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.

 

How does creationism explain....

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Masonic Light

Originally posted by jupiter869

Remember that creationism (or the new phrase: intelligent design to be politically correct and give possible credit to Aliens as well as God) is a theory, just as evolution is a theory.


Sorry to be a stickler for terminology here, but creationism cannot qualify as a theory, only a belief. The reason for this is that a theory must:

1. Be based on empirical, unbiased observation.

2. Be able to produce accurate predictions concerning future events.

Therefore, even if the creationists are entirely and completely correct in their assesment of how the world began, such assesment would not constitute a theory, only an event.


I did enjoy this one.

Unbiased? Ok, actual, unbiased definition of evolution. That is difficult. I will share two and provide sources.
One of the most respected evolutionary biologists has defined biological evolution as follows:


"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."
- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986

It is important to note that biological evolution refers to populations and not to individuals and that the changes must be passed on to the next generation. In practice this means that,

Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations.
This is a good working scientific definition of evolution; one that can be used to distinguish between evolution and similar changes that are not evolution. Another common short definition of evolution can be found in many textbooks:

"In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."
- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974

And this explains abiogenesis how? LOL
The empirical facts would help, here.
I much prefer physics to address this, instead of biology, but I await your data.

Ok, Creationism. we will define create:To cause to exist; bring into being.
Well, that fits abiogenesis.

If a statement is made, present your case objectively, and it will be received with a possibility of an open mind.




posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 05:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by NobodyReally

Originally posted by Masonic Light

Originally posted by jupiter869

Remember that creationism (or the new phrase: intelligent design to be politically correct and give possible credit to Aliens as well as God) is a theory, just as evolution is a theory.


Sorry to be a stickler for terminology here, but creationism cannot qualify as a theory, only a belief. The reason for this is that a theory must:

1. Be based on empirical, unbiased observation.

2. Be able to produce accurate predictions concerning future events.

Therefore, even if the creationists are entirely and completely correct in their assesment of how the world began, such assesment would not constitute a theory, only an event.


I did enjoy this one.

Unbiased? Ok, actual, unbiased definition of evolution. That is difficult. I will share two and provide sources.
One of the most respected evolutionary biologists has defined biological evolution as follows:


"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."
- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986

It is important to note that biological evolution refers to populations and not to individuals and that the changes must be passed on to the next generation. In practice this means that,

Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations.
This is a good working scientific definition of evolution; one that can be used to distinguish between evolution and similar changes that are not evolution. Another common short definition of evolution can be found in many textbooks:

"In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."
- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974

And this explains abiogenesis how? LOL
The empirical facts would help, here.
I much prefer physics to address this, instead of biology, but I await your data.

Ok, Creationism. we will define create:To cause to exist; bring into being.
Well, that fits abiogenesis.

If a statement is made, present your case objectively, and it will be received with a possibility of an open mind.



Hi. I'm new here, so I hope I'm not "overquoting" -- tell me if I am. I wanted to include your whole quote here.

If the definition of evolution, to summarize all that's included in your post here, is change from generation to generation -- then why couldn't Creationism be defined as its opposite? i.e. no change?

In fact, that is exactly what we see. No change. A cucumber will be a cucumber 1,000 years from now or 1 milion years from now. An alligator will still be an alligator, etcetera, ad infinitum.

And there is no evidence of ANYTHING changing. Everything is all as it is, complete, finished. There are no scales turning into feathers, no half-formed eyes, or fins halfway turned into legs, or some plant with a partially developed brain as it's turning into an animal, on and on if you get my drift. There are some strange animals like the platypus or the euglena, but they are what they are. Their systems are all complete.

There are billions, literally, of different kinds of plants, animals and bugs. Out of all this variety of life shouldn't we be able to find even one single thing that's morphing/evolving? Even when we look at the fossiles, there's nothing -- NOTHING that shows, for example, scales turning into feathers. And we've all heard this is where birds came from, the reptiles.

So I don't know where you're finding all this change to document and prove evolution. Rather, it would seem to prove Creationism -- that things were created as they are, finished, caput. Otherwise, we'd be seeing some unfinished stuff.

We may notice a change in ecology, but a change in organisms? Perhaps if man goes in and tinkers with the DNA I suppose, but even then isn't it just within the species itself, i.e changes in size, color, but still the same organism?

And for all man's tinkering in the lab, for all his great technology and expertise, time and money and motivation -- man has not been able to do on purpose what the evolutionists claim happened by accident -- create life. Rather, this would seem to indicate and prove Creationism because I don't think even at this point any serious attempt is even made to try do accomplish that feat (i.e. create life), just as scientists have given up looking for fossiles or current lifeforms to prove a transitional life form (i.e. growing scales into feathers, plants with a partially formed brain turning into a fish, etcetera.

So rather than proving Evolution, I'd say what you've posted above, if the same standards were used for defining Creationism as you've applied above, but just turn it around (i.e. no change versus change) -- then voila! Creationism is proved overwhelmingly!

I'm told that even the evolutionists have given up on ever finding an shred of proof for the gradualism theories of Darwin. All the evidence is TO THE CONTRARY! The trend now is to punctuated equilibrium -- that evolution takes place in giant leaps leaving no fossil record. And since that seems to be an even more far-fetched theory than gradualism (X-Men to the contrary) now all the scientists are going for the "aliens did it" theory.

