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.

 

Creationist - The necessary steps to evolution and what has been proven

page: 2
12
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 01:10 AM
link   
a reply to: WakeUpBeer

What are your thoughts on simulation theory? Do you think that should be banned from schools as well?




posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 01:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bone75
a reply to: WakeUpBeer

What are your thoughts on simulation theory? Do you think that should be banned from schools as well?


I dont see what any subject being banned from schools has anything to do with the op really



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 01:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: spygeek
originally posted by: Isurrender73

still there are recent studies into abiogenesis. in 2014, a group of researchers managed to produce all four components of rna by simulating an asteroid impact in primordial conditions. a 2015 paper showed that the chemical precursors for the synthesis of amino acids, lipids and nucleotides, which would be required in a primitive cell, could have all arisen simultaneously through reactions driven by ultraviolet light


Step one of one million in defining a cell. I am well aware of this study. It proves nothing except you can continue to imagine the rest just happened.

I don't know why you needed to define speciation since I agree with it. I said I Believe all life can be traced back to class/phylum. Even though it has not been proven.

Except I don't believe humans evolved. Science is closer to proving that we could not have evolved from apes than proving that we did. This is where alien theory arises in the scientific community.

I'm no where near as ignorant or unlearned as you believe me to be.

I am both a scientist and a theologian, I am comfortable excepting anything science can prove, and I am educated on the subject.
edit on 26-6-2015 by Isurrender73 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 01:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer

originally posted by: Isurrender73
I have nothing to prove. I don't care about evolution or creationism. I believe the religious texts from most major religions, created.

Hmm, that's a lot of conflicting information you must be juggling around in your mind trying to make sense of.



I will have no problem changing my mind when or if science proves anything.

Riiight..

Really not trying to be "that guy" here but..

How can you honestly make a statement like that?


I have made since of all the religious texts. No juggling needed.

I will believe whatever science can prove, how does that make me ignorant?



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 01:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Isurrender73
Step one of one million in defining a cell. I am well aware of this study. It proves nothing except you can continue to imagine the rest just happened.


Umm. I guess I'll have to point out the obvious here by reminding you that your very first #1 point you made in your OP was..


The first requirement for life to evolve is to become.

Currently we have no evidence that this is possible. The simplest form of known life could not have spontaneously arose. Currently there is no evidence to suggest that life simpler than a cell has ever existed.


Now, you just admitted to step #1 being done and try to complain because it's only the first step. But the first step is all that was needed to prove you incorrect.

That is a check mate and win my friend. You should congratulate spygeek on his victory and show a little humility at this point rather than continue trying to change your argument.



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 01:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Bone75

Not knowledgeable about simulation theory. But generally I'm impartial to what is taught in schools as long as it's taught in the proper context, and honestly. Creationism, as far as I've seen, is not taught in the proper context or honestly.



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 01:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Isurrender73

You have made sense* of all the religious texts? I am very interested in this and think it would make an excellent thread. Btw I'm pretty sure science has not proven ANY of the religions or their creation stories. In fact science sheds light on many of the falsehoods and fabrications of religion.

So why do you believe them without evidence?


edit on 6-26-2015 by WakeUpBeer because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 01:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Isurrender73

I'm going to have to go old school with my critique: utter twaddle

This "argument" is constructed of a mashup of false premises. Taxonomic ranks are not steps in evolution but rather an effort to classify relationships between organisms in a meaningful way from which certain conclusions can be drawn. Taxonomic distinctions aren't concrete properties.



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 01:37 AM
link   
Can't evolve outside it's class..lmao. dinosaur to bird not good enough for you or did god forget to mention it.



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 01:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Isurrender73

originally posted by: spygeek
originally posted by: Isurrender73

still there are recent studies into abiogenesis. in 2014, a group of researchers managed to produce all four components of rna by simulating an asteroid impact in primordial conditions. a 2015 paper showed that the chemical precursors for the synthesis of amino acids, lipids and nucleotides, which would be required in a primitive cell, could have all arisen simultaneously through reactions driven by ultraviolet light


Step one of one million in defining a cell. I am well aware of this study. It proves nothing except you can continue to imagine the rest just happened.

I don't know why you needed to define speciation since I agree with it. I said I Believe all life can be traced back to class/phylum. Even though it has not been proven.

Except I don't believe humans evolved. Science is closer to proving that we could not have evolved from apes than proving that we did. This is where alien theory arises in the scientific community.

I'm no where near as ignorant or unlearned as you believe me to be.

I am both a scientist and a theologian, I am comfortable excepting anything science can prove, and I am educated on the subject.


