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: 12
22
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity
 


Back to the whole science and higher education is a conspiracy huh?

Its really sad that you play the game of "show me proof" and then say "its all a conspiracy anyway".




posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blarneystoner
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
 


Tell you what... since I'm such a nice guy... I'm going to help YOU out...


Scientific theories are validated by empirical testing against physical observations. Theories are not judged simply by their logical compatibility with the available data. Independent empirical testability is the hallmark of science—in science, an explanation must not only be compatible with the observed data, it must also be testable.


Do you understand what that means? Independent empirical testability.... not speculation, not a feeling, not "because the Bible said it's so".

What you don't seem to understand is that a belief in God and belief in evolutionary theory are not necessarily mutually exclusive.... but that may be more than someone like you can handle....

I dont argue against evolution because i think it disproves God, it very much could be the process God chose, I argue against, and lets make sure we know I am only talking about Macro-evoultuion,species turning into different species, because I think its dumb to accept something that has not been observed, and has no viable evidence behind it



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity
 


Back to the whole science and higher education is a conspiracy huh?

Its really sad that you play the game of "show me proof" and then say "its all a conspiracy anyway".


Back to stupid comments, huh? See we can act like school yard idiots. Why not offer something intelligent rather than flinging mud.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Vasa Croe
 


reply to post by UnifiedSerenity
 


reply to post by Blarneystoner
 



What you don't seem to understand is that a belief in God and belief in evolutionary theory are not necessarily mutually exclusive


That depends on your definition of "god". See, the concept of "god" has literally evolved over thousands and thousands of years. It no longer means what it used to. Because the term caters a broad range of dogmatic abstractions rather than an actual set of scientifically determined parameters, there is no universal profile for the idea expressed as "god". Not just the Judaic or Islamic or Hindu or Egyptian or any specific deity, but just the idea of a divine entity in itself. All we actually have is the people who use the word, and they all use it in different ways.

Bottom line: if we're going to talk about "evolution versus god", I think we need to examine and validate the exact nature of the divine force we are pitting against the evolutionary theory. Is that an unreasonable request? I don't think it is. Whoever wants a swing at it, go for it. But I think this is a very crucial issue we need to resolve before we can make any significant headway in the matter.
edit on 29-8-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity

Originally posted by Vasa Croe
Ok...I am guessing that even creationists consider plants to be life correct? So, if you are looking for a different kind that was produced how about this. Two completely different genera cross pollinated to produce yet a third....




The Russian cytologist Karpchenko (1927, 1928) crossed the radish, Raphanus sativus, with the cabbage, Brassica oleracea. Despite the fact that the plants were in different genera, he got a sterile hybrid. Some unreduced gametes were formed in the hybrids. This allowed for the production of seed. Plants grown from the seeds were interfertile with each other. They were not interfertile with either parental species. Unfortunately the new plant (genus Raphanobrassica) had the foliage of a radish and the root of a cabbage.


Wiki

So voila....a brand new plant created from 2 different "kinds".


Thanks for proving intelligent design. a cytologist crossed the radish with a cabbage and guess what? IT"S FRIGGIN STERILE! Get it? STERILE as in not reproduce.

wait for it wait for it... it's interfertile with the other parent plant and that was all done by a designer and the plant wants to go back to it's former state. wow some evolution
edit on 29-8-2013 by UnifiedSerenity because: (no reason given)


Umm...wrong. It is not able to pollinate its own kind but IS able to with the two other species it was made from producing yet another kind. Not intelligent design at all....evolution in motion.
edit on 8/29/13 by Vasa Croe because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 03:11 PM
link   



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 03:12 PM
link   
When do the mods step in? This thread is clearly an attempt at proselytization rather than a science discussion.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
 


You can keep that link for yourself. I'm not interested in biased blogs. And make no mistake, that link is not even close to a reliable source of professional examinations.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by ServantOfTheLamb
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


atheiststooges.wordpress.com...


