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.

 

What is evolution, not what some think

page: 11
12
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 10:07 PM
link   
Okay so evolution exists, What's you're point. You're arguing over there NOT being a higher power so that you can feel safer in an existance that thrives on the bizzar?

So Say evolution exists. And hypothetically speaking, If a species were to have existed millions of years and hypothetically speaking... Learned how to create organisms by creating and altering pathogens to bond symbiotically and alter organisms causing rapid growth via technology. Completely unatural and an artifically created organism.

Said species creates organism to be a different copy of itself, But adapted to the new planet they are colonizing and inhabiting.

Everything else on the planet could of already been here, The animals, the wildlife. Or could of been likewise created unnaturally...

All of these things are and will be possible for humans to acomplish presuming we don't destroy our planet and ourselves. That means that humans will eventually reach space, Teraform planets, Create and implant species.
Possibly even stars if we aquire the technology to do so.


How inconcievable would it be for another species to do the same. How unlikely would it honestly be? Does everyone in this thread think that humans are some super special ultimate being that is so superior that we crawled out of the blink of non existance to sqabble over how we got here ? That Earth is some golden pinacle for the seed of all new life in the universe because We humans deem that no other such life exists? And so we are the best? *
Let's go even further, Lets say there was a big bang. And we are the absolute first conious beings to crawl out. We may admit there is bacterial organisms outside in the galaxy/universe (expanse of galaxies- billions-trillions of stars each) but there is no complex life out there and if there is, Its not advanced enough to pay us a visit. Because we are humans we must be natural. Because to not be natural would mean that we are as crummy as the majority of our creations and the impact they do to our society and the enviroment.

You want to bash creationists. Be an ant and create nothing. Then you will never know a God until a being of such immense knowledge and power (via- technology) until you witness the forces that are capiable of merging mass in space. Likewise, it's not the Creationists view they want to see either.

It's a religion of it's own and a heavily funded one at that. With interests in national security. As far as the
government is concurned. They want you to believe * What i previously said.

the general concensus is that humans were here first, Everything else is infurior. And humans are tasked with the job of spreading life.

The truth about it is that the reality of how infinit the universe is scares you all.
Because it means if evolution is real, There are things that evaded their own species death, such as stars exploding/planets being destroyed /interstellar war between advanced species/galatic war between colonized species.

You cannot even fathom what exists and would rather not to, By deaming it all impossible and locking the fear of the unknown away and associating it with crazy people and loonybins.

Look at the bible, The majority of major religions.

They are all just waiting for some super advanced species to come and claim to be our creators.
Religion is begging for it. Evolutionists are horrorfied by the true meaning of Creationist. Completely and utterly horrified.
it does not take a leap of faith for a scientist studying genes and pathogen symbiosis to know that

Even a human can create a glowing cat or fish, What's to stop another species from creating humans? What's to stop Humans from creating sub-humans?
Right.... Absolutely nothing is stopping them.. including any and all debates against or for it. Because these things will happen and are destined to. (presuming we don't kill ourselves or something else dosn't try to kill us again)




edit on 2-6-2014 by AnuTyr because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 12:23 AM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch




1. Cosmic Evolution: The origin of time, space and matter, by the Big Bang

2. Chemical Evolution: The origin of higher elements from hydrogen.

3. Stellar and Planetary Evolution: The origin of stars and planets.


What you have listed here are all aspects of Cosmology.


Wikipedia on Cosmology:
Cosmology is the study of the origin, evolution, and eventual fate of the universe. Physical cosmology is the scholarly and scientific study of the origin, evolution, large-scale structures and dynamics, and ultimate fate of the universe, as well as the scientific laws that govern these realities.


You might call this cosmic evolution.



4. Organic Evolution: The origin of Life.


What you have listed here is the study of how non-life became life. That is abiogenesis. I am sorry if you don't like that word, but there it is.



