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.

 

Why Fossils May Appear To Support Evolution.

page: 5
19
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 22 2015 @ 12:13 PM
link   
a reply to: JUhrman

yet you refuse to defend them

fact
"but as recently as the 1970s, no sign was seen of how the 'relatively' modern-looking organisms of the Middle and Late Cambrian arose."

fact
"all modern animal phyla had appeared almost simultaneously in a rather short span of geological period."

now if "all modern animal phyla had appeared almost simultaneously in a rather short span of geological period."

why would no new phyla come into existence in such a long geological period? (Cambrian to present)

how could evolution "establish" anything?




posted on Apr, 22 2015 @ 12:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Answer

You are a prime example of the second quote provided by Einstein.




"There are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is the same as that of the religious fanatics, and it springs from the same source ." - Albert Einstein


Yes you can study the processes in place, that is obvious. You will never acknowledge the possibility of intelligence placing those processes and the limitations imposed on the processes. Einstein hit the nail on the head and was open to all possibilities, which was why he was able to comprehend things others could not.



posted on Apr, 22 2015 @ 12:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: FearYourMind
a reply to: JUhrman

We understand 3 of the unknown amount of dimensions around us, yet we act like questioning our creation and surroundings is some sort of blasphemy?


Nobody acts like that. Questioning our origin and surroundings is exactly what science is all about. When you question with valid logic/data/evidence, it's accepted. When you question with pure conjecture, denial, and divine sources, it's not accepted.


I hate to hurt people's feelings, but you don't understand the least of what you are or where we came from. In 200 years people will be chuckling at our teachings in science and evolution.


You're right about that because we're still in the beginning stages of our understanding. It's called "laying the groundwork" for further understanding. Should we give up on science and accept "god did it" as our explanation for everything? How far would that have gotten us as a species if primitive man chose that route?



posted on Apr, 22 2015 @ 12:17 PM
link   
a reply to: FearYourMind

I never claimed I knew all. If you want to know I'm actually a theist. I'm just baffled by this tradition common among fundies to want to prove science wrong. Genetics or the Big bang theory have been discovered by priests. You can both be a scientist and humble.

Claiming evolution is a lie is simply a display of ignorance, the theory of evolution doesn't explain the purpose or first spark of life. Only its mechanisms



posted on Apr, 22 2015 @ 12:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
a reply to: Answer

You are a prime example of the second quote provided by Einstein.




"There are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is the same as that of the religious fanatics, and it springs from the same source ." - Albert Einstein


Yes you can study the processes in place, that is obvious. You will never acknowledge the possibility of intelligence placing those processes and the limitations imposed on the processes. Einstein hit the nail on the head and was open to all possibilities, which was why he was able to comprehend things others could not.


You don't know anything about me. I acknowledge the possibility of an intelligence doing all those things. I also acknowledge the possibility that our entire universe is just a single cell in the gut of a much bigger organism. I even acknowledge that we could all be living in a giant simulation and none of this is real.

As soon as evidence is presented for any of the above ideas, I'll gladly have a look. Evidence, not flights of fancy, is what a rational person uses to draw their conclusions.
edit on 4/22/2015 by Answer because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2015 @ 12:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

I believe in god and am a christian in my faith but do not think evolution or evolutionary theory is even a challenge to religion even if it was proven to true which it is not, it is elegantly supported by the belief and interpretation of data but is more of an ill fitting jigsaw of odd pieces that do not fit such as the LUCY primate which has been shown by it's critic's to be not human at all but more like an extinct chimpanzee like ape.
The arguement even between the devout Darwinian's is still raging as the claim it is a human ancestor originates with a small team whom wanted to get big in the scientific press and therefore ensure there own reputation's, of course like sheep following the wrong shepherd the believers in darwinian theory are easily swayed to the opinion of such discoverors and there assertion's about there find's.

All that aside though.

Evolution postulates that life find's niches, over the record right or wrong there have in the past 65 million years been several physically almost identical Rhinosaurus type animal's, Several wolf analogues, several bit cat analogues and if you go back further to include the dinosaurs and the reptiles then even more repeat's on the same theme.

So where are all the human analogue's, if intelligence and tool use are such good evolutionary trait's then why are there not multiple previous human races on the earth spanning the Geologically and anthropological history as it is accepted by the darwinian accolytes in there pseudo mystical belief system with there priests of darwinism in there temples of indoctrination as they have converted the majority of universitys into, why do I call them this, well I was scientifically educated and here is what I was tought, it is a fundemental TENET (Latin for the word HELD and also a central world of the Templer anagram DENDED - TENET).

A theory no matter how good can never be PROVEN and only supported as a workable model as it is only a model or an idea.
ANY THEORY can be and is disproven by out of range or unexpected result's and findings when all criteria and factors are taken into account.

Yet Time and Again I hear the supposedly scientifically minded Atheist crowd whom seem to have made the theory's of science there own personal LAW's and Immutable BELIEF's saying that science has PROVEN this or PROVEN that.

