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 the evidence for evolution?

page: 12
12
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 09:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: michaelbrux
i think the following video explains the position of Evolution with regards to the rest of the scientific world. its the only thing that explains why they don't accept where their discipline will end up without meaningful changes to their way of doing things.


LOL you link that vid after making comments such as:



i'm certain my understanding of Genetics is Profound. I'd bet a dollar of my own money...you know someone that would like to know what I know about Genetics.


Are you back on the 'hard liquor' again?




posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 03:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: michaelbrux
a reply to: Barcs

i'm quite certain that we are on completely different levels of understanding...you make empty statements regarding my understanding while I've placed my work in public for critical analysis. my defense of it must be legendary by now.


What work? You haven't provided anything aside from your personal beliefs and ignorance of modern synthesis. Funny that you'd attempt to toot your own horn rather than address the evidence. I provided scientific data. You ignored it. That pretty much sums up your position.


you want evolution to be something worthy of regard...

No that's not what I want. I want people to stop denying science and going to war with evolution over personal beliefs that cannot be verified.


at the very least you're going to have to produce a unified model of this theoretical process, more likely a smaller related process, in closed form that can be applied successfully a majority of the time, even on other systems where life may appear. all you are showing is ideas and a flood of examples that when recreated in a lab setting you don't get the same result twice in a row...


Wrong. The model has been posted in this thread numerous times. It all goes back to the genetic mutations. Are you denying they exist? Are you denying they can happen? You haven't shown which parts are wrong and why. You are doing nothing but preaching and ignoring all evidence.


I honestly think that Evolution is too broad a subject and can't possibly remain intact...why evolution decided to take on Religion, specifically God, suggests someone should put the crack pipe down. just drop it and walk away.

You just keep on making stuff up. Evolution has nothing to do with religion or god. It never has. It is only stubborn fundamentalists that claim this and attack evolution as a result. You might not be smoking crack, but whatever you're on, I want some because your version of reality and science is completely warped.



i've given you all a complete explanation of the whole world west of Jerusalem (and that's just half the story) and everything in it and you haven't moved it an inch...Evolution gets tossed about and toyed with and still keeps fighting...for what?


Evolution is a field of science, not a person. Stop personifying it. Evolution hasn't attacked or fought with anybody ever. It has been studied by scientists and attacked by dumb religious people without merit or justification.



its been stated:

1. you can't measure the evolutionary process, its random. it has no form.
2. there are no experiments that a person can do at home that accurately demonstrate the evolutionary process in action.


1. That is a lie. Evolution can absolutely be measured and the only random part about it is the mutations. Natural selection is far from random. Why would a process have a form? You aren't making the least bit of sense.

2. That is a lie. Evolution has been duplicated in a lab. Sorry that you can't just add vinegar to baking soda and make evolution. LOL!!! Like I said, read about the fruit fly experiment. You can duplicate that one in your kitchen easily. Just leave food out and don't clean your kitchen and you'll have plenty of fruit flies to experiment with. But then again, you'd need to understand how to map genomes and test for mutations, but you obviously know zilch about science. I guess atomic theory must be wrong as well as cell theory, and any other complicated field of science that can't be duplicated in your kitchen LOL!

Sorry, but you aren't being honest in this discussion and ignore all evidence presented. There's nothing any of us can do about that. People are going to be deceptive to promote faith and religion. They can't reconcile it, so they deny it. It's comical how far some of you guys go to perpetuate a war on science, which is downright absurd.

Now if you could please address the evidence posted and post something of value or meaning to the thread that would be great. Otherwise you are doing nothing but trolling and posting off topic stuff. This thread is about evidence. If you have nothing say about the evidence, you are off topic. This thread isn't for preaching.


its the only thing that explains why they don't accept where their discipline will end up without meaningful changes to their way of doing things.


LMAO!!! I'd LOVE to see you break that statement down and explain precisely what you are rambling about. What is wrong with the way scientists do their work? What is the problem with experiments proving things? You aren't saying anything in this thread.
edit on 15-11-2014 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 03:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: AvoidBadCompany
a reply to: Barcs

In the beginning God created the heavens and earth.
Through out creation Gods power is displayed.
As a building requires a building creation requires a creator. As an outstanding design points to a gifted designer.
The fact that we have a universe tells us we need a creator. The universe requires a cause and therefore requires a creator.
God does not have a beginning and therefore does not require a creator. There is nothing irrational about an eternal being but there is something irrational about something popping into existence from nothing.