5. Macro-Evolution: The changing from one kind of species to another kind of species.

6. Micro-Evolution: The variation within kinds of species.


What you have listed here is an artificial, meaningless, misleading, differentiation of aspects of biological evolution. The terms "Macro evolution" and "Micro evolution" are exactly that: completely meaningless. There is no distinction between small and large evolutionary events in the study of biological evolution: if anything there is only "micro". What YOU perceive to be large "macro" evolutionary events are really just the sum of lots of "micro" events.

You are reading this on a computer screen - you see one unified image that makes sense to you. That image is not actually unified however; it is actually made up of millions of individual dots (or pixels). The macro image is actually millions of micro images.

When the macro image changes over time, the change is accomplished by millions of micro image changes. That is evolution of the image. If one pixel changes, you don't notice it so much. If a few thousand pixels change (for instance the ad is scrolled), you still recognize it as the almost the same image. When a few million change (you jump to a new page), you recognize it as a completely new image. The process is the same; there is no difference between macro and micro; pixels change, when enough of them change you have a new image.

The word "evolution" means "change over time"; nothing more, nothing less. Computer screen images change over time; therefore they can be said to evolve. The universe changes over time; therefore it can be said to evolve. Organisms change over time; therefore they can be said to evolve. There is nothing to believe or not believe in with respect to evolution. Everything changes, everything evolves.

From that point of view, Abiogenesis is evolution; but the problem is that scientists like to be precise about what they are discussing. Cosmology discusses the evolution of the NON-LIVING universe. Biology discusses the evolution of the LIVING universe. The transition point between NON_LIVING and LIVING is not precisely in either discipline, yet it draws information from both.

The word 'Abiogenesis', derived from Latin, means "The Beginning of Life". It is a study so large and so hard, it requires its own discipline. It is neither Cosmology, nor Biology; not inorganic chemistry, nor organic chemistry; it is a bit of all of them. It is not a word to be afraid of; it is simply descriptive of what the study is about. That said, it is, for the sake of convenience, included in the wider scientific discipline of Biology.

It makes no sense to argue AGAINST the distinction between Cosmic Evolution and Biological Evolution; but FOR the distinction between so-called "micro" and "macro" biological evolution. There is no dividing line between "micro" and "macro"; but there is a clear dividing line between Cosmic and Biological and that line is Abiogenisis. Even your list shows this division with your item 4 separating the study of the non-living from the study of the living.

I understand you want to argue against the entire scientific universe of Cosmology, Abiogenesis, and Biology as one edifice of evolutionary thought; but it isn't. Each of those three disciplines have their own forces driving them. They are united by Chemistry and Quantum Mechanics, certainly; but each has their own mechanisms that drive there way of evoking change over time; their evolution. Cosmology is driven by gravity and quantum physics; Biology is driven by random mutation and natural selection.



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 12:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: boymonkey74
Sorry I have been up for 30 hours....what toe are we on about? the big one? or a pinky?.


Perhaps the proper term for evolution of life form should be used: "Modern Evolutionary Synthesis" or MES.

MES is as far beyond "Darwinian Evolution" as Relativity is beyond Newtonian Physics.

Arguing against current thought in Biology and calling it "Darwinian Evolution" is exactly like arguing against current thought in Cosmology and calling it "Newtonian Physics".



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 02:07 AM
link   
a reply to: vasaga



I'll just ask a few questions to which I want direct answers to.

1) Is abiogenesis a basic requirement for evolution to take place, considering the sequence of events of life on this planet?


The word "abiogenesis" means "the beginning of life". The word "evolution" means "change over time".

So if you are talking about the evolution of life, then yes, life must exist before it can be changed.

It is undeniable that life "changes over time"; therefore it is undeniable that life "evolves" - because that is the meaning of the word. For life to evolve, life must exist.



2) Does evolution on itself dismiss the possibility of creation of a first single cell?


Abiogenesis is the study of how life came to exist; it has no bias in what happened to it after it came into existence - it is only interested in how non-life came to be life. Of course as soon as non-life becomes life it begins changing, and thus evolving - that is part of the definition of life.

