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 Vs. God

page: 10
23
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by Vasa Croe

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by Prezbo369

Originally posted by edmc^2

I think Mr. Comfort is telling the truth when he said there's nothing really there to add.
What we saw in the interview is the main course.



What were the chances you'd be in here defending 'Mr Comfort'....



why are so wrap up with Mr. Comfort?

Im not here to defend him but defend Creation.



Probably because that is the entire basis of this thread....a video that Comfort made.


Ummm... No.

It's about Evolution vs. God.

Why are you people so wrapped up with Mr. Comfort?

Do you find comfort in attacking the man?



Umm....yes. It is even the TITLE of his video and exactly what the OP is about......Mr. Comfort's video. And the reason for being wrapped up in it is because he is a known fraud. He does the same tricks in his videos every time....edits after the fact. He should be attacked from both sides, not just the evolutionists.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by LightOrange
 


Those are interesting animals and I have seen them before. Now, show me the animal growing that leg over millions of years into something useful for a mammal. They always pull this one out for example or that one out, but where is the continued change. The dinosaur with feathers is all based on quill knobs and yet, it's already shown that those marks appear in rigor mortis and are not quill knobs. Showing charts of evolution is not producing the fossil record to show the slow progressive growth.

I remember sitting in science class in high school and the teacher explaining out the animals thumb grew out to become the top of the birds wing. He got pretty pissed when I asked him to show the fossils of this growing thumb into a wing. He basically said I was an idiot if I could not see how the leg had changed from what it once was to the wing because of the bone structure. I said, "You're the one saying it evolved into a wing, I just would like to see it evolving via the millions of fossils in the record". That was the end of discussion though.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by tachyonmind

Originally posted by ServantOfTheLamb


I am also quit aware of the gaps within the Fossil records but nice try
edit on 29-8-2013 by ServantOfTheLamb because: (no reason given)


the gaps in the fossil record disprove evolution but the logic gaps in the theological record don't disprove a literal interpretation of the bible?

nice try

edit on 29-8-2013 by tachyonmind because: (no reason given)


Thanks for expressing exactly why evolution should not be taught as science and a proved theory of how we got here. You are perfectly willing due to the faith issue in religion to say you can't prove it so don't teach it and then turn right around in a state of cognitive dissonance and say evolution should be taught because it's science though it has the same problem of gaps.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by shaukuna
 


I am dealing with probability issues with the tornado, and that is the same as the probability issues with evolution regardless of time. Evolutionists have this nice time issue which means you can't observe it, and then when you can point to the cellular biology which you can see and show what is necessary to make just one protein they want to say it happened by chance when in fact it could not have happened by chance.

Bacteria are still bacteria. Fruit flies are still fruit flies no matter how much time you give them. Why are they not evolving despite all the mutations created by scientists in them? I really wish people would stop putting for examples of micro evolution of adaptation and natural selection within a species as proof. They are still dogs, sheep, salamanders, and Finches.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by tachyonmind

"may" means it is capable of producing it. macroevolution does not exist as a seperate thing, it's a "zoomed out" view of microevolution, that is all. they both describe the exact same process
edit on 29-8-2013 by tachyonmind because: (no reason given)


No, evolutionists are taking an observable fact within a species and saying though we can't see it or show it in the fossil record, this same process happens to turn one kind into another, and you know that is not proved at all. It's a leap of faith to say it. There should be a demonstration in the fossil record of this change and there isn't.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by tachyonmind

God didn't make the world in six days and then sit back and rest for a day, that is not a logical statement, it is a gap in logic.. it is more logical to believe He created the whole universe over billions of years, and continues to do so..
edit on 29-8-2013 by tachyonmind because: (no reason given)


Where you there? To state that as an absolute then you have to observe it. You were not there and you don't think it possible, but I think God can do whatever God's wants to do. Why would God have people reveal false teachings in the sacred texts about Him? He doesn't need to prove anything to anyone.

I also love the statements that God does not exist because that would mean you are God because you have been everywhere and know everything, and thus that statement you are claiming to be God thus nullifying your declaration that there is no God.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 10:26 AM
link   
Why do we limit the abilities of the Creatrix? Who's to say that the process of evolution wasn't created? That's what I would do if I had the power to create life. Just sit back and watch how things develope over time. Maby the Creatrix is the ultimate scientist? My stance is that evolution was created. It solves both problems at the same time. I'm also leaning to the possibility that the universal progenitor could be female. We all come from a woman, so why can't "God" (which was originally a feminine term) be female? As above, so below.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by ServantOfTheLamb


Man Christians don't get on here and try to argue evolution with you because the fact is there are facts on both sides of the argument, and gaps on both sides of the argument. At the end of the day people pick a side they believe. Christians get on here because they truly believe that God will rapture his church one day, and they do not want you to miss out. That is why they come on here, and we do not believe that we will be the ones the change your mind.


