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: 19
8
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 22 2013 @ 06:37 PM
link   

AngryCymraeg

SisyphusRide

AngryCymraeg
You've judged him as unworthy have you. Oooh, tremble tremble. Oh wait, it's just gas.
Can we get back to the fascinating issue posed by your failure to address my points?


that''s right
be very afraid...

you folks have any video with Dawkins doing what he is supposed to be brilliant at, and nothing more?

the topic of evolution which doesn't involve theology...


And yet again you ignore the point that I raised. Namely that the Reformation happened before Communism even existed. Care to address that?


hey thanks again for the video...

Communism existed since Plato's Republic, call it what you will, it's the same core philosophy...

you wouldn't have liked to be a Spartan baby or child believe me.


plato.stanford.edu...


edit on 22-11-2013 by SisyphusRide because: linky




posted on Nov, 22 2013 @ 07:07 PM
link   

SisyphusRide

Communism existed since Plato's Republic, call it what you will, it's the same core philosophy...

you wouldn't have liked to be a Spartan baby or child believe me.


plato.stanford.edu...


edit on 22-11-2013 by SisyphusRide because: linky


From your earlier link...

Communism as a theory of government and social reform may be said, in a limited sense, to have begun with the ancient Greek idea of the Golden Age


its like saying that people in the middle ages who thought that rats appeared out of thin air from garbage heaps was the beginning of Evolutionary Theory. It's disingenuous and misleading at best.

Perhaps you could further elucidate on what exactly Sparta has to do with either Communism or Plato. Plato was from Athens and taught in Athens. Athens and Sparta were enemies until Sparta ceased to be an independent city state. The concepts of Plato and consequently Socrates, had little bearing on Spartan life or politics.



posted on Nov, 22 2013 @ 09:25 PM
link   
evolution is overrated.

why are we so different?

the other 6 million species have no brain power?

we can't stand against anything, except puppies and kitties.

S&F op.



posted on Nov, 23 2013 @ 02:16 AM
link   

SisyphusRide

AngryCymraeg

SisyphusRide

AngryCymraeg
You've judged him as unworthy have you. Oooh, tremble tremble. Oh wait, it's just gas.
Can we get back to the fascinating issue posed by your failure to address my points?


that''s right
be very afraid...

you folks have any video with Dawkins doing what he is supposed to be brilliant at, and nothing more?

the topic of evolution which doesn't involve theology...


And yet again you ignore the point that I raised. Namely that the Reformation happened before Communism even existed. Care to address that?


hey thanks again for the video...

Communism existed since Plato's Republic, call it what you will, it's the same core philosophy...

you wouldn't have liked to be a Spartan baby or child believe me.


plato.stanford.edu...


edit on 22-11-2013 by SisyphusRide because: linky


Thank you for proving, in front of everyone, that you have no idea what you are talking about. Toodles!



posted on Nov, 23 2013 @ 07:49 AM
link   

SisyphusRide
it is the attack factor... Dawkins doesn't feel the way you do... and for this purpose I lend judgement of his character because the way that he treats people (namely 2.2 Billion Christians) and the rest of the theists on the planet. I have judged him not worthy to be a public educator or communicator.


But I am one of 'the rest of the theists' and I do not find any issue with his views. I am secure in my beliefs and am able to appreciate that other people may have different views then I do. None of which makes evolution any less valid. Evolution and belief in God are non-related topics as far as I am concerned.



posted on Nov, 23 2013 @ 01:29 PM
link   

AugustusMasonicus


But I am one of 'the rest of the theists' and I do not find any issue with his views. I am secure in my beliefs and am able to appreciate that other people may have different views then I do. None of which makes evolution any less valid. Evolution and belief in God are non-related topics as far as I am concerned.


Totally agreed.
And I would say that evolution, the concept, and Darwinian Evolution, the hypothesis as promoted in his book On the Origin of Species, are also non-related topics.
I am not sure why people have such a hard time understanding this.



posted on Nov, 23 2013 @ 03:44 PM
link   

kyviecaldges
And I would say that evolution, the concept...


I think evolution is a bit more than a 'concept'.


...and Darwinian Evolution, the hypothesis as promoted in his book On the Origin of Species, are also non-related topics.


Darwinian Evolution is a late 19th, early 20th century theory and has been superseded by a much more comprehensive and encompassing theory.



posted on Nov, 24 2013 @ 02:08 AM
link   
reply to post by AugustusMasonicus
 


I think evolution is a bit more than a 'concept'.


