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.

 

Creation v Evolution argument can end

page: 22
9
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 12 2016 @ 12:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: logicsoda

originally posted by: Barcs
100m years ago there were no mammals. Now there are.


That's not true. Mammals have existed for more than 200 million years.


Woops, I was thinking primates, but for some reason went to mammals as a whole. My bad.




posted on Aug, 12 2016 @ 12:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: logicsoda

originally posted by: Barcs
100m years ago there were no mammals. Now there are.


That's not true. Mammals have existed for more than 200 million years.


Woops, I was thinking primates, but for some reason went to mammals as a whole. My bad.

We all make mistakes, mate. It's no big deal... like yesterday when I misused "debate"...
edit on 12-8-2016 by logicsoda because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2016 @ 12:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman


Why do you want to turn science into woo, why the big mystery religion of evolution
Why the lie

Every once in a while I forget what woo is, so I have to look it up:

Woo-RationalWiki
Woo is a term for pseudoscientific explanations that share certain common characteristics, often being too good to be true (aside from being unscientific). The term is common among skeptical writers. Woo is understood specifically as dressing itself in the trappings of science (but not the substance) while involving unscientific concepts, such as anecdotal evidence and sciencey-sounding words.

Woo is usually not the description of an effect but of the explanation as to why the effect occurs. For example, homeopathy may occasionally give results, but as a placebo—the explanations for these occasional results, e.g. water memory, are woo.

Woo is used to blind or distract an audience from a real explanation or to discourage people from delving deeper into the subject to find a more realistic explanation. You can't make money if nobody buys your bull#. (As such, "woo" that has zero paying customers is more like just ordinary bat# crazy.)

You did sort of open up the discussion to "nature" type people to discuss abiogenesis, so:

What if, 40 years ago, a new form of Archaea (probably the simplest to come into being) came to be. 5 years ago it was discovered by scientists who classified it as an ancestor of some branch of already known Archaea on it's tree.

Wouldn't that be funny
They would never know they were wrong. Why? Because they put too much faith in the tree that they made themselves.
edit on 12-8-2016 by pthena because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2016 @ 12:46 PM
link   
a reply to: pthena

As though the virgin birth,walking on water, bread, wine, lazarus, rose from the dead, burning bush, cloud-riding party was anything but "woo."
Don't egg him on. He gets it all over his face.



edit on 8/12/2016 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2016 @ 12:57 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs


As though the virgin birth,walking on water, bread, wine, lazarus, rose from the dead, burning bush, cloud-riding party was anything but "woo."

But those aren't the topic of discussion. The OP has repeatedly stated those are not the topic.

People hypothesize , then they test their hypotheses. After the hypotheses have sufficient evidence to support them, they then make a theory. The theory is theoretically very difficult to prove or disprove(in math and physics there are working theorems that have yet to be proven or disproven, yet they are still building blocks upon which advances are made). Evidence suggests that the single ancestor model of evolution is flawed. That's pretty much the topic. I don't have a problem staying on topic.



edit on 12-8-2016 by pthena because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-8-2016 by pthena because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2016 @ 01:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
I am interested in how we can tell a whale was once a hippo, not adaptation, evolution.


So you didn't read much (if any) of the info I linked to you about whale evolution?

Perhaps you just missed the post?

Here it is again: evolution.berkeley.edu...

Here are a couple others:


The evidence that whales descended from terrestrial mammals is here divided into nine independent parts: paleontological, morphological, molecular biological, vestigial, embryological, geochemical, paleoenvironmental, paleobiogeographical, and chronological. Although my summary of the evidence is not exhaustive, it shows that the current view of whale evolution is supported by scientific research in several distinct disciplines.

www.talkorigins.org...

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution

Talk Origins is a great resource.

These two video series are good as well, imo.

Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism
Falsifying Phylogeny

Many, and more, of your concerns with evolution are addressed in the above links.

edit on 8-12-2016 by WakeUpBeer because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2016 @ 01:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: BuzzyWigs


As though the virgin birth,walking on water, bread, wine, lazarus, rose from the dead, burning bush, cloud-riding party was anything but "woo."

But those aren't the topic of discussion. The OP has repeatedly stated those are not the topic.

People hypothesize , then they test their hypotheses. After the hypotheses have sufficient evidence to support them, they then make a theory. The theory is theoretically very difficult to prove or disprove(in math and physics there are working theorems that have yet to be proven or disproven, yet they are still building blocks upon which advances are made). Evidence suggests that the single ancestor model of evolution is flawed. That's pretty much the topic. I don't have a problem staying on topic.




of course its flawed, thats why its a theory. but it is also the least flawed theory we have available. certainly more reliable than ANY intelligent design model you would care to place next to it for comparison. if you doubt the current consensus, give it a shot. prove the world wrong and give us our new improved superior model of creationism. thats the funniest part of this whole thread, spending 20 pages trying to find a weak link in the theory of evolution but completely ignoring the gaping hole where the sparkling and all-conclusive creationist model should be.



posted on Aug, 12 2016 @ 01:50 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

I didn't know there was a creationist model...

