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: 26
6
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God

Genetics is starting small, then building up. Ecology is the opposite. Starting big, then trying to reduce to the smallest definable quality. When building a puzzle, the Genetics knows how the pieces fit together to make a larger picture. For and Ecologist, taking the puzzle already formed and breaking it all up leaves a bunch of confusing pieces scattered all over the place. Ecology is great for tagging critters and studying animal psychology, but it won't cure cancer. This is my bias after studying them both.



It's just the way of science, some areas are more reductionist than others.

Genetics can provide little explanation of how organisms interact with environment - ecology can.

In psychology, the same applies, at the moment I'm researching in social neuroscience and it attempts to apply reductionist neuroscientific approaches to social cognition.

Each approach has its uses.

(mod edit: big quotes shrinked)
Please review this link: quoting, and how to quote

[edit on 5-4-2006 by Riwka]




posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
It's just the way of science, some areas are more reductionist than others.

Genetics can provide little explanation of how organisms interact with environment - ecology can.


This is true. I didn't mean to imply ecology is a useless science, just that it should not dictate genetics and disregard what it is.


Originally posted by melatonin
In psychology, the same applies, at the moment I'm researching in social neuroscience and it attempts to apply reductionist neuroscientific approaches to social cognition.

Each approach has its uses.


Agreed. I was a lab-rat for one of my U's psychology experients. It was fun. And, had a much better subconscious memory than I thought. *thinks about that statement for a moment* Er, nevermind. Forget I just said that.


[edit on 28-3-2006 by saint4God]



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 01:00 PM
link   
news.bbc.co.uk...

News story from today.



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 01:27 PM
link   
i love when real evidence faces off against "I don't get it"



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 01:14 PM
link   
Links to prove Evolution!!!!

www.news.harvard.edu...
www.eurekalert.org...

All I can say is HAhahahahahahaha!!!!! Is this another fossil God put to test our faith, is it Creationists? Or was it Satan that put this fossil there to lead you astray?

Sad, I, a good Church Going Methodist for over 20 years, first few Ia dmit weren't really my choice, but after about 9-10 was able to choose whether or not to go, and I don't even believe half the BS in the Bible. World Flood? Creation? Women made from a rib bone? Plagues sent by God to kill millions because 1 person makes Him mad? Doesn't sound like a Loving, Kind, Caring God to me. Maybe if we hadn't discovered the Catholics were full of it and still believed the world was flat and center of the Universe I could believe Creation but since the Church is never right on anything I'm gonna go with science on this one.



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 01:26 PM
link   
People that dont believe in evolution based on the hard facts, should read up on the punctuated equlibria theory. It should most things clear.

(Dont know if it has been posted already)



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 10:15 AM
link   
Is it just me or does the Tikaalik not look like fits between a Panderichthys and a Acanthostega? Like it goes fish, fish, crocodile, fish, lizard? Not to mention the size difference and complexities between fish, lizards and crocodiles. Can we at least come up with a physiological progression that includes more than hypothetical bone structure? Even that isn't sound. Noticed the dotted lines in the "we think the backside looks like this" kind of artistic impressionism. Look at just the heads of each of those creatures.

By the way, when people say evolution is missing the transition models, they don't mean different species that somehow relate. They're speaking of those individual steps between lets say a Panderichthys and a Tiktaalik. That's the gripe. I have no doubt there used to be species that are now extinct. Just discovering new species really isn't a great help. Kudos to scientists though for working on it, much better than the "have faith in what we believe" attitude demonstrated in college Bio classes.

[edit on 7-4-2006 by saint4God]



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 10:28 AM
link   
I guess the law of conserved "gapness" applies. We find one transitional filling a gap, and two more gaps open up conserving the original gap size...

We will never fill these gaps for the satisfaction of all.

Looks like a gradual change from fish to crocodile-like to me. Of course, there will be more to find and help understand this evolutionary transition.

linky

[edit on 7-4-2006 by melatonin]



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 11:29 AM
link   
I think that's what you asked for Saint4God. This is in the range of 20 million years, so you're not going to get much closer together than that.



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 12:13 PM
link   
To be honest I really dont think you could ever convince all christians that the bible is BS,
Theyve been preconditioned to accept the bible, i used to but I realised what a load of crap it is.
You could show them as much proof as possible but theyll just say 'god made it that way to test the faithful'



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 12:34 PM
link   
have ooparts been mentioned? human artifacts that predate dinosaurs?



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 12:49 PM
link   
Hey, you're right. Evolution is just a "theory," right? I mean, look at a seed, then look at a plant. How does the plant come from the seed? It's like you plant the seed, and then there's a plant there. Nothing in-between. Have you ever watched a seed turn into a plant? Of course not. You can state at a seed for hours and it will just stay a seed. Then if you go to bed, the next day, there's a little plant there. Oh, sure, people will try to tell you about "time-lapse" photography, which is just a huge lie. They're all fake!

