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.

 

Evolution Now Dead. 30 Papers Suggest DNA is Encoded Intelligently

page: 25
41
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Well your opinion is greatly appreciated.
Showing you don’t understand what an opinion is.


If I have been spoon fed then you have been getting in IV drip and still failing. No one has ever presented credible evidence or proof about evoution.
Like I said, all you have is denial


And if you have and I'm wrong, then I want to know how you have single handedly proven evoution because scientists are having one hell of a time doing so right now.
Like I said, DENIAL is all you ever have.


I guess we are back to the repeat game again, do I really need to post the definition of creator again?...
Yep it is the repeat game. Google front page again.


1.A person or thing that brings something into existence
Evolution is not a person and brings nothing into existence. It is a word that describes a process.


2.Used as a name for God
Evolution is not a god. So for a second time in as many pages your definition fails that makes YOU WRONG as usual


However I do think its pretty funny that you think your going to be able to call something that has supposedly created over a billion species, not a creator.
And I find it a little sad that you cannot grasp such a fundamental concept even when you are spoon fed the information. Tragic


Even if a machine made all this life, based on the definition even the machine could be called a creator.
Evolution did not make life. It is a word that describes a process.


Again, if your sister face slapped you a billion times, and claims it was all an accident, you would believe her.
Again do you believe face slapping has anything to do with evolution?


I understand you personally view it as just a process,

It is not a personal view, it is a fact.

Then where are all the facts? I'm still waiting to hear about the plethora of new species that have emerged from evolution.
You cannot help yourself can you. Please reply to my response or move on.


We should see mostly species with little to no difference, and we don't.
Don’t we? Do you know how many species there are of ants, frogs, finches? You really have no idea and no contact with the world you live in.


I understand your belief, I'm asking for something solid, how does colin know for a fact that a creator is not behind the workings of evolution.
Evidence something you deny when challenged with it. Go read all the post you denied then come back


I don't recall any of that information disproving the idea of a creator backing the process.
You claimed the process is the creator not a creator backed the process so again you are moving the goalposts. I have never written anything about creation as there is no evidence either way. Evolution is a word that describes a process after the creation/beginning of life, whatever caused it


From all of the tidbits that evolution is said to claim, from natural selection to adaptation, microevolution and macroevolution, and creation of new species, it appear that the largest of them all is the creation of new species. It's a creator for sure.
Nope. It’s a word that describes a process.


The only misdirection is in your abense of the understanding of the definition. Anything that creates over a billion species is called a creator no matter how you slice it. It doesn't matter if this process just poops out life, your not going to call it a pooper, its still a creator.
Are you sure you are a borderline genius as you show quite the reverse. Evolution is a word that describes a process. That process explains that by small changes over time one species evolves and diversifies. Nothing is created.


Calling it a process was just a way to misdirect people into believing that it's something else.
No it really is a process


You still never explained how something that can create over a billion species species is not a creator.
Evolution is a word that describes a process. That process explains that by small changes over time one species evolves and diversifies. Nothing is created.




posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Again you display a tragic level of self delusion.

I'm sorry but your claims and opinions don't prove me wrong.
Quite agree but all the evidence that has been spoon fed you by many posters, me included does prove you wrong and you should be sorry for the level of ignorance you have maintained


Target food has plenty of proof, we also have plenty of proof that we were dumped here, and our DNA is hacked up to prove the punisments laid on us from god.
Then it should be no problem for you to supply that proof. Do that.


Never claimed animals randomly choose food. Again you display a complete disconnect with the language you use

Well they either do or they don't, and you never agreed with me. And when I would pose you with the question about proving how they decide, you were never able to explain an acceptable understanding of how you think it works.
I and others went to great pains to show you with evidence how it works and you just flat out denied it with a on line denial and no supporting evidence. Go back and read that. You dont want to play the repeat game remember.


Spoon fed me evidence, right dude, you mean like the time you sent me that video of an ape roasting marshmallows, you were convinced he was almost human.
Again a lie. You said if I could show you an ape cooking you would accept our common ancestor. I did and you went back on your word. I never made one claim that the ape was almost human.


Then I had to break the news to you that someone taught him how to do that?
Someone has to teach another how to cook. So what do you think you have proved other than your word means nothing and that you fabricate lies to support your fantasies


Come on man, there is no evidence about evolution, if there was, you and I wouldn't be having this conversation.
There is nothing on the TV there is no other reason to talk to the likes of you.