You can prove a Mathematical equation but you can never prove a theory only show it is right up to a point and even dating techniques as well as accepted chronology are constantly being thrown into debate then as some of the problems would require an entire rewriting of the fundementals of science the term CHAOS theory has been coined to explain out of range results or unpredictable (outside the theory's scope) situation's.


I am open to the pre adamite theory as I am one who believes there is evidence of structur's on the moon and mars etc that appear to have been utterly devastated and the pre adamite theory does not disprove adam it merely mean's there other dust people on the earth prior to adam, when the world had been barran and void, a wasteland of desolation.
Some even believe that this was the time of the war with satan in heaven before adam when the seven angels stood against him to prevent him trying to steal the throne of god even though God would undoubtedly have utterly destroyed him had they not.

Another factor, Linear Chronology is wrong, God transcends time itself so our day's and year's do not really apply to him or his, Jesus himself talks of being before Abraham not in a past tense but in a present tense "I am".
Was, is and is to come. Always has been and alway's will be.

Many poeple lose there faith because they try to fit God to a linear time frame, this is not possible even in the book or revelation it talks about there being no more time so outside of time itself.



posted on Apr, 22 2015 @ 12:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: FearYourMind
Also, why haven't any other apes evolved? If we supposedly came from apes then you would expect other apes would have evolved with us, but not one of them has.


All the apes have evolved... Just because we are the only ones to become rational thinkers doesn't mean that the others didn't evolve. There are MANY unique circumstances that built up to support our growing brain development. The other ape species didn't go through those circumstances so they didn't evolve rational thinking. They did evolve OTHER traits that we don't have though.


Hmmm. Over three quarters of the people I know do not think rationally most of the time. I don't even think rationally half the time.



posted on Apr, 22 2015 @ 12:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Life...finds a way.

Evolution does not happen overnight which is why there aren't millions of missing link skeletal remains.



posted on Apr, 22 2015 @ 12:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi

originally posted by: FearYourMind
Also, why haven't any other apes evolved? If we supposedly came from apes then you would expect other apes would have evolved with us, but not one of them has.


It has already been pointed out that we shared a common ancestor with apes so you are a bit off base however you seem to be forgetting quite a bit.

Reacquaint yourself with Homo neanderthalensis.





And a little more info for you.



Of course, there is a lot more on the subject just use that computer in front of you. Anyway, now that you see how dumb your argument is hopefully you will refrain from using it again.

There are truth seekers and then there are people who claim to be truth seekers that are simply lieng.

The common ancestor wasn't neanderthals, they were a separate species to us (that bred with us) that shared that same common ancestor, believed to be Homo heidelbergensis. (I apologise if I have misread your post)
edit on 22/4/15 by woogleuk because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2015 @ 12:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: FearYourMind

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: FearYourMind

Then go create a thread about the BBT, or better yet, post in one of the numerous already existing threads on the topic. If you did that, maybe you would have discovered that the singularity is being discarded.

No Big Bang? Yes, Big Bang


You can't understand evolution without first understanding the creation of the universe.


Says who? I happen to understand both and know how one led to the other, but that doesn't mean that I need to know one to understand the other.



posted on Apr, 22 2015 @ 01:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: JUhrman
a reply to: FearYourMind

The extraordinary thing that happened is we learned to speak articulate languages allowing the transmission of idea over generation.

Without language and education a feral human child is not smarter than a monkey.

Hence why the bible says our story begins with the word.


Monkey see monkey do or copycat behavior does the same thing. Animals have languages, even when they scream out to warn their pack of danger, the little ones learn the behavior through hearing and seeing so can pass it on indefinitely.

Writing is what separates us, whether pictorial or text. We can write down the same experiences and others imaginations can transform the meaning of writings into imaginary experiences as if they were there learning from the experience first hand.


Writing is a recent invention. Only 6000 or so years now. It isn't an evolutionary advantage that we evolved though. It's an invention. Humans have been on the planet for hundreds of thousands of years longer than that.
edit on 22-4-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2015 @ 01:05 PM
link   



You can't understand evolution without first understanding the creation of the universe.


Evolution as a biological process does not require understanding the creation of the universe. The universe exists and life exists.



posted on Apr, 22 2015 @ 01:14 PM
link   
I guess your other failed evolution threads aren't enough?


originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
What I don't believe is that non-organic matter spontaneously became organic and then spontaneously became a one celled organism, then it in turn over millions of years evolved into both genders in every species until humanity happened.

So you don't agree with evolution or abiogenesis. Why spontaneously though? Why is it that whenever a science denier tries to discount one or the other, they always resort to using terms like that? Spontaneous generation has pretty much been debunked for years, nobody in science considers it anymore. Why do you discount the possibility that it could have been gradual rather than spontaneous? I guess it doesn't sound as shocking as the straw man you just created.


If that did happen there would be millions of missing link skeletal remains of both species and genders in between.
And what do we have today for the fossil record, not that.

Nope. Fossilization is rare. The circumstances have to be just right to avoid decaying. We're lucky have the ones we have.


And even the carbon dating is flawed, it's not 100% accurate.

Nothing is 100% accurate. The margin of error is around 1% and carbon dating isn't used for dinosaur fossils.