I think it's pretty obvious that God created things just perfect the way they are, because no human being could ever figure out such complexity in nature, and that proves it because it's either people or God, you can't have both, and if you saw Adam and Eve on the street (dressed in clothes, of course!) then they would look just like anybody else, because God created Adam in his image, and maybe he was black, just like God, but since God is white, I don't think so, it's because the descendants of Cain were marked so that people could see them and not kill them so that means they're black, but marked by God, so I suppose you could call that a kind of evolution, but it's directed by God to allow creatures to live better in the world. It's all right there in the Bible, which was written by Jesus in 20 A.D., when he was at school in the Library of Alexandria and learned Greek and Latin, although Jesus didn't really need to go to school, since he was born with the pure knowledge of everything that would ever happen in the universe, and he never once mentioned evolution, so it must be wrong.



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 12:52 PM
link   
I like how this thread turned into a "lets toss our claim out there" instead of providing additional data as requested. And no Rasobasi420, per my post that wasn't what I asked.

[edit on 20-6-2006 by saint4God]



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by aecreate
have ooparts been mentioned? human artifacts that predate dinosaurs?


Those are all either misidentifications of natural formations or later artifacts that have been pushed down into lower stratigraphic layers as a result of either earthquakes, floods or burrowing animals. You can't get carbon readings on those old things, so you have to rely on things like stratigraphy to determine the dates, and those methods are lousy, at best.

The world was created by Jesus, Mary, and Joseph and the Talking Walnut about 8,000 years ago, complete with dinosaur fossils, and anything your so-called "science" can come up with can easily be shown to be a foolish mistake because God gives you every chance to see the Truth, but he also gives you every chance to be Deceived by Satan, and instead of thinking with your eyes, you need to feel what is right with your heart and Ye Will Know the Truth!



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 01:13 PM
link   
I just don't think either side, religious or scientific, has sufficient information for an interpretation. There's still too much we don't know. We've created interpretations that could not be flexible because they suited our purposes at one time, both religously and scientific.



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 01:49 PM
link   
Why is God not allowed to work through science? As a Christian who was on the scientist career path for many years, it astounds me how people cross their arms and say, "Pick one! It can't be both!". One thing that any Old Testament reader will tell you is that God works through many of the environmental elements we tag as "nature". Fire, floods, earthquakes, etc. These are his tools, He owns them. They're not owned by a random number. I don't know what details are completely but if you're going to say "evolution", of course I want to see supporting evidence.

[edit on 20-6-2006 by saint4God]



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
I like how this thread turned into a "lets toss our claim out there" instead of providing additional data as requested. And no Rasobasi420, per my post that wasn't what I asked.


I was refering to this:


Originally posted by saint4God
By the way, when people say evolution is missing the transition models, they don't mean different species that somehow relate. They're speaking of those individual steps between lets say a Panderichthys and a Tiktaalik. That's the gripe. I have no doubt there used to be species that are now extinct. Just discovering new species really isn't a great help. Kudos to scientists though for working on it, much better than the "have faith in what we believe" attitude demonstrated in college Bio classes.


The 20 million year span is a pretty short one in evolutionary terms. To measure the steps between these two animals one would need tofind every generation and guage the changes. That is not likely to happen because of the amazing way nature tends to get rid of waste (ie. dead bodies)

Edit: I agree, evolution can most certainly be a tool of god, if he exists. As for evidence, it's overwhelming and majorly supported.

[edit on 20-6-2006 by Rasobasi420]



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
The 20 million year span is a pretty short one in evolutionary terms. To measure the steps between these two animals one would need tofind every generation and guage the changes. That is not likely to happen because of the amazing way nature tends to get rid of waste (ie. dead bodies)


I see, thought you meant that link supposedly pruporting to have a transition model.


Originally posted by Rasobasi420
Edit: I agree, evolution can most certainly be a tool of god, if he exists. As for evidence, it's overwhelming and majorly supported.


I agree it is supported by a majority of scientists but so was phlogiston by the majority of scientists when it was popular *shrugs*. Overwhelming, I'm not convinced, and doubly-so for overwhelming evidence.

[edit on 20-6-2006 by saint4God]



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
Why is God not allowed to work through science?


God created science, science didn't create God. God created himself. What has science created? Nothing. All science does is split things up into parts, then put new names on the parts. But the science didn't create the parts, or the names, they were all created by God. God probably doesn't even see the things as parts, since everything is all and one with God, but then mankind, under the influence of Satan, decided that an apple is more than just an apple, but actually consists of these various components, which are really arbitrary, when you get down to it, because the difference between the fruit and the peel, for instance, maybe you can show me specifically, down to the atom, where the fruit stops and the peel begins, but I bet you can't do it, because everything is gradual and on a spectrum and everything bleeds into everything else, just like God intended, so when Jesus said that the two will become one, he was saying that our awareness of the two, not two individual, separate things will combine again into one thing, it's that we'll finally understand that energy and matter and everything only exists as one thing, not divided up like the Devil would have you believe, which is why science will never be able to explain how God is beyond evolution, because they say everything evolves, but if God is perfect then he doesn't evolve and that disproves the whole theory right there, and when you ask them to explain it they'll tell you you don't understand, but you understand Plenty!



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 03:23 PM
link   
Enkidu, dude, you've got to use punctuation, proper sentance structure, and paragraphs. It's all a jumble of thoughts without any organization. I think I see what you mean, and don't entirely agree.

I do believe that God exists outside of science in the conventional means the same way that Superman can shoot laser beams from his eyes. Using the Bible as the your only source of info really hinders ones understanding of the world, especially when you don't bother to look elsewhere for info.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join