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: 6
8
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 16 2013 @ 08:13 AM
link   
Yes, but can any of you narrow minded atheists show me a creature that is exactly half one species and half another? Surely there should be Crocoducks, Humanzee and Minotaur like creatures running around everywhere lol? Can you show me speciation.....oh and by lunchtime too, thanks, got other thing's I'd like to do in the afternoon. If Ray Comfort's other academic masterpiece, aka the scientific theory of "the banana proves god" doesn't sway you, I think you might be a lost cause.....lol

It won't matter even if creationists are shown more obvious transitional fossils, they'll just put a gap either side of it and claim god made them that way..... lol.

Surely, every fossil is a transitional fossil? I really do wonder what impression creationists get, when they look at the progression in the homonid fossil record? An imaginary sky fairy just created them/gave the order for them to spontaneously generate *poof* with features that go steadily from archaic to modern human, just because....it sounds so logical (lol)? Is there evidence of this sky fairy, does the fossil record really support his brand of spontaneous generation, or does it indicate something else...?




posted on Nov, 16 2013 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Cogito, Ergo Sum

Yes, but can any of you narrow minded atheists show me a creature that is exactly half one species and half another? Surely there should be Crocoducks, Humanzee and Minotaur ...


Show us a god.

No?

Hmmmm.



posted on Nov, 16 2013 @ 09:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum
 


Please tell me you kidding. First thing about evolution, it does not work as you wish it to work. No, there are no crock-ducks except in silly heads that don't like to acknowledge huge amount of evidence that support evolution.

But let's go step back, for example couple years ago news that chicken are close relative to T-Rex dinosaurs was in all news media. A am not sure what you made out of it, but for me it was something very important. Yet another example how evolution works.

Now, just imagine, chicken, the same one you can order in KFC and T-Rex are related. Isn't that great.

But what can we do with that knowledge? Nothing?

It turns out that we can, and actually ARE working.

Please check this little ted-talk: Jack Horner: Building a dinosaur from a chicken

Will you still deny evolution, even i we recreate t-rex out of ordinary chicken?




edit on 16-11-2013 by SuperFrog because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2013 @ 09:34 AM
link   

SuperFrog

SisyphusRidehollow meaningless empty words... I do not consider Dawkins as a scientific mind or take him seriously, he is a militant atheist and a vengeful bully.


First of all, thank you for bringing very nice video. I can just wish to sit between Tyson and Dawkins as Sam Harris did. But speaking of Dr. Neil DeGrasse Tyson, do you know what is his stance about those who invoke ID or creation in science and lab?



I know from his very mouth... "I am not with the atheists" -- "if anything I would be an Agnostic" "I am constantly claimed by atheists" -Tyson

Agnostic people are just much cooler than the close minded atheist... agnostic's do not choose to be on the side of the bullies, they make a logical choice to respect everyone's beliefs even though it may differ from their own. They make a conscious decision to be intellectual and professional. Neil Tyson is a true American in every sense when it pertains to this...


love how he talks about his wiki page hahaha!




I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details
-Einstein


the Creator is unknowable... with my limited Human understanding I am able to recognize that there are people who say there is no God, but what really makes me angry is... they quote me to support such views
-Einstein


edit on 16-11-2013 by SisyphusRide because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2013 @ 09:42 AM
link   

SuperFrog
Please tell me you kidding.


Sorry, thought it was obvious.

Guess sarcasm doesn't translate well this way.

Really.....crocoducks, humanzee, exactly half one creature/half another, Comforts' "scientific theory" of bananas/god??? Wtf...lol. Not sure how I could have made it (1st paragraph at least) sound any more obvious.

Apologies to whoever starred that post, but the first part was sarcastic humor (to me at least
) not meant to be taken seriously.




edit on 16-11-2013 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it



posted on Nov, 16 2013 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by SisyphusRide
 





I know from his very mouth... "I am not with the atheists" -- "if anything I would be an Agnostic" "I am constantly claimed by atheists" -Tyson

Agnostic people are just much cooler than the close minded atheist... agnostic's do not choose to be on the side of the bullies, they make a logical choice to respect everyone's beliefs even though it may differ from their own. They make a conscious decision to be intellectual and professional. Neil Tyson is a true American in every sense when it pertains to this...


I am really surprised you didn't know this but atheist and agnostic are not exclusive.

