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: 20
20
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Murgatroid
reply to post by ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
 



While you are quoting Carlin, why not quote some of the things he said about religion..

I started to say because it's off topic because I actually AGREE with much of what Carlin said about religion.....

Actually, it's dead ON topic.

Religion is the real reason people DO believe in evolution.

Why?

Because science, just like religion, is being used as a mind control tool.


Only if you squint real hard and turn off part of your brain (the critical thinking part)...

Rational Wiki Entry on Henry Makow


Makow believes that the world is controlled by the satanic Skull and Bones society, which is apparently an Illuminati front group. He knows this because George W. Bush once made the Satanic horn sign.[3] Makow also believes that the Illuminati was created by Kabbalah Jews acting in concert with the Knights Templar.[4] Feminism was apparently created as a way to get women on their side, and to encourage women to hate men, deign not to have children and take jobs outside of the home to reduce the population (the conspirators furthermore encourage homosexuality for the same reason). Makow refers to this as "the psychological sterilization of the human female", and naturally believes [A] that the proper place of women is barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen and [B] that all career women are covertly miserable on the inside.[5] Like some MGTOWers, and all too many mail order bride websites, he advocates that western men try marrying Asian women under the belief that they are more traditionally submissive, and has even written a decidedly creepy book about his experiences shopping for a bride in the Philippines[6]. Makow also believes in Federal Reserve crankery, and that Ezra Pound[wp] was going to blow the whistle on the Fed and then was jailed.[5]

JFK, Lincoln, and James Garfield were all killed by the Illuminati/Rothschilds for trying to print money.
The Beatles were Illuminati mind controllers who promoted drug use, free sex and the New Age movement. As with Bush, Makow knows this because of a gesture John Lennon made with his hand on the cover of Yellow Submarine.[7]

He is the author of several books, one of which, Cruel Hoax: Feminism and the New World Order claims that feminism was invented by Jewish international bankers to promote one world government, and also somehow connects feminism to 9/11 and calls on readers to "take back our heterosexuality". If none of this makes any sense, neither does Makow.




posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 11:28 PM
link   

UnifiedSerenity

randyvs
reply to post by HairlessApe
 





For the sake of sounding less dogmatic you could say "proponents of science" instead of "evolutionists."


I've decided that's a good point. Point taken.


Really? So, creationists are not proponents of science? I think that is exactly what is wrong with this discussion. We are called creationists over and over and we don't cry about it cause well, we believe in creation and ID. Why is calling someone who believes in evolution and evolutionists somehow denigrating? There are plenty of scientists who believe in creation and to give that term over to pro evolution people being "Proponents of science" is a subtle slap at those who do not believe in evolution.

I'm surprised you didn't see that Randy. Let' them be proud of being an evolutionist. I am proud of believing in the science that supports creation and I am a creationist.


Look, you can believe what you want. But in order to be a creationist you have to deny all of the scientific community's evidence and that's a fact. There is no CREDIBLE science behind the idea that the world is 6000 years old, or was created by a sentient being, or was thoughtfully constructed. In fact, all of the evidence works against those ideas.

So yes, "evolutionists" as you so itchingly wish to refer to us as are now following any sort of dogma, we're observing the scientific evidence. Creationists deny that evidence. Period. You don't get to have an imaginary cake and eat it too.
edit on 16-9-2013 by HairlessApe because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 11:32 PM
link   
Double post
edit on 16-9-2013 by HairlessApe because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 05:19 AM
link   
reply to post by ReturnoftheSonofNothing
 


Critical thinking is nothing more than being
extremely critical of all other ways of thinking.
With no more validity to their own.



posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 05:54 AM
link   

randyvs
reply to post by ReturnoftheSonofNothing
 


Critical thinking is nothing more than being
extremely critical of all other ways of thinking.
With no more validity to their own.


Well no, that's not true at all. It's all about applying standards to claims using various techniques (observation of evidence, being able to spot blind assertions or logical fallacies, putting conclusions to the test etc etc)

There is no virtue in just blindly believing any old thing you are told - although plenty of people around here seem to think there is..



posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 07:08 AM
link   
reply to post by ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
 





There is no virtue in just blindly believing any old thing you are told - although plenty of people around here seem to think there is..


That must be my problem right there then. I was looking for truth instead of virtue.
My bad.



posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 07:13 AM
link   

ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

There is no virtue in just blindly believing any old thing you are told - although plenty of people around here seem to think there is..


My goodness you finally get it! There is no proof of evolution anywhere. There are no intermediate fossils, we cannot observe changes in kind despite millions of generations of fruit fly and bacteria tests and therefore it is a belief system that we are told is true!



posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 07:28 AM
link   

UnifiedSerenity

randyvs
reply to post by HairlessApe
 





For the sake of sounding less dogmatic you could say "proponents of science" instead of "evolutionists."