Tsk tsk.. don't you know it has to be one of their approved sites or journals? Silly wabbit...



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blarneystoner
When do the mods step in? This thread is clearly an attempt at proselytization rather than a science discussion.


Oh waaaaaa... I see a debate about creation vs evolution and some of you asking questions that for a creationist goes back to the bible. See, this is how they do it folks. They want to preach their ideology in the classroom and stop all other discussions everywhere else.

They demand our answers and when we give them, they shout "WITCH... burn them, shut them up!!!!" Some advanced thinking there Blarneystone.

If you all don't want our answers as to how WE believe things happened and what is going on .... here is a clue.... DON'T ASK US!



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 

Oh my bad since thats pretty much all you guys post, but here I'll take you to the website the guy pulled the article from follow this one you might learn something.
www.icr.org...
And here is another one
www.icr.org...



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity

Originally posted by ServantOfTheLamb
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


atheiststooges.wordpress.com...


Tsk tsk.. don't you know it has to be one of their approved sites or journals? Silly wabbit...


Oh of course, I just figured I would post that so he would complain, and then I could send him to the place where the guy pulled the article from, and they also explain why mutation can't be the process of macro-evolution, but because they believe there is a Creator they are physically and intellectually incapable of preforming science as an evolutionist.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity
 



Oh waaaaaa... I see a debate about creation vs evolution and some of you asking questions that for a creationist goes back to the bible.


We don't accept the Bible as proof. We accept science as proof. For clarification purposes, we prefer evidence that reasonably indicates an exclusive probability. Science, obviously, is the best investigative resource by which to procure such evidence. If you think you can provide scientifically-investigated evidence that reasonably indicates an exclusive probability of a god in lieu of evolution, then by all means, set the table and serve your case on a silver platter.

We're not here to be hardasses, we're here to engage in a collaborative review of your compare-and-contrast discussion. We're here to help you, but it seems you are not interested in the truth so much as a comfortable substitute.


They demand our answers and when we give them, they shout "WITCH... burn them, shut them up!!!!" Some advanced thinking there Blarneystone.


You are being unfair. We asked you for better answers than the ones we already have. The ones science gave us. The ones our government pays lots and lots of cash to find out. The government doesn't pay its resident geniuses to lie to it. It's really not very conducive either to raise entire generations of ignorant young minds who we depend on to improve this planet by lying to them about the genetic pools from which our biology is descended. So yeah, good money and valuable time is spent finding these answers. We have very good reasons to trust in the validity of the information you are so determined to discredit.

And that's why we want to know your answers. We're willing to consider the possibility that you've spotted something our scientific leaders, who are paid six figure salaries to be meticulous, might have missed. But alas; you didn't provide better answers, you provided cop-outs.


If you all don't want our answers as to how WE believe things happened and what is going on .... here is a clue.... DON'T ASK US!


I want to take a moment to point out the operative word in the quoted sentence above: "believe". And for future reference, Serenity, if you don't want your views challenged and be revealed for the poor sport you apparently are...then don't challenge evolutionists who know their stuff.

You challenged the forum and swam out of your depth. That's not our fault.
edit on 29-8-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Blarneystoner
 



You have to realize that religion is the only game in town when it comes to websites like these. These people openly admit they would rather die than live in a world without their beliefs.

The OP's criticisms were responded to and his questions answered. Just like in other threads he created with the same subject when answers and explanations are given it is ignored and the thread is spammed until the responses are buried and it starts all over again.

ATS does not care about truth... its all about the money from advertising and book promotion. Why would they kill the goose that lays the golden egg? Even if its hurting people and corrupting minds.

Don't worry. Those who profit from websites like these will regret it later when society turns its anger towards those who would poison society.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Wertdagf
 


Just so you know and can add this for reasons to belittle me, I am a woman and a she, not a he.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity
 



Oh waaaaaa... I see a debate about creation vs evolution and some of you asking questions that for a creationist goes back to the bible.


