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: 27
41
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Casting stones does not place you on a foundation higher than the ground occupied by me. I sit on a mountain of evidence, science, history and easily seen associations between them all by context. Try some context or you verify George Thompson's book, Verbal Judo. Not only is George correct, so was Enoch and so is God. You are out there alone in the dark hugging what you ignore.

Where is your context? Where is your scientific fact? Where is your associations with axioms and evident truth? Science is really good at its attempts to connect the facts. Give it a try. Surly you can do better than I have done here. Give it a go.

LINK
edit on 5-11-2012 by EnochWasRight because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by MastaShake
 


You build no ground in conversation when you attack the object and refuse to speak to the subject. That's equates to empty thought. I have spoken to context and you are welcome to do the same. The high ground always goes to the one speaking from context and not condescension, anger and bias.

Feel free to provide a response to the topic by referring to science as more than a word.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by EnochWasRight
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Casting stones does not place you on a foundation higher than the ground occupied by me. I sit on a mountain of evidence, science, history and easily seen associations between them all by context. Try some context or you verify George Thompson's book, Verbal Judo. Not only is George correct, so was Enoch and so is God. You are out there alone in the dark hugging what you ignore.

Where is your context? Where is your scientific fact? Where is your associations with axioms and evident truth? Science is really good at its attempts to connect the facts. Give it a try. Surly you can do better than I have done here. Give it a go.

LINK
edit on 5-11-2012 by EnochWasRight because: (no reason given)


For crying out loud, I even posted a link with hundreds of examples of the bible being factually incorrect


Your entire post is an example of god of the gaps, and that's a fact...



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 07:49 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Well, the bible is also wrong in hundreds of cases...so I'd take that stuff with a grain of salt. At least it should be clear that a literal interpretation would be lunacy

Also, out of every ATS member you are the last person to tell someone to "pay attention"...no one would require that more than you
I have a problem listening? Then why do I keep having the same conversation with you, in trying to teach you the definition of "supernatural?"

You just don't get it, the bible can't be proven wrong unless the supernatural elements were present for your claimed argument. You still don't get it, just like the definition states...


su·per·nat·u·ral/ˌso͞opərˈnaCH(ə)rəl/Adjective: (of a manifestation or event) Attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.


Noun: Manifestations or events considered to be of supernatural origin.


Synonyms: preternatural - unearthly - weird - miraculous


[url=http://www.google.com/#hl=en&biw=1152&bih=559&sclient=psy-ab&q=supernatural+definition&oq=supernatural+definition&gs_l=hp.3...3531.7875.0.8859.23 .8.0.0.0.0.797.1656.2-1j2j6-1.4.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.snuRe5whUak&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=ffd37c6a98240eaf&bpcl=37643589]supernatural[/url ]

In case you still don't get it, these supernatural events trump science, so good luck on claiming you have evidence that it has been proven wrong. People here on earth don't posses supernatural abilities so I would like to know how in the hell your going to claim its been done. Everytime you keep making this claim you just make yourself look dumber and dumber by the minute.

Grow a brain, read the definition.

I understand you think its magic, and thats cool, if that is what you have to reduce yourself down to because you don't understand it, I get it, we all have our weak points, but learn from the fact that the bible is prefaced as a supernatural book, so good luck on proving or disproving it.
edit on 5-11-2012 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by EnochWasRight
reply to post by MastaShake
 


You build no ground in conversation when you attack the object and refuse to speak to the subject. That's equates to empty thought. I have spoken to context and you are welcome to do the same. The high ground always goes to the one speaking from context and not condescension, anger and bias.

Feel free to provide a response to the topic by referring to science as more than a word.


i build no ground in coversation because its pointless. if you opened your eyes and realized that god you speak of doesnt exist you would be a much more competent person. the way i see it god was only a way to impose fear on people at the beginning of human civilization to keep them from killing and raping eachother. the fact that there are gods that are very similar throughout history in many different civilizations does raise some questions and hints that there may have been some outside assistance in jumpstarting our culture but that doesnt make the invisible man in the sky any more real.

wouldnt it be hilarious if our universe is just a simulation and the "god" you all worship turns out to be some science geek sitting behind a computer? irony at its best.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 08:12 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Yet you have ZERO proof the "supernatural" even exists


And before you say "the bible"...




posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 09:28 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Yet you have ZERO proof the "supernatural" even exists

And before you say "the bible"...
How can you be so ignorant to a historical document, then turn around and believe in something that has no scientific proof at all?



