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: 8
12
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 08:27 AM
link   
I don't see how creationism and evolution are incompatible. The first forms of life might as well have been created and then evolved from there.

Another hypothesis is, evolution IS creationism. Note how in religions it is always mentioned how all of life was created by some higher intelligence. What if it was all "created" through evolution?

And I am not the only one to consider this... several scientists happen to be religious or spiritual in one way or another, and these are the possibilities they generally lean towards.




posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 08:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Fer1527

No, you aren't the only one to consider this. It's called the God of the gaps argument. That god works through the holes in science or manipulates science himself to make the universe happen. It's not a logically unsound argument, though it is becoming increasingly unlikely from how we are seeing how evolution works.



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 08:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

That same god could have even been the creator of the laws known to science. Scientists have argued that if the major laws, such as gravity for example, would have been any different, we could not possibly exist.

Besides, a scientist creator does seem much more appealing than a witch burning, homophobic one.



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 08:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Fer1527

Yes, I've heard this idea before. That god created the universe and all its laws and then let them take over. Well when did this god create the universe? After all, we know that before the Big Bang, there wasn't nothing, but everything. It may not have been the singularity (as recent science may be showing), but it certainly wasn't nothing.

Though again, it's not a logically unsound argument and I don't have anything against. I just find it statistically unlikely.
edit on 29-6-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 09:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Isurrender73

I have decided to explain the implications of the genome project so people can stop questioning my understanding of evolution.

The best science can hope for when it comes to providing evidence for the evolution of man is the genome project.

What the genome project could do is create a genetic ancestory for all living organisms. We might be able to genetically connect the dots to the first amphibious creatures that moved onto land. The genome project should help us track down are evolutionary ancestors if they exist.

Currently it is suggested that we must share a common ancestor with the apes, because it does not appear genetically plausible that we evolved from them directly.

If evolution is plausible we should be able to trace all species back to their common ancestors, assuming the common ancestor has left a trace of DNA.

However, what we see in the lab still suggests that life has barriers that it doesn't cross. We have proven that organisms can adapt to their environments and we call this speciation.

But when does a reptile become a bird? What predates the predecessor for man and ape? When did the fish become an amphibian? Did all creatures with lungs evolve from a single lunged creature? Or did multiple lineages develop lungs independently?

How did the male/female relationship evolve? How did compatible sexual organs that house two halves of one whole new life evolve? Did the split of male/female happen many times or just once in evolution?

When Darwin proposed evolution it was based solely on external visual data. Darwin would have never predicted that humans are as genetically similar to pigs as we are monkeys. Do we share common ancestor with pigs also? Do all mammals share one common ancestor, or did mammals evolve from amphibian life many times?

These are the types of questions the genome project will attempt to answer. Is it plausible?

I believe we will run into barriers that we can't seem to explain by evolution alone. And I believe those barriers are at class/phylum, because I believe all life was created according to it's kind, without having genetic predecessors.

The genome project itself cannot prove evolution. But it can prove that evolution is genetically plausible. However if we never identify plausible ancestory then we will continue to be left to our imaginations.

One group will say the common ancestors are extinct and the other will say pics or it didn't happen.

I understand that evolution suggests a slow process with common ancestory. The problem we have now is nothing appears to evolve outside it's Genus much less family, order or class.

Not even the simplest forms of life appear to be able to overcome Genus. The genome project will only be able to suggest that we are genetically similar enough for plausibility. However, until we witness organism adapting to form a new Genus it should not be considered ignorant for a creationist to disagree. Nor should scientist claim that it did happen, merely because it is plausible. It should be enough for scientists to work with plausible until they find definitive proof that can be replicated with the scientific method.

edit on 29-6-2015 by Isurrender73 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 10:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Isurrender73

No Creationists disagree merely because they want their supernatural beliefs to be true.

Do you realise that at this point you're only lying to yourself with the nonsense you just regurgitated?



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 10:24 AM
link   
The evidence for evolution over a wizard creating everything is all around you, and you will see it if you let go of the religous dogamtic approach.

Its like this girl i was dating many years ago. We went to a party once, someone made the comment that jurassic park was one of their favorite movies. She said she had never seen it. When we asked her why not she replied, "because i dont believe in dinosaurs." I said well its not a matter of belief, its a fact. What about the bones that thyve dup everywhere?

This woman looked me straight in the eye and said, "God put those bones there to test my faith."

There is no arguing with that level of logic and reason.



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 10:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Isurrender73

This posts shows that you still don't understand the science completely. You believe that there are "barriers" that prevent a reptile from becoming a bird. Well it never worked like that. The reptiles that DID become birds started out with bird-like features. The reptiles that remained evolved in a different direction and thus never ended up looking like birds.

