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.

 

Why are religious devotees so concerned with Evolution?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 24 2005 @ 07:02 PM
link   
That is interesting. I would like to know more about that.

I have heard of a study that researched mitochondrial DNA that came to the conclusion that everyone on Earth today is descended from one woman. Of course creationists use this as evidence to support Genesis, but evolutionists say that there were other groups of people around at the time of our common ancestor, but their descendants were not as successful as hers and their lines died out. I'm sure you could find more information by doing a search on mitochondrial DNA.

Steve




posted on Apr, 24 2005 @ 07:05 PM
link   
.
Evolution is the proposition that life forms change over time to create new species. Darwin observed variant finch species on various isolated islands each with different conditions. Even if you don't believe in Evolution, doesn't this seem like a pretty good 'off the cuff' explanation why each species of finch is unique to each island? They are all still identifiable as finches.

I think we can all agree that traits are carried down a blood (genetic) line. Children tend to look like their parents or grandparents (ancestors) more than anyone else.

Is it hard to imagine that various kinds of characteristics of a species are better suited to various kinds of environments?

With discrete and unique environments of each island what do you suppose the effect of placing several mating pairs of finches on each of the islands? What might have happened through time?

Is it such a stretch to think that these various breeds of finch were culled/filtered by the unique environment of each island?

Is it necessary for God to have created each and every species and sub-species of finch on the planet for creationism to be true?

Science attempts to find the logical explanation for how and why things happen as they do based on the available evidence.

And yes, science is based on the premise that all occurances in the Universe leave traces. Many people implicitly take this as axiomatic. The most scruptulous of all would also include trying to determine IF all or even most events in the Universe leave traces. But how would you find an event that did not leave traces? Personal experience i suppose.

Perhaps as a defense against the chicanery of other people we as a species had to develop a certain skepticism about events that didn't have confirming evidence.

The Con-artist as well at the Priest both like you to accept what they tell you on faith. It always bothered me that their similarities might run deeper.

There is evidence that many more large species existed than now exist from the fossil record.
Does that mean God wasn't perfect the first creatures he created?
He had to do a little trial and error learning?

Maybe it is just me but creationism sounds silly. Like a sweet candy tale for children. ". . . And then the magician waved his magic wand and created the world!" oooohhh, aawwwwe. 'Tell us more Daddy!'
.



posted on Apr, 25 2005 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by slank
.
Evolution is the proposition that life forms change over time to create new species.



If that is all evolution purported to be I don't think anyone would have a problem with it. It would take more than speciation to get from simpler single celled life to multi cellular organisms then progressing to more and more complex organisms resulting in the variety of complex life that we see today.



Darwin observed variant finch species on various isolated islands each with different conditions. Even if you don't believe in Evolution, doesn't this seem like a pretty good 'off the cuff' explanation why each species of finch is unique to each island?



Yes, it does. Speciation occurs and can be observed.



They are all still identifiable as finches.



Yes they are. They are finches today and always have been finches. This is what we observe. Their genome contains sufficient information so that they can adapt to environmental pressures and changes.




I think we can all agree that traits are carried down a blood (genetic) line. Children tend to look like their parents or grandparents (ancestors) more than anyone else.



Agreed



Is it hard to imagine that various kinds of characteristics of a species are better suited to various kinds of environments?



No, it is not hard to imagine at all. In fact it makes perfect sense.




With discrete and unique environments of each island what do you suppose the effect of placing several mating pairs of finches on each of the islands? What might have happened through time?




We can see what has happened through time. Characteristics best suited to the conditions on each island have become prominent in the populations living on those islands.




Is it such a stretch to think that these various breeds of finch were culled/filtered by the unique environment of each island?




It is not a stretch. I would go so far as to say that it is proven. It is such a stretch considering the amount of information that DNA can contain that these creatures were created with variation included in their DNA so that they would be able to cope with changing conditions? We know from technology that complex machines require a designer to provide information and instructions as to how they will be built to perform their function. Since living organisms are machines that are vastly more complex than our most technologically advanced machines it makes sense that they too would require a designer, a source of information for the instructions required for their function.



Is it necessary for God to have created each and every species and sub-species of finch on the planet for creationism to be true?



No it is not. For creationism to be true according to the Bible each kind of animal would reproduce after their own kind, which is what we observe happening today. This does not rule out speciation within the animal kinds. It does however rule out one kind becoming another. In fact we have never observed such a change or discovered any mechanism that would allow for such a change.




Science attempts to find the logical explanation for how and why things happen as they do based on the available evidence.



And yes, science is based on the premise that all occurances in the Universe leave traces. Many people implicitly take this as axiomatic. The most scruptulous of all would also include trying to determine IF all or even most events in the Universe leave traces. But how would you find an event that did not leave traces? Personal experience i suppose.




