Evolutionists ! Explain this and make sense at the same time.

reply to post by Krazysh0t


What is it to be God ? What is it to be the most high ?

God said, let there be light and there was light.

My most ultimate fantastical idea of what it would be, to be God.

Would simply be to possess the power to just speak and it is so.

Gods word is not vague. we are.

I have no idea what you are talking about. Are you suggesting that we stop looking for transitionary fossils because they may have already decomposed?

Not at all. I'm saying bone and fossil both. And decomposed is your word.

reply to post by ChaoticOrder


In the video he speaks of cave men not really existing but merely being extremely old men like men lived to 400 years or something like that. He shows how monkey and human bones and dna just don't add up to ever come from one another and what not. I watched this months ago and I am glad to see somebody has found it. It truly is an amazing feature if you can get past all Treys hand movements.

MrConspiracy
The fact of the matter is...

Evolution is a theory. Creationism is a theory. Neither have been proven conclusively. And have a good chance of NEVER actually being proven.

Nope, Evolution = Science, Creationism = Theology, Science =/= Theology therefore Creationism is not a theory. At most it would be a hypothesis with no supporting evidence

UnifiedSerenity
reply to post by Krazysh0t

 

That wiki source gives no dates close to the time of Isaiah.

Regarding Jesus existence I give you this:

Letters from Pilate proving Jesus existed

Wiki source aside, Isaiah wasn't actually written in the 8th century bce, it was written towards the end of the Jewish exile in Babylon which is contemporary with Greek postulation of a spherical earth. Isaiah may have been alleged to live in the 8th century but there is no historical or archeological context and that's from sources alleged to be Christian scholars. As for your link about Pilate's Letters, it's a work of fiction. And I don't mean that in the same way I would refer to the bible as a work of fiction, I mean it more like Great Expectations or a Tale of Two Cities are fiction. Skip the blogs and hit up a bookstore, you'll find it in hardcover or paperback. And as for the bible offering historical proof because you can find mentions of cities and kings who actually ruled and existed, I would refer you back to Great Expectations and A Tale of Two Cities. They are both works of fiction that refer to real historic places and people that were contemporaneous with the authorship of these novels. They are however not historical records or true stories. there are aspects of truth and reality to them but they are still works of fiction.

Was hoping to come across information that I wasn't already aware of when I viewed this video. Its a good show tho. I like the presenters style. I was a little confused at the end where he was talking about bible prophecies and Jesus. Is he saying that Jesus was one of the fallen angels? Nephilem?

solomons path

Itismenotyou

solomons path

Itismenotyou
reply to post by solomons path

 

Assumptions of another's knowledge has been the downfall of many kingdoms and countries.

It's not an assumption . . . I'm judging by your own words. So, nice strawman deflection that has nothing to do with the topic.

You clearly stated:

That is a very good point. So using your own train of thought, I think it is just silly to believe (i.e. have faith) in evolution when there is no evidence, other than speculative evidence, that one kind of animal turned into another kind of animal and that life just started by accident. Surely you can't believe we that. We are here because we are meant to be here, other wise we would not be here, unless you believe that accidents (as large as life) happen on a scale so high that they are no longer considered accidents. But that would be ironic. You may not believe that the belief in a creator is reasonable, but I do. I understand how it is reasonable and why it is the only reasonable answer.

Then by all means my good man. Show me your proof that evolution is a fact that you have observed for yourself in person, without the need to put your faith and belief in the words of others. After all that is what you want from me correct?

Sexual Reproduction, Sperm Competition, Sexual Selection, Artificial Selection, Ativisms, Anatomical and Molecular Vestiges, Speciation, Geographic Distribution of Related Species, Genetic Change over Generations, Chemical and Anatomical Similarities, Antibiotic Resistance, DNA Transcription, DNA functional redundency, Morphological Similarities in the Fossil Record, Transitional Forms in the Fossil Record.

I could keep going . . . but, something tells me you have a good reason why none of this is evidence of evolution anyway.

Now . . . same goes for you.

Show me empirical evidence of said creator?