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 10:09 PM
link   
Created with WORD eh.
Should give Microsoft more credit then....



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 06:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Yet you have ZERO proof the "supernatural" even exists

And before you say "the bible"...
How can you be so ignorant to a historical document, then turn around and believe in something that has no scientific proof at all?


Because I understand the difference between a scientifical document and a 2k year old document that's DEMONSTRABLY wrong and only depicting what people back then believed based on their limited knowledge. And no, "I know it doesn't work, but magic makes it possible" isn't evidence



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 09:31 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Because I understand the difference between a scientifical document and a 2k year old document that's DEMONSTRABLY wrong and only depicting what people back then believed based on their limited knowledge. And no, "I know it doesn't work, but magic makes it possible" isn't evidence
Just because you think people back then had limited knowledge, doesn't mean your right. Evolution is not a scientific theory.
In order for something to be a scientific theory it must be testable, evolution can't be tested as its claimed to be unpredictable.
In order for something to be scientific theory it must be recreatable, evolution is not recreatable.

So as you can see your WRONG.

Besides, what did we really bring with us when we evolved. If your claiming that we either evolved or share a common ancestor with apes, I have to ask, what did we share with them? Besides the fact that we both drink water, breath air, eat food, not even the same food, have two arms and two legs, what else did we share with them?



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth

Besides, what did we really bring with us when we evolved. If your claiming that we either evolved or share a common ancestor with apes, I have to ask, what did we share with them? Besides the fact that we both drink water, breath air, eat food, not even the same food, have two arms and two legs, what else did we share with them?


....I have to ask, what would you expect 'us' to bring with us if evolution were true?

more hair?



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 09:55 AM
link   
Also there's new information showing that you can change your genetics or dna by changing your thought patterns. There's several videos on youtube that talk about this from a scientific fashion. Whatever you start to think your body is like it will start to change into. That's why you have to be so careful when going to the hosptial, or the dr could end up giving you a voodoo curse. I wish I was joking but you hear the diagnosis, internalize it, and now you just went from being "not sure" to "sure" that you have cancer or some other decease that the dr says you have. So again be careful what you allow others to tell you you're like, guard your thoughts as they do impact your body.
"as a man thinketh in his heart so is he" Hebrews

So perhaps this guy started thinking different and he finally started to lose weight....


edit on 6-11-2012 by r2d246 because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-11-2012 by r2d246 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Because I understand the difference between a scientifical document and a 2k year old document that's DEMONSTRABLY wrong and only depicting what people back then believed based on their limited knowledge. And no, "I know it doesn't work, but magic makes it possible" isn't evidence
Just because you think people back then had limited knowledge, doesn't mean your right. Evolution is not a scientific theory.
In order for something to be a scientific theory it must be testable, evolution can't be tested as its claimed to be unpredictable.
In order for something to be scientific theory it must be recreatable, evolution is not recreatable.

So as you can see your WRONG.

Besides, what did we really bring with us when we evolved. If your claiming that we either evolved or share a common ancestor with apes, I have to ask, what did we share with them? Besides the fact that we both drink water, breath air, eat food, not even the same food, have two arms and two legs, what else did we share with them?


Stop lying and trying to dumb down people here tooth!!

I believe the bible isn't correct in hundreds of cases not because the authors had limited knowledge compared to today (which is still true though), but because we can DISPROVE tons of stuff in the bible scientifically.


Evolution is clearly a scientific theory..one that is fully recreatable. How do I know that? As I've told you dozens of times, we are ACTIVELY APPLYING the theory in modern medicine!! Your blind ignorance is laughable...and at this stage I have to assume your trying to dumb people down on purpose. We use the theory to ACCURATELY PREDICT FUTURE OUTCOMES in medicine. If the theory was wrong, we couldn't do that.

Regarding your common descent question, that's a very basic question that is answered in even the most basic wiki articles...for once do a bit of research (of course you won't...I'm not deluding myself).



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Stop lying and trying to dumb down people here tooth!!
It looks like you beat everyone to that.




I believe the bible isn't correct in hundreds of cases not because the authors had limited knowledge compared to today (which is still true though), but because we can DISPROVE tons of stuff in the bible scientifically.
Ya but can you disprove the supernatural? I don't think so. Of course you believe the bible is incorrect, its a belief, not based on anything factual. Science can't debunk supernatural, this is why I keep posting the definition, but it looks like you still don't get it...

su·per·nat·u·ral/ˌso͞opərˈnaCH(ə)rəl/Adjective: (of a manifestation or event) Attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.