Events that can not be observed or repeated are outside of the realm of operational science.




Perhaps as a defense against the chicanery of other people we as a species had to develop a certain skepticism about events that didn't have confirming evidence.

The Con-artist as well at the Priest both like you to accept what they tell you on faith. It always bothered me that their similarities might run deeper.




Faith should never be blind. Personally I would tend to discount anyone who told me to accept something blindly. Scripture is very explicit in more than one place that blind faith is foolish. We are instructed to "prove all things" and to "hold fast that which is good".





There is evidence that many more large species existed than now exist from the fossil record.
Does that mean God wasn't perfect the first creatures he created?
He had to do a little trial and error learning?




No it doesn't. When God finished with creation he declared it to be "very good". Creation was perfect in the beginning. It was not until sin entered the world that death and suffering became a reality. Death and suffering is our fault not God's.




Maybe it is just me but creationism sounds silly. Like a sweet candy tale for children. ". . . And then the magician waved his magic wand and created the world!" oooohhh, aawwwwe. 'Tell us more Daddy!'
.




It's not just you. There are plenty of people that share your feelings. I for one felt that way for most of my life. It is only recently that I feel that my eyes are open to reality. The realization that Genesis is a true account of our origins has woken me up in a sense. The idea that we share a common ancestor with fish, or reptiles, or birds, or bacteria, or even other primates sounds more like a fairy tale to me now.

Steve



posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 07:38 AM
link   
Thinking ....here. Do they not have flies preserved in amber...for which they claim to be millions of years olde.?? Do they say how much evolution is there or do they look like flies today. There is alot of variety in the species. But they are all flies.The finch being the example presented in some of the boards. Lots of variety but they are all finchs.
How much evolution is measured in the coelocanth ..the fish brought up from the deep off Madasgar several times...not fossilized but recently deceased in nets and traps. 300 million years olde.?? Where is the evolution?? They look just as they do in the fossil record.
Flies go through several generations per year..their lifespans are not that long. They literally breed like flies to keep the species going..most certainly some scientist has measured and catalogued a new species evolving from flies....as quickly as they breed....much faster than humans or other animals. The perfect yardstick for measuring evolution.

I just dont see this angle mentioned by evolutionists.

Evolution is one of the stones set of the builders which is attempting to become the head of the corner.
Evolution was cultivated for this very reason ...and not by Darwin.

When you break them on evolution ...they are able to learn more about what is going on .. and that not seen by the flesh. This is why there is concern.

Thanks
Orangetom



posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 08:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by jake1997
Nope.
Its a FAILED theory.
Thats right. Failed.

Oh I'm sorry.. I missed the press release where the whole scientific world made this announcement.

Evolution is a religion

The stupidity of this statement bewilders me.

and should be taught to its members children. Not the public.

Public schools have science not religion. Evolution is the most plausable scientific theory that adressing the origins of life.. god cannot be proven and therefore has no place in a science classroom.

All of the fossil evidence and strata supports the bible.


Another stupid statement. All of them? :shk: Strange that only a small fraction of them are under six thousand years old.. everything older does not support the bible.. but of course this should be taught in public school science classes despite being an obvious myth?

Think I'm on that tour bus again..:bnghd:

[edit on 26-4-2005 by riley]



posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 08:53 AM
link   
Yep. You sure are on that bus again.
The one with the speaker on the top, and your inside with the mic in your hand spouting the party line, and never having to show any truth.

The dating methods do not comply with the scientific method. Thats a fact

After that, what is left for evolution to stand on? There is no proof for old age.



posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 09:11 AM
link   
Riley et al,

You need to take a serious look at the dating methods used..

Public schools are definitely teaching a religion...humanism. Humanism has been declared to be religious belief in court cases.

To many peoples science is in fact thier religion..it doesnt take much thinking to figure it out.

Ever read much Si Fi...amazing how much religion there is in Si Fi.

Show you how much religion is going on in science...
There is no logical economical reason to put a hubble telescope in space. It is just too expensive for any kind of pay off in deep space. Billions and billions of dollars for this machine. Can this machine look out into deep space...certainly ..no doubt. Also no doubt that it is used on a time share basis by scientists...and has the depth of field for this use. But to make it pay off at this expense..it must have a more immediate use..since the data gathered concerning deep space will not be of any use until we can develope a craft effecient enough to take us there. Rocket power will not do. Economically to pay off it must be used to look down here...on earth..and down to the local outhouse level of which I am certain the hubble is more than capable. But we believe the standard line because we have been thourghly indoctrinated in a religion by star trek and star wars and the next drivel to come down the pipe. Oh the "humanity...the humanity". Sorry ..I meant science.
Anyone knowing anything about space exploration ...knows that most of the satellites not used for weather, navigation, communications or manned flight..have been for intelligence gathering.of all types..here on earth ..not in deep space.
I have no doubt that the technology has been improved since the hubble telescope was put in orbit..I suspect that the hubble at its maintnence/problem costs it is no longer needed. Think about what this implys. This is real evolution. Lol lol.
Now think about this religion that is going on right in front of you!!!!