Hahaha... I am laughing because that statement was so argumentative and sanctimonious, but yet pointless at the same time, that I am actually impressed.
If you make some comment about me impressing easy then you will totally ruin this moment.



Darwinian Evolution is a late 19th, early 20th century theory and has been superseded by a much more comprehensive and encompassing theory.


That is interesting. Because it would seem that Darwin was one of the first on the scene proposing a universal common ancestor with all life evolving from a single cell.

I feel like you have a pretty decent grasp on rhetoric and its application, or at least that is what I gathered from your previously quoted comment. I thought that I made that obvious.
But no amount of well played rhetoric can make something out of nothing, and that is what this single celled common ancestor theory is asking us to conveniently bypass. The first big bang of life.
How was a self-multiplying life form created out of nothing?
The perfect time and the perfect place and whammo, we are unique in the universe?

How did it all start?

And just for entertainment purposes, what exactly happened before the Pre-Cambrian explosion?
That one always cracks me up. Out of nowhere this immense fossil record appears. What happened before then?
edit on 24/11/2013 by kyviecaldges because: Because I made a stupid error. That is why we edit.



posted on Nov, 24 2013 @ 06:05 AM
link   

kyviecaldges
Hahaha... I am laughing because that statement was so argumentative and sanctimonious, but yet pointless at the same time, that I am actually impressed.


I think you are projecting. You throw out the word concept when it clearly is a theory and expect people to overlook your not so unsubtle dig.


If you make some comment about me impressing easy then you will totally ruin this moment.


No worries. I can light some candles and throw Barry White on the CD player.


That is interesting. Because it would seem that Darwin was one of the first on the scene proposing a universal common ancestor with all life evolving from a single cell.

...

How was a self-multiplying life form created out of nothing?


I am not going to pretend I have an answer for abiogenesis (if that is what occurred), my comments were about evolution which is obvious, testable and repeatable.



posted on Nov, 24 2013 @ 04:21 PM
link   

tsingtao
evolution is overrated.

why are we so different?

the other 6 million species have no brain power?

we can't stand against anything, except puppies and kitties.

S&F op.



Ignorance is overrated as well yet this thread keeps on keeping on. Maybe instead of asking why WE are so different from everything else you should lose the anthropocentric worldview and ponder why there is so much diversity in the world as opposed to trying to make it about how Darwin's special H. Sapien Sapiens are.



posted on Nov, 24 2013 @ 04:42 PM
link   
In the Bible in genesis chapter 1. it is written in Black and white that God said: Let the earth bring forth all living things and so on.

If this dosent support evolution what will?


I have another brainstormer for the other side who love science.

If you have a 10 cm long string and split it in halvs a infinite times. Will the string ever be any longer than 10 cm, Or would the string be exactly as it is after you have sliced it a infinite amount of time?

Question 2.

If you moved the other half (5cm string) to the side and blow on it. What would happen to the string? "All the slices are infinitely thin". Whould the 5 cm string become as the infinite and never being able to be traced?

Question 3.
Does the infinite exist? Or are the two questions above not possible to accomplish?




edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2013 @ 01:12 AM
link   
reply to post by AugustusMasonicus
 


Cool.
We prolly have a similar outlook.

Things evolve. I know that. But Darwin's theory found in his book On the Origin of Species has no science backing it.
It's gobbledygook.



posted on Nov, 25 2013 @ 01:38 AM
link   

kyviecaldges
reply to post by AugustusMasonicus
 


I think evolution is a bit more than a 'concept'.


Hahaha... I am laughing because that statement was so argumentative and sanctimonious, but yet pointless at the same time, that I am actually impressed.
If you make some comment about me impressing easy then you will totally ruin this moment.



Darwinian Evolution is a late 19th, early 20th century theory and has been superseded by a much more comprehensive and encompassing theory.


That is interesting. Because it would seem that Darwin was one of the first on the scene proposing a universal common ancestor with all life evolving from a single cell.

I feel like you have a pretty decent grasp on rhetoric and its application, or at least that is what I gathered from your previously quoted comment. I thought that I made that obvious.
But no amount of well played rhetoric can make something out of nothing, and that is what this single celled common ancestor theory is asking us to conveniently bypass. The first big bang of life.
How was a self-multiplying life form created out of nothing?
The perfect time and the perfect place and whammo, we are unique in the universe?

How did it all start?

And just for entertainment purposes, what exactly happened before the Pre-Cambrian explosion?
That one always cracks me up. Out of nowhere this immense fossil record appears. What happened before then?
edit on 24/11/2013 by kyviecaldges because: Because I made a stupid error. That is why we edit.