There is something VERY irrational about an eternal being. Where did he come from? Who designed god? How did he get there? I don't care about what scriptures written by man claim. I want evidence that this universe is a creation. If god can be eternal, why can't the universe? Prove that the universe needs a creature. Prove that it's a creation. Prove that eternal beings are possible and don't violate every known law of physics. If the universe requires a designer, then so does god. You can't avoid this.

And nobody claims anything ever popped into existence from nothing... except creationists of course. Funny how you try to pigeon hole scientists into that same category. Give me the origin of god. If you can't, then you have no right to insult scientists or attack evolution because you have ZERO evidence whatsoever of your worldview. I don't care if you have faith, that's cool with me, just don't attack other people as if it's absolute fact when there is NO objective evidence at all.



posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 03:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: AlephBet
a reply to: Barcs

Go back to the question and my very first response. Involution is the evidence for evolution as a byproduct. All my responses have followed the answer and questions from replies to me.


Involution IS NOT the evidence for evolution. Sorry that you can't grasp this, but that's a fact. The evidence for evolution is measurable genetic mutations and the fossil record. The earth rotating is just the way it is. It isn't evidence for anything except that the earth rotates. Stop equivocating concepts that aren't related in the least. What you call evidence is laughable at best. There are plenty of gullible people out there but you can't fool us.



posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 07:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: AlephBet
a reply to: Barcs

Go back to the question and my very first response. Involution is the evidence for evolution as a byproduct. All my responses have followed the answer and questions from replies to me.


Involution IS NOT the evidence for evolution. Sorry that you can't grasp this, but that's a fact. The evidence for evolution is measurable genetic mutations and the fossil record. The earth rotating is just the way it is. It isn't evidence for anything except that the earth rotates. Stop equivocating concepts that aren't related in the least. What you call evidence is laughable at best. There are plenty of gullible people out there but you can't fool us.


The double helix would disagree with you. If it could speak, and I can, it would tell you that the toroidal shape of the helix is in direct proportion to the Golden ratio. The DNA Helix measures 34 x 21 angstroms long and wide. The numbers 34 and 21 are numbers in the Fibonacci series. Their ratio is 1.61, or phi.

You can keep saying it and I can keep showing you why you are wrong. I have trillions of examples, all of which come out of the volution, or evolution of the toroidal wave function.

I explain it in detail here for you.



Father in Hebrew is Aleph Bet. His Son is called the Word, or Bet Nun (house of seed). That's pretty clear. It gets more clear here:

John 1

The Word Became Flesh
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome[a] it.

Indeed, letters to become words, that becomes flesh.


edit on 15-11-2014 by AlephBet because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 09:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

The reason you are so firm on your beliefs is not for me to say. I can tell by your fruits you wish to be your own god and have no intention of submitting to a power greater than yourself. If making up the rules is your destiny then so be it.

I aknowledge our Almighty God, His Son Jesus and the Holy Spirit. I have confessed I am a sinner and that Jesus gave up his life for me personally. I am saved by God's grace through the faith I have in His Son Jesus and the shedding of His blood.

It's easy to put ones head in the sand but that does not prove God is not there. You have all the evidence you require but you refuse to except it.

One thing is for sure, You personally will go down on your knees and confess that Jesus is Lord, Whether you want to or not. That day is close and your time here is a blink of an eye.
P.s science is always changing because the discoveries are always coming and therefore science is in complete. God on the other hand is always the same and the law of God is complete.
edit on 15-11-2014 by AvoidBadCompany because: Because



posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 10:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: AvoidBadCompany


It's easy to put ones head in the sand but that does not prove God is not there. You have all the evidence you require but you refuse to except it.


Nor isthere evidence tht passes any sort of scientific scrutiny that indicates any god, let alone your personal interpretation of it, is real


One thing is for sure, You personally will go down on your knees and confess that Jesus is Lord, Whether you want to or not. That day is close and your time here is a blink of an eye.


Wow... For a self proclaimed adherent of Christ you obviously haven't taken to heart any of his teachings! That's one of the most arrogant state,emits I've seen from an alleged Christian in a looonnnnggggg time. You should be really proud of yourself.


