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.

 

Evolutionists ! Explain this and make sense at the same time.

page: 15
20
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 07:51 AM
link   

UnifiedSerenity

Some will say it's been refuted, but not according to the peer review journals that evolutionists always point to. The responses to the complaints about this presentation can be found here.



Unfounded Creationist Claims about Polonium Radiohalos

At times Gentry seems to deliberately obscure or minimize the evidence against his claims. In the introduction at his website he states, "Have you heard that, decades later, this evidence still stands unrefuted by the scientific community?" Gentry declares that if claims by critics that Po halos formed in ways other than he asserts, "they would have passed peer review and been published in the open scientific literature... or have themselves been experimentally falsified." Yet as he knows, a number of rigorous, peer-reviewed scientific papers refuting his claims and supporting alternate explanations of Po formation have been published (as cited herein). Ironically, many of Gentry's own claims have not been published in peer reviewed literature, and when they have, strong rebuttals followed by both mainstream and creationist workers. Gentry's home page also boldly declares: "Every question regarding the validity or implications of this polonium-halo evidence has been systematically dealt with, in our published reports and in various discussions with those holding differing views." However, if one examines the page linked to the term "reports" one finds that they concentrate almost entirely on the physics of radio halos, and none substantially address let alone refute the geologic-setting evidence fatal to his claims. Andrew Snelling, a creationist geologist with "Answers in Genesis," bluntly stated that it is "wrong for Gentry to go on denying and rejecting the many impeccable observational evidences..." Snelling (2002) . Likewise, in reviewing evidence that many of the halos occur in intrusive dikes, Brown et al(1988) state: "...it would be safe to say that the majority of halo-containing minerals are younger than the host rock and therefore do not represent primordial material."


That’s the thing about the internet. For every one that you find that says “it is” someone else can find 10 that says “it isn’t.” You can believe what ever you want to believe, but science is not on your side.




posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 08:24 PM
link   



posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 09:16 PM
link   
I will also add these articles to the mix refuting polonium halos
Polonium Halos refuted

and another one i already posted in another thread directed at unifiedserenity as well

Radiometric Dating A Cristian Perspective

edit on 12-9-2013 by Cypress because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 10:55 PM
link   
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity
 





Now, the exponential numbers show that the probability of life happening by chance is beyond belief. To believe in evolution shows amazing faith because there is nothing offered by scientists to counter these numbers. If I said, I have a billion dollars here to give you, and all you have to do is spin this wheel that has 50 numbers on it and get them to come up in order from 1 to 50 with no mistakes, but it will cost you 10,000 dollars to take those spins, would you give me that puny $10,000.00 with such a huge payoff? Do you think you have a decent chance at winning the mega lottery? You have a chance to win 250 million dollars! What are your chances of picking the right 5 numbers out of 55 numbers and a power ball number that is 1 out of 30? You have to get them all right. Do you think you will win? Any yet those chances are much much better than the chance of life coming together and creating YOU!


This is just another lame presentation of that silly old creationist probability argument for an event that has already happened, which in turn is an example of The Sharpshooters Fallacy. It is meaningless to build a probability argument based on what has already happened. The probability of something that has already happened is and will always be 1.0 = a dead certainty.




If you still believe in evolution, then it truly does prove you have great faith because it's not based on logic, mathematical knowledge, or any evidence.


You seem to believe if you repeat a lie over and over, it will make it true. When it comes to logical validity, your theistic beliefs are simply invalid even after having the logical fallacies pointed out to you time and time again, you still insist otherwise. Your beliefs are irrational. In contrast Evolution is not a belief system, it is an observable fact.