Biological Evolution is the study of how life changes over time; it has no bias in how life came into existence - it is only interested in how life, once it exists, changes. Life may have been spoken into existence by a supernatural Creator, or by accidental mixing of just the right chemicals under just the right conditions; it makes no difference to the study of Biological Evolution.

Life exists; life changes - how life changes is the topic that Biological Evolution is interested in, nothing more, nothing less.



3) Is anything else other than evolution of life possible after abiogenesis has taken place?


I would answer "no" to your question.

As I said before, the word "evolution" means "change over time". Something other than evolution would be "no change over time". The definition of what makes something 'life' includes the concept that it must change, so there may be a non-sequitor hiding in your question.

I am not certain how one could conceive of some "life form" that doesn't change, or rather I don't know how you can call a collection of chemicals that don't change, a "life form".



I still don't get the logic of you people. You see abiogenesis and evolution as separate, and yet completely ridicule creationists when they talk about creation, which is not relevant to evolution but abiogenesis according to your own views. Double standard at its finest.


I believe that you are misinterpreting the problem here. It is possible to construct an argument that "Creationism" is a reasonable hypothesis for Abiogenesis, despite its many flaws, such as falsifiability, that give it a severe impediment to being considered seriously by the Scientific community. Because we don't yet (and may never) have a detailed theory of Abiogenesis there is still room for a "God of the Gaps" to be in the discussion; that doesn't however make it 'scientific hypothesis', just an arguable one.

Creationists argue against evolution because... "Creation". But evolution (whether Cosmological or Biological) doesn't have to do with creation - it has to do with what happens after creation. If you perceive push back from the scientific 'side' then it is because of that.

But Creationists don't stop at Abiogenesis do they? They insist on arguing that a supernatural Creator placed each and every life form on the planet individually. That kind of 'creationism' is NOT of any scientific value what-so-ever. It is clear that life-forms change; there is undeniable proof of that every day. That is the definition of Biological Evolution: the study of how life-forms change over time. Of course it is possible that 'random mutations' are caused by a supernatural creator (producing cosmic rays and chemical imbalances) who also ensures that just the right ecological pressures are brought to bear to cause the multiplicity of life on the planet. But if that is so, how is the action of that supernatural being distinguishable from what we observe - where is there room for any argument between scientist and creationist?

Science has found beyond a doubt, that the changes (the evolution) that we observe in life-forms on this planet can be explained with out requiring intervention from a supernatural being. If it pleases you to believe that the processes that drive that change (evolution) were put in motion or are continually operated by a supernatural being, fine, go right ahead.

It occurs to me that, if that is your belief, then your time would be better spent studying the magnificent, wondrous world that God maintains and how he put it together, than arguing about how Bronze age shepherds imagined it to be. Wouldn't it honor God more by discovering how It "made" the heart work, than just stopping at the pointless assertion that "God Did It".

I ask you seriously, who knows more of the Mind of God: evangelical atheist Richard Dawkins or nonsense preaching Kent Hovind?
edit on 3/6/2014 by rnaa because: (no reason given)

edit on 3/6/2014 by rnaa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 02:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: borntowatch




1. Cosmic Evolution: The origin of time, space and matter, by the Big Bang

2. Chemical Evolution: The origin of higher elements from hydrogen.

3. Stellar and Planetary Evolution: The origin of stars and planets.


What you have listed here are all aspects of Cosmology.


Wikipedia on Cosmology:
Cosmology is the study of the origin, evolution, and eventual fate of the universe. Physical cosmology is the scholarly and scientific study of the origin, evolution, large-scale structures and dynamics, and ultimate fate of the universe, as well as the scientific laws that govern these realities.


You might call this cosmic evolution.



4. Organic Evolution: The origin of Life.


What you have listed here is the study of how non-life became life. That is abiogenesis. I am sorry if you don't like that word, but there it is.