Hey don't kill the messenger, I'm just going by the definition, you know the one you choose to ignore by pretending that it won't populate in your browser even though I ex-text it for you too.
Read my last reply to your last un sourced attempt.


We even went round and round about the acceptance of this definition and ALL but one other on the internet all agree that if humankind caused or made it, its not natural.
Again you lie


Now common sense would tell you that anything unatural would be caused or made my humankind.
Unnatural is something outside nature. We are not and that makes you wrong


That would be because you live in BFE and you talk funny, and thats not my problem.
Nope. That is because if you were to put 'in the wild' in context your argument failed.


Does the long link I'm providing really look like it goes to google front page? It's because your in a different country and google is sensitive to area status.
Then find another source to quote from


I have produced mountains of proof that prove beyond a doubt that we aren't from here. The only thing you have offered me is thing you call a process.
D
E
L
U
D
E
D



posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Showing you don’t understand what an opinion is.
Of course I do, its pretty much all you have shared, because I haven't seen any convincing thing you call proof. If you think macroevolution is proof your wrong.




Like I said, all you have is denial
Macroevolution has never been witnessed or proven.




Like I said, DENIAL is all you ever have.


I guess we are back to the repeat game again, do I really need to post the definition of creator again?...

Yep it is the repeat game. Google front page again.
It works fine for me, and you also are the only one complaining, ever stop to think that its possibly you?




Evolution is not a person and brings nothing into existence. It is a word that describes a process.
You already lost that argument, you failed to produce anything that proves evolution has any involvment with a creator. You could argue your points by saying that its written with the intent of persueding people into believing that a creator didn't take part in this but your not even doing that. It's one thing to claim evolution is something that its not, which you have been doing all along with no proof, but not having that proof should also tell you that you can't even say what evolution is not. You know nothing about it, and have no proof tied to it. It's a blind belief.




Evolution is not a god. So for a second time in as many pages your definition fails that makes YOU WRONG as usual
Probably not, but you obviously missed my point, I was saying you don't have any proof that a creator wasn't behind the overall workings of evolution.




And I find it a little sad that you cannot grasp such a fundamental concept even when you are spoon fed the information. Tragic
Ya please share with us all how it is you can create over a billion different species and no call it a creator?




Evolution did not make life. It is a word that describes a process.
You say toemato, I say tomato, its all the same. So this so called unproven process made new species, not the word evolution. Either way you slice it, it is making new life. Just because your views don't show intent, doesn't mean there isn't intent behind it. Either way you lack proof because nothing is known or has been proven about this aleged process.. You can see it, you cant touch it, you can't identify it, you can't reproduce it, you can't even identify it when it supposedly happens. Again you don't know dick.




Again do you believe face slapping has anything to do with evolution?
Come on man, over a billion species without intent, ya sure.




You cannot help yourself can you. Please reply to my response or move on.
I think you need to re-evaluate your religion.




Don’t we? Do you know how many species there are of ants, frogs, finches? You really have no idea and no contact with the world you live in.
True but I'm talking about the large gaps there are between all the other species here on earth. The gaps of evolution.




Evidence something you deny when challenged with it. Go read all the post you denied then come back
If I didn't believe them then, I probabaly still wont.




You claimed the process is the creator not a creator backed the process so again you are moving the goalposts. I have never written anything about creation as there is no evidence either way. Evolution is a word that describes a process after the creation/beginning of life, whatever caused it
Nope, I'm saying both, anything that creates over a billion new species is obviously a creator by any term. I'm also saying that you have no proof that a creator might be behind the workings of evolution, its seems to be pretty intelligent, I mean after all, it creates new life with no creator, it changes DNA. It leaves no trace elements for us to verify how the changes were made, and it also programs all life with a direction on what food to eat, in addition to making sure that the food is avaialble. In addition evolution is supposedly responsible for how we interact with other species and with themselves. These symbiotic relationships can't be accidential and if you think otherwise you are seriously brain dead.




Nope. It’s a word that describes a process.
But that process still describes a creator, are you honeslty that blind.




