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: 38
22
<< 35  36  37    39  40  41 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 03:46 PM
link   

UnifiedSerenity
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


That is your take on it. You act as if being a Christian means you cannot be a scientist and yet some of our greatest discoveries have been by Christians. Some of those discoveries come right out of the bible, which is backed up by science.

Many archeologists have become Christians because of the accuracy of the bible, and yet to you it seems they are just idiots and not intelligent men and women of letters. That is a rather sad characterization of Christian scientists.


Which discoveries came right out of the bible and are backed up by science? Which archaeologists have converted to Christianity solely because of archaeological evidence? and I'm legitimately asking because I don't know, not to be facetious.




posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity
 



That is your take on it. You act as if being a Christian means you cannot be a scientist and yet some of our greatest discoveries have been by Christians.


You mean like Georges Lemaitre, the Catholic priest that originally proposed the Big Bang Theory? Or how about Darwin who studied at a seminary and was heavily influenced by the writings of William Paley?
edit on 9/15/2013 by Xcalibur254 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 10:41 PM
link   

UnifiedSerenity
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


That is your take on it. You act as if being a Christian means you cannot be a scientist and yet some of our greatest discoveries have been by Christians. Some of those discoveries come right out of the bible, which is backed up by science.

Many archeologists have become Christians because of the accuracy of the bible, and yet to you it seems they are just idiots and not intelligent men and women of letters. That is a rather sad characterization of Christian scientists.


Im afraid your wrong archaeologists are finding out bible history was a tale of fiction.




"This is what archaeologists have learned from their excavations in the Land of Israel: the Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the 12 tribes of Israel. Perhaps even harder to swallow is the fact that the united monarchy of David and Solomon, which is described by the Bible as a regional power, was at most a small tribal kingdom. And it will come as an unpleasant shock to many that the God of Israel, Jehovah, had a female consort and that the early Israelite religion adopted monotheism only in the waning period of the monarchy and not at Mount Sinai. Most of those who are engaged in scientific work in the interlocking spheres of the Bible, archaeology and the history of the Jewish people - and who once went into the field looking for proof to corroborate the Bible story - now agree that the historic events relating to the stages of the Jewish people's emergence are radically different from what that story tells." ~Ze'ev Herzog. professor of archaeology at Tel Aviv University, Israel



posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 06:14 AM
link   

UnifiedSerenity
They are not presenting it as it really is, but as fact. They do not even want the information of ID presented showing how proteins are really made, the mathematics involved or how much data is necessary in DNA which points to a designer. No, they put up clever movies and pictures showing this hypothesis and then point to a few fossils that do not prove intermediate changes in kind to another.


You're talking about evolution?

My guess is that you are selecting wrong definition of theory - here is Webster take on the word:




: an idea or set of ideas that is intended to explain facts or events

: an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true

: the general principles or ideas that relate to a particular subject


Science uses first one when talking about Evolution because it is proven multiple times and correct with every new find of evidence or so called links. IMHO, you only think about theory as 3rd definition.

Am I correct?



posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 06:19 AM
link   
yes i am very sure that a YouTube video has modern day science up
in arms, the creationist are really hammering home all that proof
they finally came up with to support their claims, after disproving
evolution and proving concisely that the thousands of scientist and
every single major center for science in the world was against them,
they finally came through victorious due to a YouTube video, HECK
im gonna pray to YouTube from now on.

Oh and dont forget about the controversy of Engineering V Harry Potter.

This message brought to you by capn sarcastic.... ugh -.-
edit on 16-9-2013 by bloodreviara because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 07:56 AM
link   
reply to post by bloodreviara
 


Why don't you actually disprove what you don't like in the video rather than just denouncing youtube. Lots of scientists don't believe in Evolution but are afraid to speak out. There are some very well respected ones who have and they lost their careers over it. Most of you evolutionists who write on this thread appear to be very liberal. I bet you denounced the McCarthy era of Hollywood. How is what is happening in science any different?

You sarcasm aside, you really offered nothing to the discussion of this topic but ridicule. That is typical with people who have no real arguments to support their ideas.



posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 07:58 AM
link   
reply to post by SuperFrog
 


Quite frankly, I am a bit sick of answering your questions over and over for you to ignore the points I am making. So, until you start participating in the debate, I am done answering you.



posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 08:17 AM
link   
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity
 





Yes, please do show us the observable change in kind and since you cannot observe 60 million years ago, please show it happening today. Finches are still finches, fish are still fish, and bacteria are still bacteria.


If you would like an observable example of change just look at the photographs of people over the last hundred years or so. When people married because of "family arrangments" there was not much change in the general appearance of their children. Since this practice was abandoned, about the time photoghaphy began, the selections of a mate has been made largely on appearance. This has given rise to more and more attractive offspring, because no one wants ugly kids.

