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: 5
12
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 30 2014 @ 05:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: borntowatch

www.hngn.com... ideo.htm

Link to big so here is the search its the top article.

www.hngn.com...


Yup.

Look at dolphins they came from the sea (like all life) walked on land and evolved again to go back into the sea.

understanddolphins.tripod.com...
A

Thats fine if you want to believe that.
I dont, yours is just the most popular theory at this time.

Yup


But it's a theory that's backed by scientific, verifiable evidence. The Bible - well, it lacks such evidence, to be polite.
edit on 30-5-2014 by AngryCymraeg because: Typo




posted on May, 30 2014 @ 06:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch

More evidence please


Why do I get the impression that no amount if evidence would ever be sufficient to convince you? Your position is one of faith, you've consistently demonstrated not only a profound lack of understanding of Evolution but also a hubristic wilfulness to not even try to understand it.



posted on May, 30 2014 @ 06:06 AM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch

No point conversing with you on this subject like posters above have said you just deny all the evidence.
You said.

"How has it evolved, can you prove that lizards never gave birth to living offspring, I know you cant. "

I did and gave you links to the evidence and you just ignore it.

Deny ignorance indeed.



posted on May, 30 2014 @ 06:45 AM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch



If you dont mind I will answer this


I don't mind at all, any reasoned debate and discussion is welcome.
And I must say your answer shows that you have at least made an attempt to go beyond just the blind acceptance of religious dogma.
But ultimately that's what your opinion relies on - a leap of faith and acceptance of an existence of some sort of omniscient being whereas the TOE tries to gain an understanding of the facts that are currently available to us.
It is just that, a theory, and it is constantly evolving as we learn more about the universe around us and the life within it.
In the end, it may not be 100% accurate but it is the best explanation we have at present given our current level of knowledge without accepting something based on blind faith alone.

The five theories listed in your OP are not reliant on each other, sure there's gaps in them.
Can those gaps be explained by an omniscient presence or some sort of divine intervention - I don't know - but there's precious little evidence to suggest there is at present other than religious writings of men.

I have no particular agenda to advance, I am neither a Theist or an Atheist.
Being a Theist is an obvious pre-requisite for taking a Creationist viewpoint - this is in itself restrictive as one's opinions are determined by one's religious beliefs.
That's not to say that all Atheist's are Creationists - many people, of all belief systems, adhere to the TOE and they understand that the theory evolves as our knowledge grows.

But I think its worth noting that lumping all Creationists together is folly.
Some accept the scientific process yet believe that ultimately there is some sort of guiding hand driving evolution - I believe these support the Intelligent Design theory.
Then there are those who take scripture and dogma literally.

At present its impossible to completely disprove ID as science still can not as yet explain the cause of The Big Bang, how life initially arose and several other fundamental questions.
But for many of us its very hard to take proponents of the literal interpretations of religious writings seriously as their theories seem to be based on assumptions, leaps of faith and blind acceptance of dogma.

Amongst other things you state that The Big Bang is illogical - well for many it is a damn sight more logical than the blind faith in some sort of omniscient, omnipotent being that created everything out of nothing.

I've also got the impression when reading through this thread that one or two people seem to believe that there is some sort of conspiracy aimed at advancing the TOE whilst actively suppressing other theories.
I still don't understand how that could be, who would benefit from it and why?
It would be the mother of all conspiracies and require a remarkable level of control and influence spanning centuries, political bounderies etc and involve countless numbers of people.




edit on 30/5/14 by Freeborn because: grammar



posted on May, 30 2014 @ 07:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: tsingtao
so there should be transitionals all around us today, right?


Correct. Every species on the planet (and probably the universe) is always in transition.


anyone have an idea which are in transition?


All of them.


or do all animals and plants transit at the same speed?


Just because they are all in transition, doesn't mean they transition at the same speed. Don't make egregious jumps in logic please. There are some species (like alligators or crocodiles) that haven't changed much in millions of years while others have had significant changes in that time.
edit on 30-5-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2014 @ 12:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch
Late one night driving down the road I notice an old classic car burning on the side of the road, small fire in the front bench seat. I had no fire extinguisher (I did but it was empty) only a can of beer, I went over to the car and opened the door climbed in and poured my beer over the fire, extinguishing the fire.
It would have been sad to see such a nice old car burn.
I didnt remember what I did to the empty can of beer, but evidently left it in the car

Problem was the car had been stolen and my prints were all over the car and empty can

So in short the evidence pointed to me as the car thief and as you could imagine the drama that ensued with the police. Was I innocent, in this case I was, but the evidence sadly didnt look good.

