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.

 

Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 1 2005 @ 01:37 PM
link   
THEY HAVE PROVEN EVOLUTION!!! Know that tail bone you have? Or how about real proof that can be proven now, flu virus, it changes every year to be resistent to last years flu vaccine. That right there is evolution.

Also, they have the fossils that show dolphins going from land mammal to sea mammal, and the reason apple trees can live in colder tempatures then before is evolution. And to those who think Darwin started it, no, the Greeks did when they realised how much some forms of life related to each other, mainly sea-land animals, which was represented in the story of the horse, created by Posiden. Also the french had it before Darwin.

I know what christians like to say, micro evolution(virus and plant) is ok, it is real, but doesn't prove evolution. When asked "where in the bible does it say god created everything, and micro evolution." All you get is "YOU GO TO HELL!!!!! YOU AREN"T CHRISTIAN, HOW DARE YOU USE THE BIBLE!!!! YOU GO TO HELL!!!!!"




posted on Apr, 1 2005 @ 01:38 PM
link   
How silly

They have not proven evolution which is why we still can't explain humans subcutaneous layer of body fat...........amongst other things.

If you were alive a few hundred years ago, you would of been ranting about how it was "proved" that the earth was flat.

I stick by my final statement in my last post. Todays science is tomorrows superstition.


[edit on 1-4-2005 by 1wintermute1]



posted on Apr, 1 2005 @ 03:04 PM
link   
THEY HAVE PROVEN IT! I JUST TOLD YOU HOW!!!! That's like "So, this is proof Earth is round? Anyways, still haven't proven Earth is round. That's my stand on it."

WTF? Only christians think evolution hasn't been proven, ask a scientist and they will tell you it has. So, someone who thinks it ok to rape 8 year old boys, or someone who uses facts/science to prove something.....



posted on Apr, 1 2005 @ 03:28 PM
link   
I am NOT a christian , so that immediately throws your argument out of the window. I do believe however that evolution is on to something.

Once again though your claims do not mean that proof exist. Do you even know about the subcutaneous layer of fat I speak of? Oh yes that's right we evolved on savannahs though .


And as previously said all calculations break down at the point of the big bang, including relativity. THAT MY FRIEND IS A FACT!!!!

Sorry my friend but evolution has not been proven which is why it is still considered a THEORY.



posted on Apr, 1 2005 @ 03:31 PM
link   
Anybody that still argues against evolution is foolish. Whether God is intervening and designed the whole system has yet to be proved and is likely. What is overwhelmingly obvious is the fact that evolution has morphed us from separate elements into the multi-celled organisms we are. There are huge, bread crumb clues all over the earth. This is obvious and this debate has to stop.



posted on Apr, 1 2005 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by 1wintermute1
I am NOT a christian , so that immediately throws your argument out of the window. I do believe however that evolution is on to something.

Once again though your claims do not mean that proof exist. Do you even know about the subcutaneous layer of fat I speak of? Oh yes that's right we evolved on savannahs though .

Other animals on the savannahs have fat layers, its a characteristic of mammals. Humans evolved frmo primates, which did not evolve on the savannah.


And as previously said all calculations break down at the point of the big bang, including relativity. THAT MY FRIEND IS A FACT!!!!

Its also meaningless. Whatever the big bang was, its 'destroyed' any evidence of anything else, so there is no way to investigate the very early moments, nor any moments that might've existed before it. all 'laws' of science are theories, and they don't allways strictly apply in extreme circumstances.


Sorry my friend but evolution has not been proven which is why it is still considered a THEORY.

Indeed, this is true. The Theory of Evolution from Darwin, that evolution occurs primarily thru a mechanism of natural selection is a theory, and, like all theories, can never 'become' a fact. The fact of evolution is that organisms change over time. This is undisputed, that is the fact of evolution. At one point, it wasn't considered to be true, and all species were thought to be rather invariant.



posted on Apr, 1 2005 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by 1wintermute1
I am NOT a christian , so that immediately throws your argument out of the window. I do believe however that evolution is on to something.

Once again though your claims do not mean that proof exist. Do you even know about the subcutaneous layer of fat I speak of? Oh yes that's right we evolved on savannahs though .

Other animals on the savannahs have fat layers, its a characteristic of mammals. Humans evolved frmo primates, which did not evolve on the savannah.


And as previously said all calculations break down at the point of the big bang, including relativity. THAT MY FRIEND IS A FACT!!!!

Its also meaningless. Whatever the big bang was, its 'destroyed' any evidence of anything else, so there is no way to investigate the very early moments, nor any moments that might've existed before it. all 'laws' of science are theories, and they don't allways strictly apply in extreme circumstances.