P.s science is always changing because the discoveries are always coming and therefore science is in complete.
.

This is because "science", or more apropriately, the practitioners of various scientific discoplines(because science isnt a force of will its a tool for understanding the universe)doesn't settle and is willing to keep seeking truth and is willing to question itself at any given moment as well as willing to admit when something is wrong and attempts to correct for that.


God on the other hand is always the same and the law of God is complete.
really? Are you actually certain of that? First off, you're referring only to the Abrahamic god and more specifically one of the several thousand Christian interpretations of it. Second, if god is unchanging and complete them he/she/it is a paranoid schizophrenic suffering from multiple personalities. The difference between the god of the OT vs. the god of the NT is so starkly contrasting that its just nut sack piñata to try to insist its the same. The message isn't even the same. OT god is an angry, childish, demanding and vengeful deity whereas the god of Christ is allegedly a god of love and forgiveness. Its only 600 short years after the alleged execution of Christ that your god got bored and decided to start whispering to Mohammed and teleporting him all over the Arabian peninsula and back and forth from there to Jerusalem and back. And that's just the 3 versions of Abrahamic god. Yup, looks super complete to me! I'm all for being open minded and exploring all possibilities but if we're going to do so we must do it honestly and be honest about what we learn as opposed to discounting or ignoring what contradicts our current paradigm because in the end that's anything BUT being open minded.



posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 10:36 PM
link   
I just posted this in another thread but thought I'd add it here.


British Columbia contains a diverse and dynamic, sometimes rapidly evolving fish community. The province was almost completely covered by a layer of ice only about 10,000 years ago, during the Pleistocene Ice Ages. As the glacial ice melted and retreated, it provided opportunities for fish surviving in ice-free areas to move into new habitat. Some early colonizers became isolated from other populations by waterfall barriers as the land rose upward after the weight of the ice was removed. Since much of B.C. has been colonized for such a short period, it is often not clear what is a species, a subspecies or a distinct population. However, since relatively few freshwater species were able to move into our area before dispersal routes were cut off, much of our natural diversity occurs at the population level rather than the species level. (For example: coastal rainbow trout, Kamloops trout, Gerrard trout and steelhead are all considered the same species even though they appear very different.) We currently recognize 81 distinct Native Freshwater Fishes including species and subspecies; some have not been scientifically described and named. Four species are now extinct.


www.env.gov.bc.ca...

Also, a paper about stickleback species pairs. These are found in a few unique lakes in BC. They are pairs of very similar species of sticklebacks that evolved from one ancestor to occupy two niches in a single lake.

www.env.gov.bc.ca...



posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 11:52 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

__________________
Colossians 2:14
Having blotted out the handwriting in the ordinances that is against us, that was contrary to us.

You see the Alexander manuscripts injected by the Jesuit priest and alike are what you are referring to.
The Kjb which translated to English in 1611 is the inspired Word of God taken from the Texus Reptus writings.
Just to let you know Christians are meek not weak. If I was God I'd wipe you all which means I'd be wiped also. Thank the Lord I'm just me.



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 12:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: AlephBet
The double helix would disagree with you. If it could speak, and I can, it would tell you that the toroidal shape of the helix is in direct proportion to the Golden ratio. The DNA Helix measures 34 x 21 angstroms long and wide. The numbers 34 and 21 are numbers in the Fibonacci series. Their ratio is 1.61, or phi.

You can keep saying it and I can keep showing you why you are wrong. I have trillions of examples, all of which come out of the volution, or evolution of the toroidal wave function.


Once again, you aren't talking about evolution. You are referring to the origin of DNA and the shape it has taken over the years. You aren't showing me what that shape or the rotation / revolution of the universe has to do with a genetic mutation. If you can't demonstrate that, you can't say involution is a key to (or evidence of) evolution.



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 12:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: AlephBet
The double helix would disagree with you. If it could speak, and I can, it would tell you that the toroidal shape of the helix is in direct proportion to the Golden ratio. The DNA Helix measures 34 x 21 angstroms long and wide. The numbers 34 and 21 are numbers in the Fibonacci series. Their ratio is 1.61, or phi.

