Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Evolution and Creationism is easy as math.

page: 3
5
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by borntowatch
These observations are strong arguments against the steady-state model.

Don't really see what your point is but the above is not proof positive. It says it right there, "strong arguments". That is why it is still called a "theory". Are you trying to prove that the big bang happened? Even if it did how does that add or take away from the theory of evolution?

They are separate. Do you see anything in what you posted where it talks about animals mutating and/or adapting to their environment?


edit on 14-10-2012 by daskakik because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 11:21 PM
link   
I dont see any proof in any of it.
Evolution must start at the big bang. I dont believe in the big bang.
I dont believe in Galactic evolution and I dont see how biological evolution can happen if Galactic evolution cant happen
You cant build a biological evolution on nothing. Biological evolution is stupid because it has no foundation.
Genesis talks about creation, in stages.
First part A
then part B
then C
and D

Biological evolution teaches that parts make a whole. First we need to understand where the parts come from to make the whole.
Biological evolution states;
Here is part C and you must believe it because we said its true. Dont worry about parts A, B and C they dont relate, they dont matter. Well they do, sorry.

This thread states evolution is complicated maths, its not, its a stupid thread with an incredibly stupid premise.
The premise is...Allow those you perceive as smarter than you to think for you.
Seriously how dumb is that. Its the stuff of the retarded religious fundamentalists.
edit on 14-10-2012 by borntowatch because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by borntowatch
I dont see any proof in any of it.
Evolution must start at the big bang. I dont believe in the big bang.

No it doesn't not the part that "The Theory of Evolution" deals with.


Biological evolution teaches that parts make a whole. First we need to understand where the parts come from to make the whole.

No we don't. Man didn't need to know that DNA even existed to go about manipulating it through selective breeding.


This thread states evolution is complicated maths, its not, its a stupid thread with an incredibly stupid premise.

I must say that if you can't see how these two theories are separate and not really interdependent, that may very well be an example of the premise of the thread, which I take to be, "maybe it isn't that it's false, maybe you just don't understand it".
edit on 14-10-2012 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 12:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik

I must say that if you can't see how these two theories are separate and not really interdependent, that may very well be an example of the premise of the thread, which I take to be, "maybe it isn't that it's false, maybe you just don't understand it".
edit on 14-10-2012 by daskakik because: (no reason given)


I must say that if you can't see how these two theories are interrelated and one completely dependent on the other, may very well explain the delusion so many atheist and biological evolutionists are subjects to their own religious faith, and hence indoctrination, by scientists.

Maybe the op is so clever he just forgot to explain the formula he applied, oh wait, he didnt....Because one doesnt exist. Maybe I dont understand it because nobody can explain it. Is that not the point. My whole point.
Maybe accepting religiously somebody else's faith and beliefs is ok by you, but to me thats blind religion placing men on the alter to worship as idols.
Good luck with that

So belief in somebody else's intelligence + subjecting your own to theirs = You getting smarter, or you being brainwashed

thats not maths, thats stupidity



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 12:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by borntowatch
I must say that if you can't see how these two theories are interrelated and one completely dependent on the other, may very well explain the delusion so many atheist and biological evolutionists are subjects to their own religious faith, and hence indoctrination, by scientists.

What is obvious is that you are thinking in linear fashion and believe that the two are dependent on each other while the truth is that they are just theories and the truth may be, as I stated earlier, that both may be true or false or that one may be true while the other isn't. This shows their independence. Take for example Newtons laws of motion. They are true. It doesn't matter if the big bang or evolution happened as described or not, there veracity doesn't change the facts that these three laws describe.

Science has no problem focusing on parts of the whole. So even if the origin of the universe is not known, there are no roadblocks to studying and gathering knowledge as to the workings of other parts of the puzzle.


