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: 25
22
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 3 2013 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity
 


The law of common sense is so hard for some:

Making factually correct and non-fallacious statements is so hard for the bald guy. Twenty seconds into the video and he's already constructed a straw man argument against evolution to attack. You should have spent more time reading ATS instead of just regurgitating the same pap that's been debunked and refuted ad nauseum.




posted on Sep, 3 2013 @ 05:43 PM
link   
Ah, the fun of looking at the silly theory of evolution and seeing the emperor has no clothes despite everyone pretending he does:




posted on Sep, 3 2013 @ 05:44 PM
link   
^Ooh. Spooky music. It must be true. I've heard that argument before and the one in the previous video and both are fallacious. Not all mutations are bad. There are many different kinds of them. Law of thermodynamics has nothing do with life becoming more complex. What a silly argument. At least I get a good laugh out of the whole ordeal.


Originally posted by Fromabove
The inability to observe it, the math against it, makes it impossible. Time is even against evolution.


Oh, really? By all means, please post those math equations that go against evolution and show me the exact formulas you are working with. I'm interested.


And lastly, evolution theory takes the notion that it is always modifying and making organisms more perfect through each change. This is a bias.

This is not bias, this is false. There is no long term goal for perfection. There is only well adapted, and that changes as soon as the environment does. Nothing is perfect.

Devolution doesn't exist, but there is no rule of evolution that says things must get more complex. Sometimes organisms will barely change at all over billions of years.. Complex forms are not less stable, in fact greater genetic diversity means, greater chance of long term survival. Organisms of today have varying strengths that have helped them adapt and over come extinction level events in the past.



But, seeing that evolution is basically the work of imagination and not much more, it doesn't really matter.


Unless you can prove that genetic mutations do not happen or that natural selection is false, evolution is anything but imaginary. If you'd actually research it, you'd know that, but sometimes irrational faith is strong enough to make one doubt scientific principles.
edit on 3-9-2013 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 3 2013 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity
 



Ah, the fun of looking at the silly theory of evolution and seeing the emperor has no clothes despite everyone pretending he does


Says the guy who has no better theories to offer. Note the key word here: better. Not just alternative, but better. Not to mention that you have still failed to explain why all the scientists of the world would be so hellbent on pulling off such a pointless deception. We're waiting.
edit on 3-9-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 3 2013 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity
reply to post by stormson
 


You see, that is amazing that rather than deal with the arguments made showing the problems with the theory of macro evolution not being proved you want us to prove God. We are not teaching creation by God in public schools, but you are teaching the belief in evolution as fact when it has not been proved.

Macro evolution is based on faith alone and not on science. It is not observable and it is not proved via the fossil record no matter how many times you claim it is. Circular arguments are used to defend it and yet you have no problem with them.


This has been covered ad naseum in this thread. DNA, whether from a human or bacteria, is made up of the same amino acids, following the same principles. The only difference is the changes in the amino acid sequence. You can ignore that point or not, but there is no difference between micro and macro evolution, they are the same thing.



posted on Sep, 3 2013 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity
reply to post by LightOrange
 


They are still salamanders and not a new kind. That does not prove common ancestry though you want to believe it does.


They certainly are a new kind, ignoramous.

If adaption stops at borders of species or genuses, show me? I can show you compelling evidence that it does cross those boundaries, can you show me compelling evidence that it doesn't?

Why did you bother replying to my post when the entire point of my post was this statement which you completely ignored in your reply like you're writing a 4th grade essay?



Now, if we can get adaption to the point that we're crossing the salamander's species boundaries for survival... what stops it from crossing to other reptiles? And past reptiles? What is stopping it? God?



Honestly, I have more intellectually challenging arguments with my 14-year-old than I'm having with you right now.
edit on 3-9-2013 by LightOrange because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 3 2013 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity
Ah, the fun of looking at the silly theory of evolution and seeing the emperor has no clothes despite everyone pretending he does:



Do you feel at all like a hypocrite when you cast dispersion about people who believe in evolution? It seems contrary to Luke 6:37 "judge not and you will not be judged" Apparently the majority of our Christian brethren only utilize portions of the bible pertaining to whatever the current argument is. Live it and mean it or take a nap and forget it. there's no in between according to the good book. I wouldn't normally reduce myself to condescension but whats good for the goose is good for the gander and as you ignore evidence in every reply you make and focus on other tidbits all the while making proclamations about "evolutionist's". Evolutionist by the way is a made up word. People who study evolution, depending on their area, prefer Biologist or Anthropologist.



posted on Sep, 3 2013 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity
reply to post by stormson
 


You see, that is amazing that rather than deal with the arguments made showing the problems with the theory of macro evolution not being proved you want us to prove God. We are not teaching creation by God in public schools, but you are teaching the belief in evolution as fact when it has not been proved.