I always figured it was like... Poof!!




posted on Aug, 12 2016 @ 01:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: TzarChasm

I didn't know there was a creationist model...

I always figured it was like... Poof!!



not that im an expert in theoretical theology, but 'poof!' sounds a lot more suspicious than ''descent with modification'.

edit on 12-8-2016 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2016 @ 02:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: TzarChasm

I didn't know there was a creationist model...

I always figured it was like... Poof!!



not that im an expert in theoretical theology, but 'poof!' sounds a lot more suspicious than ''descent with modification'.


Well ya, no argument there...

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.


Seee.... Poof!!

Evidence?




posted on Aug, 12 2016 @ 02:09 PM
link   
a reply to: pthena

Sorry to butt in again, but is there a chance you could post that evidence that suggests common ancestry is flawed? You suggested that we didn't know for sure that certain organisms were related, and you posted about the universal genetic code which seems to suggest that DNA is very similar throughout all life on earth, which agrees with common ancestry in my eyes. I can agree that it's possible for there to be multiple abiogenesis events, but haven't seen any evidence that goes against common ancestry itself. Obviously the theory of modern synthesis isn't perfect and can't cover everything (no DNA samples from older lifeforms), but it's pretty obvious in the fossil record from what I've seen myself, plus you can see an organism's genetic history in it's genome.

Sorry, the OP's shtick is old, this is far more interesting to me.



edit on 8 12 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2016 @ 02:22 PM
link   
a reply to: WakeUpBeer
Thank you WakeUpBeer,

I'll look those over. And I gave you a star.
I think the offtopic people are here to give each other stars, just a hypothesis.



posted on Aug, 12 2016 @ 02:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Akragon


In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.


Seee.... Poof!!


yeah, 'poof!' ...with extra steps. clearly the theory of evolution plays second string to the magic act you just described.
edit on 12-8-2016 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2016 @ 02:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: WakeUpBeer
Thank you WakeUpBeer,

I'll look those over. And I gave you a star.
I think the offtopic people are here to give each other stars, just a hypothesis.



gave you a star for your off topic post.



posted on Aug, 12 2016 @ 02:31 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm


it is also the least flawed theory we have available.

Maybe as far as handed out for public consumption theories go.

Did you miss my little what if?

What if a new life form comes to be today?

Hypothesis: If discovered in 5 years by scientists would it be classified as a more primitive life form and get plugged into the currently theorized evolution tree as an ancestor to more developed life forms?

Answer: Absolutely.

Conclusion: There's something flawed about the currently theorized evolution tree.



posted on Aug, 12 2016 @ 02:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

This may have been mentioned already. Only halfway through this thread.

But nonetheless, it's a point that needs to be hammered in.

In regards to "100+ million dead" thing.

Raggedyman, you do realize that atheism has no tenets, right?

One only has to lack a belief in god(s). Boom, atheist.

Atheists and other non believers don't have ancient holy books to offer them guidance. The argument that atheism drove those mass murderers to do what they did, is completely wrong. There is no correlation. Those people did the things they did because of other reasons.

Hmm.. trying to recall what book tells/told (depending on your view) it's adherents to kill people, sometimes to the point of genocide?

Hmm.. Oh yeah. The Bible, to name just one.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

And we all know what Islam is capable of.

Really though, it is religion and people.

Point is this.

People are capable of evil things.
Religious texts advocate murder and violence. (if not now, then in the past. which is still relevant)
Atheism is just a label to describe non believers.

I am an atheist because I don't believe in the cruel psychopathic tendencies of deities, and because it is clearly all bullcrap, imo. Not saying it's bad for people to be religious..

Just saying..

Trying to correlate atheism with mass murdering leaders?

Just no.

Just saw this some pages back:

originally posted by: blueman12
a reply to: Raggedyman

There is a big difference between being a murdering athiest, and killing purely for the cause of athiesm.

Religion is lightyears ahead when it comes to killing in the name of.

There is no athiest handbook that talks about killing theists or encourages it. Nor is there an atheist creed for morality or beliefs.

However, there are plenty of "holy" verses that condone or encourage violence.

I'm sorry, but the whole "athiests kill for their cause too!" arguement is BS. It's not even close to being on the same level as religion.

Exactly. Much less winded than my little rant.




edit on 8-12-2016 by WakeUpBeer because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2016 @ 02:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: TzarChasm


it is also the least flawed theory we have available.

Maybe as far as handed out for public consumption theories go.

Did you miss my little what if?

What if a new life form comes to be today?

Hypothesis: If discovered in 5 years by scientists would it be classified as a more primitive life form and get plugged into the currently theorized evolution tree as an ancestor to more developed life forms?

Answer: Absolutely.

