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.

 

evolution, where is the evidence???!!! I see none

page: 10
6
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 01:32 AM
link   
Why are you speaking in past tense? The religions of today are still doing the same.

[edit on 16-12-2004 by Aether]




posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 01:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ikku
My statement was being a bit too general I realize. I'm speaking of biologists who refuse to accept even the possibility of evolution because it goes against their beliefs. People who encounter evolution as part of their work yet won't even look into it.

Ikku, thanks for your candor. I don't dismiss the possibility of evolution. I do however, tend to get very uptight when people speak dogmatically.


Evolution is not meant to explain how life began or what caused it, it is simply the theory of what happened to it once it got here.

But ultimately, does it not come back to this question... the generation of life from non-life?


I even mentioned that the actual beginning of life is highly improbable and open to debate.

You absolutely did acknowledge this fact. My question then would be how can one absolutely rule out the possibility of a 'creation' event... even if evolution is part of the picture? Many scientists profess a beleif in a God. My question to those scientists would be this: If your God doesn't create, what exactly does it do?


But I do not doubt what happened to that life and what it became.

Certainly one cannot doubt life... maybe if you're David Icke or something, but life seems to be a 'fact.'


I fetched this link for you on that speech I mentioned earlier. Read it, it's very interesting and insightful.
Cheers.


I read your the link you posted. All I can say is that it reads pretty much like Adam's book's.

Thanks for your input.



posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 07:31 AM
link   
There is a lot of mystery surrounding how life first began. I have certainly not ruled out the possibility of a god, but I don't necessarily believe there is one either. There are a lot of things people assign supernatural explanations to when there is still a possibility that it's perfectly natural.



posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 03:32 PM
link   
lets take it back to the laws of thermo dynamics, shall we?

everything left at its natural state will go from order to chaos.

the farther back in time we go, the more chaotic this place will be.
in evolution everything goes from chaos to order, the animals are what we would call a "chaotic mind", and we have gotten better according to the theory of evolution and big bang

What is the point of letting everything evolve if yer God? do u not already no whats going to happen, why not just design it the way u want it.
why is it that I dont see in our school books today of how the universe will be so much better in the future, but instead the sun collapsing out of energy, the whole world goin to hell basically, instead of everything getting better, people getting better every generation, but we find everyone/thing gets worse thru time.



posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 04:25 PM
link   
quote:
And scientists still cant agree on the theories of evolution.

And theists can not agree on anything ether even within a faith (e.g. christens, Islam etc).



posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Elfwood
quote:
And scientists still cant agree on the theories of evolution.

And theists can not agree on anything ether even within a faith (e.g. christens, Islam etc).


Agreed. That doesnt disprove what I have been saying though. I have never argued that Religion is not about belief.



posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slicky1313
lets take it back to the laws of thermo dynamics, shall we?

everything left at its natural state will go from order to chaos.

the farther back in time we go, the more chaotic this place will be.
in evolution everything goes from chaos to order, the animals are what we would call a "chaotic mind", and we have gotten better according to the theory of evolution and big bang

That is a misinterpretation of the second law. This law applies to isolated systems in thermodynamic equilibrium. The Earth is by no means a closed system, it constantly receives a source of energy from the sun. As long as the sun is there, life is free to evolve and flourish. And the movement from simple creatures to complex creatures is not always a simple move from chaos to order. Evolution is full of false starts and mass extinctions. You can't say that this place was any more chaotic in the past than it is now.



What is the point of letting everything evolve if yer God? do u not already no whats going to happen, why not just design it the way u want it.

Well doesn't that go against some other beliefs you hold? If God wanted everyone to be good and believe in him, why give man free will? He already knows what we're going to choose and that not everyone will believe in him, why doesn't he just make us do what he wants?

[edit on 16-12-2004 by Ikku]



posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 08:30 AM
link   

What is the point of letting everything evolve if yer God? do u not already no whats going to happen, why not just design it the way u want it.


Thats a good question slicky, why not just design us the way he wanted, perfect? why let us sin? could it be he wants us to evolve too?



posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by instar
Thats a good question slicky, why not just design us the way he wanted, perfect? why let us sin? could it be he wants us to evolve too?


That's deep instar. Thanks for giving me something to think about.



posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ikku

Originally posted by Slicky1313
lets take it back to the laws of thermo dynamics, shall we?

everything left at its natural state will go from order to chaos.

the farther back in time we go, the more chaotic this place will be.
in evolution everything goes from chaos to order, the animals are what we would call a "chaotic mind", and we have gotten better according to the theory of evolution and big bang


That is a misinterpretation of the second law.

This is a misinterpretation of the 2nd law ONLY in the presence of biological organisms. Certainly life can use energy from the sun, however energy from the sun or thermal energy or many other forms of prebiotic energy are insufficient to drive the formation of biologically relevant molecules. The formation of these polymers is thermodynamically limited not only entropically, but enthalpically as well, this of course doesn't even begin to describe the issues of chemical equilibrium that would inhibit their formation either.



