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.

 

There's the Theory of Evolution and the Interpretation of Evolution

page: 2
12
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 13 2018 @ 04:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: LABTECH767



he is also no longer top dog since quantum theory has taken over

Is that right? Tell me. How does quantum theory deal with spacetime. Oh, wait. It doesn't. Sort of like how the theory of evolution is separate from the origins of life.

Tell me, how has general relatively been demonstrated to be wrong. Oh, wait.

Ignoring your ad hominem attempts toward Albert.


Al was cool!

Also, Quantum Spacetime - Wikipedia

Jus puttin' it out there.





posted on Jun, 13 2018 @ 04:49 AM
link   
a reply to: LABTECH767

They might well be mutually exclusive we don't know but
I understand your point
Building blocks of everything, what are they?

I have this theory about lots of little plastic bands made of a type of duct tape resonating in this wd40 liquids type mattery substance. Not sure what the resonating component is. Think I will call it the "duct tape wd40 theory"

We don't know and that indicates that the op has a point


And nobody tells me that life evolving from nothing is not evolution, it is.
It's like saying the baby in the womb is not a life till its born, it's arguable
edit on 13-6-2018 by Raggedyman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2018 @ 04:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

Why not
What's your issue

Not everything in our daily lives can be explained, some can



posted on Jun, 13 2018 @ 05:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

Why not what? What's my issue about what?


Not everything in our daily lives can be explained


Yeah, I know. That was my point in my first post..

When we don't have explanations we seek them. The scientific methodology has proven to be most fruitful.
edit on 13-6-2018 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2018 @ 05:10 AM
link   
As it pertains to the OP topic,

Scripture also states flying creatures existed before all land animals.

That's completely contrary to our current scientific understanding of how life on Earth evolved..
edit on 13-6-2018 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2018 @ 05:24 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Oh dear. No.

Only if you live where "banging your head into walls" would give you an advantage over other examples of your species therefore you would be able to birth/support more of your children so they can give the "thick head"-advantage on their children and so on.

Evolution just says that any advantage you have over others which lets you have a larger number of children who themselves have larger (surviving, striving, successfull, etc.) numbers of children.

Its a theory of "winning in numbers by superiority".



posted on Jun, 13 2018 @ 05:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman


And nobody tells me that life evolving from nothing is not evolution, it is.


No, it's not. Evolution concerns itself with terrestrial matters; not abiogenesis. Or did I misunderstand your post? Either way, it's not part of the Theory of Evolution that life came from nothing'.

So there is a reason no one tells you that..

Even if we granted you that, how is 'god' creating stuff from 'nothing', any different? Why is that acceptable when it's proposed to come from god(s), but not acceptable without a god?
edit on 13-6-2018 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2018 @ 05:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: LABTECH767

There is even a whole creationist school that believe the earth IS billions of years old

Okay. That doesn't help the account of Genesis or its' reconciliation with modern scientific findings.

It doesn't matter how old Christians think Earth is. Genesis states Earth existed prior to all the stars in the Universe. So then how on 'Day 3' is there thriving plant life??

Those Creationist schools could say the Earth is a trillion years old or 1 day old, and it wouldn't reconcile the grave error of placing Earth's existence prior to all the stars.


The latest astronomy puts the oldest observable stars as beginning fusion due to gravitational collapse, some billion years after the Big Bang singularity and reionization.

If life arose by chemical abiogenesis, the conditions for rudimentry life forms to arise could well have existed prior to stellar ignition.

The creation of heavy elements before stellar nucleosynthesis is entirely explicable by boundary effects of the singularity. This is evidenced in the recent (2017) observations of the effects of infalling matter on the super black hole at the core of the Milky Way galaxy, which made us revise our assumption that only stellar nucleosynthesis could create the heavy elements. Some theorists have suggested singularity nucleosynthesis may in fact be the primary cause of the the universes heavy elements and stellar nucleosynthesis only secondary.

Additional evidence that chemical abiogenesis may not be exclusively terrestrial is spectroscopic data indicating the abundant presence of amino acids and alcohols in deep space dust clouds.

