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.

 

I no longer believe in Evolution as currently being used

page: 14
8
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by kyviecaldges
 


Then what do you believe? What is your answer for this mystery? If evolution is so darn unsuitable for the question it attempts to solve, what is your solution?
edit on 18-11-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


I am neither trying to propose a solution nor alternative. I am a skeptic.
I do not need to. It is thread drift.

If you wish to do so, then I would suggest starting a thread about it.

I would love to participate in that thread.

But throwing us a bone in a different direction and asking for a solution to the problem at hand by appealing to our ego(vanity) is textbook govt. troll's way of killing the thread. It's paid govt. troll 101 and another logical fallacy. (a lot of people are in the vague about it. The feds are good that way)

I proposed several aspects of Darwinian Evolution that are totally academically unaccounted for in the currently taught theory, which is in a actuality only an improbably vague hypothesis on a good day, and no single person honestly confronted me resepthese aspect with me and actually engaged in a vigorous debate with me that is the backbone and strength to the learning process.

Not answering you is not an insult, because it is a question that I would love to answer, but when I begin to repeatedly post answers to questions that are off topic then the thread always goes this direction.


I like your question.
But I am not answering it.
I am not accusing you of anything.
I question the behavior.
edit on 18/11/2013 by kyviecaldges because: Because I made a stupid error. That is why we edit.



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 01:16 PM
link   

kyviecaldges
Evolution according to Darwin may not be impossible, but it is darn sure improbable.


Evolution HAS been many times proven for a long time. Even Carl Sagan in his series Cosmos provided proof of evolution with crabs in Japan.



I posted one of those research here on this topic, here, if you interested:

evolution.berkeley.edu...

evolution.berkeley.edu...

Define why you think that evolution is improbable... yet we know it's not improbable, but a fact.



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by kyviecaldges
 


Evolution according to Darwin may not be impossible, but it is darn sure improbable.

"Darwinian Evolution" hasn't been the model for the theory of evolution for over a century now. Even by the end of the 1800's, people understood that Mendel's work in genetics (or something similar) would have to be incorporated. Over time, evolution has come to incorporate cytology, systematics, botany, morphology, ecology, and paleontology as well. It's hardly what Darwin outlined in his work a century and a half ago.


What were we talking about?

Oh... The fact that you are wrong.

What were we talking about?

Oh... The fact that you're a century out of date with your references to "Evolution according to Darwin".



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 07:17 PM
link   

SisyphusRide

Krazysh0t
Wow another creationist thread where the Creationists willfully misinterpret how evolution works to try to disprove it.


no this is a thread to discuss how evolution is used by the antiChristian's known as atheists to fully misrepresent science, and a minority group doing science a great injustice because they have little knowledge or intellect.

this is also a topic about how atheists are not educators but more like preachers...


edit on 18-11-2013 by SisyphusRide because: (no reason given)



"antiChristian's" ? Creationism is more antiChristian than any atheists I've ever met.

Ironically, the op is trying to blame evolution and science for turning potential converts away from Christianity, when in fact, it's the creationists that are doing far more damage to Christianity than any atheist movement ever could.

The deception inherent in creationism is causing, and has caused formerly devout members to desert the flock in droves, this including myself as a former believer turned Agnostic according to reality.

This is fact, the numbers do not lie.


One of the reasons young adults feel disconnected from church or from faith is the tension they feel between Christianity and science.
The most common of the perceptions in this arena is "Christians are too confident they know all the answers" (35%).
Three out of ten young adults with a Christian background feel that "churches are out of step with the scientific world we live in" (29%).
Another one-quarter embrace the perception that "Christianity is anti-science" (25%).
And nearly the same proportion (23%) said they have "been turned off by the creation-versus-evolution debate."
Furthermore, the research shows that many science-minded young Christians are struggling to find ways of staying faithful to their beliefs and to their professional calling in science-related industries.


LINK

Creationists are strengthening the belief that religion is backward and irrational, and have hampered the efforts of forward-looking Christians who want to bring their faith into the present.



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 10:02 PM
link   

AfterInfinity
reply to post by SisyphusRide
 


I find it interesting that you choose to withdraw just when the most interesting questions are being asked. Are you sure your weak argument has nothing to do with your departure from this thread?
edit on 18-11-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)


I am terribly and truly sorry... My life consists of a series of obligations, I can not remember a time in my adult life where I have been free of theses said obligations. There are many obligations I must live by.

Responding to posters on ATS is not an obligation in my life currently... I don't know about you, things may be different?

so you have my sincere and deepest apologies that I have obligations I must live by, though I have to pay rent and be able to feed myself and allot time to others who may depend on me.

I hope you can understand?


edit on 18-11-2013 by SisyphusRide because: now where were we?



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Krazysh0t

SisyphusRide

MarsIsRed
The great irony to all this is that some hardline creationists believe that if science somehow undermined modern evolutionary synthesis then creationism would be correct - which is, of course, another great fallacy. Invalidating one theory in no way validates another. It would simply mean a new theory must be sought which explained the observed facts.


how then does something come from nothing... It is a great mystery.

