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.

 

Creationists...What will it take?

page: 9
0
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xerrog
Well I've been reading on Allelic frequencies and while you are right you are also wrong.


Not sure if this is directed at me, but please point out what specifically I've said is wrong. Please try to avoid innane rambling.

FYI, dominant/recessive relationships don't generally exist in organisms that are haploid, such as microorganisms.

Before you tell someone with a Ph.D. in molecular biology that their analysis of gene frequencies is incorrect, you better be prepared to discuss specifics and back them up.

So... now what am I wrong about?




posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 02:39 PM
link   
Wassup yall,

I read through most of this insanely long thread and I have decided to throw my 2 cents in the mix.

First off, I think the whole evolutuion vs. creationism argument is, well, mostly pointless. Science doesn't claim to prove whether or not a Supreme Being exists and if this being did or didn't create the universe and everything in it. That subject is best left to religion and philosophy. On the other hand, I don't think that religion is an adequate method of describing things we observe in the physical universe; that is best left to science.

That being said, I can understand why these groups clash and butt heads often. IMO, it goes to the crossroad where these 2 lines of thought attempt to explain the same thing. I guess at this point that I should mention that I support evolution over creationism. Don't get it twisted, though, I do believe in a higher power.

I must admit that the Big Bang Theory isn't the most solid explanation of the origin of everything. At the same time, I don't believe that the Christian God created a geo-centric universe just for us humans, even though that would make a lot of us feel special.

Look, the fact is that evolution HAS been observed in labs. Like some of the evolution supporters have mentioned, evolution and natural selection explain species diversity that we observe today. There is NO way that evolution can explain the origin of life, it just tells us how existing organisms change over time. I don't know if anyone has mentioned this yet, but the endosymbiotic theory provides strong evidence that mitochondria and chloroplasts present in eukaryotic cells were once bacteria that became incorporated into these cells. They are structurally similar to some bacteria AND they have their own separate genetic material.

On the other hand, creationism is correct in its assessment that there must be a supernatural (and I use that term loosely) origin of life and the universe. But, since creationists argue that this event was directed rather a chance occurrence, I have some questions.

1. If God created the insanely large universe, why did he only put life on one planet?

2. How can you maintain that evolutionists who believe info from journals, books, articles, etc. on evolution are wrong when you put all your stock into a book as well? (and one book, at that)

3. And, last but not least, why is it that Christians in general have egos that rival those of rappers?

Even if creationism is the correct explanation, why is it that only the Christian God could have done this? Are Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, and others who have faith just as strong as yours completely wrong? How can Christianity be the one true religion when it came from another religion and was influenced by other, older religions?

My bad for the tangent, but I feel that this stubborness is one of the key driving forces that prompt some creationists to staunchly declare that "My God is the only God, Jesus is Lord without a doubt, there is no way anyone can disprove this." Actually, they are correct on that last point; Christianity has a neat trick in that you must accept everything the Bible says as true in order to really understand the message. If not, you won't get it. Pretty clever.

Personally, evolution is more credible than creationism (which isn't even a real science) if you ask me. But, as someone else mentioned, science is limited in what it can explore. I feel that a Supreme Being exists who created everything and is part of everything. I am a former Baptist who abandoned the faith due to questions I had that are to this day unanswered. But, I still believe in a higher power. I also believe in evolution.

BTW, the Bible does contain flaws and contradictions. One thing I don't understand is how Christians can use the same part of the Bible that Jews use and discredit them (who could be considered their "ancestors") by stating that Jesus came along and now Christians are the only ones who are right. That's one problem with all religions; they tend to alienate more people than they bring together.

And to the person who said that since countless people have died in Jesus's name, so he's real, come on. Countless people have died in the name of other things, even other deities (see Allah), so that proves nothing. Besides, wouldn't Jesus want people NOT to kill in his name? Wouldn't that go against "love thy neighbor?"

Well, that's all I have to say about that.



posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 02:42 PM
link   
There is only one way to solve this issue and with it many of the worlds major problems.

Gather all the creationists and exterminate them. It doesnt answer the question but it removes it very effectively.



posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 03:46 PM
link   
This will be the plan, in the tribulation



posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 03:57 PM
link   
You ask what it will take for creationists to believe in evolution.