Maybe the op is so clever he just forgot to explain the formula he applied, oh wait, he didnt....Because one doesnt exist. Maybe I dont understand it because nobody can explain it. Is that not the point. My whole point.
Maybe accepting religiously somebody else's faith and beliefs is ok by you, but to me thats blind religion placing men on the alter to worship as idols.
Good luck with that

So belief in somebody else's intelligence + subjecting your own to theirs = You getting smarter, or you being brainwashed

It isn't blind acceptance, it is the entertaining of a theory, all the while knowing that the theory may be proven wrong further down the line.


edit on 15-10-2012 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 03:56 AM
link   
Re read the opening post and tell me thats not blind acceptance of somebody else's opinion/theory.
Come on, dont pretend I can not read or comprehend what is written, I can see you understand it as well. Just wont admit it.
Addition I didnt say the two are dependant on each other, not even nearly.

I also didnt say going from hot to cold was evolution or even an analogy of it



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by borntowatch
Whale legs, are you that brainwashed, that ignorant of biology you think there whale legs.

Your English isn't very good, but I assume you're now refusing to accept the fact that whales have hip bones?






Are you serious? How ignorant are you?

Next you will say that they don't have finger bones either?



Originally posted by borntowatch
The first dealing with how brainwashed you are to the truth re whale structure, the second as to how gullible you are to phony science..

How brainwashed are you? Denying obvious facts and all that. I think you're too far gone..


Originally posted by borntowatch
If they have no use why are these bones fundamentaly important to the whales existence.

Find out how evolution works and your question will be answered.


Originally posted by borntowatch
and further are you saying big fat whales use to walk around on the ground, whats the tail for, what food did they eat, why did they need such big lungs if they were ground dwellers. Where are the rest of the vestigial organs.

Actually, the majority of Cetaceans are quite small.


Their common ancestor wasn't that big either, and looked nothing like modern Cetaceans. It looked something like the pic below. There's actually a pretty good fossil record from something like this to modern whales.


It was a 50 million year journey..
edit on 15-10-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by borntowatch
Re read the opening post and tell me thats not blind acceptance of somebody else's opinion/theory.
Come on, dont pretend I can not read or comprehend what is written, I can see you understand it as well. Just wont admit it.

It might just be but I am pointing out how science is supposed to be looked at and used. Why would I assume that the OP does not hold the idea that these theories can be proven wrong?


Addition I didnt say the two are dependant on each other, not even nearly.

In your own words:


I must say that if you can't see how these two theories are interrelated and one completely dependent on the other,

This is from the post right before your reply. I can't see why you would even try to come off like you never said that.

edit on 15-10-2012 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 10:27 AM
link   
Still waiting for a creationist to make a "gravity is stupid...let's call it intelligent falling" thread



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik

Originally posted by borntowatch
Re read the opening post and tell me thats not blind acceptance of somebody else's opinion/theory.
Come on, dont pretend I can not read or comprehend what is written, I can see you understand it as well. Just wont admit it.

It might just be but I am pointing out how science is supposed to be looked at and used. Why would I assume that the OP does not hold the idea that these theories can be proven wrong?


Addition I didnt say the two are dependant on each other, not even nearly.

In your own words:


I must say that if you can't see how these two theories are interrelated and one completely dependent on the other,

This is from the post right before your reply. I can't see why you would even try to come off like you never said that.

edit on 15-10-2012 by daskakik because: (no reason given)


Yes I did say that these two theories are interrelated and one completely dependent on the other

But that is not saying they are BOTH dependant on each other. Thats a blatant lie, its nothing nearly related to what I stated. One is not both, simple english



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 11:02 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by borntowatch
 


Either way it's completely wrong because evolution isn't dependent on the big bang theory...or how first life started. If a purple unicorn farted first life into existence, evolution would still be correct. If (a) god(s) did it, it would still be correct. If it simply spontaneously happened to pop up, evolution would still be correct.



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by borntowatch
 


Nobody said vestigial organs can't have current uses



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 11:10 AM
link   
reply to post by borntowatch
 


Dude stop trolling. If you're going to make all these claims and assertions you need evidence. Unfortunately you have none and still have not even come close to addressing the actual theory of evolution. You have mentioned big band and abiogenesis but not evolution.

How about we start here:

www.talkorigins.org...


Which part of this is wrong? Provide evidence of your position or your posts will be flagged as off topic.
edit on 15-10-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 11:15 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Half of these(ignorant religious) people here, gets it from their "pastor" Kent Hovind lol. Even he does not know the definition behind the word vestigial. According to their religious dictionary, Vestigial = useless.

