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: 23
8
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 01:20 PM
link   

peter vlar
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.


That's something I wouldn't mind supporting.
edit on 1-12-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Grimpachi
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)


"If it is not of God, it is of Satan." Satanism only exists on account of Christianity.



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


LaVeyan Satanism does not involve the worship of "the devil" or any such deities, it is an atheistic philosophy that uses the character of "Satan" as a symbol of pride, carnality, enlightenment, undefiled wisdom, and of a cosmos which Satanists perceive to be permeated and motivated by a force that has been given many names by humans over the course of time.



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 03:44 PM
link   

AngryCymraeg
reply to post by SisyphusRide
 


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


I disagree...

We are each unique conscious souls, individual and very special.

"if your pet dog or cat and your neighbor were drowning, which would you save?"



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


Selfism/Peganism/Heathenism = Satanism

but you would only be able to comprehend this broader explanation and additional definitions from reading the Bible.


quote from internet...

Personally I agree with you, people using satanism purely to attack christianity need to become pagan or something else, Theistic satanism is the only real satanism.


hence my coinage "Soft-Satanism" ™



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by SisyphusRide
 


Cat... my neighbors are Christians who always try to convert me and then darn me to hell.



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by SisyphusRide
 


I think you have missed the point being made by Dawkins.
The claim is not that science and atheism have somehow answered every question, solved every problem and explained everything that there is to possibly explain. Very far from it in fact.

The point being made, I think, is some question are inherently nonsensical, if we are to gain answers to the remaining big questions then a scientific approach is the only demonstrably reliable way and thus sensible way forwards. Invoking mystical conscious intelligent entities is as pointless and anthropomorphic as it always has been.

So, the "delusions of grandeur" you are seeing aren't really there in the way you are suggesting and as long as you're invoking an invisible man hypothesis, including multiple invisible men (AKA "souls") as the ethereal consciousness that is each of us, you are going to get derision from the likes of Dawkins and atheists who are advocating that such un-evidenced notions can, and should be discarded.



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by flyingfish
 


hollow meaningless empty words which lack composure... the very essence of civilized communication.

you may invoke the invisible man thing all you like, it is of little concern to me. If that is how you view it then so be it... because I blame parenting for individuals (although still unique and conscious) who lack philosophical and out-side of the box skills.



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by SisyphusRide
 



hence my coinage "Soft-Satanism" ™

Made up terms ehh…


Here’s one you should be familiar with “self-righteous Christian fundamentalist”

Opps those actually exist. You would be able to comprehend that if you lived in reality.



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 06:12 PM
link   

SisyphusRide
reply to post by flyingfish
 


hollow meaningless empty words which lack composure... the very essence of civilized communication.

you may invoke the invisible man thing all you like, it is of little concern to me. If that is how you view it then so be it... because I blame parenting for individuals (although still unique and conscious) who lack philosophical and out-side of the box skills.



Sigh...Your behavior is childish.

After you've demonstrated yourself to be clueless at the level you've managed here, why should I care about your arguments? You have resorted to nothing but an ad hominem arguments.

You have let your belief overcome all reason, evidence, and logic. That's not an admirable trait. In fact, denial of what is demonstratable in the real world is foolhardy. Try denying an oncoming train and see how far you get.

Next step put fingers in ears and sing hymns loudly during any and all rebuttals



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by flyingfish
 


maybe so... but your song is not new, it is just another cover tune. The song you sing is not a completely new piece of work, and that is what I like in my musical pieces.


edit on st560813p0600000008R56 by SisyphusRide because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by helldiver
 


well you would be hard pressed to find an instance where I called you any names. Trust me I can be a dick when I want to be. I was just making an observation. I said your logic is radical .....

Also, the OP is entitled to his opinion with no need to justify or explain it. That is a courtesy he can refuse to give. You don't seem to deserve one in my estimation.

Prove the OP wrong and don't act like a bigot towards someone different than yourself.( In this case someone with an alternate idea about the variety and rate of change of life). Is everyone who doesnt blindly accept evolutionary theory an idiot to you? Do you make it a point to express such to them? That is then the response of a bigot. There are many forms of bigotry .......intellectual bigotry is just one. He and those like him do not agree with you.....What? Got a problem with that bub?



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Grimpachi
reply to post by SisyphusRide
 



hence my coinage "Soft-Satanism" ™

Made up terms ehh…


Here’s one you should be familiar with “self-righteous Christian fundamentalist”

Opps those actually exist. You would be able to comprehend that if you lived in reality.


good one my friend...

although I do not know much about Christianity, I accept your comment and feel a certain joy that you would align me with the Christians... they are a very good people so I'm honored.



