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.

 

Darwinism; What a Fake

page: 12
13
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by amazing
 




I don't think you can say Darwinism or evolution is fake. It's a theory that we work off of. What is your competing theory? Creationism? If so, then what religion? What is the Creation story? Darwin was really the first person to put all that in a coherent theory and that was a good thing. There is provable evolution, even if your just talking mutations and micro evolution, so to speak. There is survival of the fittest and on and on. Sure there are holes, but again what is the alternative. Biblical Creation? What if you don't believe in the divination of Jesus? Hmmmm. There are a lot of holes in that guys story.



If you didn't read the First Post, sir, I stated that Evolution can't take place since it violated 4 laws.

No religion, although it does paint a clearer picture.

Creation's story is that we are the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow.

Darwin was misled, I don't think he had an appreciation for art. And there are rules he violated. If people think that a certain study is exempt from rules of all sorts, such as laws of today, then they would be dead wrong.

There is a rule, "As above, so below." Hardly anyone here knows the meaning of this. But let me hit you with this. Your a parent of over 1 million children and you helped create them and raise them, know everything they like/hate, are/not, and to be/not. Testing them is what you must do, if they fail, you put them through again, and again, over a hundred times, until they get it right. Those who fail 100 times, are given the capital punishment; The Kick. What is it? Death to the spirit, the code that can create life or a tangible body. How? By getting kick out of the universe. Nothing can survive out there. Put a finger out there, and in an instant, it's gone. Metaphysical teachings.

People, of this forum, are willing to attack first, question later, instead of question/search first, attack later.

Survival of the fittest doesn't have to be this way. With that mindset, you don't know your neighbor, you see everyone as a means to get rich, in other words, it's an elitist mindset.

Mutation, in orthodox terms, is the adding of code. But it is not, it is a copying error. When one code is missing other things happen. You can't add old code to old code, violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. You can add new code to old code, just like adding new wood to an old house.




posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by FreedomCommander
reply to post by AngryCymraeg
 


Susumo Ono


He was an evolutionist. I'm sorry, but I fail to see your point.



posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


how is it wrong?

When Darwin, a orthodox scholarly-praised man, denies that creation never was?

A round-hound, found a fossil that was an imprint of a sandal stepping on a trilobite, embedded in a rock formation near Antelope Springs, Utah, which is supposed to be 600 million years old.

Which means, two thing, 1. We are they who are of the past, and 2. They were smarter.

Back then, raw materials were everywhere. They had opportunity everywhere, unlike today, we hardly have any unless we create it ourselves.

Many are willing to debunk myths at the drop of a hate when myths came from legends, legends came from facts. But they can destroy the myths of today but will have the hardest time to destroy the myths of Yesterday.



posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by AngryCymraeg
 


His findings are the focus of the music.

His findings, used by a music composer can play a music sheet that some would find beautiful and other repulsive.
edit on 27-7-2013 by FreedomCommander because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by FreedomCommander
reply to post by randyvs
 


how is it wrong?

When Darwin, a orthodox scholarly-praised man, denies that creation never was?

A round-hound, found a fossil that was an imprint of a sandal stepping on a trilobite, embedded in a rock formation near Antelope Springs, Utah, which is supposed to be 600 million years old.

Which means, two thing, 1. We are they who are of the past, and 2. They were smarter.

Back then, raw materials were everywhere. They had opportunity everywhere, unlike today, we hardly have any unless we create it ourselves.

Many are willing to debunk myths at the drop of a hate when myths came from legends, legends came from facts. But they can destroy the myths of today but will have the hardest time to destroy the myths of Yesterday.


Sorry, can you please provide proof of this sandal on a trilobite? I'm pretty sure that the human race is not 600 million years old. As for Darwin, the man's findings were remarkable for that era and he is one of my heroes.



posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by AngryCymraeg
 


FYI the source of the sandal claim and it's refutation are available here.