I don't believe in aliens one whit. But I do believe in conspiracies and in the Illuminati, and the Secret Black Military. I've been hearing a lot about their experiments, and I believe they will try to foist a fake "alien" on us. There are also spiritual creatures known as demons that can take on any shape and manifest themselves if they choose to or if the mind is tuned in correctly (i.e. on a sorcery drug like marijuana or other hallucinogenic). They can also be made to appear by means of black magic and witchcraft. They like to take the shape of "grays" because they're trying not to blow their cover (that they are fallen angels). If people knew what they were really seeing they might start going to church and reading their Bible.

[edit on 29-9-2005 by resistance]

[edit on 29-9-2005 by resistance]



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 07:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by resistance
In fact, that is exactly what we see. No change. A cucumber will be a cucumber 1,000 years from now or 1 milion years from now. An alligator will still be an alligator, etcetera, ad infinitum.

Actually most present day vegetables have been drastically changed through breeding.. from memory; tomatoes apparently used to be almost black in colour.

And there is no evidence of ANYTHING changing. Everything is all as it is, complete, finished. There are no scales turning into feathers, no half-formed eyes,

There are many reptiles and fish with 'buds' instead of eyes.

or fins halfway turned into legs,

Why would fins turn into legs? I think you mean fins turning into lungs. Look up 'mexican walking fish' and you will find your evidence.

or some plant with a partially developed brain as it's turning into an animal, on and on if you get my drift. There are some strange animals like the platypus or the euglena, but they are what they are. Their systems are all complete.

Chimpanzees are clearly not as evolved as us.. how can you say our closest cousins have finnished evolving? How can you be sure we have?

There are billions, literally, of different kinds of plants, animals and bugs. Out of all this variety of life shouldn't we be able to find even one single thing that's morphing/evolving?

We have. There is also a new species of fly that was recently posted. There are dozens of other primates.. some almost human but genetically not. They share a common ancestor.

We may notice a change in ecology, but a change in organisms?

Viruses.

I'm told that even the evolutionists have given up on ever finding an shred of proof for the gradualism theories of Darwin.

By creationalists no doubt.. gossip about scientists giving up isn't proof for creationalism.

now all the scientists are going for the "aliens did it" theory.

No they aren't; that is a best science fiction. Evolution.. [no matter how much you don't want to believe in it] does indeed have evidence to support it. Please browse through this forum and educate yourself.

[edit on 29-9-2005 by riley]



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 09:25 AM
link   
Riley, my responses are in bold.


Originally posted by riley

Originally posted by resistance
In fact, that is exactly what we see. No change. A cucumber will be a cucumber 1,000 years from now or 1 milion years from now. An alligator will still be an alligator, etcetera, ad infinitum.

Actually most present day vegetables have been drastically changed through breeding.. from memory; tomatoes apparently used to be almost black in colour.

A black tomato, a long tomato, a big tomato, a little tomato -- a tomato is a tomato. And if you cross a tomato with some other vegetable, some hybrid, it is not capable of reproducing itself, seeds won't work, if there are seeds. You need NEW GENETIC MATERIAL to create a new kind -- i.e. change a tomato into a raspberry or a dragonfly.

BY RESISTANCE:

And there is no evidence of ANYTHING changing. Everything is all as it is, complete, finished. There are no scales turning into feathers, no half-formed eyes,


RILEY said:
There are many reptiles and fish with 'buds' instead of eyes.

Yeah, but are there any with buds starting to turn into eyes?



or fins halfway turned into legs,


Why would fins turn into legs? I think you mean fins turning into lungs. Look up 'mexican walking fish' and you will find your evidence.

No, gills turn into lungs. Fins turn into legs. The Mexican walking fish is what it is. The creature is not in transition.


or some plant with a partially developed brain as it's turning into an animal, on and on if you get my drift. There are some strange animals like the platypus or the euglena, but they are what they are. Their systems are all complete.

Chimpanzees are clearly not as evolved as us.. how can you say our closest cousins have finnished evolving? How can you be sure we have?

I'm saying everything that is, is. It's not going anywhere, not changing, not turning into anything other than what it is. Life begets life, and like begets like. It's a fact of nature. You go against nature with what you advocate.


There are billions, literally, of different kinds of plants, animals and bugs. Out of all this variety of life shouldn't we be able to find even one single thing that's morphing/evolving?

We have. There is also a new species of fly that was recently posted. There are dozens of other primates.. some almost human but genetically not. They share a common ancestor.

There may be a new species of anything discovered at any time. That does not prove anything. And species are only variations of a kind. To produce a new kind you need completely new genetic material -- material that doesn't exist and CAN'Tbe made -- either in the laboratory or by accident by "Mother Nature."


We may notice a change in ecology, but a change in organisms?

Viruses.

You're talking species here, and nobody disputes there are variations in species. But not kind. A virus will always be a virus, never anything else.


I'm told that even the evolutionists have given up on ever finding an shred of proof for the gradualism theories of Darwin.


By creationalists no doubt.. gossip about scientists giving up isn't proof for creationalism.

No, but it just means that deep down inside you guys all know you're barking up the wrong tree.


now all the scientists are going for the "aliens did it" theory.