Are you sure you are a borderline genius as you show quite the reverse. Evolution is a word that describes a process. That process explains that by small changes over time one species evolves and diversifies. Nothing is created.
The only thing that proves that wrong is intent, you claim there is none, but you can't prove that. I'm saying wi



posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 05:24 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Are you sure you are a borderline genius as you show quite the reverse. Evolution is a word that describes a process. That process explains that by small changes over time one species evolves and diversifies. Nothing is created.
I'm saying with over a billion species, its obvious there is intent. Do you honestly think something that has happened over a billion times is without intent?




No it really is a process
Thats just an attempt to remove the idea of a god type of creator, but you failed, anything that creates over a billion species has intent, and if you think otherwise, then prove there is no creator behind it.




Evolution is a word that describes a process. That process explains that by small changes over time one species evolves and diversifies. Nothing is created.
Everytime a new species emerges, that is a new creation, again your just ignoring the idea that there is intent behind it, but with over a billion species its sort of obvious.




Quite agree but all the evidence that has been spoon fed you by many posters, me included does prove you wrong and you should be sorry for the level of ignorance you have maintained
The only thing you have proven wrong is yourself. Target food grew to full phase detail and sticks to this day. But I'll bet you would say its not real even though its been proven over and over. There is intent with the choices in our food. There is no way you can believe we are just suppose to eat what ever in the heck we want and compramise our health, that goes against the grain of survival.




Then it should be no problem for you to supply that proof. Do that.
Abalone proves target food, and the squirrel diet in wiki proves phase one and phase two of hunger.




I and others went to great pains to show you with evidence how it works and you just flat out denied it with a on line denial and no supporting evidence. Go back and read that. You dont want to play the repeat game remember.
If you want me to buy into your false fantasy quit sending me information that clearly tells me its a fantasy
.




Again a lie. You said if I could show you an ape cooking you would accept our common ancestor. I did and you went back on your word. I never made one claim that the ape was almost human.
Thats because rather than prove your false theory, or disproveing mine, you are more concearned about proving me wrong. You lost direction. I could care less about proving you wrong, even though target food does that all by itself.




Someone has to teach another how to cook. So what do you think you have proved other than your word means nothing and that you fabricate lies to support your fantasies
An ape roasting marshmallows on a stick is hardly the same as cooking, but there you go again stretching the truth to try to make it fit your fantasy. You also failed because it was obvious that someone had taught him how to do it, do you honestly think he taught himself to make a fire and roast marshmallows? Thats deluded.




Unnatural is something outside nature. We are not and that makes you wrong
I see, so humans are natural, its just that all the things we make or make happen aren't. As you can see that makes no sense.




Nope. That is because if you were to put 'in the wild' in context your argument failed.
And I'm suppose to believe this from a guy that honestly thinks that bread is not man made.




Then find another source to quote from
I quoted 6 or 7 at one point to prove you wrong and they all said the same thing, your wrong.




D E L U D E D
If your advertising for yourself, I agree, the laughter helps understand just how bad it is too.



posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 
Your childish beatings above this ignored.


You already lost that argument, you failed to produce anything that proves evolution has any involvment with a creator.
You really cannot help playing the fool can you. Why would I prove evolution has an involvement with a creator?

You again demonstrate you have no ability to understand what you read.

Evolution is a word that describes a process and even though this is way beyond your grasp your ridiculous answers change nothing. Lost the argument? You have not got the intelligence to make an argument.


Probably not, but you obviously missed my point, I was saying you don't have any proof that a creator wasn't behind the overall workings of evolution.
Nope it was not your point to make it was in reply to your definition and it fails in both parts and you make up this silliness because you know you are wrong but insist on the same denial you always employ.


Ya please share with us all how it is you can create over a billion different species and no call it a creator?
Already have and you do not have the nonce to understand.

The rest of your boring unintelligent and poorly made scribbling is not worth the time to reply.



edit on 3-11-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



I'm saying with over a billion species, its obvious there is intent. Do you honestly think something that has happened over a billion times is without intent?
You provide no proof. Show proof of intent.


