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.

 

Pope says evolution doesn't mean there's no God

page: 8
15
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 07:13 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr
Except I never said that is what I believed, I said "what if
?"

Anything & everything is possible because we are too young to know.

You on the other hand, have constantly been arguing & dismissing everything even though you claim you don't know the answer because you haven't left this planet yet.




posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 08:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Tangerine


A theorem is based on testable evidence.

Not when it comes to "Evolution" or the big bang.

As a disclaimer I am not talking about science as in chemistry or mechanics. For instance, how a plane flies and how to make gasoline are not theory…

When I talk about science it is in regards to theories as in the theory of Evolution, part of the thread topic.

That neither religion or science has those answers, in fact they are both off the mark.


If you don't think that evolution is based on testable evidence, I can't help you. I refer you to a good college level science course or the library. My guess is that you've been duped into thinking it's not based on testable evidence by bogus pseudo-science organizations such as the Institute for Creation Science. Discuss it with a credentialed biologist qualified to publish in a peer-reviewed journal of biology. Not one of them anywhere in the world has discredited evolution or supported creationism.



posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 08:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Tangerine


A theorem is based on testable evidence.

Not when it comes to "Evolution" or the big bang.

As a disclaimer I am not talking about science as in chemistry or mechanics. For instance, how a plane flies and how to make gasoline are not theory…

When I talk about science it is in regards to theories as in the theory of Evolution, part of the thread topic.

That neither religion or science has those answers, in fact they are both off the mark.


If you don't think that evolution is based on testable evidence, I can't help you. I refer you to a good college level science course or the library. My guess is that you've been duped into thinking it's not based on testable evidence by bogus pseudo-science organizations such as the Institute for Creation Research. Discuss it with a credentialed biologist qualified to publish in a peer-reviewed journal of biology. Not one of them anywhere in the world has discredited evolution or supported creationism.



posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 08:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Sabiduria


Anything & everything is possible because we are too young to know.

No its not. I'm not mickey mouse. Everyone knows that. So it is possible to know some things (without leaving the planet).



posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 08:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine


If you don't think that evolution is based on testable evidence, I can't help you.

You should have said the "theory" of evolution is "based on" testable evidence. Little more accurate? What you said left out the theory part.


I refer you to a good college level science course or the library.

Yes, books. Other peoples knowledge school. You believe Evolution because others told you? They weren't there when life "appeared" either.


My guess is that you've been duped into thinking it's not based on testable evidence by bogus pseudo-science organizations such as the Institute for Creation Science.

I'll keep saying it, the "science" part of the Bible was written by People that were clueless about science back then. Written by ignorant men. So is your theory of Evolution.

Geez are we that stigmatized? Life adapts to changing conditions quite readily. Evolution claims that means life evolved meaning thats how all life "began". Thats the ruse. Saying "life evolved" doesn't explain how life began. Thats why "evolution" is just another theory like all the rest. Go ahead, ask your library how life began. There is no "testable evidence" for that.

You can't cite me a paragraph that explains the "theory", you just say, 'go look it up'.

The only evidence is evidence of adaptation and extinction, not origins. And that is what makes "evolution" just a theory like all the other scientific theories proposed by those that claim to know. You just believe them because they told you so. Thats a lot like religious people, they just claim to believe the "higher ups". too.

They study their "word" too.
edit on 31-10-2014 by intrptr because: spellingg



posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 09:17 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

For your reading pleasure:


A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.[1][2] As with most (if not all) forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and aim for predictive power and explanatory force.[3][4]

The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, and to its elegance and simplicity (Occam's razor).[citation needed] As additional scientific evidence is gathered, a scientific theory may be rejected or modified if it does not fit the new empirical findings- in such circumstances, a more accurate theory is then desired. In certain cases, the less-accurate unmodified scientific theory can still be treated as a theory if it is useful (due to its sheer simplicity) as an approximation under specific conditions (e.g. Newton's laws of motion as an approximation to special relativity at velocities which are small relative to the speed of light).[citation needed]

Scientific theories are testable and make falsifiable predictions.[citation needed] They describe the causal elements responsible for a particular natural phenomenon, and are used to explain and predict aspects of the physical universe or specific areas of inquiry (e.g. electricity, chemistry, astronomy). Scientists use theories as a foundation to gain further scientific knowledge, as well as to accomplish goals such as inventing technology or curing disease. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.[3] This is significantly different from the common usage of the word "theory", which implies that something is a conjecture, hypothesis, or guess (i.e., unsubstantiated and speculative).[5]


en.wikipedia.org...


Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins.[1]

All life on Earth is descended from a last universal ancestor that lived approximately 3.8-3.5 billion years ago.[2][3] Repeated speciation and the divergence of life can be inferred from shared sets of biochemical and morphological traits, or by sequencing shared DNA sequences.[4] These homologous traits and sequences are more similar among species that share a more recent common ancestor, and can be used to reconstruct evolutionary histories, using both existing species and the fossil record. Existing patterns of biodiversity have been shaped both by speciation and by extinction.[5]

Charles Darwin was the first to formulate a scientific argument for the theory of evolution by means of natural selection. Evolution by natural selection is a process inferred from three facts about populations: 1) more offspring are produced than can possibly survive, 2) traits vary among individuals, leading to different rates of survival and reproduction, and 3) trait differences are heritable.[6] Thus, when members of a population die they are replaced by the progeny of parents better adapted to survive and reproduce in the environment in which natural selection takes place. This process creates and preserves traits that are seemingly fitted for the functional roles they perform.[7] Natural selection is the only known cause of adaptation, but not the only known cause of evolution. Other, nonadaptive causes of evolution include mutation and genetic drift.[8]

In the early 20th century, genetics was integrated with Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection through the discipline of population genetics. The importance of natural selection as a cause of evolution was accepted into other branches of biology. Moreover, previously held notions about evolution, such as orthogenesis and "progress" became obsolete.[9] Scientists continue to study various aspects of evolution by forming and testing hypotheses, constructing scientific theories, using observational data, and performing experiments in both the field and the laboratory. Biologists agree that descent with modification is one of the most reliably established facts in science.[10] Discoveries in evolutionary biology have made a significant impact not just within the traditional branches of biology, but also in other academic disciplines (e.g., anthropology and psychology) and on society at large.[11][12]


en.wikipedia.org...

This information wasn't exactly hard to find.



posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 09:18 AM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

Furthermore:


Evidence of common descent of living things has been discovered by scientists working in a variety of fields over many years. This evidence has demonstrated and verified the occurrence of evolution and provided a wealth of information on the natural processes by which the variety and diversity of life on Earth developed. This evidence supports the modern evolutionary synthesis, the current scientific theory that explains how and why life changes over time. Evolutionary biologists document evidence of common descent: making testable predictions, testing hypotheses, and developing theories that illustrate and describe its causes.

Comparison of the DNA genetic sequences of organisms has revealed that organisms that are phylogenetically close have a higher degree of DNA sequence similarity than organisms that are phylogenetically distant. Further evidence for common descent comes from genetic detritus such as pseudogenes, regions of DNA that are orthologous to a gene in a related organism, but are no longer active and appear to be undergoing a steady process of degeneration from cumulative mutations.

Fossils are important for estimating when various lineages developed in geologic time. As fossilization is an uncommon occurrence, usually requiring hard body parts and death near a site where sediments are being deposited, the fossil record only provides sparse and intermittent information about the evolution of life. Evidence of organisms prior to the development of hard body parts such as shells, bones and teeth is especially scarce, but exists in the form of ancient microfossils, as well as impressions of various soft-bodied organisms. The comparative study of the anatomy of groups of animals shows structural features that are fundamentally similar or homologous, demonstrating phylogenetic and ancestral relationships with other organisms, most especially when compared with fossils of ancient extinct organisms. Vestigial structures and comparisons in embryonic development are largely a contributing factor in anatomical resemblance in concordance with common descent. Since metabolic processes do not leave fossils, research into the evolution of the basic cellular processes is done largely by comparison of existing organisms’ physiology and biochemistry. Many lineages diverged at different stages of development, so it is possible to determine when certain metabolic processes appeared by comparing the traits of the descendants of a common ancestor. Universal biochemical organization and molecular variance patterns in all organisms also show a direct correlation with common descent.

Further evidence comes from the field of biogeography because evolution with common descent provides the best and most thorough explanation for a variety of facts concerning the geographical distribution of plants and animals across the world. This is especially obvious in the field of island biogeography. Combined with the theory of plate tectonics common descent provides a way to combine facts about the current distribution of species with evidence from the fossil record to provide a logically consistent explanation of how the distribution of living organisms has changed over time.