You seem to show a good understanding of the topic at hand. And you are correct in saying humans did not evolve from apes. We just share a common ancestor. Maybe millions of years ago. Thousands is the best guess. We dont know exactly. But what we do know is that homo sapiens have been around for a long time. As have proto humans such as cro magnon and the infamouz neanderthol. Hybridisation between a few different intelligent species would be my best guess why modern homosapiens arrived. But whatever you say. The genes do not lie. We shared a common ancestor with modern apes. One branch led to the intelligent ape familes we know today such as the gorilla and orangutan. The other led to humans. There where likely many more that unfortumately where not resourceful or geographically lucke enough to survive the last ice age



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 01:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: Isurrender73
Step one of one million in defining a cell. I am well aware of this study. It proves nothing except you can continue to imagine the rest just happened.


Umm. I guess I'll have to point out the obvious here by reminding you that your very first #1 point you made in your OP was..


The first requirement for life to evolve is to become.

Currently we have no evidence that this is possible. The simplest form of known life could not have spontaneously arose. Currently there is no evidence to suggest that life simpler than a cell has ever existed.


Now, you just admitted to step #1 being done and try to complain because it's only the first step. But the first step is all that was needed to prove you incorrect.

That is a check mate and win my friend. You should congratulate spygeek on his victory and show a little humility at this point rather than continue trying to change your argument.



That study proves nothing, except chemical compounds necessary for life can form. We have assumed this for ages.

How we get from chemicals to life is not even close to answered by that research. You should probably read it before you continue to comment.

Step one has a million steps. We are on step 1 of step 1.

edit on 26-6-2015 by Isurrender73 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 01:40 AM
link   
Why do you think it is that tue only truly large land mammals live in africa where the ice age never really reached



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 01:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Isurrender73

I'm going to have to go old school with my critique: utter twaddle

This "argument" is constructed of a mashup of false premises. Taxonomic ranks are not steps in evolution but rather an effort to classify relationships between organisms in a meaningful way from which certain conclusions can be drawn. Taxonomic distinctions aren't concrete properties.


Had to star this post. Taxonomic classifications are merely how we differentiate between different species and such. It is a system used to identify and categorise all living things on planet earth and not a to yo be used to prove or disprove the theory of evolution



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 01:48 AM
link   
a reply to: moosevernel

I think it's a bit too soon in the genome project to claim common ancestor. From what I have read this is still very much speculative.



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 01:49 AM
link   
hey Isurrender73 can you explain this, since you say your a scientist and have studied this subject and what not,

"Except I don't believe humans evolved. Science is closer to proving that we could not have evolved from apes than proving that we did. This is where alien theory arises in the scientific community. "

how is science closer to proving that humans did not evolve from apes?

Considering the fact that we share well over 90% of our DNA with them...

In the words of Joe Rogan "if i were to give you a sandwich that was 96% Sh*t and 4% ham would you call that a ham sandwich"?



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 01:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Isurrender73
That study proves nothing, except chemical compounds necessary for life can form. We have assumed this for ages.

How we get from chemicals to life is not even close to answered by that research. You should probably read it before you continue to comment.


No, I don't need to read anything. Your argument was that before evolution can even occur, the initial first step must occur. You then continued by saying no such evidence has ever been presented to show that.

Spygeek then countered your position by showing that such evidence has been presented to show that such an event can in fact occur.

You then responded with: "Step one of one million in defining a cell. I am well aware of this study. It proves nothing except you can continue to imagine the rest just happened."

That response is not contesting spygeek. That response is in agreement with him. However, you then dismiss that first step as being what your position is and try and change it in to being about every step after it. But that wasn't the argument. The first step is what you were challenging and that is what spygeek showed you.

You can't just change your position because you were proven incorrect. You can contest spygeek by showing his position as incorrect but that's about it.

The fact that you don't see that makes me seriously doubt you're a scientist or anything else for that matter.

edit on 26-6-2015 by mOjOm because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 01:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Isurrender73

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: Isurrender73
Step one of one million in defining a cell. I am well aware of this study. It proves nothing except you can continue to imagine the rest just happened.

O
Umm. I guess I'll have to point out the obvious here by reminding you that your very first #1 point you made in your OP was..o


The first requirement for life to evolve is to become.

Currently we have no evidence that this is possible. The simplest form of known life could not have spontaneously arose. Currently there is no evidence to suggest that life simpler than a cell has ever existed.


Now, you just admitted to step #1 being done and try to complain because it's only the first step. But the first step is all that was needed to prove you incorrect.

That is a check mate and win my friend. You should congratulate spygeek on his victory and show a little humility at this point rather than continue trying to change your argument.



That study proves nothing, except chemical compounds necessary for life can form. Wie have assumed this for ages.

How we get from chemicals to life is not even close to answered by that research. You should probably read it before you continue to comment.
k

So it is shown that the chemicals needes for life actually can form and arrange themselves in a naturl way. Almost but not quite proving thatvery very simpleife forms. Such as single strand rna lifeforms that an emerge out of the environment given the right materials to do so. But no. It was god.