Sorry my friend but evolution has not been proven which is why it is still considered a THEORY.

Indeed, this is true. The Theory of Evolution from Darwin, that evolution occurs primarily thru a mechanism of natural selection is a theory, and, like all theories, can never 'become' a fact. The fact of evolution is that organisms change over time. This is undisputed, that is the fact of evolution. At one point, it wasn't considered to be true, and all species were thought to be rather invariant.


Yes they have fat layers but NOT SUBCUTANEOUS LAYERS OF FAT WHICH IS WHAT I SPEAK OF , THESE ARE FOUND ONLY IN MARINE MAMMALS.

Now do not please mistake me. I am not trying to say that organisms do not change over time.

I do however believe that oru current model is seriously flawed at best



posted on Apr, 1 2005 @ 06:39 PM
link   
Ok, another person who doesn't understand theory. As Issac Asimov once said "Creationists believe a theory is something one comes up with after a night of drinking." It isn't, theory is fact/accepted fact. THEORY OF GRAVITY!!!!! Also, according to bible god didn't create gravity, so to bad, I guess gravity doesn't exist.

Theory means accepted fact, ask a scientist, Relativity, Gravity, Evolution, all fact! All proven. Drop a ball, it falls, proof of gravity. Fossils, genes, whatever, proof of evolution. Unless you have blinders on, like you, or christians.



posted on Apr, 2 2005 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by James the Lesser
Ok, another person who doesn't understand theory. As Issac Asimov once said "Creationists believe a theory is something one comes up with after a night of drinking." It isn't, theory is fact/accepted fact. THEORY OF GRAVITY!!!!! Also, according to bible god didn't create gravity, so to bad, I guess gravity doesn't exist.

Theory means accepted fact, ask a scientist, Relativity, Gravity, Evolution, all fact! All proven. Drop a ball, it falls, proof of gravity. Fossils, genes, whatever, proof of evolution. Unless you have blinders on, like you, or christians.


Good lord, man. I'm Christian, and evolution for me is a strong possibility, and as previously stated, I do believe it is god's mechanism for creation. However, what evolution CAN'T explain or take credit for is the actual origins of life. I'm no biologist, but by that I mean the actual bringing together of molecular compounds and whatnot to create the fundamental primordial soup of life. From what I know, most self respecting biologists will agree that this process was entirely unlikely and shouldn't have happened. As in, the probability was astronomically in favour of life not happening.

So therefore, how did life evolve from no life at all without some sort of divine intervention?



posted on Apr, 2 2005 @ 02:13 PM
link   
And where is your proof that life was created by all powerful invisable people that live in the clouds? At least scientists have ideas, you just have a book that is full of lies, hypocracy, bs, and of course stupidity/ignorance.



posted on Apr, 2 2005 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by James the Lesser
Evolution isn't intelligent design, Evolution is science, ID is religon. Religon is not a science, it is bs.


Intelligent Design is PHILOSOPHY. Philosophy forms a foundation of science. It asks questions more fundamental than science, but still remains RATIONAL in its attempts, just like science.

Calling my beliefs bs is not a very rational way of getting your point across and does not promote solid debate.


And where is your proof that life was created by all powerful invisable people that live in the clouds? At least scientists have ideas, you just have a book that is full of lies, hypocracy, bs, and of course stupidity/ignorance.


First and foremost, what kind of response is this? All you did was insult me some more and diminish any credibility that you once had.

Now, invisible people that live in the clouds. What are you talking about? How do I possibly respond to such a juvenile remark. I am a theist, and a theist believes in one single Deity that exists outside of time and space.

Now, if you could, please read over my last post again and explain to me how one of the most unlikely events ever somehow miraculously took place.



[edit on 2-4-2005 by themooche]



posted on Apr, 4 2005 @ 09:11 AM
link   
Would those of you who believe in "Intelligent Design" please explain the following:

Vestigial Organs
We do not need our wisdom teeth, appendices, tonsils, or adenoids. Why would a god give us organs we do not use, organs whose only purpose is to cause problems until surgically removed?

Inadequate Support for the Body's Weight
Even if you are anorexically thin, your neck, back, knees, and feet cannot handle the stress placed on them by the weight of your body. So, we have slipped discs, flat feet, knee replacements, etc. If this is "intelligent design," I demand a smarter god.

Sensory Damage Not Caused by Environment
Why don't we all have 20/20 vision and perfect hearing?