You can keep saying it and I can keep showing you why you are wrong. I have trillions of examples, all of which come out of the volution, or evolution of the toroidal wave function.


Once again, you aren't talking about evolution. You are referring to the origin of DNA and the shape it has taken over the years. You aren't showing me what that shape or the rotation / revolution of the universe has to do with a genetic mutation. If you can't demonstrate that, you can't say involution is a key to (or evidence of) evolution.


'e' is out of in Latin. Volution is spinning around a center, which is what a Quantum Current Flow in a Vortex is. All the way from the photon to the galaxy above us, we emerge from the volution of Creation. Design is evident. A Creator is evident.



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Just to let you know Christians are meek not weak. If I was God I'd wipe you all which means I'd be wiped also. Thank the Lord I'm just me.

How very meek of you!


originally posted by: AvoidBadCompany
a reply to: Barcs
The reason you are so firm on your beliefs is not for me to say. I can tell by your fruits you wish to be your own god and have no intention of submitting to a power greater than yourself. If making up the rules is your destiny then so be it.

LMAO. This has nothing to do with my personal beliefs. It has to do with you talking out of your backside in regards to evolution. I don't make rules up, I look for logical and scientific explanations before blindly believing something as you do on pure faith. Evolution isn't faith. It's backed by thousands of scientific research papers. But I guess that's just faith right?


I aknowledge our Almighty God, His Son Jesus and the Holy Spirit. I have confessed I am a sinner and that Jesus gave up his life for me personally. I am saved by God's grace through the faith I have in His Son Jesus and the shedding of His blood.

I'm happy for you. I personally believe that there is no evidence to suggest there is a god or that the bible is accurate, so I'll believe it when I see it. So until that happens, I will remain agnostic but open minded to the possibility. If god is who you claim he is, then he knows my situation, and knows that he could very easily convince me to believe if he wanted to. All powerful but can't even stop by to say "hello" when his sheep are leaving the flock or let us know that he's even there?


It's easy to put ones head in the sand but that does not prove God is not there. You have all the evidence you require but you refuse to except it.


There is no objective evidence. If you have it, present it. You believe that ancient unverifiable translated stories are absolute literal fact. Putting your head in the sand is actually the perfect analogy for fundamentalists, as the science is all there for evolution but they choose to ignore it or even consider the idea that maybe god created evolution. Verifiable experiments that prove it are disregarded in favor of old texts. It is you who are closed minded to anything outside of unverified scripture, yet you accuse science supporters of burying their head in the sand. That's rich!


P.s science is always changing because the discoveries are always coming and therefore science is in complete. God on the other hand is always the same and the law of God is complete.


The "law of god" is complete, yet the bible makes dozens of demonstrably wrong claims that cannot be verified or proven and condones things like bigotry, slavery and wife beating. Why is it that god was involved with every aspect of the earth and humans when those scriptures were written, and now he's completely MIA? The dude isn't who you think he is and there's no reason to believe the bible any more-so than the Greek or Egyptian god myths. If you choose Jesus, I'm cool with that choice. Just stop acting like it holds more weight in the real world than science. It does not.

God and evolution can coexist. There is no reason to attack it. God could have created evolution. Why are you afraid of this possibility? It would mean that god spent billions of years perfecting life to create us rather than POOF! "Here's a human from dirt!". A being that spent that much time creating and evolving life is worthy of worship. The guy that creates a flood and drowns almost all life on earth to exterminate a small pocket of humans is not.


edit on 16-11-2014 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 12:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

See that is the problem. Evolution deniers when they can not get wiggle room on evolution try to redefine the argument. The origin of life vs what causes it to change (evolve) are vastly different subjects. As different as Chemistry and Physics. Sure both are sciences, but they are focused on different things


When that does not work, a statement of faith always works right? Never mind there are spiritual scientists out there, and never mind that faith can not be proven.



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 01:43 PM
link   
a reply to: michaelbrux

Once again you are showing a lack of understanding of what we are talking about. Lets not even start in on your hubris over "your defense of your stance".

It really returns to the fact that you are either willfully ignoring anything you can not refute OR you truly can not do better than this. You keep re-framing your argument when you get blocked by facts.