Self replicating, naturally occurring amino acids then cell membranes. Or is biochemistry a conspiracy also?



posted on Nov, 25 2013 @ 01:49 AM
link   

helldiver

kyviecaldges
reply to post by AugustusMasonicus
 


I think evolution is a bit more than a 'concept'.


Hahaha... I am laughing because that statement was so argumentative and sanctimonious, but yet pointless at the same time, that I am actually impressed.
If you make some comment about me impressing easy then you will totally ruin this moment.



Darwinian Evolution is a late 19th, early 20th century theory and has been superseded by a much more comprehensive and encompassing theory.


That is interesting. Because it would seem that Darwin was one of the first on the scene proposing a universal common ancestor with all life evolving from a single cell.

I feel like you have a pretty decent grasp on rhetoric and its application, or at least that is what I gathered from your previously quoted comment. I thought that I made that obvious.
But no amount of well played rhetoric can make something out of nothing, and that is what this single celled common ancestor theory is asking us to conveniently bypass. The first big bang of life.
How was a self-multiplying life form created out of nothing?
The perfect time and the perfect place and whammo, we are unique in the universe?

How did it all start?

And just for entertainment purposes, what exactly happened before the Pre-Cambrian explosion?
That one always cracks me up. Out of nowhere this immense fossil record appears. What happened before then?
edit on 24/11/2013 by kyviecaldges because: Because I made a stupid error. That is why we edit.


Self replicating, naturally occurring amino acids then cell membranes. Or is biochemistry a conspiracy also?


Then repeat it. Should be no problem.
Show me the money.

Science is repeatable, unless it is a conspiracy.
Then it is sold to us as science, when actually a lie born of fear.
The fear of not knowing.
Or the fear of admitting that you are wrong.
edit on 25/11/2013 by kyviecaldges because: Because I made a stupid error. That is why we edit.



posted on Nov, 25 2013 @ 02:43 AM
link   

kyviecaldges

helldiver

kyviecaldges
reply to post by AugustusMasonicus
 


I think evolution is a bit more than a 'concept'.


Hahaha... I am laughing because that statement was so argumentative and sanctimonious, but yet pointless at the same time, that I am actually impressed.
If you make some comment about me impressing easy then you will totally ruin this moment.



Darwinian Evolution is a late 19th, early 20th century theory and has been superseded by a much more comprehensive and encompassing theory.


That is interesting. Because it would seem that Darwin was one of the first on the scene proposing a universal common ancestor with all life evolving from a single cell.

I feel like you have a pretty decent grasp on rhetoric and its application, or at least that is what I gathered from your previously quoted comment. I thought that I made that obvious.
But no amount of well played rhetoric can make something out of nothing, and that is what this single celled common ancestor theory is asking us to conveniently bypass. The first big bang of life.
How was a self-multiplying life form created out of nothing?
The perfect time and the perfect place and whammo, we are unique in the universe?

How did it all start?

And just for entertainment purposes, what exactly happened before the Pre-Cambrian explosion?
That one always cracks me up. Out of nowhere this immense fossil record appears. What happened before then?
edit on 24/11/2013 by kyviecaldges because: Because I made a stupid error. That is why we edit.


Self replicating, naturally occurring amino acids then cell membranes. Or is biochemistry a conspiracy also?


Then repeat it. Should be no problem.
Show me the money.

Science is repeatable, unless it is a conspiracy.
Then it is sold to us as science, when actually a lie born of fear.
The fear of not knowing.
Or the fear of admitting that you are wrong.
edit on 25/11/2013 by kyviecaldges because: Because I made a stupid error. That is why we edit.


Show you?! What do want me to come over to your house and recreate Millers experiment or something? I could post links but you'd only dismiss them. Why don't you go look at the evidence and educate yourself then get back with your take on it.

Start with amino acids, rna, Miller and the coevolutionary theory of the genetic code. That'll get you started.



posted on Nov, 25 2013 @ 02:51 AM
link   

helldiver

kyviecaldges

helldiver

kyviecaldges
reply to post by AugustusMasonicus
 


I think evolution is a bit more than a 'concept'.


Hahaha... I am laughing because that statement was so argumentative and sanctimonious, but yet pointless at the same time, that I am actually impressed.
If you make some comment about me impressing easy then you will totally ruin this moment.



Darwinian Evolution is a late 19th, early 20th century theory and has been superseded by a much more comprehensive and encompassing theory.


That is interesting. Because it would seem that Darwin was one of the first on the scene proposing a universal common ancestor with all life evolving from a single cell.