The development and spread of antibiotic resistant bacteria, like the spread of pesticide resistant forms of plants and insects provides evidence that evolution due to natural selection is an ongoing process in the natural world. Alongside this, are observed instances of the separation of populations of species into sets of new species (speciation). Speciation has been observed directly and indirectly in the lab and in nature. Multiple forms of such have been described and documented as examples for individual modes of speciation. Furthermore, evidence of common descent extends from direct laboratory experimentation with the artificial selection of organisms—historically and currently—and other controlled experiments involving many of the topics in the article. This article explains the different types of evidence for evolution with common descent along with many specialized examples of each.


en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 09:21 AM
link   
The question is What is the God. ... ?

A man on a cloud? Mysterious entity somewhere behind the borders of universe, watching us from the outer realm, sitting on a golden throne with lightnings aura around himself? Is this the God? ...

God in 1st place is a word and religious authorities of all ranks LOVE to use it for theirs own purpose.

It would be nice if the others did this ... oh, let me guess, we tell them God wants them to do it, God wants them to think this way... and it actually works just fine.



posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 09:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: GetHyped

Only when it comes to things like evolution and the origins of life and other "theories". But how would you know either, you have never even left this tiny world. That would be like trying to describe the world as a baby in the womb.



Are you seriously suggesting that because we don't know everything we can't know anything? That's daft beyond belief and reveals your incompetent grasp of the scientific method. The irony here is you are communicating your ignorance through technology that is directly derived from science.



posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 09:35 AM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped


Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.[3] This is significantly different from the common usage of the word "theory", which implies that something is a conjecture, hypothesis, or guess (i.e., unsubstantiated and speculative).[5]

New definition of "theory", got it.

Theories are not "knowledge".

Any Theory (even most reliable, comprehensive, rigorous, scientific forms of one) is still only a theory.

Is that what is passing for science nowadays? Thats even worse than the bible. At least in the bible you have good "stories", i.e., tall tales.


This information wasn't exactly hard to find.

Neither did it describe life's origins. And thats why the theory is still a theory. When you find where they say this is tested, proven evidence of how life first appeared, let me know. Until then, more fairytales.



posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 09:38 AM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped


Are you seriously suggesting that because we don't know everything we can't know anything?

If you keep misrepresenting what I say , it will be useless to have any further conversation with you.

The result of challenging "Science" or "Religion". Both "believers" in their "theories' resort to insults.



posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 09:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Sabiduria


Anything & everything is possible because we are too young to know.

No its not. I'm not mickey mouse. Everyone knows that. So it is possible to know some things (without leaving the planet).


You're right, and evolution is one of those things that we know. Just like the gravity calculations, atomic theory, round earth, etc etc.


You should have said the "theory" of evolution is "based on" testable evidence. Little more accurate? What you said left out the theory part.

Semantics. Evolution as a process is confirmed and proven. The theory of evolution is based on the process of evolution.


I'll keep saying it, the "science" part of the Bible was written by People that were clueless about science back then. Written by ignorant men. So is your theory of Evolution.


There is no "science" part of the bible. Evolution is all science. Stop equating it with the bible. It is being actively used in medicine and experimented on right now as we speak. I'll keep saying it. Evolution is proven. Stop attacking science or equating it with religion.


Evolution claims that means life evolved meaning thats how all life "began".


FALSE. Evolution has nothing to do with how life began. It's about how life adapts and changes over time. But yeah, you are really well read on this topic. You totally know all about it. NOT. Pick up a book. Watch a free lecture. Do something. Educate yourself instead of living in denial. No scientists say that evolution is how life began. Only scientific illiterates who have read nothing at all about the theory and know absolutely nothing about how science works claim that.


You can't cite me a paragraph that explains the "theory", you just say, 'go look it up'.

But you said you have read and studied this subject extensively. Surely that means you at least know the basics about it, like how it's not about the origin of life!


The only evidence is evidence of adaptation and extinction, not origins.

Again, nobody claims evolution is about origins aside from ignorant creationists.


And that is what makes "evolution" just a theory like all the other scientific theories proposed by those that claim to know.


Scientific theories are based on fact. Stop talking jibberish.


You just believe them because they told you so. Thats a lot like religious people, they just claim to believe the "higher ups". too.