I'll always believe in God but for the sake of argument when evolution comes up with truth instead of lies. See the following article:

THE PILTDOWN HOAX

In 1912, Charles Dawson, a lawyer and amateur fossil hunter, discovered a few fragments of a jawbone and pieces of a skull in a gravel pit near Piltdown, England. The jawbone appeared to be quite ape-like, but the teeth and the skull appeared to be quite human-like. Dawson and the English scientists with whom he consulted were certain that all of these fossil bones were from a single individual--a creature combining human-like and ape-like features. it is amazing g how many supposed human-like characteristics they thought they could see in the ape-like jaw and how many ape-like characteristics they imagined they were seeing in the human skull.
They declared that these fossils were from a creature intermediate between ape and man that existed 500,000 years ago. This creature was given the official name of Eoanthropus dawsoni (Eoanthropus means
"Dawn-man") and he became known as the famous Piltdown Man. Although some scientists did not believe that all these bones came from the same individual, most scientists declared that Piltdown Man was a genuine subhuman ancestor of man. For nearly 50 years, Piltdown Man stood as one of our ancestors, and about 500 books and pamphlets were written about Piltdown Man.

But in 1950, Piltdown Man got "buried" again! In that year, it was shown that Piltdown Man was a hoax--a fake! Someone had taken the jawbone of an ape and the skull of a modern human, treated them with chemicals to make them look old, filed the teeth with a file to make them look human-like instead of ape-like, planted the "fossil" bones in the gravel pit, and fooled the world's greatest experts! Why did it take the experts almost 50 years to detect the fraud? Why didn't they see the scratch marks on the teeth made by the file when they first looked at the teeth? Why didn't they notice, right away, that the brown stain on these bones was only in a thin, outer layer? Why were they able to "see" human characteristics in the ape's jaw, and why did they "see" ape-like characteristics in the human skull? All of this happened because evolutionists believed so strongly in evolution that they saw the things they expected to find, and failed to see thing they did not want to see.

Also Nebraska man was a lie and Neanderthal man another lie. Also Ramapithecus was a lie as well as Orce man. Evolution is based on lie and christians seek truth.

I also forgot to add in about the Brontosaurus which I learned about when I was in elementary school. OOPS, yet another lie because now we are told it never existed.

[edit on 14-2-2005 by dbrandt]



posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by JamesBlonde
There is only one way to solve this issue and with it many of the worlds major problems.

Gather all the creationists and exterminate them. It doesnt answer the question but it removes it very effectively.


LOL... kinda like you walking into a packed stadium and killing everyone with a knife. You have no clue how out numbered you really are.



posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 04:17 PM
link   
But surely they will all be rushing greatfully to meet heir merciful and ever odious maker. Myself and the 4 or 5 other realistic people in the world would have many years work in providing this essential sevice. And at no charge.



posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by JamesBlonde
There is only one way to solve this issue and with it many of the worlds major problems.

Gather all the creationists and exterminate them. It doesnt answer the question but it removes it very effectively.



You know what I find amusing and sad. Here we have a post that talks about someone going out and KILLING a group of people(those who believe in the God of the Bible). Killing ends a life and is a sin and yet the people to be killed are the "bad guys".

According to this "thoery" the 2 kids who shot the other 11 or 12 kids at Columbine High School were the "good guys" and the other kids(at least 3 or 4 of whom were christians) deserved what they got. Why won't we believe evolution, because it doesn't answer any questions, it simply makes man into nothing more than an animal. Creationism(the Bible) answers the questions that are deep within man and tells us life is a gift from God and that man is important. It explains why man acts as he does and there is a solution to the problem and that we can go onto greater things.

Even if you meant this as a joke, it's a pretty sick joke.



posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeka
3. And, last but not least, why is it that Christians in general have egos that rival those of rappers?



A real christian places others above himself. In general what you think is an ego trip is confidence in our God.



posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Why won't we believe evolution, because it doesn't answer any questions, it simply makes man into nothing more than an animal. Creationism(the Bible) answers the questions that are deep within man and tells us life is a gift from God and that man is important.


We ARE just animals, that is why r€ligion is the ultimate narciscissm.
The sight and sound of these "i'm holier than thou and youre gonna burn in hell" fools makes me want to retch.

Have you ever read about the Spanish inquisition?

"Our god gives us strength." you say. Fine, but only because you have taken it from your victims in the currency of fear and ignorance.

I am not joking, I would see public reigion banned and those who persisted in pursuing it all exterminated at the drop of a hat and not blink in knowig that it could only improve the world.



posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by JamesBlonde
We ARE just animals,Have you ever read about the Spanish inquisition?

"Our god gives us strength." you say.