I feel like you have a pretty decent grasp on rhetoric and its application, or at least that is what I gathered from your previously quoted comment. I thought that I made that obvious.
But no amount of well played rhetoric can make something out of nothing, and that is what this single celled common ancestor theory is asking us to conveniently bypass. The first big bang of life.
How was a self-multiplying life form created out of nothing?
The perfect time and the perfect place and whammo, we are unique in the universe?

How did it all start?

And just for entertainment purposes, what exactly happened before the Pre-Cambrian explosion?
That one always cracks me up. Out of nowhere this immense fossil record appears. What happened before then?
edit on 24/11/2013 by kyviecaldges because: Because I made a stupid error. That is why we edit.


Self replicating, naturally occurring amino acids then cell membranes. Or is biochemistry a conspiracy also?


Then repeat it. Should be no problem.
Show me the money.

Science is repeatable, unless it is a conspiracy.
Then it is sold to us as science, when actually a lie born of fear.
The fear of not knowing.
Or the fear of admitting that you are wrong.
edit on 25/11/2013 by kyviecaldges because: Because I made a stupid error. That is why we edit.


Show you?! What do want me to come over to your house and recreate Millers experiment or something? I could post links but you'd only dismiss them. Why don't you go look at the evidence and educate yourself then get back with your take on it.

Start with amino acids, rna, Miller and the coevolutionary theory of the genetic code. That'll get you started.


Please. Simply showing that amino acids can be racemically synthesized in conditions that were at best, trying to be similar to those of early Earth is so NOT showing me the money.

And even if it works...

Wait for it.

Uh...

Okay.

So what.

Who cares? Simply because they exist does not in any way mean that they will begin to spontaneously self-replicate.
That is showing me the money. I actually know about all this stuff mate.
This is not my first rodeo.
edit on 25/11/2013 by kyviecaldges because: Because I made a stupid error. That is why we edit.



posted on Nov, 25 2013 @ 06:26 AM
link   
reply to post by kyviecaldges
 

Exactly my thoughts when I asked myself if God exist:

Show me/prove me that he exist and I will believe in all this 'young earth' and creationist no-sense.

So, this is what discussion is for you - rodeo... Good comparison, as it is just question how long will you stay on your bull, I mean religion...



posted on Nov, 25 2013 @ 01:04 PM
link   

SuperFrog
reply to post by kyviecaldges
 

Exactly my thoughts when I asked myself if God exist:

Show me/prove me that he exist and I will believe in all this 'young earth' and creationist no-sense.

So, this is what discussion is for you - rodeo... Good comparison, as it is just question how long will you stay on your bull, I mean religion...


See, that is where you and I differ.

I don't believe in God, but I don't disbelieve in God.
That would be foolish.
I also equally and for the same reasons don't believe in Darwinian Evolution, and by applying the concept of the null hypothesis, I can tell you that Darwinian Evolution did not happen.
It does not fit into the framework of the fossil record correctly.

You are trying to make me appear as something I am not, and you seem to think that you have me in this corner that you don't.

I don't have a religion.

You need to try a different angle to bully me.

Because you can't beat me in an actual debate.

And your desperation is obvious.



posted on Nov, 25 2013 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by SuperFrog
 


I would even go so far as to say that I see no difference between the scientific establishment's view of Darwinian Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church's view of Jesus.

Fairy Tales.

On a good day.



posted on Nov, 25 2013 @ 01:55 PM
link   

kyviecaldges

SuperFrog
reply to post by kyviecaldges
 

Exactly my thoughts when I asked myself if God exist:

Show me/prove me that he exist and I will believe in all this 'young earth' and creationist no-sense.

So, this is what discussion is for you - rodeo... Good comparison, as it is just question how long will you stay on your bull, I mean religion...


See, that is where you and I differ.

I don't believe in God, but I don't disbelieve in God.
That would be foolish.
I also equally and for the same reasons don't believe in Darwinian Evolution, and by applying the concept of the null hypothesis, I can tell you that Darwinian Evolution did not happen.
It does not fit into the framework of the fossil record correctly.

You are trying to make me appear as something I am not, and you seem to think that you have me in this corner that you don't.

I don't have a religion.

You need to try a different angle to bully me.

Because you can't beat me in an actual debate.

And your desperation is obvious.


Shouldn't you be applying the alternative hypothesis to prove evolution wrong? I'm only asking because you said you knew all about this stuff mate.

Darwin only started the ball rolling btw, his theory was just the beginning and he certainly wasn't infallible, unlike some. At least Darwin could admit it.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join