Observation of our surrounding and the natural world would suggest that things are created.

plant seeds are created after pollination... offspring are created after fertilization... buildings are created after they are built, ect ect.


There you go! See this is what I was talking about. What you JUST did right there is misrepresent Evolution. Evolution doesn't explain how something can come from nothing. The Big Bang Theory and Abiogenesis talk to those points depending on which something from nothing you are referring to (living or inanimate). They are NOT part of the theory of evolution though.
edit on 18-11-2013 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)


Sir/Madam...

maybe you missed page 1 and page 2, and page 3 ect ect of this thread?

what does evolution have to do with God?

there is one thing no one in the world I do not think can stand... it is quite possibly quite universal, crossing cultures and language barriers.

no one like a double standard toting hypocrite... and I would wager that is a fact.



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 10:19 PM
link   

SuperFrog
reply to post by SisyphusRide
 


Evolution does not cover origins of life.

You should know that by now.


thank you for your submission...

Theology happens to cover the origins of life, most all of the theological philosophies on the globe do.

My preferred philosophy covers origins of life, it is called Christianity.

If you don't like the philosophy of the origins of life and intelligence and the soul then you are cutting yourself quite short.

Atheists ans evolutionist use darwinism all the time to disprove theological philosophy...



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 10:22 PM
link   

iterationzero
reply to post by SisyphusRide
 


watch videos much?

I watched the video in your OP long before you ever posted it here.


there is a video in the OP.

Indeed, there is. Let me insert something from the T&C of this site:

15k.) Video links/embeds: You will not embed or Post a link to a video without a reasonable description of its content and why it interests you, is germane to the topics discussed on the Websites or the topic of an existing thread should you post it in a reply to an existing thread.

You provided no discussion points or evidence outside of the video. Videos are meant to be supplementary to the argument you're crafting, not the other way around. So please, by all means, feel free to expound upon how modern evolutionary synthesis is "being used by atheists to attack Christians, being used by the Establishment that be to remove moral balances and checks, and the effects that has had upon society and civility".


character assassination of the guy who made the video is one thing, it can not be denied the questions raised are interesting.

They're only interesting to someone who isn't aware of what quote mining is, and someone who doesn't really have a firm grasp on what modern evolutionary synthesis claims and the evidence to support those claims.


I will have to ignore your submission...

the video came from youtube, and the description is the topic of the title.



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 10:24 PM
link   

AfterInfinity

SisyphusRide

MarsIsRed
The great irony to all this is that some hardline creationists believe that if science somehow undermined modern evolutionary synthesis then creationism would be correct - which is, of course, another great fallacy. Invalidating one theory in no way validates another. It would simply mean a new theory must be sought which explained the observed facts.


how then does something come from nothing... It is a great mystery.

Observation of our surrounding and the natural world would suggest that things are created.

plant seeds are created after pollination... offspring are created after fertilization... buildings are created after they are built, ect ect.


And yet you cannot explain to us where your god comes from? Interesting.


and what is going to be one of your main tools to tell me what I think is wrong when I do try to explain to you?

let me help you... your second selection of weaponry will most likely be darwinism.

that is after you first claim belief in a deity known as science... even though our understanding of science changes at almost a daily rate in this day and age.

Knowledge Deity


edit on 18-11-2013 by SisyphusRide because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Cogito, Ergo Sum
the chap in the video is simply telling the truth.


the chap in the video is stating a fallacy with no introduced data or scientific fact in the opening lines of his statement...

I first have to "believe on faith" the statement he makes is fact.. which it is highly unlikely.


edit on 18-11-2013 by SisyphusRide because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Cogito, Ergo Sum
Yeah, apparently it requires no belief at all to accept that an unimaginably complex magic man just happened to already exist for reasons unknown.....


and this has what to do with evolution?

I tell you what... when you figure it out please enlighten Krazysh0t



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 10:37 PM
link   

flyingfish
antiChristian's" ? Creationism is more antiChristian than any atheists I've ever met.


your attempt at dividing and conquering was a weak one... if that.

please read the "Art of War" and apply some of these more advanced player tactics to your argument.



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 10:51 PM
link   

SisyphusRide

flyingfish
antiChristian's" ? Creationism is more antiChristian than any atheists I've ever met.


your attempt at dividing and conquering was a weak one... if that.

please read the "Art of War" and apply some of these more advanced player tactics to your argument.


Your confused, you don't need games when relying on facts. Have you ever heard of playing chess with pigeons?
Pigeon Chess

Try again, this time read my "whole" post and not just the parts you think you're able to poke with straws.



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 10:54 PM
link   

flyingfish
Your confused, you don't need games when relying on facts


would you agree that facts change?

would you believe that our understanding changes at a great pace and that we sometimes learn that truth is something we otherwise took for granted?

truth is fact



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 10:57 PM
link   

flyingfish
Try again, this time read my "whole" post and not just the parts you think you're able to poke with straws.


you begin with a fallacy... there is no need to entertain your straw man, because what I quoted of you was the extent of my belief in your words.

no so hard to understand I will not entertain your "creation"



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 10:59 PM
link   
reply to post by SisyphusRide
 


Check out my thread here:

Quantum Computing and Creating a Virtual Intelligence, Part I

The theory of evolution as it is currently being used without believing in any spirit or life force is not just unbelievable, it is an outright lie. LIE. As in can be proven false.