I've decided that's a good point. Point taken.


Really? So, creationists are not proponents of science? I think that is exactly what is wrong with this discussion. We are called creationists over and over and we don't cry about it cause well, we believe in creation and ID. Why is calling someone who believes in evolution and evolutionists somehow denigrating? There are plenty of scientists who believe in creation and to give that term over to pro evolution people being "Proponents of science" is a subtle slap at those who do not believe in evolution.

I'm surprised you didn't see that Randy. Let' them be proud of being an evolutionist. I am proud of believing in the science that supports creation and I am a creationist.


Very very few proponents of ID try to prove creationism through science. Behe is about the only one I can think of and his hypothesis on Irreducible complexity has since been proven inaccurate.

The point that continues to be lost in translation here is simply this: There is no scientific evidence supporting creationism. There is a reason why mainstream creationists attack evolution rather than try to prove creationism. Creationism is theology not science.

Continuing to argue the bible as the only source of evidence proves my point all the more.



posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 07:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Cypress
 


Irreducibly complex has not been disproved. They did a cut mouse trap THEY MODIFIED to show a simpler design and that was not his point to begin with. In fact, Behe demonstrates exactly the errors they made in their so called debunking of his statements.



posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 08:03 AM
link   

randyvs
reply to post by ReturnoftheSonofNothing
 


Critical thinking is nothing more than being
extremely critical of all other ways of thinking.
With no more validity to their own.


Hello old friend. I believe you are correct. But does critical thinking have a place?

Your old freind, Conc.



posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 08:20 AM
link   

randyvs
reply to post by ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
 





There is no virtue in just blindly believing any old thing you are told - although plenty of people around here seem to think there is..


That must be my problem right there then. I was looking for truth instead of virtue.
My bad.


Uh yeah... Down the hall. First door on the left.



posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 08:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Itismenotyou
 





Hello old friend. I believe you are correct. But does critical thinking have a place?

Your old freind, Conc.


Before Fukushima it was possible for me to lean in the direction of maybe.



posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 08:41 AM
link   
reply to post by ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
 





Uh yeah... Down the hall. First door on the left.


Girls bathroom .



posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 08:42 AM
link   

UnifiedSerenity

ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

There is no virtue in just blindly believing any old thing you are told - although plenty of people around here seem to think there is..


My goodness you finally get it! There is no proof of evolution anywhere. There are no intermediate fossils, we cannot observe changes in kind despite millions of generations of fruit fly and bacteria tests and therefore it is a belief system that we are told is true!


So this is what passes for debate these days.

I guess as long as you feel good about it....



posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 08:50 AM
link   
reply to post by ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
 


Prolly a good point. Back on topic.
You seem to have some solid interest in this thread Son you go'in to school ?
You follow evolution ?



posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 09:02 AM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


Uh yessir Mr Foghorn Sir...



I'm 43. You?



posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 09:47 AM
link   
reply to post by ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
 


Alright how bout RE for short then, will that be ok ?
And how is it you see evolution as more plausible then
all other explainations for existence ?



posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
 


Yes, it's called you present a point and the person debating presents their rebuttal. You just saw a slight mirror of attitude.



posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 05:28 PM
link   

randyvs
reply to post by ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
 


Alright how bout RE for short then, will that be ok ?
And how is it you see evolution as more plausible then
all other explainations for existence ?


Because to the rational mind, not given to magical thinking, the natural explanation is automatically the more plausible over a supernatural explanation.

Imagine you are sitting in your room and the door suddenly and unexpectedly opens. You go to look but no one is there.

Was it -

1) A ghost?
2) Aliens?
3) God?
4) The wind?
5) A human being?
6) Your pet dog/cat/etc ?

You see what I mean? The natural hypotheses are automatically more plausible. There is no need to jump to the conclusion it was 1, 2 or 3 as 4,5 and 6 are much, much more plausible.

For the same reason, even if evolution was, instead of the well supported theory it is, just a hypothesis with absolutely no supporting evidence it would still be much more plausible than a supernatural explanation.



posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by ReturnoftheSonofNothing
 





ecause to the rational mind, not given to magical thinking, the natural explanation is automatically the more plausible over a supernatural explanation


Your rational mind is only describing the mechanics that exist in this physicality
as we percieve them. You can't possibly explain the existence of the wind, the door,
the ghost or the human by saaying, it was all natu rale. The Bible/God has
stated his case, " God formed man out of the dust of the ground and breathed
life in to him and man became a living soul. " You say this is wrong, but I have never
ever heard a better explanation to even consider. It seems to me that's putting the
cart before the horse. Is it scientific protocol to berade the existing long held
explanation without the slightest bit of reason why ?




top topics



 
20
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join