Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Evolution deniers are an insult to the deity they worship

page: 3
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by begoodbees
I thing you are confusing education and indoctrination. If there were anything but circumstantial evidence out there to support evolution than there would be no debate. I don't need educating. The purpose of me responses and questions are to show you and whoever else cares that spontaneous evolution from its core is a flawed theory at best.


A flawed theory, perhaps, but I have yet to see a better theory. Spontaneous evolution versus spontaneous creation. One has evidence, the other is based solely on imagination and an old book of philosophy.



A cell evolved to protect itself from other cells that evolved.


Cells evolve. Some cells gain advantages over others, the others adapt.



That is a circular argument. Some how these little cells were able to think and band together like little militias on against the other. Now tell me if you hadn't been indoctrinated your whole life you would really believe that.


You're completely ignoring what I've already stated. The cells don't have to think for evolution to take place. At some point, cells stuck together rather than acting as seperate entities, this was a benefit to their survival, so they continued to do so.



The whole theory of evolution is circular, we evolve to survive to evolve to survive. What is the point? I know it is hard to cast out a lifetime of indoctrination I used to be a christian.


What is the point? That's a whole different question that I don't think evolution is equipped to answer. My opinion is that the system is designed to expand and express different possibilities, leading to new creations. It is a creative process after all.



Also an ignorant theist I believe is a name and an insult.


I didn't specifically call you an ignorant theist, but feel free to be offended by your own ignorance.

You suggest that I should abandon what I understand because its not complete...such wilful ignorance is not in my nature.




posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by KrzYma
 


AHA! you just said it. Like our technology life could not have evolved on its own. We created the technology and evolved it. We are its creators.



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 06:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Glass
 


You said ignorant theists as a direct reply to one of my posts and then claim you were not talking to me or trying to insult me and now you continue to insult me because you cannot rationally refute my arguments. Congratulations my friend you are officially a religious person whether you will admit it or not.



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 06:27 PM
link   


now think about our technological explosion over the last 200 years. it all began with inventing of the electricity.. the first 50 years it was practically useless, and here we are now.
reply to post by KrzYma
 



I would give credit to God for creating electricity.


Your example is fits well with the idea of intelligent design.

Brilliant men invented and created and helped get us to the level of technology that we have today.



The lightbulb didn't invent itself...



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by begoodbees
reply to post by Glass
 


I know the theory. The problem is it does not make any sense and there is no real evidence to back it up. You are just as bad as the religious fanatics who will not cast away false beliefs and customs even if you prove to them from their own book that they are wrong.


I'm just as bad as a religious fanatic?


Look, if a better theory comes along which makes more sense than evolution, I will change my beliefs accordingly, this is something a fanatic cannot do. As it stands, my understanding is as solid as it needs to be. Why should I take a step backwards into ignorance?



"Because that's how DNA works is not an answer to the question." DNA is very complex and it came from where. Did it evolve on its own? DNA is not alive so how could it evolve on its own? A cell cant reproduce without DNA so it is a very flawed theory at best. The chicken and the egg.


Now you're withdrawing from the topic of evolution. Evolution theory has no explanation for how DNA was formed.

I imagine it would have been formed as a result of a complex series of chemical reactions, according to the laws of the universe as programmed by the higher intelligence, but that is mere speculation.



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Glass

Originally posted by begoodbees
I thing you are confusing education and indoctrination. If there were anything but circumstantial evidence out there to support evolution than there would be no debate. I don't need educating. The purpose of me responses and questions are to show you and whoever else cares that spontaneous evolution from its core is a flawed theory at best.


A flawed theory, perhaps, but I have yet to see a better theory. Spontaneous evolution versus spontaneous creation. One has evidence, the other is based solely on imagination and an old book of philosophy.



A cell evolved to protect itself from other cells that evolved.


Cells evolve. Some cells gain advantages over others, the others adapt.



That is a circular argument. Some how these little cells were able to think and band together like little militias on against the other. Now tell me if you hadn't been indoctrinated your whole life you would really believe that.


You're completely ignoring what I've already stated. The cells don't have to think for evolution to take place. At some point, cells stuck together rather than acting as seperate entities, this was a benefit to their survival, so they continued to do so.



The whole theory of evolution is circular, we evolve to survive to evolve to survive. What is the point? I know it is hard to cast out a lifetime of indoctrination I used to be a christian.


What is the point? That's a whole different question that I don't think evolution is equipped to answer. My opinion is that the system is designed to expand and express different possibilities, leading to new creations. It is a creative process after all.



Also an ignorant theist I believe is a name and an insult.


I didn't specifically call you an ignorant theist, but feel free to be offended by your own ignorance.

You suggest that I should abandon what I understand because its not complete...such wilful ignorance is not in my nature.


In an earlier post you said it was like an arms race. Arms races don't happen on accident. It is interesting how your responses are evolving under scrutiny. I never said abandon it but if I were you I would open my mind to other possibilities.

Unlike you and other religious fanatics I have an open mind and am willing to go wherever the evidence and common sense lead me. I have spoken my mind on the matter and have enjoyed the debate. Thank You.
edit on 9-12-2012 by begoodbees because: typo



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by begoodbees
 


more complex live on earth exists not longer then 500 million years? something like that?, I don't remember right now....
single cell organism did exist for 3,5 Billion years before they enveloped to complex organism?? right?

symbiosis was the first part of evolution. no predators, till "mutants" started aggressively assimilate,
other "mutants" had a way to defense them self, were resistant so the separation began.

not that they was thinking, simply chemical reaction stuff



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by begoodbees
 


You have no idea how open or closed my mind is, nor can I say whether or not my mind is more open than yours, however you've displayed a great deal of closed mindedness when it comes to the topic of evolution.