Evolution is full of false starts and mass extinctions.

Evolution or natural selection are NOT resposible for mass extinctions. Mass extinctions are events that effect natural selection via genetic bottlenecks, but natural selection isn't responsible for mass extinctions.


You can't say that this place was any more chaotic in the past than it is now.

You can't say this. But you can make inferences as to the state of human 'evolution' with respect to the prevalence of genetic disorders, inherited cancers, metabolic defects, etc. An increase in these types of things could be interpreted as an inherent 'de-evolution' of the human genome, essentially the accumulation of harmful recessive alleles. The accumulation of what would be selected against naturally absolutely occurs in human societies, especially in first world nations.



What is the point of letting everything evolve if yer God? do u not already no whats going to happen, why not just design it the way u want it.


Well doesn't that go against some other beliefs you hold? If God wanted everyone to be good and believe in him, why give man free will? He already knows what we're going to choose and that not everyone will believe in him, why doesn't he just make us do what he wants?

[speculation]While I don't even pretend to be a theologian, nor do I claim ANY knowledge of this stuff other than on a cursory level, human beings are in no position to question the intentions of an omnipotent deity. Why did God give man free will... why doesn't God make us do what he wants? How do you know he isn't? It could be that he wants you to look at all the evidence and make a decision about him via your own free-will. [/speculation]

Furthermore, IMO, the concept of adaptability is hardly argument against a creator. Obviously, adaptation in some form is a requirement for all life. How is created life somehow immune from environmental stress that evolved life isn't?



posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by mattison0922
An increase in these types of things could be interpreted as an inherent 'de-evolution' of the human genome, essentially the accumulation of harmful recessive alleles. The accumulation of what would be selected against naturally absolutely occurs in human societies, especially in first world nations.


You've peaked my interest here. Sorry if I misunderstand by asking the following: How does the genome 'accumulate' recessive alleles? Are you saying DNA grows in length and/or base pair numbers? Isn't it RNA's job to make sure of a clean start and stop in trascription? Also, any other way you'd like to expand on this explanation would be helpful as well.


Originally posted by mattison0922
[speculation]While I don't even pretend to be a theologian, nor do I claim ANY knowledge of this stuff other than on a cursory level, human beings are in no position to question the intentions of an omnipotent deity. Why did God give man free will... why doesn't God make us do what he wants? How do you know he isn't? It could be that he wants you to look at all the evidence and make a decision about him via your own free-will. [/speculation]


God wants us to think? *gasp!* That can't be right, Christians are just "brainwashed, mindless sheep".


[edit on 17-12-2004 by saint4God]

[edit on 17-12-2004 by saint4God]



posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by mattison0922
An increase in these types of things could be interpreted as an inherent 'de-evolution' of the human genome, essentially the accumulation of harmful recessive alleles. The accumulation of what would be selected against naturally absolutely occurs in human societies, especially in first world nations.


You've peaked my interest here. Sorry if I misunderstand by asking the following: How does the genome 'accumulate' recessive alleles? Are you saying DNA grows in length and/or base pair numbers? Isn't it RNA's job to make sure of a clean start and stop in trascription? Also, any other way you'd like to expand on this explanation would be helpful as well.

Genomes can accumulate recessive alleles in one of two ways: 1) Selective pressure to retain this allele. Examples of this include: Sickle-cell anemia - selective pressure = malaria, Cystic Fibrosis - selective pressure = typhoid, and antibiotic resistance in microorganisms. The antibiotic resistance is not a great version of 'recessive' per se, but is an example of 'loss of function' perpetuated by selective pressure, and 2) Loss of selective pressure to eliminate harmful alleles. In a modern society with decent healthcare, the genetically inferior are not weeded out by any selective process, rather their insufficiencies are somehow accomodated. In nature, animals born with deformities, blind animals, and animals compromised by other genetic insufficiencies die... natural selection limits the ability of harmful alleles to perpetuate themselves. Civilization provides a means whereby less well adapted alleles are permitted to perpetuate.

I've actually discussed this before in these threads. I have elaborated even further to point out that those who would believe that Noah lived for like 900 years and the other seemingly preposterous life-spans, may be able to be explained via this scenario. In theory, Adam and Eve would have represented ideal allelic forms of genes. After the Fall(?), the genetic code began it's long slide towards the path of complete degeneracy. Furthermore, a HUGE genetic bottleneck would have been created by the Noachian flood, drastically decreasing genetic diversity, and completely eliminating many allelic forms altogether. I am not sure how well the flood story correlates with the alleged decrease in life-spans though. Another interesting point with respect to this is the way the marital customs have changed through the years. In the beginning, (pun) inbreeding would have been necessary, obviously. Gradually the necessity would have tapered off, however restrictions on this type of behavior have gradually become more strict through the ages. Why? To eliminate the concentration of harmful recessive alleles that have accumulated in one particular genetic lineage... to increase genetic diversity. Not something, I'm prepared to defend scientifically, but it is something I have considered since becoming involved in these creation vs. evolution threads.



posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 11:29 PM
link   
actually, when I was talking of how why God would let us evolve, and just make us the way he wanted, I wasnt really thinking of the Christian God, but just God. I do belive in the christian God, but im talking about God referred to as no religions, why would the supreme being create this big bang and evolution?

seems to me like supposively u dont need God for life according to evolution, and thats why it was made, cause if its not God than u could say it was just always there.
there is no other way... beliveing in a system that supposively doesnt need a God and beliveing in God just doesnt make no sense, I dont see to much logical sense in saying a perfectly compact matter exploded and some how created an ordered universe first time exploding.

first time??!!! lol
it obviously couldnt have had 2 trys or more, cause then the mass wouldnt be put together again to explode, and the whole big bang theory would be wrong, and then the evolution that follows that is based on that.

and people that say the universe was just bound to happen, wouldnt all the hydrogen have run out, and all that jazz if it kept on expanding and shrkinking over and over and stuff...
and about the thermodynamics law, people seem to be saying the sun is what makes the law valid.
well, in the big bang, can anyone argue this? the sun wasnt around, all that was was the matter, and it exploded. how is this not violating the laws of going from chaos to order in a natural state??
its like saying a bomb exploded in my house and created a better one. how is it possible yo?



posted on Dec, 18 2004 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slicky1313
first time??!!! lol
it obviously couldnt have had 2 trys or more, cause then the mass wouldnt be put together again to explode, and the whole big bang theory would be wrong, and then the evolution that follows that is based on that.

Evolution has nothing to do with the Big Bang.


and people that say the universe was just bound to happen, wouldnt all the hydrogen have run out, and all that jazz if it kept on expanding and shrkinking over and over and stuff...

Hydrogen won't "run out." The sun may run out of hydrogen, but the universe certainly can't.


and about the thermodynamics law, people seem to be saying the sun is what makes the law valid.
well, in the big bang, can anyone argue this? the sun wasnt around, all that was was the matter, and it exploded. how is this not violating the laws of going from chaos to order in a natural state??

I don't see how going from simple to complex is the same as going from chaos to order. In fact, if something is insanely simple, wouldn't it also be much more ordered than something complex? Consider a simple machine such as a lever. Compare it to say, a car. The lever would be much simpler, and at the same time more ordered than a car engine, which is prone to all kinds of mistakes and generally is more chaotic than a simple lever.. Simple to complex is entirely different from chaos to order.



posted on Dec, 18 2004 @ 08:16 PM
link   
I see what you mean. Interesting to see science applied also to the reducton of human years over time. Many things for me to think about...



posted on Dec, 19 2004 @ 01:53 AM
link   

quote: Evolution is not meant to explain how life began or what caused it, it is simply the theory of what happened to it once it got here.

But ultimately, does it not come back to this question... the generation of life from non-life?



Mattison, why would you question that? You claim God created life from non life! What difference if he fashioned dirt like clay (physically) or did it via evolution? Problem is you take written word too literally, even to the point of silliness !



posted on Dec, 19 2004 @ 08:06 PM
link   


Mattison, why would you question that? You claim God created life from non life! What difference if he fashioned dirt like clay (physically) or did it via evolution? Problem is you take written word too literally, even to the point of silliness !


Why would I question what specifically? When did I claim God created life from non-life? I don't recall making that claim. In fact, my posts have distinctly stayed away from matters of faith and for the most part have stuck to science. Not sure which written word I take too literally, perhaps you can elaborate.



posted on Dec, 19 2004 @ 09:44 PM
link   
evolution and the big bang are tied together, as someone once said in this forum a few post back that evolution has nothing to do with th big bang,.

go far back enough, and u come to a single celled organism... and where did that come from? something called the big bang... clearly, they do go along



posted on Dec, 20 2004 @ 12:32 AM
link   
No, you are just proving your ignorance. If the Big Bang theory were to be proven wrong, it would not falsify evolution. The big bang is the cosmic explosion that caused the universe. Evolution has nothing to do with the origins of the universe. Evolution doesn't even try to explain the origins of life. The only thing that evolution tries to explain the origins of is species, hence Darwin's book, The Origin of Species. Not the origin of life, not the big bang. They are entirely unrelated.

For instance, say that a god created the universe without the big bang, and he created life, but he did not create humans or other species as they are today. Then, the big bang would be false, but evolution would be true. According to you, that's impossible, while it clearly is not.



posted on Dec, 20 2004 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ikku
No, you are just proving your ignorance. If the Big Bang theory were to be proven wrong, it would not falsify evolution. The big bang is the cosmic explosion that caused the universe. Evolution has nothing to do with the origins of the universe. Evolution doesn't even try to explain the origins of life. The only thing that evolution tries to explain the origins of is species, hence Darwin's book, The Origin of Species. Not the origin of life, not the big bang. They are entirely unrelated.

For instance, say that a god created the universe without the big bang, and he created life, but he did not create humans or other species as they are today. Then, the big bang would be false, but evolution would be true. According to you, that's impossible, while it clearly is not.


Uh...what?




top topics



 
6
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join