No they aren't; that is a best science fiction. Evolution.. [no matter how much you don't want to believe in it] does indeed have evidence to support it. Please browse through this forum and educate yourself.

Well, if you can't explain it, why should I go reading through a lot of other people saying the same thing in different words?

[edit on 29-9-2005 by riley]

[edit on 29-9-2005 by resistance]

[edit on 29-9-2005 by resistance]



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 09:27 AM
link   
resistance:

And there is no evidence of ANYTHING changing. Everything is all as it is, complete, finished. There are no scales turning into feathers, no half-formed eyes, or fins halfway turned into legs, or some plant with a partially developed brain as it's turning into an animal, on and on if you get my drift. There are some strange animals like the platypus or the euglena, but they are what they are. Their systems are all complete.


The scale of time that goes by is almost impossible for us to measure. We've found ancient bones from our ancestors from hundreds of thousands of years ago that are clearly sort of half-man, half-ape. An evolution over hundreds if not thousands of GENERATIONS, but we only have the one fossil of the one subject to base our studies on. We don't know what the fossil's great-great-great-great grandfather looked like, or even what the rest of the tribe looked like... Did they all have the wide noses and the brow ridge or was this guy just real oogly?

Why haven't we found more? Why haven't we found more "missing links"?

It's INCREDIBLY fortuitous to find any fossils at all. The conditions have to be almost perfect to find any biological material that can survive in any form for millions of years.


There are billions, literally, of different kinds of plants, animals and bugs. Out of all this variety of life shouldn't we be able to find even one single thing that's morphing/evolving? Even when we look at the fossiles, there's nothing -- NOTHING that shows, for example, scales turning into feathers. And we've all heard this is where birds came from, the reptiles.


Let's talk frogs.

You have your average North American leopard frog. A fair amount of firly specialized natural predators, it's main defense is speed and it's keen senses.

Then you have your poisonous African tree frog. Also tons of predators, but it is also brightly colored and poisonous.

Why is the tree frog poisonous when the leopard frog is not. They are 99.9% the same inside.

Why is the tree frog so brightly colored that it actually brings attention to itself, while the leopard frog is more camouflaged?

Evolution. There was a genetic aberration that produced each, from an earlier version of frog. An aberration that was actually GOOD for the frog, and allowed it to survive better in its' environment.

So the poisonous frog, more apt to survive any predators (who learn), would have a better chance of staying alive to breed. More babies for him, and many of those babies might carry his poisonous mutation.

They'll be more successful too. Eventually driving the other non-mutated original frogs into extinction, because they are not as well equipped to get food and breed. But by then, the original frog species has had thousands of generations of mutations as well, possibly producing other more advantageous mutations as well, different from the poison defense of the tree frog but also an advantage.

Some frogs have evolved to LOOK like poisonous frogs in coloration, but they are not poisonous. Eventually with the preponderence of the poison ones, their color denoting to predators to STAY AWAY, just the mere bright coloration was enough of a natural defense.

Why do rattlesnakes have rattles? Isn't it far more advantageous to be able to WARN a predator away than have to fight it off every time? It's also why some cobras have hoods.

Anyways, it seems pretty clear to me anyway, that things are in a constant state of change on the planet, and the scale of time that these things happen over is SO slow, we have no real perspective unless it is some kind of cataclysmic change...






[edit on 29-9-2005 by Jakomo]



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jakomo
resistance:

And there is no evidence of ANYTHING changing. Everything is all as it is, complete, finished. There are no scales turning into feathers, no half-formed eyes, or fins halfway turned into legs, or some plant with a partially developed brain as it's turning into an animal, on and on if you get my drift. There are some strange animals like the platypus or the euglena, but they are what they are. Their systems are all complete.


The scale of time that goes by is almost impossible for us to measure. We've found ancient bones from our ancestors from hundreds of thousands of years ago that are clearly sort of half-man, half-ape. An evolution over hundreds if not thousands of GENERATIONS, but we only have the one fossil of the one subject to base our studies on. We don't know what the fossil's great-great-great-great grandfather looked like, or even what the rest of the tribe looked like... Did they all have the wide noses and the brow ridge or was this guy just real oogly?

Why haven't we found more? Why haven't we found more "missing links"?

It's INCREDIBLY fortuitous to find any fossils at all. The conditions have to be almost perfect to find any biological material that can survive in any form for millions of years.


Resistance said:
I'm sorry but I'm not buying your time argument -- so much time has gone by all the fossils have all disintegrated or whatever it is you're trying to say here. I think there would be at least ONE fossil to support your evolution theory. And even if all the fossils in the world all disintegrated and we had not one single fossil, how can you explain that we don't see any partially formed transitional lifeforms now -- NOT ONE? Every creature (get it, creature =s created) -- every creature is finished, all done, no partially formed eyes, brains, a plant starting to grow eyes or wings or whatever.



There are billions, literally, of different kinds of plants, animals and bugs. Out of all this variety of life shouldn't we be able to find even one single thing that's morphing/evolving? Even when we look at the fossils, there's nothing -- NOTHING that shows, for example, scales turning into feathers. And we've all heard this is where birds came from, the reptiles.


Let's talk frogs.

You have your average North American leopard frog. A fair amount of firly specialized natural predators, it's main defense is speed and it's keen senses.

