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.

 

Animals appearing whole - ie anti-evolution

page: 6
31
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 12:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

One more question and then I have to go for today but I will be back.
Please give the question considerable thought before answering.

If I can prove that my God exists and give you ample proof of Creation, would you fall to your knees and worship Him, following His commandments as best as you could?




posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 01:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Quadrivium
a reply to: Krazysh0t

One more question and then I have to go for today but I will be back.
Please give the question considerable thought before answering.

If I can prove that my God exists and give you ample proof of Creation, would you fall to your knees and worship Him, following His commandments as best as you could?


Only if the proof you provide is for the Christian god. I mean if you prove that Zeus is real, I wouldn't be very keen on following the ten commandments now would I?



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 01:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: kruphix

Did you fail to read the first sentences of my thread? Here I'll repost them for you so you can take your foot out of your mouth.


Ok for the purpose of this OT, let's assume that evolution isn't true and that the counterpoint, Creationism, is true. We will also assume for the purposes of this exercise that with one being untrue that the other is true.


Though if you think that my argument holds no water. Tell me, if evolution isn't true, what IS true? Explain the diversity of life on the planet and give me the evidence to prove it.


I read it...and it is still a false dichotomy.

I believe in evolution...however I won't condone illogical arguments in an attempt to support it.



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 01:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: works4dhs
a reply to: Krazysh0t

well, sure, if the 'layering' is accurately interpreted. as I mentioned, there's talk of stuff frequently being found out-of-order but I don't have references. it makes sense that aquatic animals are found lower (Cambrian) if the flood caused the fossils. Coelecanths were supposed to be very old and primitive as they weren't in the fossil record for millions of years and presumed long extinct. some creatures (megamouth) have no fossil record at all. birds are 'more recent' as their bodies would have been fossilized last.

here's one link I found
www.creationscience.com...


Are you familiar with the geologic term reworked? It is where a fossil may become partially exposed due to whatever (like say the grand canyon opening up and exposing fossils to the elements) and new material falls down and covers the old material or new fossils fall down and join older fossils.

There is also this:
Some fossils are out of place

Creationists have lists of fossils that allegedly don't fit into the evolutionary concept. When you look closer, you will find one of the following:

the fossil is not what it is said to be:

Paluxy tracks
Sandal Print With Trilobites
Calaveras skull
Baugh's finger

the fossil got there after the strata had been laid down

Moab man
Malachite man
Castenedolo and Olmo skulls
Petrified hammer)

It is entirely possible for the rock around a fossil to be eroded, and the fossil to then be buried in younger sediment. This is common enough that real geologists have a technical term for such "re-fossils"; that term is 'reworked'. This is not a catch-all excuse, as creationists will suspect immediately, since there are clues determining whether a fossil is reworked.


ETA: I gave you a star since you provided some evidence of your side of things.
edit on 26-6-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 01:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: kruphix

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: kruphix

Did you fail to read the first sentences of my thread? Here I'll repost them for you so you can take your foot out of your mouth.


Ok for the purpose of this OT, let's assume that evolution isn't true and that the counterpoint, Creationism, is true. We will also assume for the purposes of this exercise that with one being untrue that the other is true.


Though if you think that my argument holds no water. Tell me, if evolution isn't true, what IS true? Explain the diversity of life on the planet and give me the evidence to prove it.


I read it...and it is still a false dichotomy.

I believe in evolution...however I won't condone illogical arguments in an attempt to support it.


It's not a fallacy if you start with the premise that you are disregarding that step of logic. In my argument I said we are making this assumption. I never claimed the assumption was true or false, just saying that for the sake of the argument we are saying it is true. That isn't false dichotomy. It is covering my bases in case someone like you comes along. Though if you don't want to participate, bye.

