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: 30
22
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 04:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 





What about that Ostrich


Uh, I'll have the chicken please. White wine.

So did chickens just get a raw deal from evolution,
that turned out to be in our favor ? Perfect farm animal
that's for sure.

Lets stop for a second to do this shall we ?

!. Some are advocating that large reptiles evolved and became birds.

2. While the Bible says God cursed them to the ground to eat the dust for
all of their days.

Which one has more evidence ?




posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 07:56 AM
link   
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity
 


So youve abandoned trying to prove the existence of god with science and now want to use philosophy?We can talk about our beliefs but its kind of pointless im sure these people dont want to know what we believe. Oh and one more thing you were wrong again life has indeed been created in a lab by us humans. A brand new life form and i think youll like the title.




Scientist Craig Venter creates life for first time in laboratory sparking debate about 'playing god'


www.telegraph.co.uk...

Now as it turns out looks like were aliens to earth might want to read this as well.


"Basic Organics Needed to Ignite Life Started in Coldest Regions of Universe"--NASA Scientists (Weekend Feature)


www.dailygalaxy.com...



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 08:23 AM
link   

randyvs
reply to post by Phage
 





What about that Ostrich


Uh, I'll have the chicken please. White wine.

So did chickens just get a raw deal from evolution,
that turned out to be in our favor ? Perfect farm animal
that's for sure.


Chickens are domesticated animals that is why they work so well for our purposes.



Lets stop for a second to do this shall we ?

!. Some are advocating that large reptiles evolved and became birds.


Really who since this would be entirely wrong since dinosaurs are not even related to reptiles.




2. While the Bible says God cursed them to the ground to eat the dust for
all of their days.


Wow god must really hate chicken my son doesnt like it either so i know his pain.


Which one has more evidence ?


Have we found anthropological evidence of god that i wasnt aware of? See again your comparing science with well mythology.We have lots of evidence we call them fossils.



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 08:51 AM
link   

randyvs

Lets stop for a second to do this shall we ?

!. Some are advocating that large reptiles evolved and became birds.

2. While the Bible says God cursed them to the ground to eat the dust for
all of their days.

Which one has more evidence ?



Considering the bible is worth nothing more than anecdotal evidence to corroborate historical events in a few specific cases, Genesis not being one, the answer should be clear.

Also, if god cursed them to the ground to eat dust, why can we take them into space >< they float in Zero-G



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 


wow, a SCIENTIST does something.... I would assume he's intelligent?



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Cypress

Considering the bible is worth nothing more than anecdotal evidence to corroborate historical events in a few specific cases, Genesis not being one, the answer should be clear.

Also, if god cursed them to the ground to eat dust, why can we take them into space >< they float in Zero-G


You do note that WE took them into space. They didn't fly up there. Are you trying to be so literal that by cursing to the ground in normal activity that if a big wind came along it could not by that curse toss them a few feet?

You seem to be throwing out red herrings. Are you a fish monger?



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 10:31 AM
link   

UnifiedSerenity


It's simple logic and yet you don't want to even think about it seems.


You are incapable of using logic, which shows by you ignoring my perfectly flawless logical questions. There is no possible way for you to logically defend your beliefs, so you are stuck embarrassingly misinterpreting evolution and how you *think* it should work. Sorry, but you are fighting a lost battle.
edit on 9-10-13 by paradox because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 

Seems animals can shrug off god's curses.

Common flying dragon



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 10:47 AM
link   

UnifiedSerenity
reply to post byr
 


wow, a SCIENTIST does something.... I would assume he's intelligent?


How long does it usually take before you get an intelligent response ?
edit on 10-9-2013 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity
 



I believe God created everything by His word from His very being.


I don't think you have any room to make fun of evolutionary theory when you go around spouting stuff like that. Where is the evidence for this belief? We have thousands, literally thousands of pieces of evidence supporting evolution. What evidence do you have to support your claim? Evidence that exclusively and incontrovertibly points to your claim as true.
edit on 10-9-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 10:56 AM
link   
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity
 



wow, a SCIENTIST does something.... I would assume he's intelligent?


Is this a debate or a poo-throwing contest?



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 10:57 AM
link   

UnifiedSerenity
reply to post by dragonridr
 


wow, a SCIENTIST does something.... I would assume he's intelligent?


So i disproved your beliefs in life has never been created in a lab out of simple chemicals that were present in on earth showing that at least in theory its possible to create life. And you commend him for being smart im sure he probably has at least one PHD if not more but i dont see how thats relevant to your cause? Once again you we wrong but yet to you its no big deal but to people evaluating what you say its a very big deal.



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


No, I'm just pointing out that using a scientist who does something to prove one's theory of evolution is a bit odd since a scientist is assumed intelligent and thus disproves evolution. You can't use a scientist to alter life or pretend he created it and then say, "See, Evolution!"



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


You claim to have thousands of pieces of evidence and yet you can't provide any incremental changes in body forms to a new kind in the fossil records. You can't observe this evolution because it takes millions of years by your theory. So, you can't prove your theory anymore than I can prove mine by scientific methods. I can provide thousands of biblical historical and prophetic evidences, I can point to irreducible complexity down to the cellular level, and I can point to the order of nature and symbiosis that exists which means all had to happen at the same time or they wouldn't exist all while your theory says it taking millions of years.

How did trees and plants exist or animals exist without one another? Yet simple life needing oxygen is supposed to exist, and those things are supposed to just happen to have everything they need to function in their complex cells, biological systems, reproduction with male and female. I mean come on, it's obviously a very complex system and if you found something like an egg beater that has a handle, crank, gear, and beaters on mars you would say, "See there was intelligent life on Mars", but you can't look at a cell with it's incredible systems and say, "See, there was an intelligent designer!"