Then you have your poisonous African tree frog. Also tons of predators, but it is also brightly colored and poisonous.

Why is the tree frog poisonous when the leopard frog is not. They are 99.9% the same inside.

Why is the tree frog so brightly colored that it actually brings attention to itself, while the leopard frog is more camouflaged?

Evolution. There was a genetic aberration that produced each, from an earlier version of frog. An aberration that was actually GOOD for the frog, and allowed it to survive better in its' environment.

So the poisonous frog, more apt to survive any predators (who learn), would have a better chance of staying alive to breed. More babies for him, and many of those babies might carry his poisonous mutation.

They'll be more successful too. Eventually driving the other non-mutated original frogs into extinction, because they are not as well equipped to get food and breed. But by then, the original frog species has had thousands of generations of mutations as well, possibly producing other more advantageous mutations as well, different from the poison defense of the tree frog but also an advantage.

Some frogs have evolved to LOOK like poisonous frogs in coloration, but they are not poisonous. Eventually with the preponderence of the poison ones, their color denoting to predators to STAY AWAY, just the mere bright coloration was enough of a natural defense.

Why do rattlesnakes have rattles? Isn't it far more advantageous to be able to WARN a predator away than have to fight it off every time? It's also why some cobras have hoods.

Anyways, it seems pretty clear to me anyway, that things are in a constant state of change on the planet, and the scale of time that these things happen over is SO slow, we have no real perspective unless it is some kind of cataclysmic change...

Resistance said:

Frogs are still frogs, and snakes are still snakes. For a frog to become a snake requires NEW GENETIC MATERIAL. This material cannot be made in the laboratory by our most skilled scientists. What makes you think this is going to happen BY ACCIDENT?[b/]








[edit on 29-9-2005 by resistance]



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 10:04 AM
link   
Resistance: Hey man just quote the relevant parts ;p


I'm sorry but I'm not buying your time argument -- so much time has gone by all the fossils have all disintegrated or whatever it is you're trying to say here. I think there would be at least ONE fossil to support your evolution theory.


Well one fossil doesn't do it. If we want to find the evidence of evolution we need to see the beginning, middle and end of the genus' existence.

Evolution can't be proven by ONE creature's bones. There is no one creature that will show the transitional mutation path easily.

Let me put it this way: Even if we DO find the fossils of the FIRST ape who somehow was designed to more easily stand on two feet in order to see more of it's surroundings, we wouldn't know that it was that first ape. We'd need a much wider sampling of its' immediate kin and ancestors. Something that doesn't always work out.

So evolution is more proven in the HUGE variety of fossils that we do have, that show differences in creatures from thousands of years ago to today. than in the reliance on one magical Rosetta Stone of a fossil.


And even if all the fossils in the world all disintegrated and we had not one single fossil, how can you explain that we don't see any partially formed transitional lifeforms now -- NOT ONE? Every creature (get it, creature =s created) -- every creature is finished, all done, no partially formed eyes, brains, a plant starting to grow eyes or wings or whatever.


? How exactly do you know that all creatures are finished? Is an aardvark at the peak of its' evolutionary capacity? Are dolphins? What will a black bear look like in 800,000 years?

Life and the natural world are about change. Constant flux, but a wider ecological balance that is somehow sustained on the planet. A species can go through thousands of years with hardly any change and then suddenly through genetic mutation, it changes over 3 short generations. Or something else mutates and suddenly the species is driven into extinction by a superior predator.

It's not simple, but the unifying theory is pretty solid.


Frogs are still frogs, and snakes are still snakes. For a frog to become a snake requires NEW GENETIC MATERIAL. This material cannot be made in the laboratory by our most skilled scientists. What makes you think this is going to happen BY ACCIDENT?[


Because it's over thousands, sometimes millions of years. A mutation doesn't need new genetic material. It needs nothing. We don't know all the causes but it can be so simple. The frogs eggs are exposed to a little bit of warmer water, and it causes half to die and half to be a little more resistant to heat, a trait which they carry to their children.

Bam, genetic mutation, no new material introduced.






[edit on 29-9-2005 by Jakomo]



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 10:08 AM
link   
Ok resistance take the flounder a fish which swims on the bottem of the ocean and over the course of evolution has flattened out,



Now look at his mouth an eye positions, odd dont you think.The flounder evolved because its ancestor took to swimming on its side at the bottem of the ocean and over millions of year reached it present form ,ugly un-symeteric, yet functional.What intelligent designer would create a bottom dwelling fish that swims on its side? There are plenty flat fish that don't have this peculiar body plan. Flounder are so strangely designed that an eye actually migrates from one side of the head to the other, as it becomes an adult.

pharyngula.org...




posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Merkeva
Ok resistance take the flounder a fish which swims on the bottem of the ocean and over the course of evolution has flattened out,



Now look at his mouth an eye positions, odd dont you think.The flounder evolved because its ancestor took to swimming on its side at the bottem of the ocean and over millions of year reached it present form ,ugly un-symeteric, yet functional.What intelligent designer would create a bottom dwelling fish that swims on its side? There are plenty flat fish that don't have this peculiar body plan. Flounder are so strangely designed that an eye actually migrates from one side of the head to the other, as it becomes an adult.

pharyngula.org...