5. Macro-Evolution: The changing from one kind of species to another kind of species.

6. Micro-Evolution: The variation within kinds of species.


What you have listed here is an artificial, meaningless, misleading, differentiation of aspects of biological evolution. The terms "Macro evolution" and "Micro evolution" are exactly that: completely meaningless. There is no distinction between small and large evolutionary events in the study of biological evolution: if anything there is only "micro". What YOU perceive to be large "macro" evolutionary events are really just the sum of lots of "micro" events.

You are reading this on a computer screen - you see one unified image that makes sense to you. That image is not actually unified however; it is actually made up of millions of individual dots (or pixels). The macro image is actually millions of micro images.

When the macro image changes over time, the change is accomplished by millions of micro image changes. That is evolution of the image. If one pixel changes, you don't notice it so much. If a few thousand pixels change (for instance the ad is scrolled), you still recognize it as the almost the same image. When a few million change (you jump to a new page), you recognize it as a completely new image. The process is the same; there is no difference between macro and micro; pixels change, when enough of them change you have a new image.

The word "evolution" means "change over time"; nothing more, nothing less. Computer screen images change over time; therefore they can be said to evolve. The universe changes over time; therefore it can be said to evolve. Organisms change over time; therefore they can be said to evolve. There is nothing to believe or not believe in with respect to evolution. Everything changes, everything evolves.

From that point of view, Abiogenesis is evolution; but the problem is that scientists like to be precise about what they are discussing. Cosmology discusses the evolution of the NON-LIVING universe. Biology discusses the evolution of the LIVING universe. The transition point between NON_LIVING and LIVING is not precisely in either discipline, yet it draws information from both.

The word 'Abiogenesis', derived from Latin, means "The Beginning of Life". It is a study so large and so hard, it requires its own discipline. It is neither Cosmology, nor Biology; not inorganic chemistry, nor organic chemistry; it is a bit of all of them. It is not a word to be afraid of; it is simply descriptive of what the study is about. That said, it is, for the sake of convenience, included in the wider scientific discipline of Biology.

It makes no sense to argue AGAINST the distinction between Cosmic Evolution and Biological Evolution; but FOR the distinction between so-called "micro" and "macro" biological evolution. There is no dividing line between "micro" and "macro"; but there is a clear dividing line between Cosmic and Biological and that line is Abiogenisis. Even your list shows this division with your item 4 separating the study of the non-living from the study of the living.

I understand you want to argue against the entire scientific universe of Cosmology, Abiogenesis, and Biology as one edifice of evolutionary thought; but it isn't. Each of those three disciplines have their own forces driving them. They are united by Chemistry and Quantum Mechanics, certainly; but each has their own mechanisms that drive there way of evoking change over time; their evolution. Cosmology is driven by gravity and quantum physics; Biology is driven by random mutation and natural selection.


and if I was an atheist I still wouldnt believe in evolution

I dont want to argue any of them, I havnt

My issue is simply that the answers provided so far by the scientific community have not been sufficient sway me to believe in Cosmic evolution, elemental evolution or biological evolution.


As for macro evolution
"Macroevolution encompasses the grandest trends and transformations in evolution, such as the origin of mammals and the radiation of flowering plants. Macroevolutionary patterns are generally what we see when we look at the large-scale history of life.

It is not necessarily easy to “see” macroevolutionary history; there are no firsthand accounts to be read. Instead, we reconstruct the history of life using all available evidence: geology, fossils, and living organisms.

and Micro evolution"
Biologists who study evolution at this level define evolution as a change in gene frequency within a population.
evolution.berkeley.edu...

So I assume science has categorised micro and macro in a way I can define it clearly.

Animals change within their species (micro), not in to new species (macro).

As for the computer screen,the image does change, not the screen or computer

Again you say everything changes, everything evolves. Not that I can see, it may well change but where is it evolving in to something else, something better



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 03:23 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Go on then, list these all these "alternatives" to evolution that not only explain all of the observational data evolution does, but also the observational data evolution doesn't (whatever that may entail), along with the useful, testable predictions these "alternatives" make.