I do not fimd the idea of a gos an unappealing one. Infact i was brought up as a catholic christian im the north of england. My family are very religious. Nevertheless as i got older (about age 11) i started questioning the legitemesy of everything i had been taught.

Coupled with the love of science i already posessed.... Thanks to an amazing teacher at my CATHOLIC school who taught me not to believe everything i read i decided that one day i was going to be a zoologist

I am currently studyinf to achieve this goal. Sorry for wafflling on but the point od the story is this


The evidence is there if you are not afraid to look.



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 01:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Sinfulknowledge

It is so improbable according to recent research, that we are now looking for a common ancestor.




Darwin Buster One: Darwinians have been dead wrong whenever they have claimed that the "genetic matter of ape and humans is 98% identical." The ape and human chromosomes are remarkably divergent and too different for "ape to human evolution" theory to adequately explain. For example, the human Y chromosome has twice as many genes as the chimpanzee Y chromosome and the chromosome structures are not at all similar.

Darwin Buster Two: There are laws of embryology that directly contradict "ape to human evolution." One reason is that genes work together in teams to form body parts during embryonic development. This makes it impossible to add genes to any genome because there is no way to coordinate any new gene with existing genes. Yet "ape to human evolution" requires apes and humans to be able to add genes - for example, the chimpanzee Y chromosome has 37 genes and the human Y chromosome has at least 78 genes.

Darwin Buster Three: The laws of genetics prevent "ape to human evolution" from ever taking place. One reason is there is no genetic mechanism that creates new genes. But "ape to human evolution" relies on apes and humans having the ability to create new genes with new functions. New genes are required in order to have morphological changes, such as gills into lungs or more efficient brains. So called "gene duplication" is not evidence that organisms can create new genes. Although bacteria can duplicate existing genes by mistake through "gene duplication," this only occurs in single sex bacteria and this is not evidence that apes and humans can create new genes with new functions.

Darwin Buster Four: Darwinians have no explanation for why humans and apes have a different number of chromosomes. Darwinians claim that "chromosome fusion" of two ape chromosomes into a single chromosome resulted in humans having only 23 pairs of chromosomes while apes have 24 pairs. But there is not one example of "chromosome fusion" in mammals. Darwinians claim that 1 in 1000 human babies have a "fused chromosome" but this is an out and out lie. They are actually referring to Robertsonian Translocations, which are "translocations" and not fused chromosomes and does not result in a change in the chromosome number. Besides, scientifically derived facts refute "chromosome fusion" can occur in apes or humans.

www.darwinconspiracy.com...




posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 02:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: moosevernel

I think it's a bit too soon in the genome project to claim common ancestor. From what I have read this is still very much speculative.
i

Really? There is a large amount of literature out there that says different. I guess interpretation is everything though



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 02:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: Sinfulknowledge

It is so improbable according to recent research, that we are now looking for a common ancestor.




Darwin Buster One: Darwinians have been dead wrong whenever they have claimed that the "genetic matter of ape and humans is 98% identical." The ape and human chromosomes are remarkably divergent and too different for "ape to human evolution" theory to adequately explain. For example, the human Y chromosome has twice as many genes as the chimpanzee Y chromosome and the chromosome structures are not at all similar.

Darwin Buster Two: There are laws of embryology that directly contradict "ape to human evolution." One reason is that genes work together in teams to form body parts during embryonic development. This makes it impossible to add genes to any genome because there is no way to coordinate any new gene with existing genes. Yet "ape to human evolution" requires apes and humans to be able to add genes - for example, the chimpanzee Y chromosome has 37 genes and the human Y chromosome has at least 78 genes.

Darwin Buster Three: The laws of genetics prevent "ape to human evolution" from ever taking place. One reason is there is no genetic mechanism that creates new genes. But "ape to human evolution" relies on apes and humans having the ability to create new genes with new functions. New genes are required in order to have morphological changes, such as gills into lungs or more efficient brains. So called "gene duplication" is not evidence that organisms can create new genes. Although bacteria can duplicate existing genes by mistake through "gene duplication," this only occurs in single sex bacteria and this is not evidence that apes and humans can create new genes with new functions.

Darwin Buster Four: Darwinians have no explanation for why humans and apes have a different number of chromosomes. Darwinians claim that "chromosome fusion" of two ape chromosomes into a single chromosome resulted in humans having only 23 pairs of chromosomes while apes have 24 pairs. But there is not one example of "chromosome fusion" in mammals. Darwinians claim that 1 in 1000 human babies have a "fused chromosome" but this is an out and out lie. They are actually referring to Robertsonian Translocations, which are "translocations" and not fused chromosomes and does not result in a change in the chromosome number. Besides, scientifically derived facts refute "chromosome fusion" can occur in apes or humans.

www.darwinconspiracy.com...

K


All of those points are explained by the fact that humans did not 'evolvr' from apes but shared a common ancestor a long time ago. So of course genetics are going to be different.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join