I certainly agree with you that the Creator has got quite an imagination. There are some mighty strange creatures here on planet earth, some even stranger than the flounder. But that does not change the fact that life comes from life, and like produces like. I don't care how many billions of billions of years of time you give something, a fish is not going to turn into a turtle, or a walrus or a mockingbird.

When it comes to imagination, remember who you're talking about here -- God. I don't think God is lacking in the realm of imagination or intelligence at all. Creating or inventing a flounder is small potatoes to God. Mother Nature on the other hand can't even create an atom, or take the atoms and makea anything out of those atoms with life in it. You can take a pile of atoms and put them in a vacuum jar and come back and see what you get in 10 trilion years and guess what you'll see-- the same thing that was there in the first place, just atoms. The atoms aren't going to do anything magical.

Yes, God can think of lots of amazing creatures. No problem.



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by resistance
A black tomato, a long tomato, a big tomato, a little tomato -- a tomato is a tomato. And if you cross a tomato with some other vegetable, some hybrid, it is not capable of reproducing itself, seeds won't work, if there are seeds. You need NEW GENETIC MATERIAL to create a new kind -- i.e. change a tomato into a raspberry or a dragonfly.

You said things don't change when clearly they do. I gave you just one example.

There are many reptiles and fish with 'buds' instead of eyes.

Yeah, but are there any with buds starting to turn into eyes?

They are the start of eyes.

No, gills turn into lungs. Fins turn into legs.

I get ya.. got my words mixed up. What about tenticles? They aren't legs but are turning into them.. and mussles move themselves around with their tongue.. the legless lizard also has 'buds' for legs yet are not snakes.

The Mexican walking fish is what it is. The creature is not in transition.[/]

And what evidence to you have that supports this? They are a very close relation to salamandas yet they do not leave the water. They remain in the lavel stage their entire lives and still reproduce.. they have veered away from the 'adult' stage of salamanda and now are unable to leave the water except for rare exceptions. They are now a subspecies.

I'm saying everything that is, is. It's not going anywhere, not changing, not turning into anything other than what it is. Life begets life, and like begets like. It's a fact of nature. You go against nature with what you advocate.

Why do they share 98% of the same dna as we do if we do not share a common ancestor we both evolved from?

There may be a new species of anything discovered at any time. That does not prove anything.

The flies were bred that way as far as I remember.. in any case their transition was observed.. they weren't just discovered by chance one day.

And species are only variations of a kind.

'Kind'? Thats not very scientific. Oh let me guess.. Noahs ark right? :shk:


We may notice a change in ecology, but a change in organisms?

Viruses.

You're talking species here, and nobody disputes there are variations in species. But not kind. A virus will always be a virus, never anything else.

A virus is an organism.. you asked for proof of one changing.. I gave you one yet instead you change 'species' to 'kind' to avoid the argument. 'Kind' is not a scientific term. It is a biblical term which does not belong anywhere near science.

No, but it just means that deep down inside you guys all know you're barking up the wrong tree.

Deep down? Looking.. no I do not believe in the toothfairy either. I know this means she'll never get to build her chimney but thems the breaks.


No they aren't; that is a best science fiction. Evolution.. [no matter how much you don't want to believe in it] does indeed have evidence to support it. Please browse through this forum and educate yourself.



Well, if you can't explain it, why should I go reading through a lot of other people saying the same thing in different words?

Because this forum is about the conspiracies against evolution and science.. NOT A CLASSROOM or a place for the conspirators to spread their propaganda.

btw.. see how I used bold to highlight just a couple of words? It really is most effective when used sparingly and doesn't come of as antagonistic.

[edit on 29-9-2005 by riley]



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 10:25 AM
link   
Riley -- I use bold to differentiate my answers to you. I haven't figured out how to reply to replies of replies of replies.



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 10:29 AM
link   


I don't care how many billions of billions of years of time you give something, a fish is not going to turn into a turtle, or a walrus or a mockingbird.


I love the way you guys use ludacris examples eg (turtle to walrus). How about lizard to snake, or tapier to elephant , or flying squirrel to bat, given enough time and the right enviromental conditions I think they could. Im on lunch atm I'll get into more detail later.



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by resistance
Riley -- I use bold to differentiate my answers to you. I haven't figured out how to reply to replies of replies of replies.

Okay.. I thought you were 'yelling'.

subsitute this ( for [

(quote)body(/quote)
If you want to include previous words it's
(quote)(quote) body etc.(/quote)(/quote).. though that gets confusing.

[edit on 29-9-2005 by riley]



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by riley

Originally posted by resistance
A black tomato, a long tomato, a big tomato, a little tomato -- a tomato is a tomato. And if you cross a tomato with some other vegetable, some hybrid, it is not capable of reproducing itself, seeds won't work, if there are seeds. You need NEW GENETIC MATERIAL to create a new kind -- i.e. change a tomato into a raspberry or a dragonfly.

You said things don't change when clearly they do. I gave you just one example.

You have not given me an example of anything other than species variation.


There are many reptiles and fish with 'buds' instead of eyes.

Yeah, but are there any with buds starting to turn into eyes?

They are the start of eyes.

Oh, really? What proof do you have of that? Is there one single part of an eye forming in the bud? If not, then maybe it's just a bud, or a bump, put there for artistic or whimsical reasons by the Creator.