I have often noticed in threads such as this, all the evidence of any sort evolutionary changes which may have taken place are summarily discarded as impossible. Yet I have not seen anyone put up ANY "irrifutable-concrete" proof of a god being real. We are expected to take this on faith and discard any physical evidence of anything which may challange this belief.
Why does not someone build a clear plastic box and seal up the sides so it can not be opened, leaving a few holes for air to get in. Place some lettuce and or carrots inside before sealing. If "creation" is true, surely a god will put a rabbit inside the box as proof positive of their existance.

End of debate!!!



posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 09:21 AM
link   
reply to post by teamcommander
 



Why does not someone build a clear plastic box and seal up the sides so it can not be opened, leaving a few holes for air to get in. Place some lettuce and or carrots inside before sealing. If "creation" is true, surely a god will put a rabbit inside the box as proof positive of their existance.

End of debate!!!


Apparently, God is ineffective unless faith is an active element in the relationship.



posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 09:49 AM
link   

UnifiedSerenity
reply to post by SuperFrog
 


Quite frankly, I am a bit sick of answering your questions over and over for you to ignore the points I am making. So, until you start participating in the debate, I am done answering you.


Ouch...

I am really surprised by this reaction. Are you implying that in order to have debate I have to agree to your 'points', while you haven't show single piece of evidence so far?!


One thing that strikes me is that you are not just trying to bend holy book to prove scientific points, but you are trying to bend science to prove holy book as well. Thus you refer to 'ages', like new age and old age, where in reality there is nothing about that in Bible. (nor any scientific evidence that people are on Earth only 6,500 years) On contrary, all evidence points to primates being on earth for millions of years, we humans being one branch of their evolutionary tree...

Just for example, today we can know that small mutation on eye in humans about 6-10 thousands years ago is reason we have humans with blue pigment in eye. * source
We know that we share about 98.7 % of genetic material with chimps and bonobos, and those 2 are related and together with humans, we share common ancestors. We know that about 1 million years ago, they separated and now form 2 distinct groups, but have very similar genes. (99.7%)

What do you think, why our brain has developed? Because someone engineered it or because as any other muscle, gets stronger and bigger with more use?

Actually looking at above, I can't sense why you dislike to discuss with me evolution...

EDIT:

Speaking of finches (answer to other post without much of evidence), here is finches Galapagos family tree... note difference (evolution) and source of ancestor... and no, they were not there 60 million years, at least not in that form.



Yes, we know a lot what life looked like 60 million years ago, not exactly like picture, but from fossils and what is left from that period...
edit on 16-9-2013 by SuperFrog because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-9-2013 by SuperFrog because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity
 



Quite frankly, I am a bit sick of answering your questions over and over for you to ignore the points I am making. So, until you start participating in the debate, I am done answering you.


Where did God come from? Until you answer that question, you have no right to be "sick of answering [our] questions". Since you're supposedly so smart and correct, you should have no problem answering our questions. After all, you've just spent how many pages worth of three threads sneering at evolutionists only to turn around and whine when we ask you a perfectly good question of our own.

So out with it: where did God come from?



posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 12:18 PM
link   

UnifiedSerenity
reply to post by SuperFrog
 


Quite frankly, I am a bit sick of answering your questions over and over for you to ignore the points I am making. So, until you start participating in the debate, I am done answering you.

OK, who's the pot and whose the kettle?

Maybe you should take this approach to the whole thing in general. Believe what you want and let others believe what they want, instead of thinking that the "proof" that convinced you is enough "proof" to convince others and getting flustered when it isn't.



posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 





Im afraid your wrong archaeologists are finding out bible history was a tale of fiction.


"This is what archaeologists have learned from their excavations in the Land of Israel: the Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the 12 tribes of Israel. Perhaps even harder to swallow is the fact that the united monarchy of David and Solomon, which is described by the Bible as a regional power, was at most a small tribal kingdom. And it will come as an unpleasant shock to many that the God of Israel, Jehovah, had a female consort and that the early Israelite religion adopted monotheism only in the waning period of the monarchy and not at Mount Sinai. Most of those who are engaged in scientific work in the interlocking spheres of the Bible, archaeology and the history of the Jewish people - and who once went into the field looking for proof to corroborate the Bible story - now agree that the historic events relating to the stages of the Jewish people's emergence are radically different from what that story tells." ~Ze'ev Herzog. professor of archaeology at Tel Aviv University, Israel


Mr. Herzog is not among the majority opinion in this matter. I took it upon myself to communicate with several University professors on this topic, and now have some homework of my own, but their concensus is they are not surprised this is getting play, but Mr. Herzog is not putting forth accepted truth, but his own spin on history.

