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: 22
8
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 30 2013 @ 09:38 AM
link   

AngryCymraeg
reply to post by tadaman
 


Umpteen numbers of transitional fossils have been listed/linked to/mentioned on this thread. I suggest that you go back and re-read.


can you post the sources in this thread which you speak of?

it is quite possible you are thinking of another thread, because this thread is not about proving evolution theory, it is about how the theory of evolution is used in the hands and in the mind of a bigot.




posted on Nov, 30 2013 @ 11:27 AM
link   

SisyphusRide

AngryCymraeg
reply to post by tadaman
 


Umpteen numbers of transitional fossils have been listed/linked to/mentioned on this thread. I suggest that you go back and re-read.


can you post the sources in this thread which you speak of?

it is quite possible you are thinking of another thread, because this thread is not about proving evolution theory, it is about how the theory of evolution is used in the hands and in the mind of a bigot.


So who's this bigot then? The thread is about you (you being the OP) and your uncertainty about evolution. Are you admitting that you're a bigot?
edit on 30-11-2013 by helldiver because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2013 @ 12:05 PM
link   


Text My brow was raised over 2 decades ago with the debate over the missing link and our lack of evidence
reply to post by SisyphusRide
 


Dude, no such thing a missing link. If you thought there was one your grasp on how evolution works was pretty vague.

I study human genetics and fossil evolution. Let me be very clear, genetics have proved humans and chimps have a common ancestor. Multiple genes trace back to a common ancestor. It's even theoretically possible to create a hybrid embryo by IVF.

The clue here is scientists don't back creationism. Last time they polled a large group of scientists the number disagreeing with evolution was something like 700-1. More of them believe in pixies than in Creationism being possible.

That videois the same regurgitated balls I see on creationist sites. There's a reason you don't see scientists making these videos, there's no evidence at all to support creationism and all the evidence we do have supports evolution.

Please provide the name of a working biology Phd supporting creationism. Your challenge for the day.



posted on Nov, 30 2013 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Antigod
 


I believe it is science that has a pretty vague grasp on philosophy.

Evolution... what's it good for? besides entering a philosophical debate in the realm of metaphysics, where science takes a back seat.

So what are we using evolution for today, in the practical way which is beneficial to mankind... how is it helping?

Is evolution only good for debating philosophical beliefs, when it is subject of science and not metaphysics?

Evolution seems only to be used lately by the likes of Richard Dawkins and his followers.

----------

the religions of the world are a heck of alot closer to developing a dialogue amongst each other... many of them have already long ago, and they live in relative respect to one another (my Country is a microcosm of this) I would love to seen an atheist bring their message of truth to some of the other religions... say like Islam or the Hindu's. But I was reading an article about how left-wing atheists will not criticize other belief systems for fear of being called a racist... which seems to make perfect sense of why they practice their hate speech on their own people and they alone.



edit on th382213p07u22R38 by SisyphusRide because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 01:01 AM
link   
reply to post by AngryCymraeg
 


No sorry. There is not "umpteen" transitional fossils. The argument has been made by proponents of evolution that transitional fossils are not necessary (since they were not found after a hundred years of near complete catalogue and never will be found in any significant measure). They say that evolution can happen without visible traits being manifested in evolving species which lead from one form into another.

So you see my point......it is a mix and match of any supporting evidence and statements in an effort to have ANY arguments and evidence conform to and then magically validate an idea some have already deemed as fact before hand. Even after arguments and evidence become contradictory in the process of amassing this mental diarrhea.

And it is normal for this to happen. It is an unproven theory. We dont know yet.

Sorry.

and a previous poster was right. There are none listed in this thread. When arguments become one big conversation in our minds with those opposed to your idea.....you have lost objectivity for the truth and the others you are supposedly conversing with.


edit on 12 1 2013 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 01:06 AM
link   
reply to post by helldiver
 


that makes no sense. None. Try harder.

You are now attacking the OP for his position against evolution and TRYING to label him a bigot because of it? Radical much?

Right.

Why are you participating in the thread of a bigot? Because you came here seeking an OPPONENT? and labeling him a negative term somehow validates your stance on this subject?

Right.

Good luck with that.



edit on 12 1 2013 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 01:16 AM
link   
reply to post by SisyphusRide
 


religion, faith and the concept of gods are all proof of evolution! Look how they have evolved through the last several thousand years! You wouldn't even think that they are the same animal! LOL!



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 01:20 AM
link   
I don't know about your believe in anything, but (even if it was posted here about a thousand times):


Source:xkcd, off course!
edit on 1-12-2013 by ManFromEurope because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 02:08 AM
link   

helldiver

SisyphusRide

AngryCymraeg
reply to post by tadaman
 


Umpteen numbers of transitional fossils have been listed/linked to/mentioned on this thread. I suggest that you go back and re-read.


can you post the sources in this thread which you speak of?

it is quite possible you are thinking of another thread, because this thread is not about proving evolution theory, it is about how the theory of evolution is used in the hands and in the mind of a bigot.


So who's this bigot then? The thread is about you (you being the OP) and your uncertainty about evolution. Are you admitting that you're a bigot?
edit on 30-11-2013 by helldiver because: (no reason given)


yes you are going off topic again... the topic is about how evolution is being used, say like in the hands of the definition of a bigot Richard Dawkins.



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 04:54 AM
link   

tadaman
reply to post by helldiver
 


that makes no sense. None. Try harder.

You are now attacking the OP for his position against evolution and TRYING to label him a bigot because of it? Radical much?

Right.