It's funny that your argument against the validity of Evolutionary Theory is that you are taking someone else's word for it, from a book, so it is based on faith . . . Yet, the only "evidence" for a creator is archaic mythology found in a book, as given to us from "holy men" and "prophets". Well, none of the evidence I listed above is "just from a book". They are real world phenomena that happen (or have happened). You can experience them for yourself . . . you don't "have to put your belief in the word's of others", unlike supernatural creation.

Or, are you claiming to be able to cite evidence of supernatural creation . . .

edit on 9/10/13 by solomons path because: (no reason given)

Sexual reproduction? lol. Well that is in the bible also. It even explains why we reproduce. I could find holes in your answers. Fossil record for one.
Okay here is it is. My empirical evidence that the God created everything. But much like you said of me, something tells me you will not believe it. I have prayed to God and he has made himself known to me. I set aside my worldly view and started praying. I asked him if he was real then show me. Of coarse it took me a while to realize that my own doubt stood in my way. So I started reading the Bible. I would jump around in it from here and there til one day I decided to read it from start to finish. You know? If I really wanted to find out the truth shouldn't I look at it with an open mind? Well I did. The more I read it, especially the new testament and the sheer power of truth that Christ's words held, the more I could not just feel the truth, but also see it. I don't know about you, but I have never seen anyone who would not only die for a lie, but embrace that death so spectacularly that he resisted not. And the evil crime that he committed was to let people know they need to love one another.

Well there you have it. That is My empirical evidence.

^How did god reveal himself to you? Did he speak with you? Send you telepathic messages? Appear in your bedroom? Signs in nature? Usually when people say god revealed himself to them, they are speaking in metaphors based on interpretation of events and coincidences in life. Reading the bible and then "feeling" the word and believing it strongly is NOT empirical evidence of god. It's empirical evidence that you believe in god. It's cool if you believe that, but don't call it empirical evidence, because that only shows you either don't know what that means, or that you are not being honest.

I'm a bit confused about the OP post and title. How do the skulls go against evolution? Even if they are indeed alien skulls (which I'm pretty sure they were confirmed to be a result of a disease), why would it have anything to do with evolution? If aliens did indeed visit our planet in the past as I and many other suspect, it would only prove that in itself, not that evolution of life on earth is wrong. A more appropriate thread title may be "Nephilim skulls?" By throwing the E word in the title it only invites a creation vs evolution debate, and I'm honestly burned out from those.

Bravo with the video bro I actually enjoyed it, I love when the exchanging of beliefs, theories and religion come into play with life....I love to gather information..this is what ATS is about things that rock your noggin, S&F

Cypress

MrConspiracy
The fact of the matter is...

Evolution is a theory. Creationism is a theory. Neither have been proven conclusively. And have a good chance of NEVER actually being proven.

Nope, Evolution = Science, Creationism = Theology, Science =/= Theology therefore Creationism is not a theory. At most it would be a hypothesis with no supporting evidence

Point still being.. neither have been conclusively proven. And i doubt they ever will be. You can play around with my words all day. My underlying argument remains the same.

What solid supporting evidence does MACRO evolution have?

MrConspiracy

Point still being.. neither have been conclusively proven. And i doubt they ever will be. You can play around with my words all day. My underlying argument remains the same.

What solid supporting evidence does MACRO evolution have?

I'm not twisting words. That is the very heart of the matter. Creationism is theology not science. You can never prove theology. We can prove or disprove parts or even the whole of the evolutionary process through the scientific process. There are people out there who feel their faith is compromised by science and their whole argument tries to argue science = theology. At that point they can make the claim they are now right based on faith because you cannot prove or disprove theology.

As for Macro evolution, it is the same thing as micro evolution.

reply to post by Cypress

Cypress
Creationism is theology not science. You can never prove theology..

Which is precisely why evolution will NEVER be proven...

Evolution is a religion based upon faith and assumptions that have nothing to do with Science.

It is believed TOTALLY by blind faith.

The only difference is that unlike Christianity, evolution is a blind faith - which is is COMPLETELY contradicted by evidence and science...

"Most of what is being taught in university classrooms today, in biology, and also in physics and mathematics, is actually not science at all, but essentially a variety of religious cult, whose immediate roots can be traced, among other things, to the Cathars and Bogomils of the medieval "dark ages"!

True, this cult, which controls much of our educational system and scientific community, naturally does not advertise itself openly as a fanatic form of irrationalist belief; rather, it calls itself "the scientific establishment"; it typically brands those who refuse to accept its most egregious doctrines, as "unscientific."