The police thought I was lying, said that they would cause me no end of trouble if I didnt confess.

Now the evidence fitted me for the crime, the police wanted to catch a criminal

See the evidence of existence does need a theory, the anti God group wont accept a divine authorship. So they look for evidence to suit their belief.
Some evidence does fit well but the issue they cant face is cause. What caused it, any of it.

The deliberate and intentional side? Well this becomes spiritual and we leave science and evidence behind.
Satan hates God and mankind and is in open warfare to separate humanity from God.
Evolution in all its kinds proves God does not exist
Satan wins by destroying Gods creation and relationship with man

You know what saved me from being arrested, my empty fire extinguisher, it was just enough to confirm my story.



The most important parts of this tale were that you thought a can of beer would put out a car on fire, you think the cops wouldn't be able to tell whether or not you used that fire extinguisher on that day and at the scene in question and that you think anybody would believe any of it actually happened....

....oh and that evidence is king, and without evidence........you and any claims you make, are screwed.
edit on 30-5-2014 by Prezbo369 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2014 @ 01:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Freeborn

I have no particular agenda to advance, I am neither a Theist or an Atheist.



You either believe in a god....or you don't.

There is no inbetween, no fence to sit on, no opportunity for you to look down on anyone on this issue.

So do you believe in a god?

If you answer 'yes' you're a theist.....

If you give any other answer, including 'I don't know'..........you're an atheist.



posted on May, 30 2014 @ 02:02 PM
link   
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?
2) Does evolution on itself dismiss the possibility of creation of a first single cell?
3) Is anything else other than evolution of life possible after abiogenesis has taken place?

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.


originally posted by: Prezbo369

originally posted by: Freeborn

I have no particular agenda to advance, I am neither a Theist or an Atheist.



You either believe in a god....or you don't.

There is no inbetween, no fence to sit on, no opportunity for you to look down on anyone on this issue.

So do you believe in a god?

If you answer 'yes' you're a theist.....

If you give any other answer, including 'I don't know'..........you're an atheist.

To you, I leave this girl:

edit on 30-5-2014 by vasaga because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2014 @ 02:05 PM
link   
a reply to: vasaga

1) Abiogenesis is not a requirement for evolution. It doesn't matter to evolution how life started because evolution has nothing to do with how life started.

2) No. Some supreme being could have created life for all that it matters to evolution, none of this would have any bearing on evolution.

3) Like what? Creation? We know evolution occurs. We understand how and why evolution occurs. We don't understand every single last little detail but to deny evolution is to deny reality.



posted on May, 30 2014 @ 02:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: 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?


Only as much as the BBT and any other number of cosmic events.


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


No, because evolution is not abiogenesis


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


If you mean as to the explanation of the diversity of life, then sure it's possible, but theres no reason to suspect anything else did.


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.


That's because 'we people' as you put it, are able to recognise the difference between the two. Your 'creation' answer is so vague that it can be applied to both the single cell and every other 'kind' of creature to skitter across the face of the planet.

It's a shame really



Oh and that video you wheel out every so often?

Its one girls opinion on Belief. Knowledge. Agnosticism. (as the title professes....)

Why would you think that answers anything?
edit on 30-5-2014 by Prezbo369 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2014 @ 02:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Freeborn
I've also got the impression when reading through this thread that one or two people seem to believe that there is some sort of conspiracy aimed at advancing the TOE whilst actively suppressing other theories.
I still don't understand how that could be, who would benefit from it and why?
It would be the mother of all conspiracies and require a remarkable level of control and influence spanning centuries, political bounderies etc and involve countless numbers of people.

It actually IS the mother of all conspiracies...

It's not just believed by a couple of ATS nutters

It's been exposed by countless high ranking officials and many whistle blowers who have seen it from the inside as well.

The below overview focus' on the governmental aspect, but just as the quote says, these are one and the same group who control what goes on in Scientific and academic circles as well:


Past presidents of the United States and other high profile political leaders have repeatedly issued warnings over the last 214 years that the U.S. government is under the control of an “invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people.”

According to six of our former presidents, one vice-president, and a myriad of other high profile political leaders, an invisible government that is “incredibly evil in intent” has been in control of the U.S. government “ever since the days of Andrew Jackson” (since at least 1836). They “virtually run the United States government for their own selfish purposes. They practically control both parties… It operates under cover of a self-created screen [and] seizes our executive officers, legislative bodies, schools, courts, newspapers and every agency created for the public protection.”

“Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to befoul the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day.”— Theodore Roosevelt

From Washington to JFK: Former Presidents Warn About Illuminati



edit on 30-5-2014 by Murgatroid because: I felt like it..



posted on May, 30 2014 @ 02:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Murgatroid

How do you explain the many Christian scientists who are involved in evolution research and accept the evidence for evolution?



posted on May, 30 2014 @ 02:30 PM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

Three things come to mind...

1) Being a Christian doesn't make you right all the time.

2) Most "so called" Christians are completely out of touch with reality.

3) Christian churches have been infiltrated.


...the goal is to infiltrate it with their compromising philosophies and attempt to destroy the Church from within."

"What if there were people within the various Churches of God who covertly were guiding the members to slowly accept new ideas which are alien to the true faith and who were dedicated to destroying that faith at all costs?" JESUIT-JEDI MINDTRICKS

In the late forties the Illuminati wanted to infilitrate the churches because they understood the power of God within the structure of the church, and they had to find a way to infiltrate the church to break down that spiritual strength within the church, the power of the holy spirit that works within the church. They had to find a way to infiltrate that, and they wanted to bring the world into the churches so that the churches wouldn't be so strong spiritually. That was part of my father's job.

The method the illuminati used to infiltrate the organized church



posted on May, 30 2014 @ 02:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: vasaga

1) Abiogenesis is not a requirement for evolution. It doesn't matter to evolution how life started because evolution has nothing to do with how life started.

2) No. Some supreme being could have created life for all that it matters to evolution, none of this would have any bearing on evolution.

3) Like what? Creation? We know evolution occurs. We understand how and why evolution occurs. We don't understand every single last little detail but to deny evolution is to deny reality.
So, to recap;

- Abiogenesis is not a requirement for evolution
- Evolution does not dismiss the possibility of creation
- There is no other alternative other than evolution after abiogenesis

Correct?


originally posted by: Prezbo369

That's because 'we people' as you put it, are able to recognise the difference between the two. Your 'creation' answer is so vague that it can be applied to both the single cell and every other 'kind' of creature to skitter across the face of the planet.
That is true, although I do not see myself as a creationist.


originally posted by: Prezbo369
Oh and that video you wheel out every so often?

Its one girls opinion on Belief. Knowledge. Agnosticism. (as the title professes....)

Why would you think that answers anything?
Because it's a logical and consecutive explanation of why there can be more answers to just 'yes' or 'no' to the answer of if you believe in God.

But I understand that when you're a fanatic atheist you'd like to pretend more people are atheists than there actually are. Even Neil DeGrasse Tyson has suffered the same fate from what I call crusading atheists:



posted on May, 30 2014 @ 02:52 PM
link   
a reply to: vasaga

To posit an alternative you would have to turn the mountain of evidence and observational data on its head. At best, evolution may be shown to be complete if such fantastic evidence to support such fantastic claims were to ever surface.

You don't seem to grasp just how strong the evidence for evolution is and how momentous the evidence required to overturn it.



posted on May, 30 2014 @ 02:58 PM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

I didn't make any assertion as of now. I was just asking questions. Regarding the way you responded, I assume that my recap was correct. Now. Another question.

Is evolution a requirement for abiogenesis?



posted on May, 30 2014 @ 03:05 PM
link   
a reply to: vasaga

No. The two are independent of one another. Difference is, we have an overwhelming evidence for evolution but we're only scratching the surface of abiogenisis.

Saying abiogenesis is a requirement for evolution is like saying the Big Bang is a requirement for (and understanding) plate tectonics. It doesn't matter how the universe (or even the planet) came into existence, plate tectonics is not concerned with any of that. A unicorn could have farted planet Earth into existence for all plate tectonics is concerned.



posted on May, 30 2014 @ 03:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
You don't seem to grasp just how strong the evidence for evolution is and how momentous the evidence required to overturn it.

Many also view the NIST report as being strong evidence for a terrorist attack.

People are gullible.



posted on May, 30 2014 @ 03:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Murgatroid

Er... what does any of this have to do with evolution? I fear your grasp on reality is tentative at best.



posted on May, 30 2014 @ 03:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Murgatroid

Look we have seen it happen, it is proved by.....oh what is the point no amount of evidence will change your mind.
Every time a thread like this comes up we provide evidence and you lot just ignore it and dismiss it without even taking that evidence in.
Face facts the law went against Creationism because it has no science backing it up where evolution has tons.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join