We don't accept the Bible as proof. We accept science as proof. For clarification purposes, we prefer evidence that reasonably indicates an exclusive probability. Science, obviously, is the best investigative resource by which to procure such evidence. If you think you can provide scientifically-investigated evidence that reasonably indicates an exclusive probability of a god in lieu of evolution, then by all means, set the table and serve your case on a silver platter.

We're not here to be hardasses, we're here to engage in a collaborative review of your compare-and-contrast discussion. We're here to help you, but it seems you are not interested in the truth so much as a comfortable substitute.


They demand our answers and when we give them, they shout "WITCH... burn them, shut them up!!!!" Some advanced thinking there Blarneystone.


You are being unfair. We asked you for better answers than the ones we already have. You didn't provide better answers, you provided cop-outs.


If you all don't want our answers as to how WE believe things happened and what is going on .... here is a clue.... DON'T ASK US!


I want to take a moment to point out the operative word in the quoted sentence above: "believe". And for future reference, Serenity, if you don't want your views challenged and be revealed for the poor sport you apparently are...then don't challenge evolutionists who know their stuff.

You challenged the forum and swam out of your depth. That's not our fault.
edit on 29-8-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)


Macro-evolution has never been observed, remember evolution is a "historical science"



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity
 


Are you Pretrib or post trib?



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity

Originally posted by Blarneystoner
When do the mods step in? This thread is clearly an attempt at proselytization rather than a science discussion.


Oh waaaaaa... I see a debate about creation vs evolution and some of you asking questions that for a creationist goes back to the bible. See, this is how they do it folks. They want to preach their ideology in the classroom and stop all other discussions everywhere else.

They demand our answers and when we give them, they shout "WITCH... burn them, shut them up!!!!" Some advanced thinking there Blarneystone.

If you all don't want our answers as to how WE believe things happened and what is going on .... here is a clue.... DON'T ASK US!


You don't see the irony here? You accuse scientists of preaching ideologies when the fact of the matter is that you and your ilk preach dogma! Without so much as a spec of verifiable evidence to back up your incontrovertable truths. Yet you seem to be offended by anyone who would refute your claims, backed up by mounds of evidence all while you scream at the top of your lungs that God created everything (in 7 days no less)!! And we should just believe you... without one shred of verifiable, testable evidence. And you infere that your way of thinking is more advanced.... sorry... but that's moronic.

No one is demanding answers from you. Why would we? You don't havre any answers... it's painfully obvious.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
 


That tangent is remarkably unscientific for such a science-centric discussion. Are you sure that's not a conversation for private messages?
edit on 29-8-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blarneystoner


You don't see the irony here? You accuse scientists of preaching ideologies when the fact of the matter is that you and your ilk preach dogma! Without so much as a spec of verifiable evidence to back up your incontrovertable truths. Yet you seem to be offended by anyone who would refute your claims, backed up by mounds of evidence all while you scream at the top of your lungs that God created everything (in 7 days no less)!! And we should just believe you... without one shred of verifiable, testable evidence. And you infere that your way of thinking is more advanced.... sorry... but that's moronic.

No one is demanding answers from you. Why would we? You don't havre any answers... it's painfully obvious.


People have asked how we think it all happened. They have asked other questions as well, so don't act like they have not.

Your side has never proved macro evolution and yet spends years indoctrinating it and denigrating religion openly in many schools especially colleges. They forbid teachers to teach ID and fire them for doing so. So, I would simply like the same rules applied to the vaunted system as you apply to others who cannot prove their belief system, and you know the evolutionist crowd is fighting it tooth and nail.

What do you base your ideals of right vs. wrong on if we were just animals and there is no God? Is rape ok? Should we stop someone from murdering people? Where do you get the right to tell another animal what is right or wrong in survival of the fittest, natural selection and evolution? I'd love to hear your answers on this.



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join