One response to me was:

From Professor Rick Hess:

Ze'ev Herzog is one of the few archaeologists who sides with Israel Finkelstein in their attempts to reconstruct the archaeological picture in a provocative manner. So I am not surprised at his comments.

Regarding Israel's presence in Egypt and the question of the exodus, please consider reading ch. 4 of the most important work by Ralph K. Hawkins, How Israel Became a People (Abingdon, 2013). Also, look at the volumes by James Hoffmeier, Israel in Egypt and Ancient Israel in Sinai (Oxford, 2005). See also the relevant section in Kenneth Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Eerdmans, 2003).

Scientifically there is no direct evidence for the mention of Israel as residing in Egypt. But then that is not surprise given the slave status of the people. Is there evidence of a West Semitic culture (the Israelites and Canaanites shared a West Semitic background)? Yes, Tell ed-Dab'a, a site larger than Babylon in the eastern delta of Egypt, was a West Semitic city with architecture, pottery, etc. similar to Canaan and not at all like Egypt. It may well be the site of Pi-Ramesses mentioned in 13th century B.C. Egyptian records (when I would date the exodus) and the city of Ramesses mentioned in Exodus 1:11. The site was (re-)built in the 13th century and then abandoned a century later. It would fit exactly with an Israelite presence there. Further, the W. Sinai mines at Serabit el-Khadim contain W. Semitic (pre-Hebrew) writing left at graffiti there by the slaves of Egyptians who mined the place.

Dr. Richard S. Hess
Professor of Old Testament and Semitic Languages;
Editor of the Denver Journal

So, if we really want to dig into this issue, then we can all go buy the books and see what they say or ignore the information and just repeat what Herzog tells us. I intend to get the books.
edit on 16-9-2013 by UnifiedSerenity because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 03:40 PM
link   
Serenity is apparently refusing to answer my question, which puts his god theory in the exact same boat he's spent three threads insisting on putting the evolutionary theory in - because he refuses to tell us where God came from. And yet, somehow, God is more worthy of support than evolution? Pfft. Okay.
edit on 16-9-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


I did not refuse, you just don't acknowledge the answer which I have given at least a dozen times. No one can prove where God came from. That does not mean evolution is true. You have no intermediate fossils showing change in king. You stand on adaptation for your evidence, but all adaptation proves species changing within species, not changing from one to another.



posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity
 



I did not refuse, you just don't acknowledge the answer which I have given at least a dozen times. No one can prove where God came from.


Then what's your excuse for believing in him?


That does not mean evolution is true.


No, it means you're a hypocrite and you have no right to criticize what we believe in because your beliefs even more irrational than our fact-based theories. What's more, you're not even TRYING to find the answers. You're content with just "having faith".

This thread is a discussion about the merits of creationism versus the merits of evolution. You can't tell us where God comes from, whereas we have a number of theories as to how life may have first arrived on Earth. We have facts and evidence to support our hypothesis. You have "I don't know, therefore God".

You have nothing but a spiritual vendetta against those who dare disbelieve. Admit it, and let us be done with this circus act.
edit on 16-9-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 09:06 PM
link   

AfterInfinity
Serenity is apparently refusing to answer my question, which puts his god theory in the exact same boat he's spent three threads insisting on putting the evolutionary theory in - because he refuses to tell us where God came from. And yet, somehow, God is more worthy of support than evolution? Pfft. Okay.
edit on 16-9-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)


Nah, he is just refusing to answer my questions...





That might be for a good reason..

edit on 16-9-2013 by SuperFrog because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 09:29 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


I've already answered why I believe in many places where you are participating, so just stop it. I base my faith on my life experiences, the proved history as revealed in the bible, the very witness in the Stars which I have posted a link to before that I doubt you bothered to read as you dismiss it outright, the Fibonacci sequence, golden ratio, fulfilled prophecy.

You can ignore all that, I don't. I have no been persuaded by micro evolution to see any truth in this idea that life came from nothing, that species and plants came from common ancestors is simply not proved in any way, and the absolute falsehoods put out over the last 150 years to try to prove this theory.

It is a faith matter, and that is something that must come to each individual, and I will not attempt to argue faith. Faith is about much higher things, and I am one who truly believes in the spiritual side of life for many reasons.