Truly amazing.




posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity
 



You claim to have thousands of pieces of evidence and yet you can't provide any incremental changes in body forms to a new kind in the fossil records. You can't observe this evolution because it takes millions of years by your theory. So, you can't prove your theory anymore than I can prove mine by scientific methods.


Of course I can't prove evolution. I'm not a f***ing scientist. All I know is what I've been told by scientists. And if you're going to tell me that they are all liars, then all I have to say is this: it doesn't take much balls to call out a hundred scientists on a conspiracy forum. Honestly, for making a point, you're going the worst way about it. The fact you're doing it here says that you don't want to run the risk of being publicized.

I don't have the answers you're looking for. But that's not the same as saying the answers don't exist. They do exist, I just don't have them.



How did trees and plants exist or animals exist without one another? Yet simple life needing oxygen is supposed to exist, and those things are supposed to just happen to have everything they need to function in their complex cells, biological systems, reproduction with male and female. I mean come on, it's obviously a very complex system and if you found something like an egg beater that has a handle, crank, gear, and beaters on mars you would say, "See there was intelligent life on Mars", but you can't look at a cell with it's incredible systems and say, "See, there was an intelligent designer!"


Because then you'd need to propose a believable intelligent designer. You haven't done that yet. You handed us Santa Claus and said, "Here's your intelligent designer." And you wonder why we laughed. For lack of any satisfactory answer on that front, we've turned to other, much more easily verified theories.

Just because you personally cannot think of a better answer, doesn't mean a better answer doesn't exist. And it most certainly does not mean that if another person finds one that you don't understand, it makes them automatically wrong. Which seems to be the two most important principles you are operating by right now. The cure is simple: find the people who have the answers and question them at length. Oh, and...don't listen with the intent to argue. Listen with the intent to understand.






edit on 10-9-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 12:50 PM
link   

edit on 10-9-2013 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 01:47 PM
link   

UnifiedSerenity

Cypress

Considering the bible is worth nothing more than anecdotal evidence to corroborate historical events in a few specific cases, Genesis not being one, the answer should be clear.

Also, if god cursed them to the ground to eat dust, why can we take them into space >< they float in Zero-G


You do note that WE took them into space. They didn't fly up there. Are you trying to be so literal that by cursing to the ground in normal activity that if a big wind came along it could not by that curse toss them a few feet?

You seem to be throwing out red herrings. Are you a fish monger?


WOW, a creationist throwng out the "literal" term to describe someone who does not in any way support their position. yet will quote scripture when it suits them. LOL i'm not the one throwing a red herring.

I'm not the one who is trying to push the interpretation of the bible as a means to justify my perspective, i used logic to respond to a claim that was made. So either we are greater than god because we can defy his curse through our ingenuity or its a simple matter of the laws of physics.



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 01:52 PM
link   

UnifiedSerenity
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


No, I'm just pointing out that using a scientist who does something to prove one's theory of evolution is a bit odd since a scientist is assumed intelligent and thus disproves evolution. You can't use a scientist to alter life or pretend he created it and then say, "See, Evolution!"


Well this is a new argument. Science proves god because we have to have intelligence to study science; therefore, god created the universe.



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 02:00 PM
link   

UnifiedSerenity

How did trees and plants exist or animals exist without one another? Yet simple life needing oxygen is supposed to exist, and those things are supposed to just happen to have everything they need to function in their complex cells, biological systems, reproduction with male and female. I mean come on, it's obviously a very complex system and if you found something like an egg beater that has a handle, crank, gear, and beaters on mars you would say, "See there was intelligent life on Mars", but you can't look at a cell with it's incredible systems and say, "See, there was an intelligent designer!"

Truly amazing.



There are plenty of species of life that can live in extreme ecosystems by themselves. Plus, life evolves with its environments, so of course the environment would contain everything they need. Environment changes, those with beneficial traits to the changing environment would claim that niche and the others would move or the genetic traits that are now less beneficial would be weeded out.

I know that an egg beater needs to be made. We are talking about a fabricated and manufactured tool. Organic material forms naturally in the environment whether you want to acknowledge that point or not.
edit on 10-9-2013 by Cypress because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 10:01 PM
link   

AfterInfinity
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity
 



wow, a SCIENTIST does something.... I would assume he's intelligent?


Is this a debate or a poo-throwing contest?


It's definitely not a debate. In a debate you address counterpoints and evidence that goes against your side. This hasn't been done. The guy is using outdated arguments that have been debunked years ago, and just ignoring anybody that proves the arguments wrong.

No intermediary species = proven wrong
Irreducible complexity = proven wrong

Crocoduck, why are there still apes, something from nothing, thermodynamics, tornado assembling 747 etc etc.. Straw mans and red herrings. None of it is relevant to evolution in the least. It's just regurgitating things he read on the answersingenesis website. None of the arguments are backed by any sort of fact and he still won't even attempt to address the talk origins link with the 29 proofs of common descent. His best argument is that we haven't found every creature to ever exist in every single stage of evolution. He's claimed more than once that we have found an Australopithecus Afarensis skeleton with intact apelike hands and feet, yet every time he's been asked to post it he just ignores the reply as if it didn't happen.

He's clearly either a preacher, he's being paid to spread this info, or he's a troll. I'm still trying to figure it out. I always have to add points for humor when somebody brings up one of the arguments in my signature, however.

I shouldn't waste my time on this, but I really just do it for the benefit of those reading the thread that may be falsely swayed by lies, fallacies and exaggerations. I prefer to deny ignorance.
edit on 10-9-2013 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join