Theories about the formation of the solar system have held that it coalesced from nearly static interstellar particulate matter and that its clumping was arranged by resonances and later turbulences.

That the pre-solar system particulate distribution was homogenous and smooth is highly unlikely and not compatible with any of the models. The slightest perturbation on a microscopic level of such a proposed smooth distribution would quickly lead to raging turbulence as differentially clumped matter collides, smashes apart, is thrown around each other, and re-coalesces. Even if it started smooth, it would become chaotic and turbulent. This is a far more likely explanation of planetary formation, than the smooth and gradual clumping in relative orbital stasis, of the old theory.

We have observed examples of the gravitational capture of interstellar wanderers and 'sun diver' objects. Current theory holds that the proto-Earth and another object, Thea, collided, creating the Earth and the Moon. So, it is also possible that the Earth is a captured object, just as it is also possible that it was created 'in place' from local Sun orbiting particulates.

It is not scientifically improbable for a proto-'Earth' to exist prior to stellar ignition, nor is it improbable for early life to arise on it before there was a mechanism or need for photosynthesis (the 'plant' life that exists around deep sea vents does not photosynthesize).



posted on Jun, 13 2018 @ 06:02 AM
link   
The word nothing means that there is no thing. The assumed first thing was 'you' - 'you' are divided from the whole.
Really there is the whole and 'you' are not really divided from it - 'you' are seeing what there is. Can the 'seeing' be divided (separate) from the appearance?

'Seeing' and 'appearance' are not two separate things - they are one. No different from 'the father' and 'son' are one!

So there isn't any 'thing'!



edit on 13-6-2018 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2018 @ 06:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: ManFromEurope
a reply to: chr0naut

Oh dear. No.

Only if you live where "banging your head into walls" would give you an advantage over other examples of your species therefore you would be able to birth/support more of your children so they can give the "thick head"-advantage on their children and so on.

Evolution just says that any advantage you have over others which lets you have a larger number of children who themselves have larger (surviving, striving, successfull, etc.) numbers of children.

Its a theory of "winning in numbers by superiority".


My post was somewhat tongue in cheek as evidenced by the


Also, surely normal unadapted humans can be killed by a significant blow to the forehead (as occurs, due to natural forces and human competition). Surely that affords a real and significant selection advantage to the adapted?



edit on 13/6/2018 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2018 @ 06:37 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut


It is not scientifically improbable for a proto-'Earth' to exist prior to stellar ignition


How can you say it's scientifically probable there was a proto-Earth prior to all stars; when all evidence points to an unimaginable amount of stars existing prior to Earth??


nor is it improbable for early life to arise on it before there was a mechanism or need for photosynthesis

Genesis 3 doesn't talk about some obscure proto-plant. It specifically states fruit trees grew to enough maturation to grow fruit! I wouldn't say it's improbable either; I'd say it's impossible.


the 'plant' life that exists around deep sea vents does not photosynthesize).


You think there would be seas without stars?? Well isn't that something.

So you would have us believe that planets can form without stars, fruiting trees can thrive without sunshine, and seas can arise absent any heat from a nearby star. Alright.


. So, it is also possible that the Earth is a captured object, just as it is also possible that it was created 'in place' from local Sun orbiting particulates.


Particles orbiting the 'Sun' suggests the 'Sun' existed during Earth's formation.

Are you not familiar with Genesis? Earth existed prior to the Sun!
edit on 13-6-2018 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2018 @ 06:58 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

The oldest known star is 13.6 billion years old. Created by previous super nova.

But. It is a secondary star.

There were stars before. But different.

Here's an interesting watch. But you need to sign up to watch it.

www.bbc.co.uk...



posted on Jun, 13 2018 @ 07:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic
It's funny when I see atheist like Richard Dawkins in a debate. He brings up Evolution like it's the Bible of atheism. The truth is, Dawkins has an interpretation of evolution that's filled with more holes than a fence. When you watch Dawkins and others they don't have answers for half of the questions they're asked. They say, we don't know or we don't have any answers yet and anyone that attempts to answer these questions in a way Dawkins doesn't agree with, then it's just god of the gaps.