Mankind can act like animals but we are not.
Help to explain how you are mad at people that killed during the inquisition and yet that is what you want to do? That makes no sense.
Our God does give us srtength but I didn't say that.



posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by LuDaCrIs
This question goes out to all creationists.

What is it going to take for you to beleive evolution?



Education.



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 03:36 AM
link   
Mattison.. I have two problems with what you have said.

When you've talked about Allelic frequencies you've used that term to describe something that exists. It is but a measurement of how many of a species or select population have a specific gene variation. It does not specifically describe that variation.

Second..



Evolution doesn't occur in individuals, it occurs in populations. There is nothing gradual about.


Throughout every single organisms life their genes are altered and variate from those of its ancestors. That is the root of evolution.

You may not consider it a evolved state until a certain or noticeable percentage inherit that trait, however it is the beginning of a evolution. Evolution starts with a single variation in a individual. Similar variations may appear in other individuals some even nearly identical. The similar variations do help reinforce the possibility that the particular variation will survive to become inherint in a large percentage and possibly all of the population.

If you still hold to this statement. I ask you again how does a full blown change happen overnight across a entire population?



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xerrog
When you've talked about Allelic frequencies you've used that term to describe something that exists. It is but a measurement of how many of a species or select population have a specific gene variation. It does not specifically describe that variation.

What? Thanks for the definition of allelic frequency. What does the discussion of alteration of allelic or gene frequencies in a population have to do with describing that variation. The variation was previously defined in this thread... the specific variation is antibiotic resistance... do you want more specifics. Do I need to describe beta lactamase based resistance vs. efflux pump mediated resistance? What EXACTLY is your beef?



Evolution doesn't occur in individuals, it occurs in populations. There is nothing gradual about.

There is nothing inherently false abou this statement... it's true. Evolution doesn't occur in individuals, it occurs in population.


Throughout every single organisms life their genes are altered and variate from those of its ancestors.

Really? Genes are altered as a consequence of being alive? Perhaps you should break out the Bio 101 text again. In organism that reproduce asexually, like bacteria, daughter cells have the same genetic makeup as parent cells. They are clones; hence the term colony to describe a growth of bacteria from one original cell. Occasionally, (depending on the polymerase) mistakes are made in DNA replication, that will get passed on. These mistakes/mutations represent the genetic diversity wherein different alleles arise. However the point is that the diversity exists IRRESPECTIVE of whether or not the selective pressure is there.


If you still hold to this statement. I ask you again how does a full blown change happen overnight across a entire population?

It doesn't. Changes don't happen across populations O/N. The frequency of PRE-EXISTING genes within a population can change relatively quickly under selective pressure, but changes within populations don't happen O/N.

If you've got a specific example, please, let's discuss.



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by dbrandt
THE PILTDOWN HOAX

Also Nebraska man was a lie and Neanderthal man another lie. Also Ramapithecus was a lie as well as Orce man. Evolution is based on lie and christians seek truth.

I also forgot to add in about the Brontosaurus which I learned about when I was in elementary school. OOPS, yet another lie because now we are told it never existed.


A real eye opener. I didn't realize any of this. I guess I too trusted science in these matters. I'm interested in hearing any defending statements though.



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
A real eye opener. I didn't realize any of this. I guess I too trusted science in these matters. I'm interested in hearing any defending statements though.

Hi Saint... Much of this is actually discussed in "creationist confusion," though given the length of that thread, I can see why one might not remember


Piltdown man, you won't see that refuted... established hoax... even Nygdan and I agree on this



Neanderthal man another lie

IMO, this is probably a slight overstatement. There is some controversy surrounding how different Neanderthal is from modern humans. But I probably wouldn't say that Neanderthal man is a lie.


Brontosaurus which I learned about when I was in elementary school. OOPS, yet another lie because now we are told it never existed.

While this is not my area of expertise, as I understand it, brontosaurus is just known under a different name Apatosaurus, but to my knowledge, it not regarded as a hoax, but more of a misclassification. That Marsh discovered this skeleton in the late 19th century is not in dispute.



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by mattison0922
Hi Saint... Much of this is actually discussed in "creationist confusion," though given the length of that thread, I can see why one might not remember


Oh yeah, I was thinking of publishling that one. Do you two think 60-40 is a fair split? It'd be higher for your 60%, but have to pay for binding, printing and such. I'll U2U the contract
. I'll have to read it again when I take my next vacation, that one was fun to follow and refer to it a lot in my 'favorites' tab. For those of you who missed it, check it out:

Creationist Confusion
www.abovetopsecret.com...

and of course another true original in it's unabridged form:

Evolution, where is the evidence? I see none
www.abovetopsecret.com...