No, gills turn into lungs. Fins turn into legs.

I get ya.. got my words mixed up. What about tenticles? They aren't legs but are turning into them.. and mussles move themselves around with their tongue.. the legless lizard alos has 'buds' for legs yet are not snakes.

You and your buds. Show me a bud that's more than a bud, with some partially formed organ, and then I'll take your buds seriously. Otherwise, "bud" off.

The Mexican walking fish is what it is. The creature is not in transition.[/]

And what evidence to you have that supports this?

My evidence is that it is all complete, has no partially formed organs. It is able to use its fins to get around on land and it can hold its breath. Another one of God's amazing creatures. It's not going to turn into a crocadile or a frog. It's always going to be a fish. Forever. And ever. And ever. And ever.

They are a very close relation to salamandas yet they do not leave the water. They remain in the lavel stage their entire lives and still reproduce.. they have veered away from the 'adult' stage of salamanda and now are unable to leave the water except for rare exceptions. They are now a subspecies.

That's nice. But they will never be a turtle or a crocadile or whatever. They will always be a fish. For ever, and ever, and ever, and ever.



I'm saying everything that is, is. It's not going anywhere, not changing, not turning into anything other than what it is. Life begets life, and like begets like. It's a fact of nature. You go against nature with what you advocate.


Why do they share 98% of the same dna as we do if we do not share a common ancestor we both evolved from?

Well, you'll have to take that up with the one who did it all. I can't imagine how he created one amoeba, let alone all the billions of amazing plants and animals and bugs on Planet Earth. Or how he even created my eye or my brain. It's just too amazing to even contemplate. But I know one thing, it wasn't an accident. You don't build a house without a builder, and we're talking about stuff much more complex here than houses.



There may be a new species of anything discovered at any time. That does not prove anything.


The flies were bred that way as far as I remember.. in any case their transition was observed.. they weren't just discovered by chance one day.

You're talking about species here. The fly will always be a fly -- for ever, and ever, and ever and ever, and beyond that to forever.


And species are only variations of a kind.


'Kind'? Thats not very scientific. Oh let me guess.. Noahs ark right? :shk:

Kind means it will be a plant containing certain genetic material, and it will remain so for ever, and ever, and ever, and beyond forever. A tomato will never, ever become a spotted owl. Get it?




We may notice a change in ecology, but a change in organisms?

Viruses.

You're talking species here, and nobody disputes there are variations in species. But not kind. A virus will always be a virus, never anything else.

A virus is an organism.. you asked for proof of one changing.. I gave you one yet instead you change 'speies' to 'kind' to avoid the argument. 'Kind' is not a scientific term. It is a biblical term which does not belone anywhere near science.

Oh, it's not scientific to designate a crocadile from a cucumber and say they are two different kinds, that it's impossible for one to ever become the other because there is MISSING GENETIC MATERIAL that just can't by any stretch of the imagination create itself out of dead or living matter to produce it. But many species can come from a kind . Perhaps you'd rather use the word "family" -- instead of kind since you are adverse to words that come from the Bible.





No, but it just means that deep down inside you guys all know you're barking up the wrong tree.

Deep down? Looking.. no I do not believe in the toothfairy either. I know this means she'll never get to build her chimney but thems the breaks.

Mother Nature maybe? (you know, busy putting together all this DNA material and stirring up a soup and striking it with lightning to produce whatever?)



No they aren't; that is a best science fiction. Evolution.. [no matter how much you don't want to believe in it] does indeed have evidence to support it. Please browse through this forum and educate yourself.



Well, if you can't explain it, why should I go reading through a lot of other people saying the same thing in different words?

Because this forum is about the conspiracies against evolution and science.. NOT A CLASSROOM or a place for the conspirators to spread their propaganda.

btw.. see how I used bold to highlight just a couple of words? It really is most effective when used sparingly..


Kind of mean and narrow-minded, aren't you? ATS is only for atheists? I thought this was a place to discuss conspiracy. There is definitely a conspiracy to keep the truth away from people about evolution. And I bolded my replies to differentiate them from yours. Is this your thread started for the purpose of debunking the Creationists? Is there something that says no Creationists are allowed to post here, that this is an Evolutionist-only board? I guess I'll have to go back and review the rules again. I'm new here.

[edit on 29-9-2005 by resistance]



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 11:05 AM
link   
resistance:

I don't care how many billions of billions of years of time you give something, a fish is not going to turn into a turtle, or a walrus or a mockingbird.


Where did anyone ever in the scientific community claim that a fish directly evolved into a mammal or a bird. That's a totally simplistic view of a hugely complicated process.


Mother Nature on the other hand can't even create an atom, or take the atoms and makea anything out of those atoms with life in it.


Really? What do you call a sperm fertilizing an egg and creating a child? Is that not the NATURAL form of birth? It's certainly not mystical, since it is clearly understood. How many atoms does the sperm and egg combined have, and how many atoms does your average adult have??


You can take a pile of atoms and put them in a vacuum jar and come back and see what you get in 10 trilion years and guess what you'll see-- the same thing that was there in the first place, just atoms. The atoms aren't going to do anything magical.


The thing is, the planet Earth is not a vaccuum jar. Those atoms will react with other chemicals and metals and produce something different. Environment means everything. Without anything else to react with or any environment whatsoever, of course those atoms will do nothing.