ETA: The purpose of the thread isn't to support evolution. Clearly you are still failing to understand my argument. The purpose is to get people who disbelieve in evolution to provide evidence for their side of things. I am offering some concessions in my position (with those assumptions) to help me see things from their point of view.
edit on 26-6-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 01:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

I still want to see evidence for animals such as bears or whales appearing wholely developed. I notice that I am back on the evolution (and in this case abiogenesis) defensive front. This thread's purpose is to gather the evidence for the counterpoint, not disprove evolution or abiogenesis.


I'm sorry, but you did start this pi$$ing match and you can't get off that easily. Who here has stated evolution is not accepted? Abiogenesis on the other hand - show me where it can in any way be proven. The lab experiment from the '50's (if correct) is clearly based on a scenario devised and managed by those that took part in it - it means little in itself.

Why have you therefore raised the stakes to mean a bear or a whale - any life is life and a single cell life form is exactly that, the number of legs (or otherwise of course) means little. The number of people that believe any animal that has ever existed on this planet sprang from nowhere is minimal, it's a fundamentalist fringe - have you taken to digging up Elvis to prove to people that he is indeed dead?

Sheesh, I'm not sure I really care for the argument, but you seem to have this thing about a very fringe group of people that have beliefs that are not currency within any of the major religions and you are looking to push your disagreement with that to satisfy yourself. Knock yourself out, but if people want to debate your logic, please accept your beliefs may not stand up to 100% scrutiny.



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 01:16 PM
link   
a reply to: kruphix

It's not a false dichotomy. OP stated clearly his premises: "Ok for the purpose of this OT, let's assume that evolution isn't true and that the counterpoint, Creationism, is true".



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 01:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: jjkenobi

Yeah I know all this already, but I did give you a star since you are literally the first person to give me evidence of ANY kind. For that I thank you. To be honest, I'm surprised. I would have thought I'd see bible quotes on page one, yet it took until page 5 to even see them.

Unfortunately, I don't count bible quotes as good enough evidence. I want to see additional evidence to support the claims in the bible. Not to mention, you bring up good points about the contradiction between genesis 1 and genesis 2, the fact that a day could be millions or billions of years to god. These are all great reasons why I want to see more evidence than just the bible.


Not sure what kind of evidence for Creationism you are looking to find? It happened at some unknown point in the extremely distant past and it's only record is a book you do not believe. It's like asking for proof of the big bang. You can point to things now and explain how you think they relate to the extreme distant past, but it cannot be proven. I never go into these expecting to convert anyone to a certain belief, just to help others understand the thoughts behind the beliefs. There are what I consider core legitimate questions on Creationism and the Bible but the ATS understanding of it is so limited the discussions get stuck on inconsequential topics such as why do rocks test at millions of years old and how was there cities on the earth when Adam and Eve left Eden. Actually I'll just give you my opinions on those.

Rocks testing millions of years old:
Yes, I believe rocks can test out at millions of years old. The possibilities are either the rocks are that old or they were created as a mature object. Was Adam created as a one day old baby infant? Probably not since no one could care for him. So if a doctor examined him one day after he was created he would not deduce Adam's age was one day. Why then would you assume a rock would test out at one day old? Obviously testing a rock or Adam at one day old cannot be done, so you don't need to ask for evidence. It's just a possible explanation for people who really haven't attempted to explore Creationism.

People and Cities existing:
The genealogy of mankind starts with the first child born after the Fall of Adam and Eve. The Fall refers to them being evicted from the Garden of Eden for disobeying God's command. It is not stated anywhere how much time passed from when Adam and Eve were created until the Fall. It is also not stated whether or not they had any offspring during this time. You can make an educated guess that they did based on a couple of things. First, the passage of Scripture after the Fall which reads

"16 To the woman he said,
“I will make your pains in childbearing very severe;
with painful labor you will give birth to children.""