Are you trying to claim that the thousands upon thousands of scientific research papers are all just made up? Sorry you haven't got a leg left to stand on. You know zero about the scientific method and even less about evolution. Stop attacking science. Educate yourself. Deny ignorance. Evolution doesn't conflict with god. It is not an alternative. It's simply how life changes over time via genetic mutations and natural selection. If you have evidence to suggest any of the science behind evolution is wrong, let's have it. If not, you should probably stop before you make yourself look bad. There's no reason to have a crusade against science. You are pretending to be objective and non religious, but we know that's not true. Keep hiding it, we all know you're just another ignorant creationist regurgitation nonsense from fundamentalist Christian websites and living in denial.
edit on 31-10-2014 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 10:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Barcs


Semantics. Evolution as a process is confirmed and proven. The theory of evolution is based on the process of evolution.

Theories are not facts.

Explain "origins". Link to "origins". I mean how life first appeared, not how it adapted to changing conditions or "evolved" over time.



posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 10:13 AM
link   
Duh.....



posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 10:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Barcs


Semantics. Evolution as a process is confirmed and proven. The theory of evolution is based on the process of evolution.

Theories are not facts.


Correct. Theories explain facts. Theories do not become "facts" when enough evidence comes in. They are completely differnt things.

Evolution is both a scientific theory and a scientific fact.



posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 10:20 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

It's useless having a conversation with you in the first place about science because your grasp of the topic at hand is near non-existent. This isn't an "insult", it's simply stating the obvious based on what you have written so far.



posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 10:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: GetHyped

New definition of "theory", got it.


No, not really. The same one that's used within the context of science, i.e. the one you have difficulty grasping.



posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 11:13 AM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped


Evolution is both a scientific theory and a scientific fact.

If its a fact its no longer theory. You just again called it a theory. Wheres my link about lifes "origins"?

Done here.



posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 11:13 AM
link   
a reply to: michaelbrux

I don't think you addressed any of my points with this reply.


he's pointing out that evolution and religious teachings regarding the creation of man are not at odds. how could they be...universities were run by the church up until a few years ago.

That's a fascinating assertion. Any evidence to back that up? If you look at the schools that are considered to have the top evolutionary biology programs in the country -- UC Berkeley & Davis, Cornell, Stanford, University of Chicago -- can you tell me which ones were "run by the church* up until a few years ago"?

* Which I assume to mean the Catholic church in the context of a conversation about the Pope.


the only differences between the two are manufactured by people that have an interest in there being a difference.

No, the differences are "manufactured" by people who insist that a literal interpretation of the Bible, Genesis in particular, somehow constitutes science.


Why are the evolutionists the scientific group always in the midst of this Argument?

When you use the word "evolutionists", you're not talking about a single discipline within science or a small fringe group within the scientific community at large. Modern evolutionary synthesis relies on a vast array of scientific disciplines -- anthropology, paleontology, geology, biology, chemistry, and many more interdisciplinary studies -- therefore you're effectively talking about scientists as a whole.

To answer your question about why they always seem to be "in the midst of the Argument" is because creationists insist on trying to attack the teaching of evolution in public schools and trying to shape public policy in a way that denies scientific facts.


where are all the electromagnetic radiation people to rip on the genesis book concerning the creation of Light; that claim seems to be much easier to attack.

Because creationists haven't, at least to my knowledge, tried to have electromagnetism removed from public school curricula because it conflicts with their literal interpretation of the Bible. Are you aware of this occurring?



posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 11:18 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr


If its a fact its no longer theory.

Incorrect, a scientific theory and a fact are two completely different things. The phenomenon of evolution is a fact -- it is objective observable reality. The theory of evolution seeks to explain the facts surrounding the phenomenon of evolution. You can literally insert anything you want in place of "evolution" in these statements and reach a working definition of the relationship between facts and theories in science: the theory of gravity seeks to explain the facts surrounding the phenomenon of gravity. See how easy that is?


You just again called it a theory.

Do you understand what a theory is in the context of a scientific discussion?


Wheres my link about lifes "origins"?

The theory of evolution only refers to what life does once it's already in existence. The origin of life is another topic entirely.


Done here.

You can stick your fingers in your ears and yell, "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" all you want. It doesn't mean you understand.







 
15
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join