To be more precise gnostic and agnostic seem to be what you are talking about however a person can be a agnostic theist or atheist same applies to being a gnostic theist or atheist. So do you know which one Tyson is? You know he is agnostic but is he an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist?



posted on Nov, 16 2013 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


Agnostic, to me, means a person cares enough to say they don't necessarily believe in a god but not enough to take a definite stance in the matter.



posted on Nov, 16 2013 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Grimpachi
reply to post by SisyphusRide
 





I know from his very mouth... "I am not with the atheists" -- "if anything I would be an Agnostic" "I am constantly claimed by atheists" -Tyson

Agnostic people are just much cooler than the close minded atheist... agnostic's do not choose to be on the side of the bullies, they make a logical choice to respect everyone's beliefs even though it may differ from their own. They make a conscious decision to be intellectual and professional. Neil Tyson is a true American in every sense when it pertains to this...


I am really surprised you didn't know this but atheist and agnostic are not exclusive.

To be more precise gnostic and agnostic seem to be what you are talking about however a person can be a agnostic theist or atheist same applies to being a gnostic theist or atheist. So do you know which one Tyson is? You know he is agnostic but is he an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist?


agnostic theist and agnostic atheist... orly?

mkay, but honestly being that these terms do not have much of a history nor does the term atheist, I question their validity. The atheists are trying hard and desperately to hold on to the agnostics in any way possible... but even the wiki version (I prefer the Merriam Webster Dictionary) gives the definition.

the light switch is either on or it is off... you can set the switch in the middle with a balancing act... and this is what I believe. I do not like to confuse the subject anymore that it is by adding categories like agnostic theist. I have no use for it to my advantage in debate.



posted on Nov, 16 2013 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by SisyphusRide
 



I like him,thanks for sharing.



posted on Nov, 16 2013 @ 10:14 AM
link   

AliceBleachWhite

Cogito, Ergo Sum

Yes, but can any of you narrow minded atheists show me a creature that is exactly half one species and half another? Surely there should be Crocoducks, Humanzee and Minotaur ...


Show us a god.

No?

Hmmmm.




and there it is, an impasse.

So why is there a debate again?

This is exactly why Christ said if they didn't want to hear the message, wipe the dust off your feet.

control drama......warning

that goes for every walk of life, all isims
edit on 103030p://bSaturday2013 by Stormdancer777 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2013 @ 10:28 AM
link   

SisyphusRide

Grimpachi
reply to post by SisyphusRide
 





I know from his very mouth... "I am not with the atheists" -- "if anything I would be an Agnostic" "I am constantly claimed by atheists" -Tyson

Agnostic people are just much cooler than the close minded atheist... agnostic's do not choose to be on the side of the bullies, they make a logical choice to respect everyone's beliefs even though it may differ from their own. They make a conscious decision to be intellectual and professional. Neil Tyson is a true American in every sense when it pertains to this...


I am really surprised you didn't know this but atheist and agnostic are not exclusive.

To be more precise gnostic and agnostic seem to be what you are talking about however a person can be a agnostic theist or atheist same applies to being a gnostic theist or atheist. So do you know which one Tyson is? You know he is agnostic but is he an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist?


agnostic theist and agnostic atheist... orly?

mkay, but honestly being that these terms do not have much of a history nor does the term atheist, I question their validity. The atheists are trying hard and desperately to hold on to the agnostics in any way possible... but even the wiki version (I prefer the Merriam Webster Dictionary) gives the definition.

the light switch is either on or it is off... you can set the switch in the middle with a balancing act... and this is what I believe. I do not like to confuse the subject anymore that it is by adding categories like agnostic theist. I have no use for it to my advantage in debate.


lol...how typical you are going to ignore something because it doesn't work to your advantage. Seeker of truth you are not. Like most things whether or not you chose to acknowledge it the facts remain the same. Quick cover your eyes or you may learn something.



posted on Nov, 16 2013 @ 11:11 AM
link   

SisyphusRide
I know from his very mouth... "I am not with the atheists" -- "if anything I would be an Agnostic" "I am constantly claimed by atheists" -Tyson

Agnostic people are just much cooler than the close minded atheist... agnostic's do not choose to be on the side of the bullies, they make a logical choice to respect everyone's beliefs even though it may differ from their own. They make a conscious decision to be intellectual and professional. Neil Tyson is a true American in every sense when it pertains to this...


love how he talks about his wiki page hahaha!