Thats just an attempt to remove the idea of a god type of creator, but you failed, anything that creates over a billion species has intent, and if you think otherwise, then prove there is no creator behind it.
You cannot remove what is not there. Evolution is a word it creates nothing


Everytime a new species emerges, that is a new creation, again your just ignoring the idea that there is intent behind it, but with over a billion species its sort of obvious.
Every time you write that nonsense you show what a deluded child you are. You demonstrate no grasp of English and no understanding of evolution. You are really starting to bore me

You are dismissed. Go bore someone else with your tiresome ignorance



posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





You really cannot help playing the fool can you. Why would I prove evolution has an involvement with a creator?

You again demonstrate you have no ability to understand what you read.

Evolution is a word that describes a process and even though this is way beyond your grasp your ridiculous answers change nothing. Lost the argument? You have not got the intelligence to make an argument
Complicated processes, that are obviously backed by intelligence. Processes don't just happen by accident you know.
Someone had to sit down and plan out how that process was going to work, much like how someone had to sit down and figure out after the fact how it works. Something that is backed with so much intelligence including the creation of new life, is more then obvious that its backed by a creator of some sort.




You really cannot help playing the fool can you. Why would I prove evolution has an involvement with a creator?

You again demonstrate you have no ability to understand what you read.

Evolution is a word that describes a process and even though this is way beyond your grasp your ridiculous answers change nothing. Lost the argument? You have not got the intelligence to make an argument
This seems to be more your deluded version of the definition. In all its a creator that is being re-explained as a process to try and remove the physical presence of the person. Your wrong because not only is there intent in everything around us, but everything is backed by intelligence that evolution isn't even able to explain, like the theory of target food. It's evident from looking at over 100 diets that there is an obvious pattern. The first is that there seems to be some type of direction or guidance toward specific food. This was proven based on the fact that some species have a very limited selection of foods, and from what we can tell are very healthy. The 1st phase of hunger was confirmed by many species being catagorized by an entire food group, its as though they are striving to locate their target food and end up eating most things in that group as a replacment. Second phase was confirmed by the wiki on squirrels, because it first explains a phase on diet, then gives an alternate phase when the food is no longer available. Because its explained in detail, the species picks up additional food groups from phase two.




Nope it was not your point to make it was in reply to your definition and it fails in both parts and you make up this silliness because you know you are wrong but insist on the same denial you always employ.
There is just a little bit to much intelligence involved in your idea of evolution for it to not be backed by a creator. I can understand you being blind to something creating over a billion species not being a creator, but when you have intelligence in programming for the process of evolution and you have intelligence in the programming for target food and you have intelligence in the changes made to our DNA, its just a little to obvious that there is to much intelligence involved for there not to be a creator involved.




Already have and you do not have the nonce to understand.

The rest of your boring unintelligent and poorly made scribbling is not worth the time to reply.
I notice you avoid this question like the plague, and all you can say is that it's not a creator, its a process, it sounds more like your process is a creator. I don't blame you for running and hiding on this point, it is pretty obvious there is a creator somewhere in there.




You provide no proof. Show proof of intent.
One word that explains intent "billion" thats all you need. Thats not ony intent, its a hell of a lot of intent.




You cannot remove what is not there. Evolution is a word it creates nothing
I'm simply calling a spade a spade. It creates new life, therefore it is by all definition a creator. Now it might not be a man in a robe as most people imagine, and I'm not even going there, all I'm saying is that it creates new life therefore it is a creator.




Every time you write that nonsense you show what a deluded child you are. You demonstrate no grasp of English and no understanding of evolution. You are really starting to bore me

You are dismissed. Go bore someone else with your tiresome ignorance
You were obviously taught wrong, I'll clear it up for you, anything that creates over a billion species is a creator.



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 02:02 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 
You wasted your time as I am not reading anymore of your tripe.

Very little sinks in with you does it. Do you really not understand you have been dismissed



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 04:24 AM
link   
This is my first post on ATS, and I hope I'm not repeating anything that was already said in this topic (25 pages is a lot to read through!) but here goes: I don't think the study of evolution will prove or disprove God, no more than the birth of a baby - from conception to gestation to the baby's first cry - proves or disproves God. For the religious the development of a baby clearly demonstrates God's miraculous work; for the secular it demonstrates the coherence and intelligibility of Nature.

Some people see Nature as self-forming, some people see Nature as formed by a superior force or being. If you believe in God then God is seen in Nature. If you don't believe in God, then Nature is seen in Nature.