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 01:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

A man was caught in a rising flood. He got to his roof to avoid drowning.
A row boat came along and the rower said "jump in" but the man said I'll be right I'll save myself.
Then the water had risen quickly even more and along came a very large boat. "Jump aboard he said" no I'll be right I'll save myself, so the boat left.
Finally the water rose till the man was at the peak of his roof and a chopper came along. " climb up so you can be saved" no thanks I'll save my self he said. Then he drowned.
Once he faced God he asked " Lord why didn't you save me? God replied "" I sent two boats and a chopper but you refused them All""
This little story reminds me of you. Jump on board before it's too late.



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 03:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

Just a thought Bracs, If you are right and I am wrong you and I don't really have much to loose.
BUT
If you are wrong and I' am right I still have nothing to loose but you on the other hand have everything to loose.
John 3:16 is calling you Bracs.



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 03:06 PM
link   
a reply to: AvoidBadCompany

This is known as Pascal's Wager. It neglects to mention the infinite number of possibilities other than "the bible is like totally real":


There are many problems with the reasoning in Pascal's Wager, as well as the unsavoury theological assumptions it makes. Like most arguments for the existence of God, it seems more about reassuring existing believers than converting non-believers. This is because in order to convince a non-believer, a theological argument must both prove that the god it argues for is the One True God and disprove all other possibilities. People lacking a belief can see the potential for multiple gods existing, in fact an infinite number, but believers are constrained by their existing view that there is their god or no god. Only in this latter case does the reasoning behind Pascal's Wager make any sense.
In Bayesian terms, this can be stated as saying non-believers attribute uniform prior probabilities to the existence of any particular god; all equal, and all infinitesimal. Pascal's Wager alone cannot update these probabilities as the reasoning applies only to the One True God out of an infinite number of possible gods. Without any further information to whittle this down, the odds of inadvertently worshiping the wrong god is a practical certainty. Only when the probability of a particular god existing increases does Pascal's Wager become useful, i.e., if one god could be assigned even a mere 1% chance of being the One True God, Pascal's Wager would present a clear benefit. Hence for anyone constrained by a bias towards a particular god, the Wager is far more clear cut and supportive of their belief.
The biggest irony of Pascal's Wager as far as Christian apologetics go is that even if it was otherwise completely sound it should then suddenly become a huge disincentive for convincing an unbiased party to worship YHWH specifically. By definition worshiping the Judeo-Christian God requires the worshipper to actively reject the existence of every other deity or potential deity thanks to the intolerance that is the First Commandment. In the absence of evidence for a specific deity, the theist-to-be would be better off directing some worship to one or more proposed deities that do not require exclusive worship. Pascal's Wager being a lynchpin of Christian apologetics (rather than being a shibboleth that must be denied at all costs) can be viewed as a case of cognitive dissonance engendered by Christian privilege.


rationalwiki.org...'s_wager



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 04:03 PM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

Yes all have their god but choosing the one true God is defiantly the Key to eternal life.

We have a mind, a body and a soul. Without any one of these three we are not complete.

The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit also would be incomplete without one another.

Many gods were created by man so that he himself can be a little god. Why else would man rebell against his creator unless he thought he could do a better job.
edit on 16-11-2014 by AvoidBadCompany because: Because



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 04:25 PM
link   
a reply to: AvoidBadCompany

Of all the countless gods man has invented, the chances of yours being the one "true" god is incredibly slim. For all you know, you might be pissing off Zeus by worshipping your false god.

And here's the thing: notice how little you care or fear the prospect of being thrown into Hades for not worshipping Zeus? That's exactly how us non-Christians feel about not worshipping your personal god. We don't care. We're not scared. We lose no sleep at night over it. Your personal god has no hold over us.



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 07:38 PM
link   
a reply to: AvoidBadCompany

This thread is really getting off topic. If you'd like to create a thread about god and scripture, then feel free. Evolution is true, whether god create it or not. And as far as pascal's wager goes, if I'm right, you will have wasted your life chasing a pipe dream (possibly your one and only life). I don't chase things that I don't even know exist. In the .001% chance that you're right, I'd rather not spend time with a guy that drowned the entire planet at once to demonstrate his "love". The bible is mixed up. Half of it is about a completely different god.


Yes all have their god but choosing the one true God is defiantly the Key to eternal life.


And how do your know that your god is the one true god? All religions claim the same nonsense. Not a single one of them can be verified.
edit on 16-11-2014 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join