Thanks
Orangetom



posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by jake1997
The dating methods do not comply with the scientific method. Thats a fact

A source please? [and ligitamate scientific one] If the testing was not accurate.. science would not use them.

After that, what is left for evolution to stand on? There is no proof for old age.

So you do think the planet is six thousand years old? ..you do not that the toothfairy isn't real don't you?
Futile talking to you. You will not accept facts as it conflict with your want to believe and will always instantly label them false to suit that need.. that is your perogative so instead of wasting the time of people who are not scared of science.. perhaps you could ignore the subject from now on.



posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 09:25 AM
link   
jake1997,
I am your brother in Christ and I truly love you and EVERYONE that posts on this forum! I say this not to demean you brother but in loving truth before Christ, you are the reason non christian people attack so. You are the reason that non christian people flee in terror from Christians! Do you really love them jake? I mean really? You told me, as a brother in Christ, that I held the position of an "anti-christ" simply because I sided with non christians on some issues! Are you out of your mind saying something like that to another brother in Christ who simply disagrees with you?
If you really are a Christian jake you are very mean spirited and are fanatically insecure. Do you really believe what you "signiture" states...that basically all people who voice disagreement with Christianity have absolutely no idea what Christianity is or what Christ preached is all about??? Good Lord man...get hold of yourself and start loving ALL people like Christ ORDERED you to!!! Don't turn them away with your snide remarks and hateful commentary! That's just what I was talking about before. With people like you it's no wonder that non Christians can't stand us!!! I love you brother and I'll pray for you!!! And now you can go ahead and call me all the names you want...I still love you and I'll still pray for you!And P.S. the non Christian people who post on this forum are pretty darn smart and every one of them is worth the time and effort to LISTEN TO!!!



posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by orangetom1999
Riley et al,

You need to take a serious look at the dating methods used..

I have. I the last twenty years they have become considerably more accurate.


Public schools are definitely teaching a religion...humanism. Humanism has been declared to be religious belief in court cases.


How is it humanism when evolution says we evolved from other animals? Adam and Eve are more humanistic as humans are the centrepoint of the creation myth.


To many peoples science is in fact thier religion..it doesnt take much thinking to figure it out.


Religion requires faith in something that cannot be proven. It also usually requires a deity.


Ever read much Si Fi...amazing how much religion there is in Si Fi.

Show you how much religion is going on in science...


No it doesn't. It shows how much religion influences sci fi writers.


I have no doubt that the technology has been improved since the hubble telescope was put in orbit..I suspect that the hubble at its maintnence/problem costs it is no longer needed. Think about what this implys. This is real evolution. Lol lol.
Now think about this religion that is going on right in front of you!!!!

Thanks
Orangetom

They should build another telescope IMO. I'm not sure what you mean by science being a religion.. the way I see it.. changing society's ideals regarding space travel is neccesary as we'll need to actually populate other worlds due to overpopulation.



posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 10:08 AM
link   
Evolution might be a theory but it at least has facts behind it. As where religion cannot be proved still today. What facts do we have about god, none, just beliefs. With all the acheaology going on in the world, still today we have no facts, proof that we can touch with our hands, see with our eyes, physical proof that god exists. They say jesus walked the earth but where are the facts, the proof that he did, maybe book written by man: I dont know, no scientist has found any artifact that proves jesus was here. So how can someone say mans theorie of evolution is wrong. Theories are explanations of facts, facts are not created from theories. So whats the problem? Can mankind not believe the facts we have found? Evolution might not be totally correct but at least there are facts guiding us in that direction. In the USA we do not allow religion in school because there are no facts behind it, but we teach the scientific theory of evolution. Well maybe the facts should be taught without the theory that might solve the controversy, but one thing is sure there will always be someone in dissagreement. as for evolution changing day from day, well thats because new facts are introduced into the picture causing a new theory to arise. Thats how theorys are created, there just not pulled out of a hat, and for them to be taught in our schools the scientific community has to agree with them. The theory of evolution might be proven wrong one day but till then you cannot argue with the facts.

here is a good article for debateEvolution is a fact and a theory



posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by riley
Evolution is the most plausable scientific theory that adressing the origins of life.