They do not have a mind of their own.


Who's next? the Banana man? lol



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by borntowatch
Yes I did say that these two theories are interrelated and one completely dependent on the other

But that is not saying they are BOTH dependant on each other. Thats a blatant lie, its nothing nearly related to what I stated. One is not both, simple english

But neither is dependent so your statement is still untrue and why would it be nothing nearly related to what you stated?

You stated that one was completely dependent on the other. Your stating something about half of the equation. How is that not relevant?

edit on 15-10-2012 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 08:17 PM
link   
Here you go
A link explaining why the whale bones "Legs" are not vestigial as you claim, also explaining that they were probably never legs, its a blatant evolutionist lie suggesting that they were ever legs.
It also pour scorn over the whole vestigial organ argument as ridiculous and stupid and now redundant.

Hey look wisdom teeth, we dont use them, they must be vestigial, cept over half the worlds population still use them, its only western Europeans who dont have the jaw for them to grow in, because they eat twinkies instead of roughage.

www.darwinisdead.com...
The pelvic bones of whales serve as attachments for the musculature associated with the penis in males and its homologue, the clitoris, in females. The muscle involved is known as the ischiocavernosus and is quite a powerful muscle in males. It serves as a retractor muscle for the penis in copulation and probably provides the base for lateral movements of the penis. The mechanisms of penile motion are not well understood in whales. The penis seems to be capable of a lot of independent motion, much like the trunk of an elephant. How much of this is mediated by the ischiocavernosus is not known.

There is tons more information that pours scorn over the pathetically weak vestigial organ bone/argument, but you want research it because it erodes your religious fervour in your faith for atheism.

Whale legs? Come on, whales walking on the ground, thats just to stupid to imagine, surely?



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik

Originally posted by borntowatch
Yes I did say that these two theories are interrelated and one completely dependent on the other

But that is not saying they are BOTH dependant on each other. Thats a blatant lie, its nothing nearly related to what I stated. One is not both, simple english

But neither is dependent so your statement is still untrue and why would it be nothing nearly related to what you stated?

You stated that one was completely dependent on the other. Your stating something about half of the equation. How is that not relevant?

edit on 15-10-2012 by daskakik because: (no reason given)


Biological evolution is dependant on chemical evolution....duh
If you dont have chemical evolution, biological evolution is redundant

What can you not understand about that simple explanation.
Without the building blocks there is no building.

You want to justify evolution without explaining where and how it started. Evolution doesnt happen in a vacuum. Its part of a process and you deny the process, I want the process explained.
Its not difficult maths, its a stupid theory and belief.



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by borntowatch
Biological evolution is dependant on chemical evolution....duh
If you dont have chemical evolution, biological evolution is redundant

What can you not understand about that simple explanation.
Without the building blocks there is no building.

The building blocks are there even if you don't understand how they work. That is how selective breeding was used to manipulate DNA before anyone even knew it existed. The same way alchemists experimented without a periodic table.


You want to justify evolution without explaining where and how it started. Evolution doesnt happen in a vacuum. Its part of a process and you deny the process, I want the process explained.
Its not difficult maths, its a stupid theory and belief.

That is what you can't seem to grasp. Science doesn't arrive at all the answers at the same time. Different theories address different parts of it and some are proven and go on to become laws and others end up being proven wrong and tossed out.

edit on 15-10-2012 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 11:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik

The building blocks are there even if you don't understand how they work. That is how selective breeding was used to manipulate DNA before anyone even knew it existed. The same way alchemists experimented without a periodic table.

DNA exists? What? No?

So what, where did the DNA come from. It needs an explanation, not just the obvious statement it exists.
If we dont understand how they work how do we explain anything.
Putting the cart before the horse to justify the argument.

Breeding species was inter special, to suggest that is irrelevant, a silly argument akin to my fridge evolving when I turn it off.



Originally posted by daskakik
That is what you can't seem to grasp. Science doesn't arrive at all the answers at the same time. Different theories address different parts of it and some are proven and go on to become laws and others end up being proven wrong and tossed out.


Well good, if you can grasp that without a foundation, without other logical pieces in place, fine.
Your faith has made you strong in your chosen religion.





new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join