Macro evolution is based on faith alone and not on science. It is not observable and it is not proved via the fossil record no matter how many times you claim it is. Circular arguments are used to defend it and yet you have no problem with them.


im asking you to prove your side.

evolution is not "fact". it is a theory that explains many, many "facts" and brings them into a whole.

we dont teach creationism because its not science. we dont teach creationism because every religion has a creation myth. which one is true? the flying spaghetti monster has as much fact as christianity.

theres no such thing as macro evolution. thats a red herring created by the i.d. crowd.

we cant see the mountains grow or shrink, but we know they do.

we cant see the stars form, but we know how they do by looking into deep space and seeing the different stages of star formation. whats the difference between that and looking at the fossil record to see the different stages?

now, show me creatures popping into existence, or admit its bunk.

explain why your science book says insects have 4 legs, bats are birds, and rabbits chew their cud, or admit the bible is bunk.



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 03:27 AM
link   
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity
 


Wow this guy in the video is funny hes trying to disprove science and its clear he doesnt even understand it himself.Like where he claimed he saw his daughters biology text book and was shocked then proceeds to say there is no known instance of scales turning to feathers. Well id be shocked to if her text book said that because dinosaurs didn't have scales.We know this from skin samples that were recovered they werent reptiles they were warm blooded. So basically the reason you wont find scales turning into feathers is because thats not what happened. My son is 9 yrs old and knows more about dinosaurs then this guy. And he knows they didnt have scales.


Then he plays this deceptive game with vertical and horizontal evolution by the way these terms were made up by creationists mostly to play word games and confuse people. What hes trying to do is separate macro evolution (vertical) and micro evolution (horizontal). See they cant argue macro evolution occurs as he said we see it all the time.Well for one there not really different but by renaming them they can say there is no proof of one species becoming another.

Well of course there isnt your not going to see a whale become a giraffe or a dog become a cat. Reason is thats not the way it works what happens is species branch off similar species creating new species. For example i have a husky they look similar to a wolf but there not a wolf there a dog. They became two separate species. We know this occurred we found fossils but before them there was an ancestor that branched off creating bears and wolves. But as i said you will never find a fish becoming a bird this is called a red herring. He knows this isnt possible and wants you to believe thats what evolution claims well it isnt.

So this whole video just proves that creationists apparently failed science in school who knows maybe to much time in bible study. Or the alternative is they are lying well imagine that religion lying to people luckily they wouldnt do that well they have but not any more? Ok well there not supposed to will just go with that one. I caan go on hes wrong about lab experiments RNA was indeed reproduced in a lab, And finally about half way through i couldnt take it any more. For the love of god if your going to make a case for creation find someone that didnt sleep through 5th grade biology.




posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 01:48 PM
link   
The Blaze put up a follow-up article on this short film, "Evolution vs. God" and I found one of the comments they chose to put in their article interesting:




Nabuquduriuzhur

Unlike most, I have a degree in conservation biology (they renamed it after turning people off with “environmental education”— wish they’d renamed it before I graduated), one in geology, and two in engineering. The assumptions in evolution ultimately come down to 1. Something from nothing, 2. Magic, 3. Ignore erosion and other natural processes.

Cosmology became a religion some years back when they came up with the non-physics idea of universes popping out of literally nothing. Any time you get something from nothing, that demands a creator God. There’s no scientific explanation that works. So a dozen or so random amino acids from lightning in ammonia (which also creates some really nasty compounds) magically assembled themselves into thousands of structures each requiring thousands or millions of chemical building blocks in a cell in order for it to work? That’s nuts. The cell doesn’t work without such organization and it can’t happen randomly. Particularly when you consider that most of the chemicals involved require life to create them to start with.

It’s astounding how many “scientists” ignore what happens in the field. Having seen 8″ of soil develop in 20 years, it makes me laugh when I see “3 inches per 1,000 years”, which wouldn’’t even keep up with erosion. The same with rocks eroding in 10, 20, 30 years requiring “millions of years”. Evolution is the triumph of hope over science.
source



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity
 



So a dozen or so random amino acids from lightning in ammonia (which also creates some really nasty compounds) magically assembled themselves into thousands of structures each requiring thousands or millions of chemical building blocks in a cell in order for it to work? That’s nuts. The cell doesn’t work without such organization and it can’t happen randomly.