I do not have a vendetta against people's beliefs. I do have an issue with you and others claiming evolution has been proved when it has not. You stand on adaptation within species to say it proves change in kind, and that just is not true.
edit on 16-9-2013 by UnifiedSerenity because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 09:45 PM
link   
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity
 


So i give you an archaeologist and you reply with a Professor of Old Testament and Semitic Languages? What would he know about archaeology has he ever even done an archaeological dig? He has no frame of reference you might as well given me a quote from an auto mechanic. Look archaeologist know the Hebrews came from the Canaanites, so they were not immigrants from Egypt but native Canaanites.Which works out well for Israel actually it proves they were living there instead of Palestinians for example. Also roman records also confirm this as well but i wouldnt expect a religious scholar to know this.



posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 06:29 AM
link   

UnifiedSerenity
I've already answered why I believe in many places where you are participating, so just stop it. I base my faith on my life experiences, the proved history as revealed in the bible, the very witness in the Stars which I have posted a link to before that I doubt you bothered to read as you dismiss it outright, the Fibonacci sequence, golden ratio, fulfilled prophecy.

Serenity, there is no such a thing as proved history as revealed in the bible. On contrary, it is proven wrong, from big flood, age of life on earth and many things like inequality between sexes. We have nothing against you having your faith, but please don't try to persuade us that answer to all question is 'because of God'.


UnifiedSerenity
You can ignore all that, I don't. I have no been persuaded by micro evolution to see any truth in this idea that life came from nothing, that species and plants came from common ancestors is simply not proved in any way, and the absolute falsehoods put out over the last 150 years to try to prove this theory.

It has been proven, I link many studies that proved theory of evolution as correct. Those what you call them micro evolutions combined with millions of years is what makes evolution. Now something your local priest probably will never mention to you - based on evolution, scientists were able to predict what links should be between our ancestors and us should look like, how big brain etc. And then they discovered Lucy, yet another link between primates and us and it correctly fills the missing space between our ancestors and us, as predicted by science. (source)
There are many fossils like Lucy, but none as complete as Lucy.

Dawkin's take on why aren't chimps still evolving into man.


UnifiedSerenity
It is a faith matter, and that is something that must come to each individual, and I will not attempt to argue faith. Faith is about much higher things, and I am one who truly believes in the spiritual side of life for many reasons.

Your believes as faith are your own. Care to explain how faith is about much higher things... kind of muddy water if you ask me...


UnifiedSerenity
I do not have a vendetta against people's beliefs. I do have an issue with you and others claiming evolution has been proved when it has not. You stand on adaptation within species to say it proves change in kind, and that just is not true.

Again, another statement without any facts. Evolution is proven over and over as true theory. Many links, life evolving from simple cell organism to more complex with millions of years to adopt, change, mutate... Today we know that whales were not always aquatic, they went back int water, but are still mammals. We know that Australia's animal kingdom developed separately from rest of the world, thus 80% of life is endemic to Australia. That is why you don't have kangaroos elsewhere. Same thing with Madagascar, which was actually part of India and has as well around 80% endemic flora and fauna.


There is no single evidence of big flood, yet all biblical scholars believe there was flood.

There is no single evidence pointing to our world being only 6500 years old, yet biblical scholars believe it is that old.

There is no single evidence that points on human and dinosaurs living together, yet creationist museum shows saddle on dinosaurs and is stating we lived at the same time?!


And evolution does not explain life beginning as biblical scholars are trying to point, but changes in life, complexity and adaptations.

And for end, here is how we know evolution being true...


Experiments can help scientists figure out how the molecules involved in the RNA world arose. These experiments serve as "proofs of concept" for hypotheses about steps in the origin of life — in other words, if a particular chemical reaction happens in a modern lab under conditions similar to those on early Earth, the same reaction could have happened on early Earth and could have played a role in the origin of life. The 1953 Miller-Urey experiment, for example, simulated early Earth's atmosphere with nothing more than water, hydrogen, ammonia, and methane and an electrical charge standing in for lightning, and produced complex organic compounds like amino acids. Now, scientists have learned more about the environmental and atmospheric conditions on early Earth and no longer think that the conditions used by Miller and Urey were quite right. However, since Miller and Urey, many scientists have performed experiments using more accurate environmental conditions and exploring alternate scenarios for these reactions. These experiments yielded similar results - complex molecules could have formed in the conditions on early Earth.

This experimental approach can also help scientists study the functioning of the RNA world itself. For example, origins biochemist, Andy Ellington, hypothesizes that in the early RNA world, RNA copied itself, not by matching individual units of the molecules (as in modern DNA), but by matching short strings of units — it's a bit like assembling a house from prefabricated walls instead of brick by brick. He is studying this hypothesis by performing experiments to search for molecules that copy themselves like this and to study how they evolve.

*source


edit on 17-9-2013 by SuperFrog because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 35  36  37    39  40  41 >>

log in

join