Neurological Disorders
How can the brain be perfect when so many suffer from behavioral disorders, perceptual disorders, etc? For example, I suffer from fibromyalgia which is a neurological disorder in which the brain's pain management system becomes disrupted causing normal stimuli to be experienced as pain. I also suffer from depression, necessitating four different medications each day just to be functional. Intelligent design? I disagree.

I should add that I would like logical replies, not mystical ones.



posted on Apr, 4 2005 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by 1wintermute1
Yes they have fat layers but NOT SUBCUTANEOUS LAYERS OF FAT WHICH IS WHAT I SPEAK OF , THESE ARE FOUND ONLY IN MARINE MAMMALS.

I must suggest that you refrain from typing in all caps. Its an inappropriate way to emphasize what you are saying, and is almost universally read as 'yelling'.

Anyway, you seem to be refering to something like the aquatic ape theory. It does not state that humans have something marine mammals only have. Non-marine mammals have subcutaneous fat layers. Aquatic Ape supporters note that the layer is unusually thick in man, not simply that it exists.

Also, the aquatic ape theory is a simple darwinina evolutionary theory. It's entire way of reconstructing past history is to speculate as to under what conditions certain adaptations in humans occured. So they will say that the hair follicles are streamlined, that there is webbing in then hand, and that there is more subcutaneous fat, because those traits are adaptive in a marine environment. Its orthodoxically darwinian.


I am not trying to say that organisms do not change over time

Then you agree that evolution occurs. Thats all that evolution is. Darwin hypothesized that it occurs primarily thru a mechanism of natural selection and leads to adaptations. Some biologists disagree as to the pre-dominance of natural selection.
 



james the lesser
It isn't, theory is fact/accepted fact

Theories are not facts. Theories and hypothesises are explanatory ideas that humans try to objectively create based upon their observations of the natural world. Essentially, theories are what are used to explain facts. Of course, there can be a 'fuzzy line' between facts and theories. Atomic Theory is a theory, its not, most strictly, a fact that atoms exist. Of course, if you disagree with atomic theory, thats hardly going to save you from a nuclear bomb. Even the existence of species is theoretical. We can observe populations in the wild, and we theorize as to what this means, and have come up with various species concepts.
However, outside of a 'hair splitting' aspect to it, there is a disparity between facts and theories. We can say 'its a fact that the characteristics of animal populations change over time', simply by observing them in nature. Heck we can assay their genetic makeup and 'factually' see the change in allele ratios. We can also look at the fossil record and see that things were radically different in many ways. So we can say 'evolution is an observational fact'. Darwin, in fact, wrote in a context wherein many naturalists were realizing this or had realized it for some time (before that tho extinction wasn't thought to occur and speices were defined as conforming to an unchanging type). Lamarck, for example, was an evolutionist; he was not, however, a 'darwinist'. They differed in their theories as to how evolution occurs.
So any ideas about how evolution occurs as a mechanism, or even what a particular organism's evolutionary history is (phylogeny), are hypothetical. That man evolved from lower apes is a hypothesis, one that seems to be strongly 'confirmed' by the paleontological, comparative anatomical, behavioural, and genetic evidence, and one that, differently, has not been refuted by the evidence (which is probably more important that 'confirmation'). The 'consensus theory' of human evolution also has much more explanatory power and is much more parsimonious than other proffered theories (like aquatic ape theory, or 'descended from orang-utan theories). However, they, as theories, are not really comparable to things like 'god did it', whether that god is jesus, allah, or a neutered 'intelligent designer'.
 


themooche
So therefore, how did life evolve from no life at all without some sort of divine intervention?

I agree with most of what you previously noted, however, I don't think that its entirely accurate to say that the consensus amoung scientists is that life happened via supernatural intervention. The abiogenetic event is certainly a 'mystery' tho. But then again, people at one time were completely mystified as to how to produce organic compounds inorganically. I don't see why the sets of reactions that lead to life should remain impenetrable to science. Man does not know the reactions that took place, the problem has not been solved. So man cannot say that the process was unlikely. All that can be said is that the various theories proposed til now, such as the 'rna world hypothesis', as insufficient, and I don't know how many people who are actually doing research in that field would say that they've 'solved' it anyway.



posted on Apr, 4 2005 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by 1wintermute1
Yes they have fat layers but NOT SUBCUTANEOUS LAYERS OF FAT WHICH IS WHAT I SPEAK OF , THESE ARE FOUND ONLY IN MARINE MAMMALS.

I must suggest that you refrain from typing in all caps. Its an inappropriate way to emphasize what you are saying, and is almost universally read as 'yelling'.