Stop trying to look at animals of this day and age and pretend like they ALWAYS had those features and genetics.
edit on 29-6-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 10:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Isurrender73


This posts shows that you still don't understand the science completely. You believe that there are "barriers" that prevent a reptile from becoming a bird. Well it never worked like that. The reptiles that DID become birds started out with bird-like features.

The reptiles that remained evolved in a different direction and thus never ended up looking like birds.Stop trying to look at animals of this day and age and pretend like they ALWAYS had those features and genetics.


Start finding the missing links in the fossil records, or this remains in your imagination.

Again evolutionist claiming to prove something, without the proof. Your imagination is not proof.

I am not against evolution, I am for the truth. The truth is we don't know, and we can't prove.

Dinosaurs with feathers might not have the same ancestory as dinosaurs with scales. We CAN'T PROVE much of anything yet.

The entire essence of this thread is regarding undeniable proof. We do not have such proof, and no one has refuted me with proof.
edit on 29-6-2015 by Isurrender73 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 10:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Isurrender73

Start finding the missing links in the fossil records, or this remains in your imagination.


Missing link is a fallacy. There is no way to adequately fill in the missing links because every time you fill one link in, two more are created. There just comes a point when you accept that evolution is a gradual process of change over time.


Again evolutionist claiming to prove something, without the proof. Your imagination is not proof.


I could have SWORN I posted an article to Scientific American in my post showing that dinosaurs are now believed to have had feathers. Oh wait I did! So now you are actually being dishonest.


I am not against evolution, I am for the truth. The truth is we don't know, and we can't prove.


Using terms like "evolutionist" shows that yes you are against evolution. You are SO against it that you disbelieve it religiously and have to invent slurs to bring the opposing argument down to your level.


Dinosaurs with feathers might not have the same ancestory as dinosaurs with scales. W e don't know much of anything yet.


So? It still proves that reptiles of the past were different than reptiles of the present. You can't just casually dismiss things that prove you wrong.



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 10:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

This thread proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that we need to create a new class of science.

We will call it theologian science, where the goal is to disprove God without actually proving anything.

We have a lot of evidence that evolution could be the reason. We have none that says it definitively is the reason.

We have a lot of evidence for a creator, the perfection of the system being the most obvious. We live in a mathematically perfect construct, suggesting we were created by a mathematician.

And although I claim this as evidence of God, I am not saying it proves God.

The only way to fill in the gaps is faith. Faith in evolution or faith in creation. I choose creation and it does not make me ignorant.

edit on 29-6-2015 by Isurrender73 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 11:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: Krazysh0t

This thread proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that we need to create a new class of science.

We will call it theologian science, where the goal is to disprove God without actually proving anything.


Science doesn't have goals. It just collects evidence and uses that evidence to describe a process.


We have a lot of evidence that evolution could be the reason. We have none that says it definitively is the reason.

We have a lot of evidence for a creator, the perfection of the system being the most obvious. We live in a mathematically perfect construct, suggesting we were created by a mathematician.


No we don't... Who told you we live in a mathematically perfect construct? The earth's orbit alone disproves this nonsense. It doesn't orbit the sun EXACTLY as a factor of 24 hours. It takes an additional 6 hours for it to complete the orbit.


And although I claim this as evidence of God, I am not saying it proves God.


That's because it isn't evidence of god.


The only way to fill in the gaps is faith. Faith in evolution or faith in creation. I choose creation and it does not make me ignorant.


No... The way science fills in the gaps is with evidence. Faith isn't necessary. In fact faith is detrimental to science because faith creates confirmation bias and confirmation bias prevents you from changing your opinion when you are proven wrong.

Though I'm really not sure what this red herring post had to do with how I responded to your last post. It's really just a complete mash of nonsense.
edit on 29-6-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 11:38 AM
link   
There is a controversy in your mind.
a reply to: Isurrender73



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 12:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Isurrender73

Don't get me started on dating rocks and fossils. That is another nightmare of pseudo science all in itself.


originally posted by: Isurrender73
And you realize that we can't date rocks, so we date the surrounding sediment. Apparently their was never any flood that may have disrupted the sediment around such rocks.

And the dating of our geological column might as well have been throwing darts at a dartboard.

I know what I am talking about.

Oh goodness. These statements are complete hogwash.