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 07:55 PM
link   
reply to post by SisyphusRide
 


Now you are just a big fat fibber.
Just look at his thread history.



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 08:24 PM
link   
reply to post by boymonkey74
 


do I sense a character attack? surely you can do better than this...


www.azlyrics.com...



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 08:53 PM
link   

helldiver

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.


That was a fine read and I thank you for pointing me in that direction, but it does not prove a single thing.

The entire idea being proposed relies solely upon abiogenesis being accepted as valid to make any sense, which itself is circular reasoning.
You are relying on the fact that the Avalon explosion created unexplainable variation and complexity that suddenly appeared in the fossil record because of rapid adaptation driven by simultaneous random mutations* all being advantageous to the concurrent rapidly changing climate leading to an unexplainable number of new taxonomic lines, and all of it is due to natural selection, which then leads to the Cambrian explosion that created unexplainable variation and complexity that suddenly appeared in the fossil record, yada... yada...
The entire premise is self-supporting.

People who want to use big words in order to make this idea plausible call this logically impossible phenomenon Adaptive Radiation.

That is the key. If you believe that adaptive radiation is due solely to the random nature of mutations suddenly happening simultaneously in response to harsh climates then it makes sense, but dear Godless, I have to ask you-
Are you processing my argument?

Please pay attention:

If a mutation, which is totally random in nature as to whether it is beneficial or not, suddenly starts trending toward the beneficial side of things, then they are no longer random.

And you continue to validate the argument for intelligent design without even realizing it.
*Can things that happen simultaneously actually be random and beneficial?
And if they are, then what is the probability that this simultaneously random beneficial event happens just twice, or thrice, or much less the bajillion times that these simultaneously random beneficial events happened during BOTH the Avalon and the Cambrian explosion.

If you understand probability then you know that the probability of the same event recurring decreases exponentially every time it happens.

Yes..........
edit on 1/12/2013 by kyviecaldges because: Because I made a stupid error. That is why we edit.



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 09:09 PM
link   

kyviecaldges
Please pay attention:

If a mutation, which is totally random in nature as to whether it is beneficial or not, suddenly starts trending toward the beneficial side of things, then they are no longer random.

And you continue to validate the argument for intelligent design without even realizing it.
*Can things that happen simultaneously actually be random and beneficial?
And if they are, then what is the probability that this simultaneously random beneficial event happens just twice, or thrice, or much less the bajillion times that these simultaneously random beneficial events happened during BOTH the Avalon and the Cambrian explosion.

If you understand probability then you know that the probability of the same event recurring decreases exponentially every time it happens.

Yes..........
edit on 1/12/2013 by kyviecaldges because: Because I made a stupid error. That is why we edit.


the problem here is that you fail to see how a mutation in a creature may be beneficial in one environment yet detrimental in another. The Kit Fox and the Arctic Fox are genetically identical yet are adapted to very different environments. If forced to switch places neither would survive long in the others natural habitat making the once beneficial mutation a detriment to their survival. Nature doesn't care about algorithms, nature cares about surviving.



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 09:20 PM
link   
reply to post by peter vlar
 



the problem here is that you fail to see how a mutation in a creature may be beneficial in one environment yet detrimental in another. The Kit Fox and the Arctic Fox are genetically identical yet are adapted to very different environments. If forced to switch places neither would survive long in the others natural habitat making the once beneficial mutation a detriment to their survival. Nature doesn't care about algorithms, nature cares about surviving.


And I thought about having Chinese take out for lunch.

What does that have to do with anything?
And don't respond with 'if you can't figure it out then I won't explain it' B.S.
We are talking about random stuff man. Your argument does nothing to support anything.

You are right that nature doesn't care about recursive algorithms, but (insert random mainstream evolutionary biologist here) qualifies the validity of abiogenesis using recursive algorithms.

Random, random, random, random, random, random.....
I hope that you see the irony in that last sentence.



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by kyviecaldges
 





If a mutation, which is totally random in nature as to whether it is beneficial or not, suddenly starts trending toward the beneficial side of things, then they are no longer random


This does not happen your argument is WRONG.

Mutations by themselves don't do anything let alone start trending. It is the survivors of a population that pass on mutations, if the mutation benefits the organism, it survives and is passed on. This process in no way takes away the fact that the mutation was random to begin with.




And you continue to validate the argument for intelligent design without even realizing it.

LOL! and you continue to validate your ignorance of ToE.



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 10:55 PM
link   
reply to post by kyviecaldges
 


Your inability to understand how much you don't know and understand is far beyond my ability to explain. Repeating the same misinformation over and over wont make it true no matter how badly you want it to be so. I wish you and your personal view on recursive algorithms the best of luck.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join