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 03:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
above all widely recognised as the most plausible explanation for the changes that have been recorded


When I read that statement all I hear is "widely recognised as plausible"
See that is nothing more than fluff to me.
"Its the best we have so it is what we accept"
I am sorry, that isnt good enough to end my faith in creation, in God.

I accept if you dont believe in God then it is acceptable as a theory


Alright then, let's turn things around. Where's the evidence for creation via god? Provide us with your take on things.



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 04:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: chr0naut

Go on then, list these all these "alternatives" to evolution that not only explain all of the observational data evolution does, but also the observational data evolution doesn't (whatever that may entail), along with the useful, testable predictions these "alternatives" make.


I have, in previous posts.

Perhaps you are only responding to my earlier posts and haven't read them all yet?



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 04:52 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

You haven't offered up any scientific research to support any of your claims. If these "alternatives" truly supersede evolution it should be trivial as there should be a wealth of scientific research and evidence to support them. Where is it?
edit on 3-6-2014 by GetHyped because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 05:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: chr0naut

You haven't offered up any scientific research to support any of your claims. If these "alternatives" truly supersede evolution it should be trivial as there should be a wealth of scientific research and evidence to support them. Where is it?


You haven't offered up any scientific research in support of your claims either.

Saying the same thing over and over to people who just don't want to "get it", gets tedious after a while, so I slipped.

You could look up Wikipedia for yourself, perhaps with search terms like "Modern Evolutionary Synthesis", "Punctuated Equilibrium", "Hologenome", "Genetic Recombination", "Adaptive Radiation", "Hox Genes", "Catastrophism", "Horizontal Genetic Transfer" and "Saltation" are good starting places for alternatives to classical Biological Evolution mediated only by the trio of mechanisms; mutation, genetic drift and natural selection.

None of it is secret.

However, the fact that the MSM and educational institutions still seem to be teaching that there is only one unassailable scientific theory would be the REAL conspiracy. Why should we allow them to dumb us down? We need to deny a little ignorance here and spread the word. - Stick it to "the man" for science!


edit on 3/6/2014 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 05:24 AM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch




As for macro evolution
"Macroevolution encompasses the grandest trends and transformations in evolution, such as the origin of mammals and the radiation of flowering plants. Macroevolutionary patterns are generally what we see when we look at the large-scale history of life.

It is not necessarily easy to “see” macroevolutionary history; there are no firsthand accounts to be read. Instead, we reconstruct the history of life using all available evidence: geology, fossils, and living organisms.


Yes, indeed. And that history is remarkably full. The fact that large scale changes in Earthly life-forms have clearly occured, from single cell organisms to plants to animals and all the variety of each of them is obvious and easy to see. All you have to do is open your eyes.



and Micro evolution"
Biologists who study evolution at this level define evolution as a change in gene frequency within a population.
evolution.berkeley.edu...

So I assume science has categorised micro and macro in a way I can define it clearly.

Animals change within their species (micro), not in to new species (macro).


I can cut and paste too... but I think my paste is more to the point:




(from Wikipedia: Macroevolution)

Origin of the term

Russian entomologist Yuri Filipchenko first coined the terms "macroevolution" and "microevolution" in 1927 in his German language work, "Variabilität und Variation". Since the inception of the two terms, their meanings have been revised several times and the term macroevolution fell into limited disfavour when it was taken over by such writers as the geneticist Richard Goldschmidt (1940) and the paleontologist Otto Schindewolf to describe their orthogenetic theories.[6]

A more practical definition of the term describes it as changes occurring on geological time scales, in contrast to microevolution, which occurs on the timescale of human lifetimes.[7] This definition reflects the spectrum between micro- and macro-evolution, whilst leaving a clear difference between the terms: because the geological record rarely has a resolution better than 10,000 years, and humans rarely live longer than 100 years, "meso-evolution" is never observed.[7]