I am not sure if you understand full meaning of agnostic. Let me help you...


ag·nos·tic
noun \ag-ˈnäs-tik, əg-\

: a person who does not have a definite belief about whether God exists or not

: a person who does not believe or is unsure of something
Full Definition of AGNOSTIC
1
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god *


* Source - Merriam Webster Dictionary

What Tyson is saying, and many scientists share his views - there is no proof of existence nor there is no proof that god does not exist. Just the same as for Santa Claus, Thor, Loki, Ra, ....

He himself said that he does not like to make assumption that god does not exists, even there is no single piece of evidence that does exist. Even Dawkins will not go to extent to say he is sure god does not exist. No one who claim to be scientist would do such a thing.

Not sure what do you like to prove with other quotes... Now you expect me to do the same? K, here we go...








posted on Nov, 16 2013 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by AliceBleachWhite
 


You are the queen of fallacy of false analogy.

Simply because something exists today that resembles something that science imagined existed in the past...
The "water ape" dreamland hypothesis and this mudfish creature you rave about, that does not in any way make them applicable to one another.

Link to fallacy of false analogy.


Read that AliceBleachWhite.
Learn it.
Burn it into your brain, because it is your go to fallacy when you get cornered and you refuse to admit that evolution as is taught in school, Darwinian Evolution, has NO evidence to back it up.

If you want to talk about the fossil record then tell me about the Pre-Cambrian explosion or more specifically, the trilobite

It just popped onto the scene, a much more evolved arthropod with no transitional species in the fossil record.
JUST LIKE HUMANS with no transitional species.
This is what wikipedia has to say.

The first appearance of trilobites in the fossil record defines the base of the Atdabanian stage of the Early Cambrian period.


The it goes on to say this-

When trilobites first appeared in the fossil record they were already highly diverse and geographically dispersed.


Un-oh!!

It seems that your evolution theory can't account for just about everything that it promises happened in the past.

LEARN THAT FALLACY OF FALSE ANALOGY.
edit on 16/11/2013 by kyviecaldges because: Because I made a stupid error. That is why we edit.



posted on Nov, 16 2013 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by SisyphusRide
 


I will introduce you to Jesus (in person')
if you send me many paypalz!



posted on Nov, 16 2013 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum
 


Some people work better with pictures, so here we go...




This little video here shows why 99.9% of life does not exists any more.

BBC TV had very good documentary about human life origin, they went into details to show evolution. I will try to find it. It was really worth watching...



posted on Nov, 16 2013 @ 11:39 AM
link   

rickymouse


Natural selection does not really allow for compassion or friendship. These are very important to all animals.


Does both of these add to survival? Then they are apart of natural selection...you are fooling yourself if you think not. You think it is something special and it is special, but not for the reasons you want to believe. We would not be here without it, so I would say it is a special trait, but is it a trait designed by another intelligence? Who knows, but first one must prove these traits are impossible through natural selection.




I see that the does in my yard do not allow the young fawns to eat the food we give them. My wife would get mad because she said the mother was greedy. I would observe them all the time. The does were teaching the fawn to survive, eating stuff in the wild. Once it learned all it's survival skills the does would leave the young start eating the foods we were giving. When I told the wife, she looked at me a little crazy.....She told me a month later I was right after many observations of her own. To believe in natural selection means you have to believe these animals are just dumb animals. These dear have compassion and feel sorrow and remorse. Sure, the young bucks full of testosterone are like human teenagers, teens can't think well because of a rapid change in hormone levels. That is not just a human trait.


A level of higher thinking or your higher thinking deciding what the situation is? I guess you do not fully understand natural selection. We all have good traits and bad ones....over a very long period of time the good traits survive and the bad ones die out.

Being fast, big, strong, smart, nimble, thick hide etc. might be obvious traits that would most likely aid in survival, but a sea turtle that lays its eggs and goes back out to sea seems to work, but an elephant needs to protect its young for a very long time and would have been extinct a long time ago if it didn't develop the trait to protect its young.

Another good example is Neanderthals. Why did they die out and we continued on? It is suggested we were more the hunter gatherer of bigger game and followed the game south to warmer climates where Neanderthals were scavengers and gatherers and most likely could not overcome climate changes as they stayed north. Traits do not need to be the obvious to actually be survival traits.



These feelings do not fit into natural selection at all. A fireman who rushes into a burning building to save someone....definitely not natural selection. How about the story of Moby dick the whale, study the true story on that.


We are a very slow/weak animal, so we needed something, and that something is brain power and opposable thumbs. Our brain power has developed to the point we spend much of our time thinking abstractly and then apply those abstract thoughts to the real world around us. You can't even make your breakfast without first creating it in your brain and then doing it. This is our special skill that may be just a byproduct of what happens when brain development reaches a certain level.