If anything should have proved God it should be the formation of proteins by DNA - for it is a process that turns code into 3 dimensional objects. And it's so simple - so ingenious. DNA manipulates amino acids. Amino acids have positive and negative charges, so putting 2 amino acids together means they will be attracted together ( -- ) or repelled apart ( -| ). In this way proteins take shape - code is made real. Thought becomes real.

It's amazing stuff - but it does not prove God. Why? Because what we are looking at is Nature and for some people that only proves the awesomeness of Nature.

It's like trying to prove Sashquash (Big Foot) by pointing out footprints in the snow and broken twigs. It won't prove Big Foot. The only way to prove Big Foot is to bring him into the village square in the noon day sun, give him a cup of tea and let the villagers have a look at him.

Presenting God, showing God, naming God will prove God. Do I think that's possible? Absolutely.



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Budapest
 


I was pretty convinced that flagellum proves a creator. I have still been waiting for an answer from all of these evolutionists to please explain to me how sprockets and gears can evolve



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Budapest
 


I was pretty convinced that flagellum proves a creator. I have still been waiting for an answer from all of these evolutionists to please explain to me how sprockets and gears can evolve.


I don't think anyone will tell you. Certainly not from information provided in the current evolutionary theory of arbitrary mutation - or rather arbitrary chemical collisions in pre-cells.

Do you think God could evolve life? I don't mean the way evolution is explained now - small mutations over vast periods of time - but in a different way, a way that makes more sense. The current explanation is called 'Naturalism' but it's got nothing to do with Nature. Nature develops life through ingenious systems - self-perpetuating, self-regulating and self-renewing systems that we don't need to know about for them to work, e.g. a child grows into an adult whether he expects it or not. Nature seems to grow all life through systems that do not need the approval or the knowledge of the organism to work. We see these complex systems at a planetary level all around us and now we see it at a molecular level - stunning systems.

But a hundred years ago science thought the cell was a sack of a few chemicals in jelly. The cell was seen as a the simplest component in an organism - the brick that builds the Taj Mahal of the body. Now we know the cell is more complex than any of the organs it builds, more complex than the body as a whole - in other words, the Taj Mahal must be contained in the brick for the body to have life.

I truly believe evolution is like that too - a system that makes sense, in which we can see the hand of God, because it will be so ingenious.



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Budapest
 





I don't think anyone will tell you. Certainly not from information provided in the current evolutionary theory of arbitrary mutation - or rather arbitrary chemical collisions in pre-cells.
I agree, there is actually a lot that evolution fails to expalin. Recently I coined a term called "Target food." It's the observed event that species actually have a pre-determined menu. Usually on the order of 1 to 3 things providing their target food is avaiable. We know this because it appears that the choice of food is never a personal decision amongst species. We know that because they are never found to test things like rock and dirt unless they are starving of course. Stranger yet is how all units witin a species choose the same food. It's as though they are being directed or guided somehow.

You can't say its personal choice as they are all making the same choice. After target food is no longer an option, you will see a species start to eat just about everything in that missing food group, its as though they are searching for the target food. This is phase one of hunger. Phase two they actually pick up a new food group and start eating many things from this new group as well. A good example of this is the diet of the squirrel. He's an herbavore but when he but off season he goes hungry he picks up a new food group where he is eating rodents, snakes and insects. Phase 3 is starvation eating rocks and dirt or possibly poo or anything they can get ahold of.

Remember that these rules do no apply to domesticated pets as we determine what they eat.
In order for a species to be preprogrammed with knowing what they are suppose to eat, there would have to be intelligence beforehand that had a prior knowledge of that food to begin with, it does seem to add more relavance of there being a creator. Evolution has never explained this intelligent connection between species and food, so it has obviously failed.

Now if you look at the humans diet, we eat everything in sight, and have even made our own food groups. This is obviously a clear sign that we are far from our target food. It would be consistant with what the bible claims as well. We were granted many things, every herb from every plant, every animal, of course these all came from other planets. What was also clear is that none of the things given to us came from our home, which means that none of the food we eat was intended for us. What a coincedence, we appear to have no target food.