If Eve had never given birth before this passage doesn't make much sense. She wouldn't even know what child birth was or that it wasn't supposed to hurt. Secondly, there were people out there on the Earth. Cain was worried people would kill him after he killed his brother Abel. Who exactly was he scared of? He then travels East and gets wife and builds a city. Then AFTER all that Adam has his son Seth, who is the "important" child as far as Biblical genealogy goes. So Adam has had three recorded children, and there is already people and cities out there.



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 01:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

I still want to see evidence for animals such as bears or whales appearing wholely developed. I notice that I am back on the evolution (and in this case abiogenesis) defensive front. This thread's purpose is to gather the evidence for the counterpoint, not disprove evolution or abiogenesis.


I'm sorry, but you did start this pi$$ing match and you can't get off that easily. Who here has stated evolution is not accepted? Abiogenesis on the other hand - show me where it can in any way be proven. The lab experiment from the '50's (if correct) is clearly based on a scenario devised and managed by those that took part in it - it means little in itself.


That is why abiogenesis is still a hypothesis and not a theory. Sorry that's the best answer I can give you on the matter. If scientists can uncover more proof of it, and it is peer reviewed and tested thoroughly, maybe it will be upgraded to a theory then and maybe I can answer some of these questions better. But until then, that is the best I can do. At least it has SOME evidence supporting it.


Why have you therefore raised the stakes to mean a bear or a whale - any life is life and a single cell life form is exactly that, the number of legs (or otherwise of course) means little. The number of people that believe any animal that has ever existed on this planet sprang from nowhere is minimal, it's a fundamentalist fringe - have you taken to digging up Elvis to prove to people that he is indeed dead?


Well, those are the people I'm trying to address here. I want to try to see things from their point of view. I'm trying to develop logical discourse between us and hopefully spur some critical thought to maybe get them to admit they are wrong or even get me to admit I'm wrong.

I mean, the population of people who don't believe in evolution is a fundamentalist fringe in reality. You may not believe exactly as I have laid out in the OP, but if you disbelieve in evolution, you are a minority. That is a fact (but at the same time don't try to take that as evidence that evolution is true or anything, I'm not saying that).


Sheesh, I'm not sure I really care for the argument, but you seem to have this thing about a very fringe group of people that have beliefs that are not currency within any of the major religions and you are looking to push your disagreement with that to satisfy yourself. Knock yourself out, but if people want to debate your logic, please accept your beliefs may not stand up to 100% scrutiny.


Part of critical thinking is to be able to admit when you are wrong. So I am trying to get the evidence to see things from their point of view. This is just as much as an exercise for the people I am debating as with me. You may see it as some sort of attempt to toot my own horn, but by doing so you are failing to see my thought processes. Though I do find it funny that even when someone tries to approach the opposing argument logically to see if their world view is wrong, they are still told that they are just trying to satisfy themselves or pushing a position of superiority.

If I wanted to do that, I'd just write a thread called "Evolution is true" then post documents of evidence to show that is the case. That is too easy and does nothing to challenge my thought processes.



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 01:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: kruphix

It's not a false dichotomy. OP stated clearly his premises: "Ok for the purpose of this OT, let's assume that evolution isn't true and that the counterpoint, Creationism, is true".


It is false if you claim Creationism was true "only if" and then insert your own parameters. Which is what the poster was referring to.



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 01:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t


Generally I don't see Creationists argue that physics is wrong.

Ah, you're forgetting 'tired light'.

*


a reply to: Quadrivium


This is a perfect example of people assuming they are smarter, or more intelligent that someone else. Which, in all honesty, is quite unintelligent.

Er, no. It's a perfect example of someone who has been exposed to reams of creationist piffle on the internet for years and years and years, and had drawn the correct conclusions.

*


a reply to FinalCountdown

Mangled? Citation needed.

Purposely mangled? Double citation needed.

And Quadrivium thinks we're assuming things. Good grief.

By the way, there's a superfluous apostrophe in your (24-word) post. But of course, you're posting from your phone, right?


edit on 26/6/14 by Astyanax because: there's a bloody edit button.