Now, it is easy to show that Darwinism, one of the pillars of modern biology, is nothing but a kind of cult, a cult religion. I am not exaggerating. It has no scientific validity whatsoever. Darwin's so-called theory of evolution is based on absurdly irrational propositions, which did not come from scientific observations, but were artificially introduced from the outside, for political-ideological reasons."

Jonathan Tennenbaum: Toward a True Science of Life

Murgatroid
Which is precisely why evolution will NEVER be proven...

Evolution is a religion based upon faith and assumptions that have nothing to do with Science.

It is believed TOTALLY by blind faith.

That is a flat out lie.

www.talkorigins.org... - No creationist or evolution denier has attempted to debunk any of that.

Genetic mutations and natural selection are proven 100%. Science is based on evidence and experiments. RELIGION is believed totally by blind faith in ancient texts with no way to verify it. Funny how people hold evolution to such high standards but don't apply the same scrutiny to their own belief system. That's pure hypocrisy.

"Most of what is being taught in university classrooms today, in biology, and also in physics and mathematics, is actually not science at all, but essentially a variety of religious cult, whose immediate roots can be traced, among other things, to the Cathars and Bogomils of the medieval "dark ages"!

Prove it. Please cite me some current science books being taught in school that are not science, and explain the discrepancies and why. Good luck. I ask this every time I hear this old argument and nobody can ever back it up. Maybe you'll be the first.

Now, it is easy to show that Darwinism, one of the pillars of modern biology, is nothing but a kind of cult, a cult religion. I am not exaggerating. It has no scientific validity whatsoever. Darwin's so-called theory of evolution is based on absurdly irrational propositions, which did not come from scientific observations, but were artificially introduced from the outside, for political-ideological reasons."

The lies just keep coming. First Darwinism is a term that's been outdated for over a hundred years, second modern synthesis has been verified, observed and proven. Debunk the actual science behind it in my link above and then we'll talk. It sounds to me like you don't even understand the basic principles.

Big bang, origin of life, abiogenesis, etc have absolutely nothing to do with evolution.

reply to post by Barcs

Barcs
That is a flat out lie.

The REAL lie has been debunked....

The question is WHY do people still believe it?

Dr. T.N. Tahmisian, a physiologist for the Atomic Energy Commission, said, “scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever.” Now this “lie,” “fairy tale” and “hoax” is still being taught as “fact” in our public schools, and they call it “science?” www.tcpalm.com... 

Evolution is little more that a series of stories that loosely almost appear to fit some old evidence. These stories keep being adapted to try to fit new evidence, but now we know too much to believe any of those stories. Evolution isn't science.

One evolutionist said: "... All the evolutionary stories I learned as a student... have now been debunked..."
(Dr. Derek V. Ager, Department of Geology and Oceanography, University College, Swansea, UK, Proceedings of the Geologists' Association, vol. 87(2))

Evolution Has Long Been Debunked

Sir Fred Hoyle was the man responsible for coining the phrase “the big bang.” Few people today know that was actually mocking the idea that life began with an explosion billions of years ago. Hoyle declared that:

“… the general scientific world has been bamboozled into believing that evolution has been proved. Nothing could be further from the truth …”

Hoyle went on to say that the truth is recognized by some, who, fearful of persecution still refuse to expose the Darwinian lie:

“This situation is well known to geneticists and yet nobody seems to blow the whistle decisively on the theory … Most scientists still cling to Darwinism because of its grip on the educational system … You either have to believe the concepts, or … be branded a heretic.”

DARWIN DEBUNKED

reply to post by Murgatroid



Theists like yourself want so desperately to equate scientific models with your flimsy childish unsupported beliefs. The fact is science is based completely on objective, observable reality. The scientific method is designed specifically to remove faith from the equation, to ensure that any and every model in science is testable, observable, and reproducible... Nothing in science is taken on faith.

Scientific models like Evolution, and the Big bang are based on mountains of reproducible, objective, testable evidence. In contrast there is nothing different in having faith in gods and belief in pink fairies and unicorns, they are not observable, none are testable, and none are based on any evidence whatsoever.