It's even apparent in us not having a source for calcium. Cows milk is not a natural supplement as it wasn't meant for human consumption and it has to be processed to be made safe. We need 1000 mg per day to stay healthy. Fruits and veggies just wont cut it and you would have to gorge yourself on this to hit 1000 mg. The highest thing on the list is Sardines, but you will need 5.4 servings, or a lb a day to meet your RDA. The only thing that tops all of this is seaweed, ranking in at 7 to 14 times higher, but still gets processed, than cows milk, where you might need about 4 servings a day of milk.

So as you can see, we seem to be missing a calcium supplement, thats sort of a problem.



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Brilliant.



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by flyingfish
 





After being schooled with hundreds of pages of information you still tow the ignorant line?...Shame on you.

You know- Evolution does not work that way. A species doesn't just suddenly become another species that would make the phylogeny of the new species paraphyletic if that actually happened it would prove evolution wrong
Of course not, it happens over time, but we never seem to be present when any of the slight changes occur for us to witness them. It's just a crock, evolutionists had to come up with a reason why they couldn't prove it.

They aren't able to prove evolution occured, aside from claiming that changes are from evolution.
They aren't able to identify what it is that makes the changes.
They aren't able to predict if the changes will occur or not.
They aren't able to identify anything that could tie evolution to the event, its just a crock.

Target food proves intelligent programming on the other hand.
It's witnessed in the events that unfold when a species is faced with deciding whats to eat.
There is no mystery unknowns with target food like there is with evolution.
Target food is predictable, and falsifiable, its also verifiable with any diet that you research that shows eating changes.


If you want to take on the scientific consensus, then you have to do so on its own terms.
That means empirical data not your opinion.Your opinions are not evidence it has no connection to the real world and is not scientific. Only evidence counts.
Real scientific evidence isn't something you can take or leave. Real scientific evidence is replicable and available to everyone.
You have proven that you are not able or willing to deal with science, it's methods or its results. You use the typical creationist tactics of ignoring, denying, or misrepresenting any evidence that contradicts your beliefs.
My advice... you should leave science alone as you have no talent or inclination for it.



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Budapest
 


Thank you.



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by flyingfish
 





If you want to take on the scientific consensus, then you have to do so on its own terms.
That means empirical data not your opinion.Your opinions are not evidence it has no connection to the real world and is not scientific. Only evidence counts.
I'm not going by my opinion, I'm going by what I have read from information passed to me from fellow evolutionists.

All the information I have read clearly states that evolution is just a theory and it has never been witnessed.




Real scientific evidence isn't something you can take or leave. Real scientific evidence is replicable and available to everyone.
Thats one of the problems, evolution is not replicable.




You have proven that you are not able or willing to deal with science, it's methods or its results. You use the typical creationist tactics of ignoring, denying, or misrepresenting any evidence that contradicts your beliefs.
My advice... you should leave science alone as you have no talent or inclination for it.
You mean like the science that proves we have over 4000 defects in our genes, that prove obvious tampering? I haven't gotten anything related to science and evolution. There is speciation but it stops there. There is no proof that any of it exists past that point.



Evolution, the overarching concept that unifies the biological sciences, in fact embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses.

Evolution

I don't know how many times and how many ways I have to say this, but evolution is not a scientific theory, it is a combination of theories and hypothesis which means it hasn't been proven.
Evolution is not falsifiable, otherwise we would be able to test it. It's not predictable otherwise we would be able to test it, and it has no predictable value. The only thing we aleged to know about it, is that it's process is responsible for the creation of over a billion species, but that its not considered to be a creator
.
Rest assured, anything that creates over a billion species is a creator.



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 04:31 PM
link   
"science can't explain that, ergo god did it."

People did the same with floods, plagues, fire and comets in the past. Every single time there proven wrong

Thanks for providing so many great examples of God of the gaps tooth

edit on 4-11-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 04:58 PM
link   
The OP speaks and brings this thread back to truth.

The best evidence of all against Evolution as a cause is collapsing wave function. Matter cannot exist apart from the consciousness that collapses the wave function. This demonstrates that light is not simply particle and wave. It must be composed of Spirit (Consciousness) as well. On top of this, science now demonstrates that Energy is information. VIDEO OF LEONARD SUSSKIND FROM STANFORD. Aside from collapsing wave function, energy as information is now common knowledge and empirical evidence exists for both views.

These two confirm the validity of the Biblical claim that Word is central to all that consciousness renders as reality.