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 01:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

To your specific question, humans have only been around for a short time and haven't witnessed mass extinctions and therefore wouldn't have witnessed these 'mass repopulations' out of thin air. So, why would it be mentioned in numerous texts?

Unless you're suggesting that these same 'creationists' believe every generational mutation of a species must also be conjured from thin air?

I guess one 'mass repopulation' from a human's perspective would've been just after the 'flood'.

Those who would've hypothetically witnessed this would've been people like Noah, who would've been sure of God's existence anyway and hence wouldn't have been surprised. The hypothetical offspring from then (our era effectively) would've been born into a world already repopulated.

If you're trying to get at a higher theme with your OP, suggesting that it simply sounds ridiculous to imagine animals being phased into existence from thin air, then there is no counter-answer to your point.

It cannot be argued back because you are 'attacking' a very specific interpretation of creationism, who believe that's how it did happen, and that effectively makes this all pointless.

I don't know why you're forcing this specific scenario of one has to be untrue if the other is true, but I'll assume it's to corner people who believe in that specific type of creationism (species created whole) into seeing some apparent self-flaw in their logic.

But as I said at the start, it's not too hard to explain away, and I'm an agnostic lol. On another note, if I was to imagine how 'God' created life, I honestly believe it would've been facilitated through the natural processes we observe on purpose.

I've done a lot of coding and creating virtual environments, based on rules and logic and so forth. It makes you appreciate the beauty of the natural systems 1000x more, because you realise they are infinitely more complex and well-designed than something we as CONSCIOUS human beings can do.

The beauty of our universe in that sense is that if it WAS DESIGNED, it's been done in such a way that after 'play' is pressed, the designer need not interact ever again and yet can witness the staggering variety of events from the inception of the universe to now.

It is self-constructing, self-maintaining and self-regulating. We are also self-constructing, self-maintaining and self-regulating. Then there's the cherry on the top - we're also self-aware.

If it was created, it was done in the smartest and most efficient way possible. Time even shifts relative to space to ensure the universe cannot temporarily compute a prediction of consious behaviour without breaking the continuity of a subjectively shared objective reality (which is a big no-no for the universe).

This is sheer brilliance you are witnessing.

In this sense, the Religous books of the post-Ancient Greece era have done MUCH harm to our perception of the concept of a Creator. Most people honestly believe that by refuting the Creator of the Bible or the Quran they automatically refute any possible interpretation of a 'Creator'.

What a dangerous game we play lol.

It's funny though, because the Bible/Torah and Quran 100% stem from a story at least 3,000 years older than them, and with much more detail, many more characters and a much more 'grey' explaination of our universe and our origins. Yet we mostly ignore this...

The Bible/Quran somehow even managed to turn humanity's most reverred hero(s), Enki and Samjaza, into the 'Serpent' and the 'Devil' respectively. Hell, they even managed to RESET our timeline lol.

Anyway, I'm diverting off course mate. Was my answer satisfactory for you?
edit on 26-6-2014 by DazDaKing because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 01:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: jjkenobi
Not sure what kind of evidence for Creationism you are looking to find? It happened at some unknown point in the extremely distant past and it's only record is a book you do not believe. It's like asking for proof of the big bang. You can point to things now and explain how you think they relate to the extreme distant past, but it cannot be proven. I never go into these expecting to convert anyone to a certain belief, just to help others understand the thoughts behind the beliefs. There are what I consider core legitimate questions on Creationism and the Bible but the ATS understanding of it is so limited the discussions get stuck on inconsequential topics such as why do rocks test at millions of years old and how was there cities on the earth when Adam and Eve left Eden. Actually I'll just give you my opinions on those.


Well see the thing I'm trying to get at with the bible is that it makes some pretty impressive claims. So I want to see evidence that these claims are true. The difference between big bang evidence and bible evidence is that there is more than just one source of evidence for the big bang. If you don't trust one source of evidence, there are more sources that can be given to you that also confirm the theory. With the bible, it is JUST that piece of evidence, so if we discount it, we are left with no evidence.