As an example, this guy if you found his skeletal remains from 40 million years ago, it could be thought to be the ancestor to a much bigger dinosaur, in the evolutionary line of development, but he actually isn't, but he stayed the same, 40 million years latter he is still the same.


His skeletal remains were not from 40 million years ago, and dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago. There is no rule of evolution that says creatures cannot stay similar. Look at crocodiles and turtles.

So yeah, another thread, with a bunch of false claims. Why bother? Do you really think somebody that understands science is going to have a eureka moment and realize that all of a sudden evolution is wrong?

Plus you didn't even answer the topic of "Why fossils may appear to support evolution". So, why DO they appear that way? Gee, maybe I dunno, because evolution is true?
edit on 22-4-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2015 @ 01:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: FearYourMind
a reply to: JUhrman

We understand 3 of the unknown amount of dimensions around us, yet we act like questioning our creation and surroundings is some sort of blasphemy?


You're right about that because we're still in the beginning stages of our understanding. It's called "laying the groundwork" for further understanding. Should we give up on science and accept "god did it" as our explanation for everything? How far would that have gotten us as a species if primitive man chose that route?


I never mentioned God.



posted on Apr, 22 2015 @ 01:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Thecakeisalie
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Life...finds a way.

Evolution does not happen overnight which is why there aren't millions of missing link skeletal remains.



Every organism is a transitional form ( "missing link") though fossilization of specimens is rare. Every person is a transitional organism between the parents and offspring.


We can study when certain traits, mostly skeletal and through that muscular, appear and how those traits vary over time. Through those traits relationships from one species to another can be hyppthesized on.



posted on Apr, 22 2015 @ 01:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: FearYourMind

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: FearYourMind

Then go create a thread about the BBT, or better yet, post in one of the numerous already existing threads on the topic. If you did that, maybe you would have discovered that the singularity is being discarded.

No Big Bang? Yes, Big Bang


You can't understand evolution without first understanding the creation of the universe.


Says who? I happen to understand both and know how one led to the other, but that doesn't mean that I need to know one to understand the other.


You understand neither. Again, that's just ego taking over your mind.



posted on Apr, 22 2015 @ 01:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Cypress



You can't understand evolution without first understanding the creation of the universe.


Evolution as a biological process does not require understanding the creation of the universe. The universe exists and life exists.


The universe created the Earth therefor understanding the universe is relevant to understanding our origin.



posted on Apr, 22 2015 @ 01:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: FearYourMind

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: FearYourMind

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: FearYourMind

Then go create a thread about the BBT, or better yet, post in one of the numerous already existing threads on the topic. If you did that, maybe you would have discovered that the singularity is being discarded.

No Big Bang? Yes, Big Bang


You can't understand evolution without first understanding the creation of the universe.


Says who? I happen to understand both and know how one led to the other, but that doesn't mean that I need to know one to understand the other.


You understand neither. Again, that's just ego taking over your mind.


I don't? Hmmm... All that research for nothing because some guy who has demonstrated a failing of the core principles of how science works said so... Glad you could clear that up.



posted on Apr, 22 2015 @ 01:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: FearYourMind
Technically evolution goes all the way back to the beginning of time and space. So rather than focusing on apes, I focus on what created the universe and existence itself. I am stumped with the Big Bang theory and why it is accepted as fact and nobody considers what created the singularity that became the Big Bang. So, if we can't understand that, then we will never know exactly where we came from or how we were created.


Technically you are wrong and are invoking the fallacy of equivocation. Evolution has zero to do with the big bang. And we don't know the cause of the big bang. Maybe some day we will. I'm perfectly content not knowing the answer, and not knowing isn't evidence for god or against evolution. You may want to brush up on evolution theory if you really think it goes back to the big bang. It doesn't.


originally posted by: Another_Nut
I HAVE no clue whats going on

not even close


Fixed. Just some advice here. Try using full sentences and actually make points that are relevant instead of making up imaginary reasons that you believe in just because you heard it from another religious person. Ask a scientist if you have honest questions, rather than barely legible phrases that don't mean anything.


the fact is we have 500+ million years and nothing new


Wow. What a lie. Maybe you'd never heard of mammals or the millions of mammalian species that show otherwise? I don't understand why folks are so blatantly dishonest.
edit on 22-4-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2015 @ 01:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: FearYourMind

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: FearYourMind

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: FearYourMind

Then go create a thread about the BBT, or better yet, post in one of the numerous already existing threads on the topic. If you did that, maybe you would have discovered that the singularity is being discarded.

No Big Bang? Yes, Big Bang


You can't understand evolution without first understanding the creation of the universe.


Says who? I happen to understand both and know how one led to the other, but that doesn't mean that I need to know one to understand the other.


You understand neither. Again, that's just ego taking over your mind.


I don't? Hmmm... All that research for nothing because some guy who has demonstrated a failing of the core principles of how science works said so... Glad you could clear that up.


How did I fail and how is it possible for you to understand the universe when we only understand less than 10% of it? Sure, you may have learned the laws of physics and studied theories of our evolution, but you don't understand the universe. You are learning about the universe in a attempt to understand it. Something nobody has accomplished to this day.




top topics



 
19
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join