As a result, apart from Dobzhansky, Bernhard Rensch and Ernst Mayr, very few neo-Darwinian writers used the term, preferring instead to talk of evolution as changes in allele frequencies without mention of the level of the changes (above species level or below). Those who did were generally working within the continental European traditions (as Dobzhansky, Ernst Mayr, Bernhard Rensch, Richard Goldschmidt, and Otto Schindewolf were) and those who didn't were generally working within the Anglo-American tradition (such as John Maynard Smith and Richard Dawkins). Hence, use of the term "macroevolution" is sometimes wrongly used as a litmus test of whether the writer is "properly" neo-Darwinian or not.[6]


Macroevolution and the modern evolutionary synthesis

Within the Modern Synthesis school of thought, macroevolution is thought of as the compounded effects of microevolution.[8] Thus, the distinction between micro- and macroevolution is not a fundamental one – the only difference between them is of time and scale. As Ernst W. Mayr observes, "transspecific evolution is nothing but an extrapolation and magnification of the events that take place within populations and species...it is misleading to make a distinction between the causes of micro- and macroevolution”.[8] However, time is not a necessary distinguishing factor – macroevolution can happen without gradual compounding of small changes; whole-genome duplication can result in speciation occurring over a single generation - this is especially common in plants.[9]




As for the computer screen,the image does change, not the screen or computer


That whooshing noise you heard as you read my post was the point going right over your head. I didn't say anything at all about the screen or the computer. It was exactly the image and nothing else but the image that I was talking about. There are 'micro' changes like ads changing and there are 'macro' changes like page flips. The image 'evolves' via the accumulation of small changes in the pixels. It is an appropriate analogy.

edit on 3/6/2014 by rnaa because: (no reason given)

edit on 3/6/2014 by rnaa because: (no reason given)

edit on 3/6/2014 by rnaa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 05:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

"Modern Evolutionary Synthesis", "Punctuated Equilibrium","Hologenome", "Genetic Recombination", "Adaptive Radiation", "Hox Genes", "Catastrophism", "Horizontal Genetic Transfer" and "Saltation" are good starting places for alternatives to classical Biological Evolution mediated only by the trio of mechanisms; mutation, genetic drift and natural selection.

None of it is secret.


These are either part of evolutionary biology or not in any way contradictory to it. How exactly are these "alternatives" to evolution?

Seems to me like you're making a strawman argument by implying that people defending evolution in this forum are strictly talking about Darwin-era evolution and ignoring the 150-odd years of progress and evidence that has followed.
edit on 3-6-2014 by GetHyped because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 05:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: chr0naut

"Modern Evolutionary Synthesis", "Punctuated Equilibrium","Hologenome", "Genetic Recombination", "Adaptive Radiation", "Hox Genes", "Catastrophism", "Horizontal Genetic Transfer" and "Saltation" are good starting places for alternatives to classical Biological Evolution mediated only by the trio of mechanisms; mutation, genetic drift and natural selection.

None of it is secret.


These are either part of evolutionary biology or not in any way contradictory to it. How exactly are these "alternatives" to evolution?


Because the current definition of classical Biological Evolutionary theory ONLY has three mechanisms; mutation, genetic drift and natural selection. This excludes a lot.

Can you, for instance, explain the part that Catastrophism plays in classical Biological Evolutionary theory?

Or, did you know that Steven Jay Gould and Richard Dawkins had major differences of opinion and public contention against each other even though they were both published Evolutionary Biologists. How can that be if Evolution is one big harmonious all encompassing theory?

You also spoke of Darwinian Evolution, implying that it is (quite rightly) out of date, yet in the same sentence you talk of "150-odd years of progress and evidence". What would that 150-odd years hearken back to, I wonder?


edit on 3/6/2014 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 06:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
above all widely recognised as the most plausible explanation for the changes that have been recorded


When I read that statement all I hear is "widely recognised as plausible"
See that is nothing more than fluff to me.
"Its the best we have so it is what we accept"
I am sorry, that isnt good enough to end my faith in creation, in God.

I accept if you dont believe in God then it is acceptable as a theory


Alright then, let's turn things around. Where's the evidence for creation via god? Provide us with your take on things.