Funny how we need to prove something that is scientific fact, and has been for decades, and yet you can just say "Wow God is a super guy, He can do anything, rah rah rah" and that's the extent of your argument. One you are losing, by the way.

Oh by the way,if the Bible is true, then why is there so much biological diversity in the natural world when Noah actually only kept TWO of each species on the planet? Wouldn't that mean everything is basically inbred? That each and every species on the Earth can be traced back to only TWO original antecedents?

What about all the animals that could survive a flood? Why aren't there more species of flounder than there are of ants? Why isn't there evidence in the rock strata that the planet was 100% covered in water at one time during human existence?

Or can you just pick and choose the stories that are symbolic and those which are scientifically correct?


ATS is only for atheists? I thought this was a place to discuss conspiracy.


Someone who believes evolution is a viable theory is automatically an atheist? My God gave me free will and lets me believe what I want, what does yours do?


A tomato will never, ever become a spotted owl. Get it?


Um, right. Thanks for playing,


[edit on 29-9-2005 by Jakomo]

[edit on 29-9-2005 by Jakomo]



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by resistance
Kind of mean and narrow-minded, aren't you?

No. I'm loving and very open minded.. you can send me a U2U if you like..


ATS is only for atheists
I thought this was a place to discuss conspiracy.

This forum is about the conspiracy against evolution and science.. there are plenty of christians who believe in evolution yet are against it being attacked.. evolution does not equal atheism though I agree an atheist only forum is a great idea! I might put it in the suggestion box.

There is definitely a conspiracy to keep the truth away from people about evolution. And I bolded my replies to differentiate them from yours. Is this your thread started for the purpose of debunking the Creationists?Is there something that says no Creationists are allowed to post here, that this is an Evolutionist-only board? I guess I'll have to go back and review the rules again. I'm new here.

No, it is not my thead and creationalist usually debunk themselves. The main problem is they want to teach other people's children falsities so they can impose religious beliefs ['ID'] their parents may not condone. My point was that it is YOUR job to educate yourself on evolution from SCIENTIFIC sources and not creationalist ones. I am not your teacher and you've already been given adequate explanations which you have then demanded are elaborated on.. but you've already established a pattern of dismissing anything pro-evolution without valid scientific reason. If you wish to argue against evolution at least try to use scientific non biased sources that support that point of view.

Edit. Mexican walking fish [axylotils] are not designed to walk around on land.. they are too soft and can not manover. If they are pulled out of water for too long they will die. Salimaders don't. I ignored most of your post as this 'forever and ever and ever' kind of weired me out. Please also.. when you are about to respond to a portion of what I say.. close the quote of with this:

(/quote)

You could even delete what you have written to prevent more confusion.

[edit on 29-9-2005 by riley]



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by resistance
Kind of mean and narrow-minded, aren't you?

No. I'm loving and very open minded.. you can send me a U2U if you like..


ATS is only for atheists
I thought this was a place to discuss conspiracy.

This forum is about the conspiracy against evolution and science..

Then how come it's Titled "How Does Creation Science Explain?" You're telling me this is a forum to mock out creationism, and that's all it's for?

there are plenty of christians who believe in evolution yet are against it being attacked.. evolution does not equal atheism though I agree an atheist only forum is a great idea! I might put it in the suggestion box.

Evolution equals atheism. Evolution believes matter is self-existant, not created, that life came accidentally from randomly formed atoms, or maybe the atoms were able to work together intelligently since they were smart enough to be self-existenat. Self-existence is actually a god-like quality.

Atheism means you don't believe in a Creator God, who is himself self-existant, and who created everything there is. Mormons in fact believe in self-existant matter, and believe many "gods" evolved out of that matter, so even though Mormons are very religous they are in fact atheists because they do not believe in the one Creator God. Hindus are also atheists.



There is definitely a conspiracy to keep the truth away from people about evolution. And I bolded my replies to differentiate them from yours. Is this your thread started for the purpose of debunking the Creationists?Is there something that says no Creationists are allowed to post here, that this is an Evolutionist-only board? I guess I'll have to go back and review the rules again. I'm new here.


No, it is not my thead and creationalist usually debunk themselves.

I'm not debunking myself. I'd say you're the one who's doing he debunking of evolution by your own words, and doing it quite nicely.

The main problem is they want to teach other people's children falsities so they can impose religious beliefs ['ID'] their parents may not condone.

Now you've pushed my hot button! Hey, buddy -- I homeschool because I don't want my kid taught that stuff. But yet I gotta pay for my neighbors to send their kids to go learn to be good little atheists, teach them they're all just animals on the food chain, and survival of the fittest. Don't tell me about "other people's children." Now you're making me mad. You want to teach your kids to be atheist evolutionists, do it with your own money, not mine!

My point was that it is YOUR job to educate yourself on evolution from SCIENTIFIC sources and not creationalist ones. I am not your teacher and you've already been given adequate explanations which you have then demanded are elaborated on.. but you've already established a pattern of dismissing anything pro-evolution without valid scientific reason. If you wish to argue against evolution at least try to use scientific non biased sources that support that point of view.


Choke. You may call it science to believe that turnips can turn into bumblebees, but I call it PSEUDOSCIENCE. Or worse. But why should you believe your lying eyes?