As with all such creation nonsense I'm amazed "they" continue to make these claims thinking that somehow it makes "them" look good



posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by FreedomCommander
 



how is it wrong?


SHHHHHH!!!!

It was only wrong where my post was concerned but don't tell anyone ok ? It's our secret.

edit on 27-7-2013 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


Don't confuse the poor guy even more - can't you see he's already struggling with reality??



posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 08:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


Chemtrails ?



posted on Jul, 28 2013 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by AngryCymraeg
 


FYI the source of the sandal claim and it's refutation are available here.

As with all such creation nonsense I'm amazed "they" continue to make these claims thinking that somehow it makes "them" look good




Thanks for that cite. Looks like another example of creationist desperation when confronted by science.



posted on Jul, 28 2013 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


Chemtrails ?


You are an evil and despicable person!!



posted on Jul, 28 2013 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


I know. And wouldn't wish the job of being me on anyone.



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 01:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by paradox
Perfect example of what I was talking about. Evolution says nothing about the origin of life. You are talking about abiogenesis and that is a completely different topic. If you were really interested in catching up with the times you would have researched and known this.

Referring to the second part, yes, evolution does talk about gradual changes over time to create something more complex/diverse. What do you mean "where is the data?" You know you're on the internet, right? Have at it. I'm not going to hold your hand like your skydaddy. You are simply being willfully ignorant.
edit on 7-21-13 by paradox because: (no reason given)


Oh, yes it does! That old argument doesn't fly. That is EXACTLY what was taught in schools for a long time. I know; I got the same stuff in school for years. The one is directly related to the other, and coining new terms, to avoid addressing the issue, is disingenuous.

There is no date to prove one species changed to another species. I would call "willfully ignorant" holding to a theory that was never proven, and doesn't hold up any longer.
edit on 29-7-2013 by LadyGreenEyes because: typo



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 02:01 AM
link   
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes
 


Actually, yes, there is such data.

Check Lenski, and also London Underground Mosquito

And since there i no data for the existence of god or "creation science" or "intelligent design" I now fully expect you to realise your mistake!

Nah...not really....just joking
.... you have completely shot your proverbial foot right off but I have no doubt your indoctrination will allow you to weasel out of the obvious consequences somehow....



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 02:13 AM
link   
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes
 


Proof of transition fossils though from fish to land animal, therefore proving it can be done.
Case closed in my book.



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 02:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


buzz off, kid.

Go smoke your doobies and find something else to hammer on.

This is a evolutionist vs. Creationist idea that has been at each others throats for over 200 years, and you, kid, are making everyone look like a small person.



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 02:33 AM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


have no idea what you are talking about.

But whatever it is, wonder on how standing it's suppose to be.



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 02:37 AM
link   
reply to post by FreedomCommander
 


You were warned by mods not to call people kid....
Is that your defence mechanism? you don't understand the evidence so you call names and tell them to go away?



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 02:41 AM
link   
reply to post by FreedomCommander
 


It's 2013 and this garbage is still prevalent on ATS?

It's not evolution/darwinism and it's not creationism.

The truth lies in the middle. It always has. It always will.



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 02:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes


Oh, yes it does! That old argument doesn't fly. That is EXACTLY what was taught in schools for a long time. I know; I got the same stuff in school for years. The one is directly related to the other, and coining new terms, to avoid addressing the issue, is disingenuous.

There is no date to prove one species changed to another species. I would call "willfully ignorant" holding to a theory that was never proven, and doesn't hold up any longer.
edit on 29-7-2013 by LadyGreenEyes because: typo


It's not an old argument. Evolution explains the gradual development of an organism, meaning it deals with all things AFTER the first single celled organism, and not before. Once again, that is abiogenesis. Please read.

Also, of course there is no "date," what does that even mean? Do you think evolution says things magically transformed over night? Maybe you should have payed better attention in school. Evolution is the sum of all minor genetic changes over millions of years, just as a person is the sum of all of its cells, or a brick wall is the sum of all individual bricks added to it. You're very uneducated, sorry to say.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join