Murgatroid

One evolutionist said: "... All the evolutionary stories I learned as a student... have now been debunked..."
(Dr. Derek V. Ager, Department of Geology and Oceanography, University College, Swansea, UK, Proceedings of the Geologists' Association, vol. 87(2))

What Ager said

I couldn't find Ager's paper in the library anywhere and librarians on two campuses told me no such journal had ever existed as the one Gish cited. So finally I wrote to Ager, and I have his letter with me tonight, if you'd like to see it. Ager says first of all Gish got the name of the journal and the year of publication wrong. But then he did enclose the paper Gish meant to cite [14]. Now the complete sentence Dr. Gish often alludes to reads, "It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student, from Trueman's Ostrea/Gryphaea to Carruthers' Zaphrentis delanouei, have now been debunked," which makes it sound like evolution wholesale has been debunked. Ager was only talking about the evolution of Ostraea, which is oyster-like bivalve molluscs, from Gryphaea, another bivalve, and saying that previous interpretations of their relationship have been mistaken.

When I told him about Gish's quote, Ayer wrote to me:

I get rather tired of these things.... It is true I have been clasped to the fundamentalists' Californian bosoms because of things which I have written about evolution and about the stratigraphical record. Of course they have misunderstood and misrepresented me (and in some cases taken my perhaps overfacetious nature too seriously).

Beware of quotemines

Incredible creatures that defy evolution. I really enjoyed learning about this lil bug:

Here is another one.... The Incredible Woodpecker

Murgatroid

Which is precisely why evolution will NEVER be proven...

Evolution is a religion based upon faith and assumptions that have nothing to do with Science.

It is believed TOTALLY by blind faith

The only difference is that unlike Christianity, evolution is a blind faith - which is is COMPLETELY contradicted by evidence and science...

I had a very smart-arse reply I was going to use but decided "why bother." You are the one pushing your ideological agenda and it has become apparent you haven't truly understood a word that has been written or you want to continue to maliciously perpetuate the inaccuracies you continue to post.

Here is an interesting point to explain from the evolution point of view.

Etched within Earth's foundation rocks -- the granites -- are beautiful micro spheres of coloration, halos, produced by the radioactive decay of primordial polonium, which is known to have only a fleeting existence.

The following simple analogy will show how these polonium micro spheres -- or -- halos contradict the evolutionary belief that granites formed as hot magma slowly cooled over millions of years. To the contrary, this analogy demonstrates how these halos provide unambiguous evidence of both an almost instantaneous creation of granites and the young age of the earth.

According to scientists, these spheres can only exist a few seconds before they begin to decay. How can they be frozen in place if the earth slowly cooled over millions of years? These polonium spheres should not exist if evolution is correct. I found this on a different site having this discussion.

CHALLENGE TO THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES The Academy has vehemently opposed creation science, even claiming that the evidence for creation has been scientifically invalidated. We have repeatedly challenged the Academy to publicly explain where the polonium-halo evidence for creation has ever been scientifically invalidated. For over 15 years, they have refused to even try, for they know that their statement is insupportable when it comes to the polonium-halo evidence.

Some will say it's been refuted, but not according to the peer review journals that evolutionists always point to. The responses to the complaints about this presentation can be found here.

The Fingerprints of Creation offers a lot to examine. I never really considered this idea of instant creation.

This video covers the facts about this topic, and covers some of the objections.

This is a nice short video talking about the mathematics of evolution happening:



Now, the exponential numbers show that the probability of life happening by chance is beyond belief. To believe in evolution shows amazing faith because there is nothing offered by scientists to counter these numbers.

If I said, I have a billion dollars here to give you, and all you have to do is spin this wheel that has 50 numbers on it and get them to come up in order from 1 to 50 with no mistakes, but it will cost you 10,000 dollars to take those spins, would you give me that puny $10,000.00 with such a huge payoff?

Do you think you have a decent chance at winning the mega lottery? You have a chance to win 250 million dollars! What are your chances of picking the right 5 numbers out of 55 numbers and a power ball number that is 1 out of 30? You have to get them all right. Do you think you will win? Any yet those chances are much much better than the chance of life coming together and creating YOU!

If you still believe in evolution, then it truly does prove you have great faith because it's not based on logic, mathematical knowledge, or any evidence.