Why are you participating in the thread of a bigot? Because you came here seeking an OPPONENT? and labeling him a negative term somehow validates your stance on this subject?

Right.

Good luck with that.



edit on 12 1 2013 by tadaman because: (no reason given)


Aye very good. The OP loosely throws the word "bigot" about and when I ask for clarification you've got the audacity to call me radical and tell me to try harder. Bravo!!

Right.

Look at who's doing the name calling here.



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 05:07 AM
link   

SisyphusRide

helldiver

SisyphusRide

AngryCymraeg
reply to post by tadaman
 


Umpteen numbers of transitional fossils have been listed/linked to/mentioned on this thread. I suggest that you go back and re-read.


can you post the sources in this thread which you speak of?

it is quite possible you are thinking of another thread, because this thread is not about proving evolution theory, it is about how the theory of evolution is used in the hands and in the mind of a bigot.


So who's this bigot then? The thread is about you (you being the OP) and your uncertainty about evolution. Are you admitting that you're a bigot?
edit on 30-11-2013 by helldiver because: (no reason given)


yes you are going off topic again... the topic is about how evolution is being used, say like in the hands of the definition of a bigot Richard Dawkins.


That's brilliant, really. Dawkins doesn't believe in the supernatural so you call him a bigot.

I suppose i'm a bigot too then? Or any evolutionary biology or scientist for that matter?

Dawkins is an atheist and humanist who has made a hard stand against religious bigotry. He's been particularly critical of Islam but big deal. It's actually refreshing to hear someone criticise sharia law and radical extremism instead of pandering to it so not to upset anyone.

We can go to war against radical islamists or support their opponents, that's fine. But say their God doesn't exist and you're labelled a bigot.

Time for a reality check kiddies.



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 05:59 AM
link   
reply to post by SisyphusRide
 


I, and other writers on this thread, posted links to outside sources that documented some actual science. Turning around now and pretending that that didn't happen is deeply dishonest of you. It's like changing the scoreboard when you're losing in the hope that no-one's looking.



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 07:07 AM
link   
reply to post by SisyphusRide
 





I believe it is science that has a pretty vague grasp on philosophy.


That's because it's science, not philosophy. Fact vs fiction.

Religion is fiction, science is the study of facts and the logical intrepretation of facts. Facts inconvenient to religion are buried or screamed over and people are threatened to shut up about inconvenient truths or else. Religion didn't put a man on the moon, didn't develop vaccines or antibiotics, didn't come up with the computers that are enabling this interaction.

Evolution needs a purpose? Baffling concept. Does lightning need a purpose? It an observed and proven fact of nature.

However, without evolution animals couldn't adapt to new conditions. Without it that new species of fly on the London underground wouldn't exist, those tunnels would be unexploited habitat. Those moths would have been made extinct in the industrial revolution as the birds could spot a white moth against a black tree trunk and the black mutation saved their species as they evolved to be dark like the soot covered trees.

Observed facts, FYI.

Evolution also made us understand drug resistant microbes and pesticide resistant bugs.

Religion does comfort the bereaved, but I'd rather have medical science save my child's life than have religion comfort me when it dies.



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 10:41 AM
link   

kyviecaldges
reply to post by helldiver
 



The lack of a any pre-cambrian fossils which might explain why the Burgess Shale is so speciose is not absence of evidence. Gould talks about this in Wonderful Life and suggests that up until that point animals were probably soft bodied as the first predators were still to evolve. As soon as the first predators evolved then there was an explosive radiation of forms as predator-prey food chains developed.


That is all speculation.

I can't believe that you buy that crap from Gould.
It is simply another ad hoc hypothesis.

No fossils exists because they were soft bodied.

How can an explosion happen in evolution?
Explain to me the mechanism.

As I said, it makes all recursive algorithms invalid. And if they are invalid, then there goes ALL your evidence other than the fossil record.


Read this:

www.cornellcollege.edu/geology/courses/Greenstein/paleo/Donovan_Lewis.pdf

It's a concise summary of the Burgess Shale biota, see page 3 for details of anomalocaris and the evolution of predators.



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 11:08 AM
link   

helldiver
Dawkins is an atheist and humanist


Dawkins is whatever best suits his needs at the time, he is a flip flopper. Anyone who doesn't believe what he believes (pretty much the whole world) are beneath him. Dawkins is a bigot in every true sense of the word.


"Satanism represents man as just another animal"

"Satanism is the belief in man"


-Anton Szandor LaVey on Satanism



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by SisyphusRide
 


I fail to see your point. We are just another kind of animal.



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by SisyphusRide
 


Satanism is the belief in a supernatural being.

Atheism is NOT believing in supernatural beings.

Satanism and Christianity have more in common with each other than atheism does remember that next time you try to imply such things.



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Grimpachi
Satanism is the belief in a supernatural being.


That is partially correct, there are non-Theistic Satanists as well.



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 



That all depends on what you consider a satanist. In LaVeyan Satanism there is no worship of supernatural entities and instead you celebrate individualism.

LaVey claimed "Satanists are born, not made" and that "[Satanists] have a disease called independence that needs to be recognized just like alcoholism."[citation needed] There are progressive and libertarian elements here; diversity is encouraged, everyone is expected to discover his/her own sexuality, chart his own personality, and decide their own ambitions in life. In this stress on individuality, Satanism is considered a "Left-Hand Path" religion.



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by peter vlar
 


They still use the character of "Satan" and have philosophy and rituals so they are more akin to Christianity than atheism. They even have a bible.
edit on 1-12-2013 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join