Rocks testing millions of years old:
Yes, I believe rocks can test out at millions of years old. The possibilities are either the rocks are that old or they were created as a mature object. Was Adam created as a one day old baby infant? Probably not since no one could care for him. So if a doctor examined him one day after he was created he would not deduce Adam's age was one day. Why then would you assume a rock would test out at one day old? Obviously testing a rock or Adam at one day old cannot be done, so you don't need to ask for evidence. It's just a possible explanation for people who really haven't attempted to explore Creationism.


Interesting supposition. Though while it makes sense to create a humans fully matured, what would be the point of creating rocks millions of years old? To trick people thousands of years later? Seems like a cruel joke to me.


People and Cities existing:
The genealogy of mankind starts with the first child born after the Fall of Adam and Eve. The Fall refers to them being evicted from the Garden of Eden for disobeying God's command. It is not stated anywhere how much time passed from when Adam and Eve were created until the Fall. It is also not stated whether or not they had any offspring during this time. You can make an educated guess that they did based on a couple of things. First, the passage of Scripture after the Fall which reads

"16 To the woman he said,
“I will make your pains in childbearing very severe;
with painful labor you will give birth to children.""

If Eve had never given birth before this passage doesn't make much sense. She wouldn't even know what child birth was or that it wasn't supposed to hurt. Secondly, there were people out there on the Earth. Cain was worried people would kill him after he killed his brother Abel. Who exactly was he scared of? He then travels East and gets wife and builds a city. Then AFTER all that Adam has his son Seth, who is the "important" child as far as Biblical genealogy goes. So Adam has had three recorded children, and there is already people and cities out there.


This is a good piece of logic that follows along the same logic as the one that states that a day to god could be WAY more time than a day to us. It is hard to refute the logic, but at the same time it isn't clear. Since we don't know how long they spent in eden, we have no way of knowing if those suppositions are true. Though if we had some evidence OUTSIDE the bible, maybe we could get an idea.



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 01:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t



I mean, the population of people who don't believe in evolution is a fundamentalist fringe in reality. You may not believe exactly as I have laid out in the OP, but if you disbelieve in evolution, you are a minority. That is a fact (but at the same time don't try to take that as evidence that evolution is true or anything, I'm not saying that).



As it happens, I completely agree with the evolution theory, haven't said otherwise in this thread, in fact I think I've made that clear. I have no agreement with anyone that suggests 'Adam and Eve' sprang up from nothing, having said that, you would have to be a seriously literal minded person to suggest even the Bible suggests that.

However....... I still keep thinking back to that little single celled life form that ultimately (via evolution) kick started the whole thing - everything literally as far as I'm aware has that common ancestor in some form or another. Now, we know that at some point such a thing didn't exist and then it did. That to me is a Creation Point. Was it by design or by chance? I don't know, none of us knows. We all have our own beliefs - faith or non faith based, but to call any of them a fact is disingenuous.

edit on 26-6-2014 by uncommitted because: formatting



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 01:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Quadrivium


Where did life come from to start off with? No life, no evolution, no argument.

But life is patently all around us, so you don't have a point.

There is a reason why we don't know exactly how abiogenesis occurred. Somebody ate the evidence. But we have an excellent idea of how it must have occurred. And we don't take it on faith.


You demand answers, yet you follow a religion that does not have a beginning. Evolution has no beginning.

The theory of evolution is not a religion, but then you're a creationist, so you can't be expected to understand that.


edit on 26/6/14 by Astyanax because: I thought I'd better change 'about' to 'around' in the first sentence so as not to tax my interlocutor's vocabulary.