Originally posted by mattison0922
Piltdown man, you won't see that refuted... established hoax... even Nygdan and I agree on this


Wow
. No sense in disputing that then.


Originally posted by mattison0922
IMO, this is probably a slight overstatement. There is some controversy surrounding how different Neanderthal is from modern humans. But I probably wouldn't say that Neanderthal man is a lie.


Jury is still out. *taps his eraser* Gottit.


Originally posted by mattison0922
While this is not my area of expertise, as I understand it, brontosaurus is just known under a different name Apatosaurus, but to my knowledge, it not regarded as a hoax, but more of a misclassification. That Marsh discovered this skeleton in the late 19th century is not in dispute.


I went through many misclassifications myself...should've never taken that 'Diversity of Life' class and those credits in research.

Have I nominated you for 'way above' this month? I don't think I did. Time to try again....



You have voted mattison0922 for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.


Bingo!

A pleasure as always, thanks for setting me straight.



[edit on 15-2-2005 by saint4God]



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by mattison0922
IMO, this is probably a slight overstatement. There is some controversy surrounding how different Neanderthal is from modern humans. But I probably wouldn't say that Neanderthal man is a lie.

.



NEANDERTHAL MAN

In 1860, about the time that Darwin published his book on evolution, the first few fossil fragments of Neanderthal Man were found in the Neanderthal Valley, in Germany. Later, additional fossils of the Neanderthal people were found in other parts of Europe, in Asia, Africa, and Israel. In 1908, a nearly complete skeleton was found in France. The Neanderthal people manufactured tools and weapons, and they buried their dead just like modern-day people. furthermore, their brains were somewhat larger than those of modern-day humans.
All of this indicated that they were fully human, Homo sapiens. They did, in some ways, however, appear to be rather primitive. their skulls were flatter than ours, some of them had rather heavy eyebrow ridges, and the skeleton in France appeared to be hunched over, as if Neanderthal Man did not walk completely upright like you and I. Based on these findings, the Neanderthal people were declared, by evolutionists, to be subhuman ancestors of man, and were given the official name of Homo neanderthalensis. Museum exhibits and pictures of the Neanderthal people portrayed them as sort of long-armed, knuckle-dragging, beetle-browed, stooped-shouldered, bow-legged subhumans.

A famous anatomist, Dr. Rudolph Virchow, declared, many years ago, that the primitive features of the Neanderthal people were not due to the fact that these people were subhuman, but were due to diseases, or pathological conditions. He pointed out that the skeleton discovered in France was of an old man who couldn't walk upright because he had a bad case of arthritis! Dr. Virchow declared, further, that all of these people suffered severely from rickets (a condition caused by the lack of Vitamin D) which causes bones to become soft and deformed. For many years, however, evolutionists paid no attention to what Dr. Virchow was saying, because they wanted Neanderthal Man to be a true subhuman ancestor of man.

Eventually, however, other skeletons of Neanderthal people were found that were fully erect, and it was established, by medical research, that the skeleton found in France was, indeed, that of an arthritic old man. X-rays of the fossil bones and teeth showed, just as Dr.
Virchow had declared, that all of the Neanderthal people had rickets.
Scientists finally concluded that all of the so-called primitive features of the Neanderthal people were due to pathological conditions, or diseases. Museums have removed the old exhibits of Neanderthal people and have replaced them with new exhibits showing the Neanderthal people looking very human, and about 30 years ago, two scientists published an article about Neanderthal people in which they declared that if Neanderthal Man were given a shave, a haircut, and a bath, put into a business suit, and placed on the New York subway, no one would take a second look!


Man is fallible. What is right one day could be wrong 20 years later. A persons trust cannot be 100% placed in another human. Only God deserves our complete trust because He is not fallible and is not out to deceive.



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by dbrandt
Man is fallible. What is right one day could be wrong 20 years later. A persons trust cannot be 100% placed in another human. Only God deserves our complete trust because He is not fallible and is not out to deceive.


And yet people beleive the bible as truth......



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by LuDaCrIs


And yet people beleive the bible as truth......



God inspired the writing of the Bible. Actual men's hands wrote what God had them write. If someone can't accept this then the Bilble will remain meaningless.

[edit on 15-2-2005 by dbrandt]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join