Anyway, you seem to be refering to something like the aquatic ape theory. It does not state that humans have something marine mammals only have. Non-marine mammals have subcutaneous fat layers. Aquatic Ape supporters note that the layer is unusually thick in man, not simply that it exists.

Also, the aquatic ape theory is a simple darwinina evolutionary theory. It's entire way of reconstructing past history is to speculate as to under what conditions certain adaptations in humans occured. So they will say that the hair follicles are streamlined, that there is webbing in then hand, and that there is more subcutaneous fat, because those traits are adaptive in a marine environment. Its orthodoxically darwinian.


I am not trying to say that organisms do not change over time

Then you agree that evolution occurs. Thats all that evolution is. Darwin hypothesized that it occurs primarily thru a mechanism of natural selection and leads to adaptations. Some biologists disagree as to the pre-dominance of natural selection.
 



james the lesser
It isn't, theory is fact/accepted fact

Theories are not facts. Theories and hypothesises are explanatory ideas that humans try to objectively create based upon their observations of the natural world. Essentially, theories are what are used to explain facts. Of course, there can be a 'fuzzy line' between facts and theories. Atomic Theory is a theory, its not, most strictly, a fact that atoms exist. Of course, if you disagree with atomic theory, thats hardly going to save you from a nuclear bomb. Even the existence of species is theoretical. We can observe populations in the wild, and we theorize as to what this means, and have come up with various species concepts.
However, outside of a 'hair splitting' aspect to it, there is a disparity between facts and theories. We can say 'its a fact that the characteristics of animal populations change over time', simply by observing them in nature. Heck we can assay their genetic makeup and 'factually' see the change in allele ratios. We can also look at the fossil record and see that things were radically different in many ways. So we can say 'evolution is an observational fact'. Darwin, in fact, wrote in a context wherein many naturalists were realizing this or had realized it for some time (before that tho extinction wasn't thought to occur and speices were defined as conforming to an unchanging type). Lamarck, for example, was an evolutionist; he was not, however, a 'darwinist'. They differed in their theories as to how evolution occurs.
So any ideas about how evolution occurs as a mechanism, or even what a particular organism's evolutionary history is (phylogeny), are hypothetical. That man evolved from lower apes is a hypothesis, one that seems to be strongly 'confirmed' by the paleontological, comparative anatomical, behavioural, and genetic evidence, and one that, differently, has not been refuted by the evidence (which is probably more important that 'confirmation'). The 'consensus theory' of human evolution also has much more explanatory power and is much more parsimonious than other proffered theories (like aquatic ape theory, or 'descended from orang-utan theories). However, they, as theories, are not really comparable to things like 'god did it', whether that god is jesus, allah, or a neutered 'intelligent designer'.
 


themooche
So therefore, how did life evolve from no life at all without some sort of divine intervention?

I agree with most of what you previously noted, however, I don't think that its entirely accurate to say that the consensus amoung scientists is that life happened via supernatural intervention. The abiogenetic event is certainly a 'mystery' tho. But then again, people at one time were completely mystified as to how to produce organic compounds inorganically. I don't see why the sets of reactions that lead to life should remain impenetrable to science. Man does not know the reactions that took place, the problem has not been solved. So man cannot say that the process was unlikely. All that can be said is that the various theories proposed til now, such as the 'rna world hypothesis', as insufficient, and I don't know how many people who are actually doing research in that field would say that they've 'solved' it anyway.



posted on Apr, 4 2005 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by 1wintermute1
Once again though your claims do not mean that proof exist. Do you even know about the subcutaneous layer of fat I speak of? Oh yes that's right we evolved on savannahs though .

Subcutaneous fat doesn't mean a thing about environment. Fat has a number of purposes in the body, including energy storage. Camels store a lot of water in the fatty tissues of their humps.

There are a lot of animals with subcutaneous fat, including pigs and cats and dogs and so on and so forth. Many of them live on or originated on savannahs around the world.


And as previously said all calculations break down at the point of the big bang, including relativity. THAT MY FRIEND IS A FACT!!!!

As people have been trying to explain, the "origin of the universe and everything" is different from "the origin of life" and niether of these has to do with "the mechanism of how one species can change so much over time that it turns into another branch."

That last one is evolution.


Sorry my friend but evolution has not been proven which is why it is still considered a THEORY.

You misunderstand how science uses "theory."

There's the theory of gravity
The theory of electromagnetics
The theory of thermodynamics
The theory of mathematical commutation (meaning that a+b=b+a)
Pythagorean Theorem (theory) (a squared + b squared =C squared)
Thousands of geometry theorems www.artofproblemsolving.com...