Noun: Manifestations or events considered to be of supernatural origin.


Synonyms: preternatural - unearthly - weird - miraculous

supernatural[/ur l]

So once again, as you can easily see, the supernatural exceeds the understanding of the science that you keep claiming has debunked it many times over. So your wrong. Again.




Evolution is clearly a scientific theory..one that is fully recreatable. How do I know that? As I've told you dozens of times, we are ACTIVELY APPLYING the theory in modern medicine!!
Goes to show you how dumb you are, those are observed RANDOM changes, and they can't predict what the changes will be, just that bacteria and viruses have cells that change. It's no predictable, if it was we would be coming out with cures for things before they hit the human race, which is not the case.

Evolution is NOT a scientific theory, its a hypothesis.

[url=http://www.ozpolitic.com/evolution/evolution-not-scientific-theory.html]Evolution is not a scientific theory

Not falsiviable
Its a mythology
video
Wht did popper say
Evolution is a religion
It's a hunch

Evolution appears to be anything but a scientific theory. I view it as a religion because you have been proven the facts, that its not recreatable and its not falsifiable and you still persist in believing it, so it becomes a religion because its your personal belief.

If evolution were a scientific theory it would be the most worthless one I have ever heard of, its not predictable, its not recreatable, its not traceable, but your sure it exists even though no one has ever witnessed it




ignorance is laughable...and at this stage I have to assume your trying to dumb people down on purpose. We use the theory to ACCURATELY PREDICT FUTURE OUTCOMES in medicine. If the theory was wrong, we couldn't do that.
Predicting future outcomes in medicine has NOTHING to do with evolution. It just goes to show you how deluded you are. Your completly sold on the idea that evolution has its hand in everything around us, with no proof.



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 
Evolution cannot be observed? answered again

Test tube yeast evolve Multicellularity

The experiments were testable and repeatable.

Yeast evolution comparative genomics

Oh look more observations. Strangely there was no need for magic or made up stories just simple science

What does it say in the bible? Oh yeah god did it but you just have to believe it as it cannot be done without godly magic.



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





reply to post by MrXYZ

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evolution cannot be observed? answered again

Test tube yeast evolve Multicellularity

The experiments were testable and repeatable.

Yeast evolution comparative genomics

Oh look more observations. Strangely there was no need for magic or made up stories just simple science

What does it say in the bible? Oh yeah god did it but you just have to believe it as it cannot be done without godly magic
Multicellularity is a big difference from saying we share a common ancestor with apes
.

There is no proof that the changes taken place are from evolution, so fooled again.
The tests might be repeatable but the outcome isn't so your fooled again.
Your idea is full of magic and stories, there is just no proof that it has any scientific value.
What it says in the bible is not important if your not capeable of understanding it, which has been pointed out more than once.



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 


MIcroevolution has no scientific value!
It's not predictable, and its not identifiable, and it's not repeatable. It's just a wild fantasy.

Macroevolution has no scientific value!
It's not observable, its not predictable, its not identifiable, its not repeatable, it's just a wild fantasy.

Your wild fantasies don't prove anything, but let me guess microevolution says its possible so it must be able to become macroevolution. Making false assumptions is poor scientific work, you need to leave this up to professionals.

If macroevolution were real, the world we live in right now would not look the way it does. We would have many species that are almost identical or the same geneticly, instead what we have is a lot of species that have a few common things but for the most part, are very different. While the excuse that most of them have died off is the excuse given, the problem is that it would still be going on today, and its not.

I predict this will be the next short coming of evolution, evolutionists will actually claim that the evolution process has reached the end of the rope and thats why we don't find it any longer
.

Never saw it, never predicted it, never identified it, never stuck around. Please it never existed



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 
I am sure I remember dismissing you.

You have nothing new to say, no evidence, you have been and still are

Dismissed




posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





reply to post by itsthetooth

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am sure I remember dismissing you.

You have nothing new to say, no evidence, you have been and still are
Dismissed


Whats the matter, did you run out of deceitful ways to try to win an argument?



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 09:39 PM
link   
reply to post by EnochWasRight
 


Whenever people of `faith` talking about `intelligent design` using science to back it up it comes across as a little silly. This video uses one quote from an entire research paper.

The argument of junk DNA having more of the purpose than to help with the production of more cells is a bit weak. There must be base code extra DNA in order for life to keep going. If we did not have that junk DNA our lifespan would be very short.



new topics

top topics



 
41
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join