I consider myself an open minded person. My mind is open to new possibilites, should they present themselves. I question my own beliefs, when given good reason to question them. You haven't provided good reason for me to abandon the theory of evolution. You haven't provided an alternative explanation. You haven't provided a detailed, compelling argument.

You're also becoming increasingly difficult to talk to with your allegations that I'm some sort of closed minded fanatic. But then, you may be speaking to your own reflection within the Glass.

Have a good night.



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by begoodbees
 


I would just like to add that I mean no offense to any of the religious types that might be reading. I respect the beliefs and opinions of others.



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Glass
reply to post by begoodbees
 


You have no idea how open or closed my mind is, nor can I say whether or not my mind is more open than yours, however you've displayed a great deal of closed mindedness when it comes to the topic of evolution.

I consider myself an open minded person. My mind is open to new possibilities, should they present themselves. I question my own beliefs, when given good reason to question them. You haven't provided good reason for me to abandon the theory of evolution. You haven't provided an alternative explanation. You haven't provided a detailed, compelling argument.

You're also becoming increasingly difficult to talk to with your allegations that I'm some sort of closed minded fanatic. But then, you may be speaking to your own reflection within the Glass.

Have a good night.


The point I am trying to make is "it just didn't get up and walk off on its own" as my mother used to say, haha. You have a good night as well.



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 06:46 PM
link   
It's not all religious people that are evolution deniers, there is a concerted effort in archaeology to suppress the actual age of our evolution, which is much, much older than what the MSM tell us



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by begoodbees
 


it was just an example how a small change in a "current state" ( technological or biological ) can cause an explosion in evolution, technical or biological

how can I explain it better... I mean all you need to cause a change in some closed environment, like a cell for example is the change of external conditions.
liquid water freeze in temperature goes below 0 C
water is nearly always the same but look at the ice, all the structures it can build, different patterns and crystals, look at snowflakes, the are some hundred arts of them, all comes from the same drops of water

the same with chemical reactions in cells, and DNA
some survive some explode in they purposes



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by dusty1
reply to post by NavyDoc
 





I don't follow your point. What I am saying is that it is not against the Bible to think that God created and used a natural law such as evolution to get to humankind. God uses physics to keep the planets in orbit, yes?




The bible says that God created animals according to their kind.

If He didn't do that, then what the bible says is false.

There would be room for pre programmed variations within a kind.


As far as evolution.

If we are talking the primordial soup to man theory, that would be contrary to the bible.

If we are talking Thomas Hunt Morgan's fruit fly experiment relating to genetics, and you want to call that evolution, well, it is observed. You can choose to call it evolution, but the fruit fly remains in its "kind" and the bible does not conflict with the observation.



The Bible does say that, but it does not say how the process was done, does it? Hence, one could say that evolution could have been the how of it without contradicting the Bible. Consider that one of the oldest books we know as "The Bible" the Vulgate version, states that God made man from the slime of the earth. What is slime but a collection of single cell organisms? A succinct description of evolution, perhaps?



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by dusty1
 


Also make clear by his follow up post containing the words it is not my duty to educate anyone



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 08:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Glass
 


Christians respond to the claims that were made by scientist that life began on earth from a spontaneous random event . The discovery of DNA put an end to that claim . The 2nd thing that Christians respond to is that man came from a monkey . In Genesis chapter 1 verse 26 after God said ( let the WATERS bring forth all things that swim in the sea and fly in the air , Then let the EARTH bring forth all things that creepeth on the earth ) Gods said let is make Man in our own image . There will never be a missing link as man was created by God in his image .



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by randomname

but even then, there's still evidence that every animal on earth was placed in its current location or face death.


Could you provide a genuine source for this? Or are you just saying that it makes sense to you personally?


for, example, you can't put a hippo in the arctic tundra. it'll die. and you can keep putting hippos in the arctic for the next billion years and the result will be the same. they'll die.


That's a bit like asking why creatures die in floods, why they don't just instantly grow flippers and gills. A bit unrealistic and has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.


transforming from an ape into a human being is not adapting. it's changing species.


We are Apes. We also share a common ancestor with the other great Apes. This view is supported by things like the fossil record and molecular biology.


evolutionist conveniently ignore the crocodile paradox. according to them they claim they are 250 million years old and have remained unchanged.


That is simply untrue. There is no paradox.

dinosaurs.about.com...
news.nationalgeographic.com.au...
romerianreptile.hubpages.com...


edit on 9-12-2012 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it.



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 11:51 PM
link   
could say the same.. first there no proof of evolution it itself is also a Theory not a fact.. more reason in creationism than evolutionism
edit on 9-12-2012 by shadowreborn89 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 11:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Glass
 


It is ridiculous. I mean is it inconceivable that it is both? That "God", not Yahweh or Christianity based, created existence, but the creation is set to rapidly expand and evolve, is my personal opinion.



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 11:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by shadowreborn89
could say the same.. first there no proof of evolution it itself is also a Theory not a fact.. more reason in creationism than evolutionism
edit on 9-12-2012 by shadowreborn89 because: (no reason given)


You could.....but so far these attempts have been basically empty, meaningless, unsupported by the evidence and contrary to what we do know so far (in a scientific sense).....

It is a "scientific theory" as opposed to the generic usage of the term "theory". It is used to explain observed facts ie. the theories of gravity attempt to explain the fact that apples fall from trees.

Though evolution is commonly accepted as fact amongst most scientists, re the diversity of life on this planet. It is the details that become more refined. It would be easy to falsify simply by finding a fossil in the wrong layer, hasn't happened yet.

en.wikipedia.org...

edit on 10-12-2012 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it.



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 12:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum
 


Funny you say that.




Gravity explains the way apples fall from a tree


Aren't gravity and time inter-related?





new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join