You should say, "Some Christians believe God will rapture the church someday". I certainly am not one of those, and find that teaching very dangerous. Sure, I would love for people to come into a relationship with God through Jesus, but I respect their right to follow their own path. My issue is with pretending a pervasive ideology they want to label as science and proved when it is not. These same people use this ideology to indoctrinate millions into humanistic thinking and it's outcomes are all too easily apparent.

It's about feeling intellectually superior with a bad teaching they want to call science and then justify all their immoral behavior. I loved how these people when asked if rape was wrong, they said it was. Why is it wrong? Is murdering someone for their shoes wrong? Why?

Well, we are not fast approaching the time where the youth don't see anything wrong with just killing people for the fun of it, and we can thank the humanists and evolution teaching people for this moral justification since it's really about survival of the fittest and if you are too stupid to fight back against immoral thugs, then you deserve to die. Hitler was all for evolution and in his mind he was doing us all a favor by getting rid of those who are not as fit to live. Imagine had he succeeded just who all he would have gone around rounding up, enslaving and killing.

Too bad Christians fought back against him and his evil.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 10:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Em2013
 


I think I have read more than enough. I spent years in school learning all about evolution. You continue to show adaptation as if that proves changing from one kind of animal into another kind. They are still birds, lizards, fish, bacteria.

I wish you would realize this and simply admit there is zero proof of macro evolution. You won't so the debate goes on and on.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity

Originally posted by tachyonmind

God didn't make the world in six days and then sit back and rest for a day, that is not a logical statement, it is a gap in logic.. it is more logical to believe He created the whole universe over billions of years, and continues to do so..
edit on 29-8-2013 by tachyonmind because: (no reason given)


Where you there? To state that as an absolute then you have to observe it. You were not there and you don't think it possible, but I think God can do whatever God's wants to do. Why would God have people reveal false teachings in the sacred texts about Him? He doesn't need to prove anything to anyone.

I also love the statements that God does not exist because that would mean you are God because you have been everywhere and know everything, and thus that statement you are claiming to be God thus nullifying your declaration that there is no God.


I can go back to my same argument on this all day long. That is, how come creationists take the bible literally when it fits the agenda and say it is poetic freedom and interpretation on others. Which is it? What parts are literal and what parts are there to be interpreted? You can't have it BOTH ways.

You even state that "to state that as an absolute then you have to observe it" which would mean you should quit arguing creation since you can't state the absolute. Did you observe ANYTHING written in the bible? By your own definition the bible is a story, not observable fact. That is a gap in logic.....
edit on 8/29/13 by Vasa Croe because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity
reply to post by Em2013
 


I think I have read more than enough. I spent years in school learning all about evolution. You continue to show adaptation as if that proves changing from one kind of animal into another kind. They are still birds, lizards, fish, bacteria.

I wish you would realize this and simply admit there is zero proof of macro evolution. You won't so the debate goes on and on.


Question for you....how old do YOU think the Earth is?



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vasa Croe


Question for you....how old do YOU think the Earth is?


I answered this not long ago. link



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity

Originally posted by Vasa Croe


Question for you....how old do YOU think the Earth is?


I answered this not long ago. link


So you "have no problem with the earth being millions of years old" yet argue the biblical timeline of the days of creation to be accurate because we weren't there to observe.

Now per the days of creation, man and land animals were day number 6.

You have stated that you look to science for specifics on how layers and sedimentation prove trees and animals are not as old as scientists say.

So, if all land animals AND man were created on the same day, where are the fossils of man lying next to a dinosaur, or ANY land animal from that long ago?



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vasa Croe

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity

Originally posted by Vasa Croe


Question for you....how old do YOU think the Earth is?


I answered this not long ago. link


So you "have no problem with the earth being millions of years old" yet argue the biblical timeline of the days of creation to be accurate because we weren't there to observe.

Now per the days of creation, man and land animals were day number 6.

You have stated that you look to science for specifics on how layers and sedimentation prove trees and animals are not as old as scientists say.

So, if all land animals AND man were created on the same day, where are the fossils of man lying next to a dinosaur, or ANY land animal from that long ago?


Your timing is a bit off, but what's a couple of days matter.

There have been human skeletons found on the same level as dinosaurs, but you all throw em out as anomalies. Lots of modern animals are found in the same table as the "older" stuff. It's ignored and tossed out.

They say the fossils confirm the geologic table and the geologic table confirms the age of the fossils. It's a circular argument. How do they find modern humans deep in coal that is supposed to be created well before modern man existed? They proved it was not a burial dug into the coal.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 11:44 AM
link   
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity
 


Hitler was all for evolution and in his mind he was doing us all a favor by getting rid of those who are not as fit to live.