PRATT = "Point Refuted A Thousand Times", though that number is a gross underestimate. Creationist arguments consist primarily and often times entirely of false claims that have been addressed and refuted many times before, many of them decades ago. But creationists are still being fed those same old false claims and they keep presenting them as if they were actually worth something and we keep on repeating the same refutation over and over again. One person has described it as "slaying the dead." It doesn't matter how many times you tell your lies, they still will never be true. Goebbels was wrong.



posted on Sep, 13 2013 @ 02:15 AM
link   
reply to post by flyingfish
 


The event has NOT already happened, and likewise just because you keep saying it did does not make it true. You cannot refute the mathematics no matter how hard you try, and what's funny is the physicists and mathematicians are laughing behind your back because even they can tell it never happened by chance.


edit on 13-9-2013 by UnifiedSerenity because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2013 @ 06:59 AM
link   

UnifiedSerenity
reply to post by flyingfish
 


The event has NOT already happened, and likewise just because you keep saying it did does not make it true. You cannot refute the mathematics no matter how hard you try, and what's funny is the physicists and mathematicians are laughing behind your back because even they can tell it never happened by chance.


Life exists; therefore, it has happened.

As I said earlier, Chemical reactions are NOT RANDOM; therefore, Statistical probabilities DO NOT APPLY.

You know I will let you in on a little secret. They're not laughing at us.......



posted on Sep, 13 2013 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity
 


I'm gonna solve the puzzle Pat.

Evolution is quantatatively impossible. Debunked.

Great post Unified.



posted on Sep, 13 2013 @ 03:40 PM
link   

randyvs
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity
 


I'm gonna solve the puzzle Pat.

Evolution is quantatatively impossible. Debunked.

Great post Unified.


Excellent. I'm glad that finally has been cleared up. I guess it's time to file suit to recompense what I've spent on education since its all been authoritatively debunked.



posted on Sep, 13 2013 @ 04:02 PM
link   

randyvs
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity
 


Evolution is quantatatively impossible. Debunked.



So was THIS post.

The mathematical odds that a person will write a post with EXACTLY those words/characters in the exact same way, at this exact particular time, was...indeed....pretty much ZERO.

This is the way how you argue.

Nevertheless, your post EXISTS! Even if it was virtually impossible to "predict" and calculate , say, 30 mins before you posted it. 30 mins ago...I could have publicly stated there is no way in hell that this post will be able to ever exist...and I could've used math to PROVE that the chances for it are incredible, incredible small.

I could ALSO use math to "prove" that your post, due to to the extremely non-likelihood that it came into existence *in exactly the way how it later did*, must've come into existence based on paranormal circumstances.


Please calculate the mathematical odds for THIS REPLY HERE (the combination of each character and each word etc.)...pretend you do not know this reply yet and didn't read it yet but will come across it in the next minute or two, it is therefore (hypothetical) still unknown to you.

Do you understand what I am saying? Do you see WHY your mathematical arguments are silly?



posted on Sep, 13 2013 @ 04:10 PM
link   

UnifiedSerenity
.. can tell it never happened by chance.


So you think evolution means things happen "by chance"?

Lol. Seriously..I am done.



posted on Sep, 13 2013 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by NoRulesAllowed
 


That's what pro evo people teach. Random chance made it all happen because it had a long time to happen. No designer, no order, just BANG... Shazam a cell, OOOOH Look animals from cells... see evolution is real!!!!



posted on Sep, 13 2013 @ 04:49 PM
link   

NoRulesAllowed

UnifiedSerenity
.. can tell it never happened by chance.


So you think evolution means things happen "by chance"?

Lol. Seriously..I am done.





If they didn't happen by chance then how did they happen? By design? I'm asking a serious question here. I'm not being snide or joking. I really do not understand this statement. It seems to contradict evolution and yet is being used to support evolution. Please explain. I really want to know what you mean.



posted on Sep, 13 2013 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Khaleesi

If they didn't happen by chance then how did they happen? By design? I'm asking a serious question here. I'm not being snide or joking. I really do not understand this statement. It seems to contradict evolution and yet is being used to support evolution. Please explain. I really want to know what you mean.