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 01:50 PM
link   
a reply to: DazDaKing

Thank you for the post. It is a good counterpoint to my OP. You are partially right about trying to get creationists of this viewpoint to see a flaw in their logical thinking, but I'm also doing it to see if there is a flaw in my own thinking. I am trying to open myself up and let them provide the evidence to what they believe is true. If they can give the adequate evidence then I am willing to switch my beliefs. Though you are trying to suggest that I have already determined that this is impossible since the evidence doesn't exist, so I guess the only way to prove that wrong is to have the compelling evidence provided and judge my actions afterwards accordingly. I would like to say that I like to reanalyze my beliefs and thoughts on a regular basis. Admitting when you are wrong is tough and it take practice, sometimes you need to seriously narrow down the criteria to do so and to help open yourself up to admitting other things are wrong.

The second half of your post, I agree completely with. If a creator exists, the universe certainly appears to be set up where all he had to do was just press "play" and the universe's processes took over.



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 01:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Krazysh0t



I mean, the population of people who don't believe in evolution is a fundamentalist fringe in reality. You may not believe exactly as I have laid out in the OP, but if you disbelieve in evolution, you are a minority. That is a fact (but at the same time don't try to take that as evidence that evolution is true or anything, I'm not saying that).



As it happens, I completely agree with the evolution theory, haven't said otherwise in this thread, in fact I think I've made that clear. I have no agreement with anyone that suggests 'Adam and Eve' sprang up from nothing, having said that, you would have to be a seriously literal minded person to suggest even the Bible suggests that.


Yes I know this, but those are the people I'm trying to talk to with this thread.


However....... I still keep thinking back to that little single celled life form that ultimately (via evolution) kick started the whole thing - everything literally as far as I'm aware has that common ancestor in some form or another. Now, we know that at some point such a thing didn't exist and then it did. That to me is a Creation Point. Was it by design or by chance? I don't know, none of us knows. We all have our own beliefs - faith or non faith based, but to call any of them a fact is disingenuous.


I don't state anything as 100% gospel. I am an avowed agnostic. And that is why I am trying to see things from a different viewpoint, because I recognize that their viewpoint could be correct. So I want to see the evidence and if it exists and is compelling enough, I'll believe it.



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 01:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Snarl


You might need extraordinary faith ... considering scientists will happily enter a hoax into evidence (e.g. Piltdown Man) to win the debate in the court of public opinion.

Who presented Piltdown Man as a hoax? A man called Charles Dawson.

Was he a scientist?

Or was he a hoaxer who was able to fool some of the scientists of his day?

How long was 'Piltdown Man' scientific orthodoxy? The remains were 'discovered' in 1912.


As early as 1913, David Waterston of King's College London published in Nature his conclusion that the sample consisted of an ape mandible and human skull. Likewise, French paleontologist Marcellin Boule concluded the same thing in 1915. A third opinion from American zoologist Gerrit Smith Miller concluded Piltdown's jaw came from a fossil ape. Source

Yet, 102 years after its exposure, creationists are still jumping up and down and doing their characteristic Creationist Dance over the most celebrated hoax in the history of science.

You guys really don't have much in the way of evidence for your side of the story, do you?



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 02:12 PM
link   
When I feel the aches and pains in different parts of my body, I think that God has a lot to answer for, made in his image my .



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 03:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Krazysh0t


Generally I don't see Creationists argue that physics is wrong.

Ah, you're forgetting 'tired light'.

*


a reply to: Quadrivium


This is a perfect example of people assuming they are smarter, or more intelligent that someone else. Which, in all honesty, is quite unintelligent.

Er, no. It's a perfect example of someone who has been exposed to reams of creationist piffle on the internet for years and years and years, and had drawn the correct conclusions.

*


a reply to FinalCountdown

Mangled? Citation needed.

Purposely mangled? Double citation needed.

And Quadrivium thinks we're assuming things. Good grief.

By the way, there's a superfluous apostrophe in your (24-word) post. But of course, you're posting from your phone, right?


Er..yes.
Also, you do not believe there are assumptions in the "theory" of evolution?



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join