A vital part of evolutionary theory is that organisms can choose to evolve any way they want, and then the ones that work stay around. However, modern evolutionary theory even contradicts itself. That choice is the life force. Without the life force, there is no evolution.

It is a fact. And it is absolutely dangerous to be promoting a false scientific theory.

How come? Because society likes to follow science, in general - and if scientists are suddenly not believing in the life force, that means that society will follow by punishing anyone who uses it (free will, that is).

I'm not kidding. When Einstein invented the theory of relativity, society followed by making morals relative. And that's a somewhat positive development - but denying the life force is one of the worst ideas anyone could ever have.

How did our society get anywhere without the life force? How was language created? What about a boat? Or a book? How did Newton make Calculus?

It is patently impossible for electrons firing in the brain at random to make calculus, it just does not happen. Period. And that has to be explained. That is not some religious argument, that a gaping hole in the "no life force" argument.

Calculus originated in Newton's mind, and was isolated to his mind (and maybe some collaborators). The probability of it occurring due to random chance without any set goal is zero. Rocks cannot set goals. Electric wires cannot set goals. Even computers cannot program themselves.

Misunderstanding evolution to include no life force is not just a lie, it has the potential to result in very, very bad ramifications on our society.

Politicians could use the idea to justify cracking down on free will, for example. The consequences for this misinterpretation are just as bad as when Hitler took evolution and used it to justify Social Darwinism.

This has nothing to do with God, and it has everything to do with science, and it is dangerous to think there is no life force in evolution - that's why I have been pushing my quantum theory of mind agenda so strongly and so fast, because I'm trying to get it out there and done before it's too late and people fall for this - which has the potential to result in atrocities.

I can't stress this enough. Unless you want to live in a decaying society where no one has any problem solving skills (which require probability calculations which require quantum physics and free will) and the people who do are punished, I would advise listening.

Misinterpreting evolution as having no life force is the number one threat our society faces today, in my opinion.

Hey if people think that evolution and life force can co-exist then maybe I'm worried about nothing.
edit on 18pmMon, 18 Nov 2013 23:17:42 -0600kbpmkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 11:01 PM
link   

SisyphusRide

flyingfish
Your confused, you don't need games when relying on facts


would you agree that facts change?

would you believe that our understanding changes at a great pace and that we sometimes learn that truth is something we otherwise took for granted?

truth is fact


So, in other words, you're saying, in light of the evidence that proves you wrong, you "still" prefer willful ignorance.

Got it...



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Krazysh0t

SisyphusRide

MarsIsRed
The great irony to all this is that some hardline creationists believe that if science somehow undermined modern evolutionary synthesis then creationism would be correct - which is, of course, another great fallacy. Invalidating one theory in no way validates another. It would simply mean a new theory must be sought which explained the observed facts.


how then does something come from nothing... It is a great mystery.

Observation of our surrounding and the natural world would suggest that things are created.

plant seeds are created after pollination... offspring are created after fertilization... buildings are created after they are built, ect ect.


There you go! See this is what I was talking about. What you JUST did right there is misrepresent Evolution. Evolution doesn't explain how something can come from nothing. The Big Bang Theory and Abiogenesis talk to those points depending on which something from nothing you are referring to (living or inanimate). They are NOT part of the theory of evolution though.
edit on 18-11-2013 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)


Krazyshot is right, as long as evolution just describes evolution and admits that there is a process that creates something from nothing in an isolated system (a piece of life, namely) and that that process has to exist in order for evolution to exist, that's fine.

Even evolution itself would not function unless there was a life force. There would be no evolution. It's a prerequisite for the theory to work. I'm going to look up Ambiogenesis, thanks for the link.
edit on 18pmMon, 18 Nov 2013 23:21:37 -0600kbpmkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)


That's actually super cool, dude! That explains how the spark of life starts, which I never thought of before!

But I still think after that happens, there has to be a life force with goals that it obtains through trial and error. Even if you look at Abiogenesis, it is making a distinction between the moment something goes from inanimate to animate.

That means that animate objects have innate traits that are different than inanimate ones, or else there would be no need for Abiogenesis to be explained.

Having the Big Bang Theory explain how we went from nothing to this universe and its rules without admitting there is a difference between nothing and this universe would be on par with the mistake of spending time researching Abiogenesis and thinking that living things have the same properties as non-living things.
edit on 18pmMon, 18 Nov 2013 23:26:21 -0600kbpmkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 11:44 PM
link   

darkbakeThe theory of evolution as it is currently being used without believing in any spirit or life force is not just unbelievable, it is an outright lie. LIE. As in can be proven false.


this should be an interesting outside the box reading...

thanks, it's right up my alley.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join