No, I have made a statement of my beliefs, if you choose to believe something else then fine.
Nothing I say will change your mind, nothing you say will change mine.
The point of the exercise was to say, this is why I dont believe in evolution, accept its my beliefs. This was never a debate, argument or justification.

Simply the evidence for any type of evolution isn't conclusive in my opinion, I will default to God.



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 06:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: rnaa


That whooshing noise you heard as you read my post was the point going right over your head. I didn't say anything at all about the screen or the computer. It was exactly the image and nothing else but the image that I was talking about. There are 'micro' changes like ads changing and there are 'macro' changes like page flips. The image 'evolves' via the accumulation of small changes in the pixels. It is an appropriate analogy.


So a computer screen and images are your understanding of evolution, hmmmm
Swoosh

Sorry I disagree.

I dont believe that computer images represent DNA and all the information packed in it.
Hell, the images even need to be programmed and the screen developed by some one.

Shouldnt I be the one talking about the watchmaker argument. Thanks



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 06:59 AM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch

Basically your entire problem with science can be summed up like this: Science doesn't have all the answers (yet), therefore it is invalid. Well I guess I can never fix that flawed thinking. Have fun living in ignorance.



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 07:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
above all widely recognised as the most plausible explanation for the changes that have been recorded


When I read that statement all I hear is "widely recognised as plausible"
See that is nothing more than fluff to me.
"Its the best we have so it is what we accept"
I am sorry, that isnt good enough to end my faith in creation, in God.

I accept if you dont believe in God then it is acceptable as a theory


Alright then, let's turn things around. Where's the evidence for creation via god? Provide us with your take on things.



No, I have made a statement of my beliefs, if you choose to believe something else then fine.
Nothing I say will change your mind, nothing you say will change mine.
The point of the exercise was to say, this is why I dont believe in evolution, accept its my beliefs. This was never a debate, argument or justification.

Simply the evidence for any type of evolution isn't conclusive in my opinion, I will default to God.


I see. So your default position is to ignore all the evidence that science has provided and instead you place your faith in a book of myths that has been manipulated by various churches over the years. Can I ask how old you think the Earth is?



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 07:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

I see. So your default position is to ignore all the evidence that science has provided and instead you place your faith in a book of myths that has been manipulated by various churches over the years. Can I ask how old you think the Earth is?


You just worked that out, after all these pages and my opening post.

A car was stolen, it had my prints on the door steering wheel and an empty beer can that was on the seat.
The police were very sure I was guilty because of the evidence

The evidence was in fact legit, I didnt steal the car

and you may think that all the churches have changed the written words over the years and you can argue that with me, no doubt come up with your own evidence, but what makes your evidence legit other than your opinion.

I am a YEC

but I am not arguing this



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 07:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: borntowatch

Basically your entire problem with science can be summed up like this: Science doesn't have all the answers (yet), therefore it is invalid. Well I guess I can never fix that flawed thinking. Have fun living in ignorance.


Thanks
You too

Or I could say No, to your strawman (love that)
I dont deny all science, thats a petty statement you have made to try to make yourself seem superior

Really it makes you look inferior

Try this

"Basically your entire problem with science can be summed up like this: Science doesn't have all the answers to evolution (yet), therefore evolution is invalid.
Well I guess I can never fix that flawed thinking. Have fun waiting on science to prove it or fail."

See thats not arrogant or elitist, I dont think you should own a gun
edit on b2014Tue, 03 Jun 2014 08:50:49 -050063020142am302014-06-03T08:50:49-05:00 by borntowatch because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 08:11 AM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch

You come across worse than the pre-reformation Catholic Church, who's thinking was that any challenge to orthodoxy with truth must be put down at any cost. And yet, that same Catholic Church has finally been dragged (screaming and kicking at times) into accepting the veracity of scientific evidence.

And yet we still have YECs with anti-evolutionary and anti-cosmological viewpoints. It genuinely confuses me as to what drives such people - it certainly isn't truth or common sense.





edit on 3-6-2014 by MarsIsRed because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join