That's just ignorant. Science is suppose to try and answer questions or gaps in a theory and they don't have to answer them according to Dawkins atheism.

The Theory of Evolution is about vanilla as you can get. The reason they don't call it the Theory of the Origin of Species because it would fall flat. The Theory of Evolution is just vague. Of course systems evolve over time. You can just look at any evidence that shows evolution of a species over time and say Viola! That's evidence for the Theory of Evolution.

I can come up with the Theory of Old Age. Who can dispute it? All I have to do is throw every piece of evidence into my Theory of Old Age that shows we age.

There's a narrative or interpretation of Evolution then there's the science that can be interpreted differently and is just as valid if not more so than any other interpretation.

For instance, you look at Quantum Mechanics. There's science behind quantum mechanics but a bunch of different interpretations.

Intelligent Design is an interpretation of the evidence that species evolve. It doesn't need any gaps because it can answer the questions Dawkins and others can't with a naturalistic interpretation.

We can infer intelligence. We do it all of the time. Look at SETI.

If SETI researchers hear a radio signal from another star system that represents the first 1000 prime numbers, they would infer that it was sent by an intelligence.

This wouldn't include who sent the message. So we can infer INTELLIGENT DESIGN without knowing who the designer or designers are. Why can't we do that with DNA or the Cambrian Explosion and other "gaps" in Dawkins interpretation?

Why did so many phyla appear in the record without any precursors during the Cambrian? Intelligent Design explains this well. Dawkins interpretation? Not so much.

Here's a paper that says the Octopus came here via Panspermia.


This one is not to be missed. It’s a new scientific paper, “Cause of Cambrian Explosion —Terrestrial or Cosmic?”, that argues for panspermia. In other words, the seeding of life on Earth from outer space. Published in the journal Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology, it comes bearing an impressive array of over thirty authors from credible institutions around the world. The journal’s editors are themselves highly credible, including Denis Noble of Oxford University.

Darwinists will respond with the usual mirthless hyena laughter. But this is no joke.


evolutionnews.org...

This is an important point. Whenever I hear people dismiss something because "It's absurd" or "I can't be true." I look the other way. Science doesn't care about your opinion just refute it with science.

I don't agree with everything in this paper but it was published and went through rigorous peer review. They tried to knock it down but couldn't. This is because there's some truths in this study that Darwinist just can't handle. Here's more:


Regarding the abrupt appearance of animals, the paper proposes that “cryopreserved Squid and/or Octopus eggs, arrived in icy bolides several hundred million years ago” and that this helps explain “the Octopus’ sudden emergence on Earth ca. 270 million years ago.” That’s right: they argue, among other remarkable proposals, for alien octopi and squid from the stars.

The transformation of an ensemble of appropriately chosen biological monomers (e.g. amino acids, nucleotides) into a primitive living cell capable of further evolution appears to require overcoming an information hurdle of superastronomical proportions (Appendix A), an event that could not have happened within the time frame of the Earth except, we believe, as a miracle (Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, 1981, 1982, 2000). All laboratory experiments attempting to simulate such an event have so far led to dismal failure (Deamer, 2011; Walker and Wickramasinghe, 2015). It would thus seem reasonable to go to the biggest available “venue” in relation to space and time.

The most crucial genes relevant to evolution of hominids, as indeed all species of plants and animals, seems likely in many instances to be of external origin, being transferred across the galaxy largely as information rich virions.


evolutionnews.org...

Here's a study about kids who can reason about design at 2 and 3 years old.

Two- and three-year-olds infer and reason about design intentions in order to categorize broken objects.


In naming artifacts, do young children infer and reason about the intended functions of the objects? Participants between the ages of 2 and 4 years were shown two kinds of objects derived from familiar categories. One kind was damaged so as to undermine its usual function. The other kind was also dysfunctional, but made so by adding features that appeared to be intentional. Evidence that 2-, 3- and 4-year-olds were more likely to apprehend the broken objects than the intentionally dysfunctional objects as members of the familiar lexical categories favors the conclusion that, in naming, children may spontaneously infer and reason about design intentions from an early age. This is the first evidence that 2- and 3-year-olds not only take design intentions into account in object categorization, but that they do so even without explicit mention of the objects' accidental or intentional histories. The results cast doubt on a proposal that young children's lexical categorization is based on automatic, non-deliberative processes.


pdfs.semanticscholar.org...