(Please excuse my diversion from the main topic of this thread, to address these side comments)

Maybe you will change your opinion on the validity of radiometric dating, if the argument in support of it comes from a Christian?
Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective
About the author:

Dr. Wiens has a PhD in Physics, with a minor in Geology. His PhD thesis was on isotope ratios in meteorites, including surface exposure dating. He was employed at Caltech's Division of Geological & Planetary Sciences at the time of writing the first edition. He is presently employed in the Space & Atmospheric Sciences Group at the Los Alamos National Laboratory.


From the revised introduction:

Many Christians have been led to distrust radiometric dating and are completely unaware of the great number of laboratory measurements that have shown these methods to be consistent. Many are also unaware that Bible-believing Christians are among those actively involved in radiometric dating.

This paper describes in relatively simple terms how a number of the dating techniques work, how accurately the half-lives of the radioactive elements and the rock dates themselves are known, and how dates are checked with one another. In the process the paper refutes a number of misconceptions prevalent among Christians today.



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 12:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Isurrender73
Step 2 Single Cell to Multi-Cellular

Currently we are unable to prove that a single cell organism can evolve into a multi-cellular organism.

This is a true deal breaker for evolutionist.


No it's not. Studies have been done proving this exact thing.


Please don't link to the study that shows single cells organisms becoming specified when working together.


LMAO. Translation: Please don't link the science that proves me wrong. Sorry but the study clearly shows single cells becoming multi cellular including "multi cellular offspring". Sorry but you don't have multi cellular offspring if you are just "working together".


The farmer, the blacksmith and the tailor all work together, but they will never conjoin to become a three headed man.


Yes, this is the type of logic you are using here, and it's no surprise. Did you ever consider reading about evolution from an unbiased source?

Here are the steps of evolution.

1. Genetic mutation

2. Natural selection

Can you debunk either one? If not, you are arguing pure strawmans here, which is pretty typical of folks pushing an anti evolution agenda. Redefine scientific terminology and turn evolution into what you want to argue against, rather than what it actually is. I love when people who have never studied something in their life claim to know more than a scientist that has spent his/her career studying the phenomenon in question. People really love their religions. It leads to all kinds of ridiculous arguments and downright lies about it. Lets try again from the top. Honestly, this time.
edit on 29-6-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 02:55 PM
link   
Dispelling some misconceptions about evolution:

www.csicop.org...

From the article:
"Have you ever heard people challenge evolution by claiming that “it’s only a theory?” The Cobb County School District in Georgia did just that when it sought to put stickers on high school biology textbooks stating that, “Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origins of living things.” The problem with this claim rests with two different uses of the word theory. In popular usage the word refers to an unsubstantiated guess or assumption, as when someone theorizes that a light moving across the night sky must be an alien spaceship. When scientists use the word theory, however, they're referring to a logical, tested, well-supported explanation for a great variety of facts."

Probably won't get too many on board with this here at ATS lol.



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 03:21 PM
link   
Isurrender, can you please explain how God made every organism? Did he construct each one, cell by cell, until he had a fully working organism? I would really love to know your detailed scientific explanation as to how God created everything.. or at least your best theory.



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 03:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

LOL... and who on earth said that I was a creationist...

It surely never came out of my keyboard.

no, I simply love to point out the flaws of following the paradigms and those who have religious adherence to them while believing that their religion is something other than what it is.

Unfortunately, most are intellectually incapable of even understanding the flaws in reasoning and logic, let alone acknowledging them.

Jaden



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 04:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: spygeek

That study amounts to nothing more than mixing chemicals in a pan.

Nature can mix chemicals.

How is mixing chemicals, which we have assumed possible for decades, prove life arose naturally?

You know that you are grasping at straws when you call mixing chemicals in a pan Abiogenesis.


Do you wish to dispute the legitimacy of the field of biochemistry as well?

Clearly you do not understand scientific method. If you are shown an experiment which shows something is possible you refute it personal belief.

There is no point in debating a scientific subject with you if you are not going to make the effort to understand it and be scientific about it. You have produced no evidence to support your claims against evolution, and are labouring under the misapprehension that evolution is about the origin of life.


When a pig can mate with a monkey, then tell me their is no barrier...

I can use my imagination however I want, and it doesn't make me ignorant. You imagine evolution, I imagine creation.


Pretty much sums up your whole argument and demonstrates your complete misunderstanding of what a scientific theory actually is.
edit on 29-6-2015 by spygeek because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 06:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Isurrender73

Except that the science has shown exactly what you're asking us not to post a link to!

Seriously, go back to arguing over whose bronze age mythology is more correct in the CiR or RF&T forum because this is like a fight between you and borntowatch over who can display more ignorance over what the science around evolution actually says.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join