I think I can speak for everyone when I ask to see equations proving that statement to be a mathematical certainty. Given the millions of years of incessant trial and error that were indubitably involved in the process, I'm rather skeptical regarding such an absolute judgment in the matter.


It’s astounding how many “scientists” ignore what happens in the field. Having seen 8″ of soil develop in 20 years, it makes me laugh when I see “3 inches per 1,000 years”, which wouldn’’t even keep up with erosion. The same with rocks eroding in 10, 20, 30 years requiring “millions of years”. Evolution is the triumph of hope over science.


"Evolution is the triumph of hope over science." And religion is not? From where I'm sitting, even if you are right, you're trading a bucket of fecal matter for a barrel of piss. Plain and simple.
edit on 4-9-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity
 


so where did he go to school i need to make sure my son never goes there. Im guessing his degree is fake because he again hasnt a clue. But if you want people who reviewed his video heres one and the plus side shes smart and cute im in love.




And here is Bill Maher talking about how religion is faith and well atheist arent and its hilarious.



PS i hope you see trying to prove your right by proving everyone else wrong doesnt prove anything!
edit on 9/4/13 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 03:49 PM
link   


Evolution Vs. God


The biggest curiosity here is that there is no real need for there to be any division between creation and evolution. This little war is something we have invented for our own personal enjoyment.

None of us; none at all, were there when we supposedly either fell from a tree and learned to walk upright... or was created in a garden called Eden. We base our positions on either ancient texts or incomplete contemporary science... with faith being the backbone of both.

Why do we choose this battle?

That is a good question because there is as much evidence that both could meld together as there are theories of why they don't.

Theories... we weren't there. Not the person in the lab, not the priest, not the preacher, not the science guy on TV. But... somehow, we have garnered enough arrogance to think that we have all the answers and from that spot, we presume to inflict ourselves on everyone else.

Yeah... just like that and it is not just one side that plays this horrid little game.

Evolution vs. God.

How about this one - idiots vs. fools?

Two pennies... that is what it costs to speak one's opinion and it pretty much puts a value on what we think we know.



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by redoubt



Evolution Vs. God


The biggest curiosity here is that there is no real need for there to be any division between creation and evolution. This little war is something we have invented for our own personal enjoyment.

None of us; none at all, were there when we supposedly either fell from a tree and learned to walk upright... or was created in a garden called Eden. We base our positions on either ancient texts or incomplete contemporary science... with faith being the backbone of both.

Why do we choose this battle?

That is a good question because there is as much evidence that both could meld together as there are theories of why they don't.

Theories... we weren't there. Not the person in the lab, not the priest, not the preacher, not the science guy on TV. But... somehow, we have garnered enough arrogance to think that we have all the answers and from that spot, we presume to inflict ourselves on everyone else.

Yeah... just like that and it is not just one side that plays this horrid little game.

Evolution vs. God.

How about this one - idiots vs. fools?

Two pennies... that is what it costs to speak one's opinion and it pretty much puts a value on what we think we know.


Ill refer you back to the video i just posted from Bill Maher he kinda explains about facts verses fiction.Prove to me theres a god and im going wow cool i was wrong but the problem is religions attack science and ignore evidence that disputes there claims. See thats a problem if theres no proof god exists great believe what you will we have people who believe all kinds of crazy things. But you cant prove a belief by ignoring reality it doesnt work that way.
edit on 9/4/13 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by redoubt



Evolution Vs. God


The biggest curiosity here is that there is no real need for there to be any division between creation and evolution. This little war is something we have invented for our own personal enjoyment.

None of us; none at all, were there when we supposedly either fell from a tree and learned to walk upright... or was created in a garden called Eden. We base our positions on either ancient texts or incomplete contemporary science... with faith being the backbone of both.

Why do we choose this battle?

That is a good question because there is as much evidence that both could meld together as there are theories of why they don't.

Theories... we weren't there. Not the person in the lab, not the priest, not the preacher, not the science guy on TV. But... somehow, we have garnered enough arrogance to think that we have all the answers and from that spot, we presume to inflict ourselves on everyone else.

Yeah... just like that and it is not just one side that plays this horrid little game.

Evolution vs. God.

How about this one - idiots vs. fools?

Two pennies... that is what it costs to speak one's opinion and it pretty much puts a value on what we think we know.


