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.
originally posted by: darkbake
originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: AlephBet
wrong forum dude. and quit fishing for thread hits, people avoid your stuff for a reason.
Ouch I missed the Origins and Creationism forum this might have made for better discussion there. Although the video is seriously good - I wanted to share it with you guys.
originally posted by: AlephBet
a reply to: peter vlar
The question is: What is the evidence for evolution?
My answer, if you go back and check my first post, is: Involution.
I stated my answer in one word. I am trying to confirm the OP with the evidence. If you take away the vortex, or circling around a center (Volution), then you have NO evolution. The very word volution comprises the entire body of evidence of seeking, finding and adaptation. As I stated, the evidence is clear. Is it possible you have not listened?
originally posted by: AlephBet
a reply to: peter vlar
Volution is fact. All things spin by a ratio of 1:1.618. Flush a toilet and prove it to yourself. You cannot evolve without revolving. Last time I checked, the planet is revolving; revolving around the sun, which is revolving; revolving in a galaxy, with the galaxy moving.
Last I checked, this is a forum for debating creation vs. evolution. Creation wins every time.
The question is: What is the evidence for evolution?
My answer, if you go back and check my first post, is: Involution.
originally posted by: AlephBet
a reply to: Barcs
You would not have evolution of species apart from a rotating Earth around a central sun with seasons. You would not have the rotation of the sun apart from the central sun of the galaxy. The order of the cosmos is synchronized for life to exist. It all hangs on volution, or rotating about a center. When sheep develop a coat, it is by volution. When birds migrate, volution. When fish circle from breading ground to feeding ground, volution. When your ear turns from center down your jaw line, volution at a ratio of 1:1.618. Nautilus shell - volution. Brocolli - volution. Toilet flushing - volution. Shape of a spinning galaxy - volution. Shape of the Earth - volution.
In Latin, e is the prefix standing for out of. Eovlution is out of Volution. Name one thing that science claims as evolved that has not spun out of the whirlwind.
You can have something coming out of e of the spin without involution into the vortex. Consciousness (Spirit) is involution into matter from letters (information) and Word (chains and sequences of information animating matter. Consciousness is not matter. They are dimensional and relative to each other. Consciousness is non-local. For Spirit to animate matter, the must be a catalyst.
Face it. We are designed by a back end we cannot see. The front end screams of design and governance by law. Just like the server behind the computer screen you are viewing, information is collapsed from storage to your view. Consciousness collapses the wave function. It's the most basic fact of physics. Lower spatial dimensions imply the higher dimensions that cast us down from above.
originally posted by: AlephBet
a reply to: Barcs
You would not have evolution of species apart from a rotating Earth around a central sun with seasons. You would not have the rotation of the sun apart from the central sun of the galaxy. The order of the cosmos is synchronized for life to exist. It all hangs on volution, or rotating about a center. When sheep develop a coat, it is by volution. When birds migrate, volution. When fish circle from breading ground to feeding ground, volution. When your ear turns from center down your jaw line, volution at a ratio of 1:1.618. Nautilus shell - volution. Brocolli - volution. Toilet flushing - volution. Shape of a spinning galaxy - volution. Shape of the Earth - volution.
In Latin, e is the prefix standing for out of. Eovlution is out of Volution. Name one thing that science claims as evolved that has not spun out of the whirlwind.
1620s, "an opening of what was rolled up," from Latin evolutionem (nominative evolutio) "unrolling (of a book)," noun of action from past participle stem of evolvere "to unroll" (see evolve). Used in medicine, mathematics, and general writing in various senses including "growth to maturity and development of an individual living thing" (1660s). Modern use in biology, of species, first attested 1832 in works of Scottish geologist Charles Lyell. Charles Darwin used the word in print once only, in the closing paragraph of "The Origin of Species" (1859), and preferred descent with modification, in part because evolution already had been used in the discarded 18c. homunculus theory of embryological development (first proposed under this name by Bonnet, 1762) and in part because it carried a sense of "progress" not present in Darwin's idea. But Victorian belief in progress prevailed (and the advantages of brevity), and Herbert Spencer and other biologists after Darwin popularized evolution.
We know that things rotate around others in the universe. That doesn't have anything to do with evolution. You couldn't have evolution without life, sure. You couldn't have evolution without space. Does that make space the key to evolution? Stars? Planets?
Oh and if God is a theory, then you probably wouldn't exist
originally posted by: amazing
The problem is that there is no other theory that replaces evolution. Have at it. Creationism doesn't work if I don't believe in your religion. That's the problem.
originally posted by: EaglesFan
a reply to: Grimpachi
I don't put much merit into evolution because it was originally based off lies, false findings and a man who pretty much conceded that his theory was bunk and could probably be never proven..
Oh and if God is a theory, then you probably wouldn't exist