All those are "Theories."

What "theory" means to a scientist is "Yes, we're sure this works BUT we haven't tested EVERY single instance (in other words, for the commutative theory they didn't add every combination of every possible number up to infiinity and beyond because they'd still be at it and it's pretty clear that a+b is the same thing as b+a)


Have you read the TalkOrigins website, where the best of the creation, ID, and evolution arguments are presented?
www.talkorigins.org...

[edit on 4-4-2005 by Byrd]



posted on Apr, 4 2005 @ 11:55 AM
link   
I fail to see how the two are thought mutually exclusive! I beleive they are cause and effect!



posted on Apr, 4 2005 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by instar
I fail to see how the two are thought mutually exclusive!

Why?

Intelligent Design states that there is evidence for an intelligent designer, that there are things that exist which are 'immpossible'. Evolution states that there can be no scientific information about god or anything supernatural. They are explicitly exclusive. God and Evolution are not exclusive, but ID states we can have scientific information about god and that god in necessary to have living things, evolution says we can not have scientific information about god and that we don't need supernatural assistance in order to bring things to be.



posted on Apr, 4 2005 @ 01:57 PM
link   
Byrd, been trying to explain Theory to them for years, they don't understand. Issac Asimov as I have quoted explained how creationists think, which is that they don't. They have someone tell them this is the truth, everything else is wrong, and if you hear different don't believe them.

They hear theory and suddenly see scientists getting drunk and doing acid while writing whatever comes to mind is what they see. When regular non-head-up-ass people hear theory they know it means reality. Gravity people, this is real, gravity is FACT! Yet they don't understand it is a theory....

As Stephen Hawking explains in several books, mainly Black Holes and Baby Universes(or was it galaxies? Been awhile since I rented it last from the library) that gravity is still unknown. Blackholes being the main basis of his talk. Light Photons have !NO MASS! and gravity only affects things with mass, so how does a BH affect light? He goes on about a rubber mat with marbles and bowling balls and things like that. But still, we know gravity can bend light, it can affect light, but HOW!?! Gravity only affects things with mass, yet it affects light. Either light photons do have mass that is so slight/marginal nothing we have can register it, or something else..... But light photons don't have atoms, and therefor no mass, so how can it be affected? This is why it is a Theory of Gravity! Gravity is fact, it is real, it isn't some all mighty powerful being that lives in the clouds, it can be proven, it is real. Same with Evolution, it has been proven, it is happening right now! Why we need a new Flu Vacccine EVERY YEAR! Because it evolves a defense against last years vaccine. Reason apple trees can be grown in colder climates now when 200 years ago they couldn't, that is evolution.

I know this is hard to understand for all the people who are use to hearing how they are going to hell because they only collected 3,000 dollars last sunday in the collection plate when the church 3 blocks away got 7,500 dollars, or use to being "blessed" all over their faces from the holy men, but science is real, religon isn't. Religon is a bunch of guys afraid of god peeing on them, ie rain, or meteors, ie god taking a dump. Religon is "Gee, we don't understand why when you cut someones throat with a knife they die, must be god." or "Gee the earth shook, god must be angry with us." When today we know why someone dies when you slice their throat or why the earth shakes. We know now that the Earth is round, not center, and is older then 6,000 years old. Well, most of us, you still have christians who claim any and all proof of older then 6,000 years old to be the work of satan, greatest scapegoat since the jews. "What? dinosaur fossils? Not in the bible, SATAN!!!! Oil? Not in bible, SATAN!" Sound just like Hitler when he blames everything on the Jews.

While ID is "You take it in the bum from a priest or we kill you!"



posted on Apr, 4 2005 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by James the Lesser
Byrd, been trying to explain Theory to them for years, they don't understand. Issac Asimov as I have quoted explained how creationists think, which is that they don't. They have someone tell them this is the truth, everything else is wrong, and if you hear different don't believe them.


that's not just with creationism, that's with all of religion.



posted on Apr, 4 2005 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by 00PS

Originally posted by James the Lesser
Byrd, been trying to explain Theory to them for years, they don't understand. Issac Asimov as I have quoted explained how creationists think, which is that they don't. They have someone tell them this is the truth, everything else is wrong, and if you hear different don't believe them.


that's not just with creationism, that's with all of religion.


blah blah blah. Religion bashers are no better than religious fundamentalists. You both have one thing in common - the uncompromising urge to insult people whose views conflict with your own. Is there no happy medium? Obviously not for you people, but I've found it and welcomed it long ago. Let's hear it for biased opinions and irrational, closed minded debate.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join