John 1

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

See there. I provided scientific axioms with a matching Bible verse. No conjecture here. Simply light quanta, quantum mechanics and consciousness. All of these are central to the trinity of God and Light. Father (Prima Materia), Son (Wave / Word / Law) and Holy Spirit (Consciousness). What part of this is hard to believe?

From here, we simply demonstrate yet another verse with ease:

Hebrews 11

3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

Of course, word is information and information cannot be seen apart from the body it occupies. Let me now demonstrate this with science: This Video shows all the scientific relationships to nothing and something. It shows information occupies the outside surface of all matter from light.

Science is now having to see the relationship between information and energy and how this is rendered into time/space from collapsing wave function. The wave holds all things together as an image.

Again, the Bible tells us this about the Wave / Word.

1 Colossians 1:

15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

From here, we simply need verification that Time, Space, Matter and Energy are somehow related to the light quanta as a holographic image.

Genesis 1:1

In the Beginning (Time), God created the heavens (Space) and the earth (Matter). Let there be light (Energy).

How then can we demonstrate this as the image of both matter and consciousness (I AM / SPIRIT)?

1:27 So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

But wait says the 'Evolution is a Cause' crowd. They cry, "This is not proof. Science is reason and rationality. Science never jumps to conclusions about its data with a guess as to the relationship between data and reality." What conclusion should we draw from this? What does the rational mind say about digital information being collapsed by consciousness? Do we have a verifiable example of a created universe where consciousness rides a wave that is collapsed?

Why, yes we do. You are using it right now. You likely recently played a video game demonstrating this very concept. The user controls the image and the image is collapsed information rendered into time, space matter and energy. One reality uses the other as a mechanism to move and think.

Did the Bible state that our own reality is this very copy of the actual to the image?

Hebrews 9

23 It was necessary, then, for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24 For Christ did not enter a sanctuary made with human hands that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God’s presence.

But wait. If we are the image, the what does that imply about our true Child being raised?

Matthew 18:18

10 “See that you do not despise one of these little ones. For I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven. [11]

18 “Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be[e] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[f] loosed in heaven.

19 “Again, truly I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything they ask for, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.”

But WAIT! That's quantum entanglement!!!!!!

Are you guys blind? Wake up!


edit on 4-11-2012 by EnochWasRight because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by flyingfish
 





If you want to take on the scientific consensus, then you have to do so on its own terms.
That means empirical data not your opinion.Your opinions are not evidence it has no connection to the real world and is not scientific. Only evidence counts.
I'm not going by my opinion, I'm going by what I have read from information passed to me from fellow evolutionists.

All the information I have read clearly states that evolution is just a theory and it has never been witnessed.




Real scientific evidence isn't something you can take or leave. Real scientific evidence is replicable and available to everyone.
Thats one of the problems, evolution is not replicable.




You have proven that you are not able or willing to deal with science, it's methods or its results. You use the typical creationist tactics of ignoring, denying, or misrepresenting any evidence that contradicts your beliefs.
My advice... you should leave science alone as you have no talent or inclination for it.
You mean like the science that proves we have over 4000 defects in our genes, that prove obvious tampering? I haven't gotten anything related to science and evolution. There is speciation but it stops there. There is no proof that any of it exists past that point.



Evolution, the overarching concept that unifies the biological sciences, in fact embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses.

Evolution

I don't know how many times and how many ways I have to say this, but evolution is not a scientific theory, it is a combination of theories and hypothesis which means it hasn't been proven.
Evolution is not falsifiable, otherwise we would be able to test it. It's not predictable otherwise we would be able to test it, and it has no predictable value. The only thing we aleged to know about it, is that it's process is responsible for the creation of over a billion species, but that its not considered to be a creator
.
Rest assured, anything that creates over a billion species is a creator.


So... what do you do?
Prove your ignorance of science


Do you not realize you have just proved my point?
*Read and understand*
If you want to take on the scientific consensus, then you have to do so on its own terms.
That means empirical data not your opinion.Your opinions are not evidence it has no connection to the real world and is not scientific. Only evidence counts.



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
"science can't explain that, ergo god did it."

People did the same with floods, plagues, fire and comets in the past. Every single time there proven wrong

Thanks for providing so many great examples of God of the gaps tooth

edit on 4-11-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)


Care to comment to my last post?



new topics

top topics



 
41
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join