Like monkeys, elephants, dolphins and 1000 other animals we protect our young and each other. We can not and would not have survived without the "group", so why is a fireman running into a building to save someone not a part of natural selection. Not everyone wants to be a fireman, nor care about their fellow man. If today all power went out and we had nothing who would survive? Those who grouped together, or those who went on their own....The fireman would continue on in a natural selection process.



edit on 16-11-2013 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2013 @ 11:41 AM
link   

AliceBleachWhite

Cogito, Ergo Sum

Yes, but can any of you narrow minded atheists show me a creature that is exactly half one species and half another? Surely there should be Crocoducks, Humanzee and Minotaur ...


Show us a god.





posted on Nov, 16 2013 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by SisyphusRide
 


I'm not sure how that qualifies as a god...?
edit on 16-11-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2013 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Xtrozero

rickymouse


Natural selection does not really allow for compassion or friendship. These are very important to all animals.


Does both of these add to survival? Then they are apart of natural selection...you are fooling yourself if you think not. You think it is something special and it is special, but not for the reasons you want to believe. We would not be here without it, so I would say it is a special trait, but is it a trait designed by another intelligence? Who knows, but first one must prove these traits are impossible through natural selection.




I see that the does in my yard do not allow the young fawns to eat the food we give them. My wife would get mad because she said the mother was greedy. I would observe them all the time. The does were teaching the fawn to survive, eating stuff in the wild. Once it learned all it's survival skills the does would leave the young start eating the foods we were giving. When I told the wife, she looked at me a little crazy.....She told me a month later I was right after many observations of her own. To believe in natural selection means you have to believe these animals are just dumb animals. These dear have compassion and feel sorrow and remorse. Sure, the young bucks full of testosterone are like human teenagers, teens can't think well because of a rapid change in hormone levels. That is not just a human trait.


A level of higher thinking or your higher thinking deciding what the situation is? I guess you do not fully understand natural selection. We all have good traits and bad ones....over a very long period of time the good traits survive and the bad ones die out.

Being fast, big, strong, smart, nimble, thick hide etc. might be obvious traits that would most likely aid in survival, but a sea turtle that lays its eggs and goes back out to sea seems to work, but an elephant needs to protect its young for a very long time and would have been extinct a long time ago if it didn't develop the trait to protect its young.

Another good example is Neanderthals. Why did they die out and we continued on? It is suggested we were more the hunter gatherer of bigger game and followed the game south to warmer climates where Neanderthals were scavengers and gatherers and most likely could not overcome climate changes as they stayed north. Traits do not need to be the obvious to actually be survival traits.



These feelings do not fit into natural selection at all. A fireman who rushes into a burning building to save someone....definitely not natural selection. How about the story of Moby dick the whale, study the true story on that.


We are a very slow/weak animal, so we needed something, and that something is brain power and opposable thumbs. Our brain power has developed to the point we spend much of our time thinking abstractly and then apply those abstract thoughts to the real world around us. You can't even make your breakfast without first creating it in your brain and then doing it. This is our special skill that may be just a byproduct of what happens when brain development reaches a certain level.

Like monkeys, elephants, dolphins and 1000 other animals we protect our young and each other. We can not and would not have survived without the "group", so why is a fireman running into a building to save someone not a part of natural selection. Not everyone wants to be a fireman, nor care about their fellow man. If today all power went out and we had nothing who would survive? Those who grouped together, or those who went on their own....The fireman would continue on in a natural selection process.



edit on 16-11-2013 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)


I've actually read these theories years ago. I understand them as they are written and were modified at that point. What you are saying is your interpretation of the theories, not what the theory actually states. You are modifying the theory in your mind away from the theory itself. This is done by people all the time, interpreting things to fit into their beliefs. Reread the theory, there is no conclusions in it allowing for compassion and friendship. We often deceive ourselves, when this stuff is taught in school, the teachers interpretations are emphasized by their beliefs. The truth is that natural selection is more similar what you are saying but that is not what the theory actually states. Reality is way more complex than a theory can portray it.

If I told you that the Turkey I was selling was cheap at ten bucks a pound because it is eleven bucks a pound in some town somewhere else, would you buy the turkey just because I could prove what I said. Just because something has proof to prove it is real doesn't mean that the proof is relevant. Looking at the big picture with an open mind is crucial.



posted on Nov, 16 2013 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by SisyphusRide
 


Denying all other gods, You are just one god away from being atheist.


“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join