as credible as a doctor doing heart surgery or saving someone's leg using science? You have to be kidding me



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by deepankarm
Hypocrite much??


Hyprocrite is using reliability of science at daily bases in your life and seconds later say "science is not reliable"

And if it see fits god's agenda you put the line "god make that possible, praise the lord". You obvious trolling.
edit on 25/6/12 by blackcube because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by blackcube

Originally posted by deepankarm
Hypocrite much??


Hyprocrite is using reliability of science at daily bases in your life and seconds later say "science is not reliable"

And if it see fits god's agenda you put the line "god make that possible, praise the lord". You obvious trolling.
edit on 25/6/12 by blackcube because: (no reason given)
I didn't say science isn't reliable but the instruments who make the science are unreliable.
There is a difference you see.



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 11:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by deepankarm
 


Answer my questions, already. What are the answers that religions give and why are they all different? Come on, you've made the claim, now back it up with substance.
Science also doesn't offer any answers of yours.
What it does is create questions.
Don't believe me??
Compare the number why's and how's of cavemen with the modern.
Moreover, science offers the answers of questions of the senses not yours.






top topics



 
11
<< 18  19  20    22 >>

log in

join