There is an element of chance/randomness; however, the evolutionary process is not random. That doesn't mean it is by "design" but rather whether or not the genetic change is passed on is determined by natural stresses in the environment. That is why you cannot quantify evolution with statistical probabilities.



posted on Sep, 13 2013 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Cypress

Khaleesi

If they didn't happen by chance then how did they happen? By design? I'm asking a serious question here. I'm not being snide or joking. I really do not understand this statement. It seems to contradict evolution and yet is being used to support evolution. Please explain. I really want to know what you mean.


There is an element of chance/randomness; however, the evolutionary process is not random. That doesn't mean it is by "design" but rather whether or not the genetic change is passed on is determined by natural stresses in the environment. That is why you cannot quantify evolution with statistical probabilities.


This.

The "random element", eg. a random mutation which MAY have happened by cosmic radiation destroying/altering DNA, possibly causing a genetic change. (This is at least what I remember as one possible trigger for a mutation). But this triggering random element is not what is relevant here.

Relevant is the *entire* process....regardless whether actually a random event is responsible that mutations happen.

This, on the other hand is actually also a miraculous thing:

Let's assume that mutations indeed happen "by chance"....the evolutionary process then literally turns those "random events" into something of order where ultimately perfectly adapted and specialized species are the end result... and this entire process is EVERYTHING BUT random, obviously.



posted on Sep, 13 2013 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity
 


That's what pro evo people teach. Random chance made it all happen because it had a long time to happen. No designer, no order, just BANG... Shazam a cell, OOOOH Look animals from cells... see evolution is real!!!!

It's sad that you've been told repeatedly, in this thread and others, that this is a straw man argument. You have been provided with evidence as to why this is a straw man argument. Yet you choose to continue to parrot the same statement over and over again. It's a shame that you can't see the difference between a process with "no order" and an undirected process, in spite of being explicitly shown how they differ.



posted on Sep, 13 2013 @ 06:33 PM
link   

UnifiedSerenity
reply to post by NoRulesAllowed
 


That's what pro evo people teach. Random chance made it all happen because it had a long time to happen. No designer, no order, just BANG... Shazam a cell, OOOOH Look animals from cells... see evolution is real!!!!

As usual you are completely wrong. Evolution teaches no such thing and anyone with a basic understanding could tell you so.
After all the information you have been spoon fed you still act like your talking to a bunch of third graders. Keep up and try to debate with the adults.



posted on Sep, 13 2013 @ 06:34 PM
link   

randyvs
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 





Why does it have to be "god" though? It's more than likely we were created by an advanced, intelligent race(s) of people.


I'll tell you exactly why exactly why Bonez and it's as plain as the noze on your face. We haven't got a single note from your ancient alien race against tons of scripture that claims us for GOD.
edit on 7-9-2013 by randyvs because: (no reason given)


Oh okay. So Buddah is also real too, then. Brahma, too. Ganesh?

Oh, right. Human's wrote those "notes" you speak of.

Best 'proof' ever.

/eyeroll



posted on Sep, 13 2013 @ 06:59 PM
link   

UnifiedSerenity
reply to post by NoRulesAllowed
 


That's what pro evo people teach. Random chance made it all happen because it had a long time to happen.


This is about the 7th thread I've seen in the past month where you say this exact thing. Then, a bunch of people educate you otherwise and you act like they never told you the truth of it and keep saying it over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over again.

It's just not true.

Natural selection is far from random.

Say it one more time in another thread, and it still won't be true.

Give up on it.



posted on Sep, 13 2013 @ 08:07 PM
link   
reply to post by LightOrange
 


And I can say the same regarding what you are saying. We are not going to agree, so I let those who have open minds examine the evidence and they can tell what the valid points are. I will post as much evidence supporting what I say as I like. You are welcome to do the same.

Evolution is really losing it's grip on the minds of the people, and no amount of ridicule from pro-evolutionists will stop those seeking the truth.



posted on Sep, 13 2013 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Khaleesi




If they didn't happen by chance then how did they happen? By design? I'm asking a serious question here. I'm not being snide or joking. I really do not understand this statement. It seems to contradict evolution and yet is being used to support evolution. Please explain. I really want to know what you mean.


Why Evolution Isn’t Chance




top topics



 
20
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join