Conclusion: There's something flawed about the currently theorized evolution tree.


the biggest flaw in evolutionary theory is that it is incomplete.
edit on 12-8-2016 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2016 @ 02:38 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

Thank you.
This is definitely off topic.
I better go back to Barcs question.

wait, I think we can slip in some on topic. here's your next statement:


the biggest flaw in evolutionary theory is that it is incomplete

In my view, just my opinion, is that it is too rigid in definition, therefore modification is very slow to occur, like a very traditionalist as opposed to evolving view.


edit on 12-8-2016 by pthena because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-8-2016 by pthena because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2016 @ 02:47 PM
link   
a reply to: pthena


In my view, just my opinion, is that it is too rigid in definition, therefore modification is very slow to occur, like a very traditionalist as opposed to evolving view.


seems to me the mistake you are making is in looking at evolution like its a production line. evolution is not a business. its not about economy, some guy in a suit and tie decides how to make the most money in the least amount of time. evolution is a biological lottery riddled with happy coincidences perched on a mountain of forgotten failures. most people have no idea how many species have been crushed to obscurity with the passage of time. 99.9999999% of all lifeforms ever to exist have perished and been lost to memory. 99.9999999% of lifeforms existing today will face the same fate. humankind may very well join them one of these centuries. its a matter of how reckless we are versus how charitable the universe feels. if those odds make you nervous, just remember where your gasoline came from.


edit on 12-8-2016 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2016 @ 02:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: Raggedyman


What if, 40 years ago, a new form of Archaea (probably the simplest to come into being) came to be. 5 years ago it was discovered by scientists who classified it as an ancestor of some branch of already known Archaea on it's tree.

Based on what criteria though would it be placed at the root of a branch of currently existing archaea? It's not as if someone discovers it and then makes every decision regarding the future of the exemplar. And then there's DNA, which seems to be completely ignored in all of your statements suggesting that evidence of a Universal Common Ancestor is bunk and that evidence actually contradicts this yet I'm not actually seeing any citations that support the position. Actually, I take that back, you did cite a UC Berkley article. However, you have not demonstrated why, or supported your position stating that the handful of rare exceptions are in fact evidence against UCA as opposed to the supported position you argue against, that these rare exceptions do in fact support the existence of a UCA.


One of the biggest examples of a Universal Code exception is the mitochondria. At first glance it looks sketchy that an organism has a separate genetic structure from its mitochondria and that the same letter combinations are a stop codon in the organism itself yet the same exact sequence in the mitochondria is instead of a codon, that sequence an amino acid like tryptophan. When looking at the mitochondria alone, this is actually evidence supporting the theory that mitochondria were an endosymbiotic bacterium at the time when the eukaryotic cell first arose. The mitochondrial genome is small, and most of the genes of the original endosymbiont have migrated to the nucleus. After comparing many, many mitochondrial DNA samples, all of the mitochondria can be shown to have a common ancestor that luved ~1.5 BA

A few additional exceptions to the universal genetic code aside from mitochondria have also been identified. These include the nuclear genome of a few protozoan species and also in the bacterium Mycoplasma capricolum. These exceptions, however, do not imply multiple evolutionary origins of life. What is most striking is that the "exceptional" meanings of most of the codons are identical across all the organisms in which they are found, not different. Had there been multiple origins, we would expect to see drastically different genetic codes in these exceptional organisms.

Here is a good read. Take a look and decide for yourself what you think the evidence actually says. whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com...







Wouldn't that be funny
They would never know they were wrong. Why? Because they put too much faith in the tree that they made themselves.


It's always fun to sit back and laugh out loud based on unlikely hypotheticals but hey, if it helps you maintain your position that there was no Universal Common Ancestor then have at it! No seriously though(sorry, I can't help the sarcasm sometimes), You make it sound much so much simpler than things really are and this level of oversimplification doesn't work to anyones advantage. It's examples like the one you pose above that lend credence to the system of peer review we suffer through in academia.

The only people who seem to be under the impression that all of academia is administered by an "old boys network" and that the accepted paradigm is the end all be all of how things are approached and dealt with, are those who have never pursued science beyond a basic 4 year collegiate level, have never sat through a conference in a room filled with people from the same field and have certainly never had to prepare for et alone defend a Thesis or Dissertation and have not submitted research for purposes of publication.

At the heart of academia, lie entire groups of people, who want nothing more than to destroy your work and savor every flaw as if it is a Kobe Filet Mignon. However, judging by the rhetoric so pervasive on this particular forum on ATS, one would think that we are all "in it together", presenting a united front against interlopers bent on altering the entire scientific paradigm. The opposite is in fact true. EVERYONE wants to be that guy/girl who presents some mindl blowing, paradigm shattering piece of data and making a name for themselves in the process. The level of competitiveness at your average conference would make the Olympic Village in Rio seem completely neutered in comparison.

Because of that level of competitiveness, your work must be top notch, your errors, nonexistent. The more outlandish your claims, the more impressive the data to support it must be. Anyone who discovers a new Archaea is going to be under that very same microscope, especially when they are attempting to place it in the hierarchy of known members of that Kingdom. And with the level of sensitivity and coverage currently available with genetic testing, where this new critter fits in will be easily discernable.
edit on 12-8-2016 by peter vlar because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join