So a child was given an accidentally dysfunctional item like a comb with broken teeth and an intentionally dysfunctional item like a comb with a transparent bands of plastic on the edges. The children were able to separate items that were just broken from items that may be a new design of something like a comb with transparent bands on the edges.

The point is, I support an Intelligent Design interpretation of the evidence over a naturalistic interpretation of the evidence because I can't support an interpretation with a bunch of gaps and holes that have no explanation. The proponents of a naturalistic interpretation of the evidence are engaging in wishful thinking. They have blind faith that things will eventually be explained in a way that satisfies their belief.



IMHO evolution accurately describes part of our human history but then a genetic intervention was executed and we were bumped forward and up higher on the evolutionary pathway we would have or could have take regardless.IMHO we are now and have been and will continue to de-volve BACKWARDS until Nature takes us back to our normal evolutionary placeholding spot.



posted on Jun, 13 2018 @ 07:17 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

all right then



posted on Jun, 13 2018 @ 07:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic
It's funny when I see atheist like Richard Dawkins in a debate. He brings up Evolution like it's the Bible of atheism. The truth is, Dawkins has an interpretation of evolution that's filled with more holes than a fence. When you watch Dawkins and others they don't have answers for half of the questions they're asked. They say, we don't know or we don't have any answers yet and anyone that attempts to answer these questions in a way Dawkins doesn't agree with, then it's just god of the gaps.

That's just ignorant. Science is suppose to try and answer questions or gaps in a theory and they don't have to answer them according to Dawkins atheism.

You literally have no idea how science works do you? Science is a process of collecting evidence and using that evidence to explain a process. If the evidence for a question doesn't exist then the answer is "I don't know". Substituting any other answer for that is a leap in logic and when it involves "God" then it is is the god of the gaps argument.



posted on Jun, 13 2018 @ 07:48 AM
link   
Words have set definitions, that doesn't change because a person "feels" that it should mean something else.



posted on Jun, 13 2018 @ 11:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

I appreciate your opinion, still disagree

I believe that outside of God that all the elements had to evolve, why are there so many. the cosmos, how and why, the whole system, everything is interlinked, it's not just about life

You can argue but you don't decide on my behalf

I believe human life starts at conception, some people say life starts only after it leaves the womb, you don't decide what I believe, neither do others



posted on Jun, 13 2018 @ 11:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

Go study string theory to see how stupid your science is, I am not talking settled or understood science just the science they don't understand
This universe as it exists is impossible, nothing makes any sense at all.
Hence why we see these crackpot theories arise

Creation, no sun, mature fruit trees, whatever doesn't suit you and you can't believe but it's...
Yet to you creation is more crazy than multi dimensions, elemental particles that don't work the same for no reason, the inability to unify physics, explain abiogenesis ra ra
Yet you complain that what Christians believe God can do is impossible
When to me it's clear that what we have now that you think occurred naturally nature can't do

Simply you are arguing that God couldn't have created the world the way it's described in the bible
My argument is nature could not have given us all we have because science doesn't make sense of what has and is happening



posted on Jun, 13 2018 @ 11:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

Why did an OMNICIENT, OMNIPOTENT GOD create 99.9% of all species, just to see them go extinct? Did IT know that was gonna happen? WHY bother?If your omnicient and omnipotent, why not just pop things into existence, with no rhyme or reason, ie. Things just are, no chemical or biological relation? Why make a chimp 98% similar to a human? Why have DNA at all-whats the point? I'm GOD and can do what I want?



posted on Jun, 13 2018 @ 11:50 AM
link   
a reply to: HiddenWaters

The creation was fine, sin was introduced and mankind took over, corrupted everything and destroyed it
Should God have intervened, how, taken away our free choice? Killed us all? What's your answer







 
12
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join