Wrong again. I keep hoping you'll get tired of being wrong in almost every utterance, but your stamina for being wrong is a credit to... something.

Hitler was a Christian, more specifically a Lutheran. Hitler relied heavily on Martin Luther's later antisemitic works, like "On the Jews and Their Lies". Hitler accepted natural selection as fact, as do you according to your own posts, but was no fan of Charles Darwin. In fact, the Nazis banned "writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism" from libraries. You seem to be confusing the theory of evolution with social Darwinism. Social Darwinism isn't a scientific theory, it's not even a good political philosophy. It's based on taking the biological ideas of Darwin, mixing them with Lamarck and Malthus, and attempting to apply them to the social sciences. As one person put it:


Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection describes the propagation of hereditary traits due to the varying "success" of organisms in reproducing. Basing a moral philosophy on natural selection makes about as much sense as basing morality on the theory of gravitational success: rocks rolling down the furthest are the best rocks.


So Hitler, a Christian, perverted a scientific theory to justify his actions. How, precisely, does that make the theory evolution any less valid? How, precisely, does that make it any more or less dangerous than any other scientific theory?



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 11:46 AM
link   
This video is showing duck billed dinosaur being described by aboriginals before we discovered this kind. This person discussing this gives an interesting explanation about how they would have survived the flood, and frankly, it makes sense. Proof of modern animals buried with dinosaurs. This flies in the face of common accepted evolution. I am still not convinced though that the earth is extremely young. It does give food for thought though:




Red blood cells supposedly 70 million years old! This is an example of science, testable, measurable, observable and repeatable. They did at least 17 different experiments and observed the same thing over and over and that is pliable soft tissue and red blood cells in supposedly 70 million year old fossils! That should not be happening, and yet the evolutionist crowd wants to say it is despite the evidence and thus logical conclusion that they are NOT 70 million years old.




posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 


Anyone can claim a religion to further their goals and use it to subjugate a people. Hitler was not a Christian as one would view the command to love one another, to respect life above all. Hitler was a theosophist which openly worships Satan.






Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's minister of propaganda, noted in his diary in 1939: "The Fuehrer is deeply religious, but deeply anti-Christian. He regards Christianity as a symptom of decay. Rightly so. It is a branch of the Jewish race."
link



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity
 


And from the actual scientists mouth on the second video here you can see that Creationists are misinterpreting her data to fit their agenda. All she did was use a different method than has ever been used to extract these cells. She still stands by the fact that they are millions of years old. Not only that but she considers herself a Christian.




Schweitzer, one of the first scientists to use the tools of modern cell biology to study dinosaurs, has upended the conventional wisdom by showing that some rock-hard fossils tens of millions of years old may have remnants of soft tissues hidden away in their interiors. “The reason it hasn’t been discovered before is no right-thinking paleontologist would do what Mary did with her specimens. We don’t go to all this effort to dig this stuff out of the ground to then destroy it in acid,” says dinosaur paleontologist Thomas Holtz Jr., of the University of Maryland. “It’s great science.” The observations could shed new light on how dinosaurs evolved and how their muscles and blood vessels worked. And the new findings might help settle a long-running debate about whether dinosaurs were warmblooded, coldblooded—or both.





Meanwhile, Schweitzer’s research has been hijacked by “young earth” creationists, who insist that dinosaur soft tissue couldn’t possibly survive millions of years. They claim her discoveries support their belief, based on their interpretation of Genesis, that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Of course, it’s not unusual for a paleontologist to differ with creationists. But when creationists misrepresent Schweitzer’s data, she takes it personally: she describes herself as “a complete and total Christian.” On a shelf in her office is a plaque bearing an Old Testament verse: “For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.


Source
edit on 8/29/13 by Vasa Croe because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity
 



Anyone can claim a religion to further their goals and use it to subjugate a people. Hitler was not a Christian as one would view the command to love one another, to respect life above all. Hitler was a theosophist which openly worships Satan.



According to an interview with a British correspondent years after the First World War, Hitler claimed a mysterious voice told him to leave a section of a crowded trench during a minor barrage. Moments after he left the trench, a shell fell on that particular spot. Hitler saw this experience as a message that he was a uniquely illuminated individual who had a special task to fulfill.[28] This story did not, however, appear in Mein Kampf.

In 1922, a decade before his ascension to power, Hitler stated before a crowd in Munich:

"My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross. As a Christian, I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice."


en.wikipedia.org...

Care to update your database, Serenity?
edit on 29-8-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 12:11 PM
link   
More interesting stories about long neck dinosaurs seen. Obviously, a video would be nice, but I am not going to say these people are lying and there are stories like this going back generations


edit on 29-8-2013 by UnifiedSerenity because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
23
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join