[edit on 29-9-2005 by resistance]



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 12:17 PM
link   
So.. now you are telling me to 'choke'.. you've told me to 'bug off' called me mean and narrow minded and now I'm a liar? Wow. You really are making a great start.



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 12:54 PM
link   
Ok first of all lets get one thing straight, the word "Kind" is highly unscientific ,I think the word your looking for is genus.




My evidence is that it is all complete, has no partially formed organs. It is able to use its fins to get around on land and it can hold its breath. Another one of God's amazing creatures. It's not going to turn into a crocadile or a frog. It's always going to be a fish. Forever. And ever. And ever. And ever.


Im going to ask you this again since you dodged the question last time I asked.As you have said microevolution has been observed right ? So we have proven that small changes crop up in the genes of animals , ok?How many small changes can an animal go through before its a different animal?If I have a jar of green jelly beans and each day for 3 years I take out a green bean and add a red one what happens? Slowly but surly the jar of green beans turns into a jar of red beans, so what happened here ? Well I'll tell you, changes on the small scale amount to changes on a large scale.What your saying is simple ilogical, you cant say micro evolution happens but macro evolution does not.




Choke. You may call it science to believe that turnips can turn into bumblebees, but I call it PSEUDOSCIENCE. Or worse. But why should you believe your lying eyes?


Nowhere in any science book will you find,something stating that a turnip can turn into a bumblebee nowhere. It sounds to me as if you think, we think, animals spontainiously change form over night, I know I wont wake up tomorrow and find my pet dog has turned into an ardvark but mabye that just your understanding of evolution or lack therof.(note proper use of bold)

Evolution takes time and lots of it look whats its done in 4 billion years we have such a diverse ecosystem, this didnt happen over night.Life will arise anywhere the conditions are right, how it happends? Were not sure , not yet anyway and we admit that, but were getting there, you want abiogensus? Wait a few years im sure we'll find some clues in the mean time try reading some of Richard Dawkins work I recommend "The Blind Watchmaker" or take a look here:





Polymers Containing Nucleotides Are Capable of Self-replication

Organic molecules such as amino acids and nucleotides can interact to form polymers. The polymer of amino acids and nucleotides are called polypeptides and polynucleotides respectively. These polymers are capable of directing their own synthesis. For example, a polynucleotide is able to influence the replication of other polynucleotides by acting as a template.

The complementary nature of nucleotides is crucial in the origin of life. Because A preferentially binds to U and G preferentially binds to C, a polynucleotide is thus able to serve as a template for synthesizing the complementary strand. However, this complementary templating mechanism only occurs slowly without the assistance of certain protein catalysts, or enzymes. Although no such enzyme existed in the "prebiotic soup," certain minerals and metal ions filled in the role of enzymes. After a period of time, slow replicating systems of polynucleotides were established.


library.thinkquest.org...


[edit on 29-9-2005 by Merkeva]



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by resistance
Then how come it's Titled "How Does Creation Science Explain?" You're telling me this is a forum to mock out creationism, and that's all it's for?


That's the name of the thread, not the forum, and actually the name is "How does creationism explain...."

This forum was not created to "mock" anything. It is a discussion forum. Read this thread if you want to familiarize yourself with the basic premise of this forum: New Forum For The Debate of Origins and Creationism.


Originally posted by resistance
Evolution equals atheism. Evolution believes matter is self-existant, not created, that life came accidentally from randomly formed atoms, or maybe the atoms were able to work together intelligently since they were smart enough to be self-existenat. Self-existence is actually a god-like quality.


"Evolution" doesn't "believe" anything because "evolution" is not a sentient being with the ability to "believe" things. A quick glance at a dictionary will reveal that "evolution" and "atheism" have dissimilar and unconnected definitions. These two words stand apart and the only implications attached to the words have been tacked on by you.

Furthermore, the definition of abiogensis does not include any form of the word "accident."


Originally posted by resistance
Atheism means you don't believe in a Creator God, who is himself self-existant, and who created everything there is. Mormons in fact believe in self-existant matter, and believe many "gods" evolved out of that matter, so even though Mormons are very religous they are in fact atheists because they do not believe in the one Creator God. Hindus are also atheists.


You clearly misunderstand the definition of the word "atheism." Calling Mormons and Hindus "atheists" is ignorant.


Originally posted by resistance
Now you've pushed my hot button! Hey, buddy -- I homeschool because I don't want my kid taught that stuff. But yet I gotta pay for my neighbors to send their kids to go learn to be good little atheists, teach them they're all just animals on the food chain, and survival of the fittest. Don't tell me about "other people's children." Now you're making me mad. You want to teach your kids to be atheist evolutionists, do it with your own money, not mine!


Science is a fundamental discipline of modern society. To deny children the opportunity to learn about science is criminal. To paraphrase my friend Nygdan, we are animals involved in a food chain, and your discomfort with this fact is irrelevant.


Originally posted by resistance
Choke. You may call it science to believe that turnips can turn into bumblebees, but I call it PSEUDOSCIENCE. Or worse. But why should you believe your lying eyes?


This absurdity that you have introduced by the name "science" is not even a far-removed cousin. I know science, I worked with science, and this, sir, is not science.

Zip

[edit on 9/29/2005 by Zipdot]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join