You may see it that way... "idiots ~vs~ fools"

...but I don't think you've put much thought into your conclusions so what does that make you?

One of the problems is that "Creationists" want their "theory" taught in public schools. By definition, creation theory requires a creator and as we all know, religion and public education do not mix well. If we begin to teach creation theory in public schools then where does it end? Other religions have their unique creation mythologies as well, should we also teach those in public schools?

Where your opinion falls short is your claim that evolutionists presume to inflict their opnions upon everyone else. You're mistaken if you think that evolutionary theory is "opinion" and it shows a fundamental lack of understanding with regards to how science works. Scientific theory isn't based upon opinion. The methodologies by which science draws conclusions is designed to eliminate opinion.

Honestly... your two pennies isn't worth two cents....



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Blarneystoner
 



Other religions have their unique creation mythologies as well, should we also teach those in public schools?


We do. There's a certain point at which almost every class delves into religion, because religion is a huge part of literature and art and war and exploration and history. Just because you're afraid of your kids catching the god bug, doesn't mean their education should suffer for it. If anything, you should let them learn everything they can so that they can at least make an informed decision in the matter.

Otherwise, you're just as bad as the Christian parents who refuse to let their kids learn anything other than Christian stuff.



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by redoubt
 


It's a little more serious than idiots v fools. You don't see evolutionary biologists blowing themselves up or stoning women to death in the name of science.



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by redoubt



Evolution Vs. God


The biggest curiosity here is that there is no real need for there to be any division between creation and evolution. This little war is something we have invented for our own personal enjoyment.

None of us; none at all, were there when we supposedly either fell from a tree and learned to walk upright... or was created in a garden called Eden. We base our positions on either ancient texts or incomplete contemporary science... with faith being the backbone of both.

Why do we choose this battle?

That is a good question because there is as much evidence that both could meld together as there are theories of why they don't.

Theories... we weren't there. Not the person in the lab, not the priest, not the preacher, not the science guy on TV. But... somehow, we have garnered enough arrogance to think that we have all the answers and from that spot, we presume to inflict ourselves on everyone else.

Yeah... just like that and it is not just one side that plays this horrid little game.

Evolution vs. God.

How about this one - idiots vs. fools?

Two pennies... that is what it costs to speak one's opinion and it pretty much puts a value on what we think we know.


You argue from a false perspective of supposition and ignorance. See, science actually does not make the claim that it knows everything or has all the answers. Science is about searching for the truth and doesn't generally come from a place of arrogance or ego. Granted, as humans scientists are just as fallible as the rest of us and some do engage in dishonest, scrupulous acts or sometimes just really bad science in order to make a profit, a point or both. The Bosnian "pyramid" comes to mind as such a scenario. The only people I'm aware of who proclaim omniscient knowledge from a position of judgement and hypocrisy are those who feel that god is the only answer they need. As another poster stated, I don't see any scientists let alone atheists burning children's faces off with acid or condemning them to be burned alive or stoned to death. That's the sole domain of the religulous.
edit on 4-9-2013 by peter vlar because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by helldiver
 


Oh really? You don't remember any history where science is used as an excuse to kill millions? Wow, I think that is called Eugenics and Hitler who loved it! Seems he used science all the time to justify getting rid of the less evolved peoples. Now, I know you all will say he was a Christian, and to that I will say, he was just another of the godless masses who will use any excuse to dominate mankind.

Lot's of men have used the guise of religion to control the people, and I am sure there are some deluded idiots who actually think they are doing God's work and some of them also claim Lucifer is God and so, which God is it they are really serving?

Please don't pull out the holier than thou "I'm a scientist" card. I do believe we can pull up all kinds of Godless people in history who killed millions in the name of science or used scientific reasoning to do what they did, hmmm Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao come to mind, I'm sure we can find some more.

Be careful with those stones you all are throwing in your glass houses!
edit on 4-9-2013 by UnifiedSerenity because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Blarneystoner
 



Other religions have their unique creation mythologies as well, should we also teach those in public schools?


We do. There's a certain point at which almost every class delves into religion, because religion is a huge part of literature and art and war and exploration and history. Just because you're afraid of your kids catching the god bug, doesn't mean their education should suffer for it. If anything, you should let them learn everything they can so that they can at least make an informed decision in the matter.

Otherwise, you're just as bad as the Christian parents who refuse to let their kids learn anything other than Christian stuff.


youre right, that calls HUMANITIES, not SCIENCE.




top topics



 
22
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join