This statement really stood out to me because most of the time I am discussing this subject with someone they get very defensive when I bring up the origins of life. They usually start by telling me that evolution does not attempt to explain the origins of life and then go on to say that abiogenesis is a completely separate issue. So out of curiosity, how does evolution address the origins of life?


Steve



posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by sntx

Originally posted by riley
Evolution is the most plausable scientific theory that adressing the origins of life.



This statement really stood out to me because most of the time I am discussing this subject with someone they get very defensive when I bring up the origins of life. They usually start by telling me that evolution does not attempt to explain the origins of life and then go on to say that abiogenesis is a completely separate issue. So out of curiosity, how does evolution address the origins of life?


Steve

I should have been more specific. It explains how life becomes more and more complex.. the formation of single celled organisms is a seperate issue and is where evolution starts.. before that I don't know and it would be a more fruitful argument for people who want to argue for the existance of god..

but of course god going around creating single celled organisms instead of fully formed human beings is alot less impressive.



posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 10:52 AM
link   
I appreciate your honesty Riley. Considering how complex single celled organisms are in their forms, and functions, I for one would be highly impressed with their creation alone. The creation of single celled organisms easily trumps any of mans technological achievements. I think anyone no matter what their stand on evolution vs. creation can agree on that.

Steve



posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 01:15 PM
link   
Thanks for clearing up my point about science being a religion...


Orangetom



posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by orangetom1999
Thanks for clearing up my point about science being a religion...


Orangetom

huh? I said it would be more productive for people to argue for god in regard to micro organic life.. not evolution. I do not believe in god.. not knowing how a simple single celled organism springs into life does not immediately mean I assume 'god dunnit'.. it means 'i don't know'. Absence of knowledge doesn't prove god.



posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 02:12 PM
link   
If science is a religon then Bald is a hair color.

Also, first earth isn't center, and the church/people literally did earthis center, KILL DESTROY RAPE KILL SLAUGHTER!!!! Entire villages were wiped out, everyone killed, because one or two people were smart enough to have proof of us not being center. Anyone with proof was said to be satan, the proof came from satan, they were lieing.

Then earth is round, not flat. Again earth is flat, KILL DESTROY RAPE KILL SLAUGHTER!!!! And again people killed, villages wiped out, or some people put under house arrest if they said they were wrong and satan had mislead them. Anyone with proof was said to be satan, the proof came from satan, they were lieing.

But we know earth is round and not the center, and so we have this same mentality again, anyone with proof is satan, the proof came from satan, they were lieing, Kill Rape Destroy Slaughter!!!!!


Anyways, according to Jake1997 the KT boundary doesn't exist. The KT Boundary is the point that seperates the Cretacous(sp?) era and the Teritray(sp?) era. This thin black layer can be found EVERYWHERE! Found in Italy, Montana, Africa, Asia, South America, North America, Australia, EVERYWHERE! It is high in uradium, a trace mineral rare on earth but plentiful in astroids, supporting the big ass rock hitting earth wiping out most of life on Earth 65million years ago.

Oil takes more then 6,000 years to make.

Now, some species are "perfect" for what they need. Crocodiles, alligators, sharks, the Living Fossil fish, and so don't need to evolve. Or for mammals, the Virginia Possum is called the Fossil Mammal for it has not evolved in known fossil history. If you look at the skull you can see the ridge on the back of the head, pointing to a very old structure. Compare this to the grey fox and red fox, red fox is a newer species of fox, grey fox is older, and the grey fox skull has an obvious ridge while the red fox doesn't.


While some things, like the Flu Virus evolve continuaslly(sp?) to become immune to last years vaccine/treatment/medicine. Or humans, we once had tails, now we don't, but we still have a tail bone. Or dolphins, use to be land mammals, but now are sea mammals. They have the fossil record of the dolphin evolving from land to sea, and with the skull can actually see the nose move up the skull to become a blowhole while the small clawed hands become flippers, and is why dolphins/whales still have finger bones but no fingers.

I like science, we have proof, we have facts, religon has nothing on reality.

Edit
"Think I'm on that tour bus again.. " Riley. Well, at least this tour of ignorance of reality is free, didn't have to spend 10 bucks for the DvDs. I mean, to see how a christian thinks, or doesn't, is amazing! To them science is satan because it is right. Anything they don't like is wrong and www.killanyonewhowon'tgivethepopeabj.com has proof! Or maybe www.killanyonewithabrain.com has proof everyone who thinks logically is wrong.......

And intersting fact with the :bnghd: beating your head against the wall for an hour burns over 100 calories! Hate to be the guy the scienctists used to research that.

[edit on 26-4-2005 by James the Lesser]



posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 02:21 PM
link   
nice putting it ! It seems crazy to me to believe a god created everything, just one thing creating all... I dont think so...



posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 07:16 PM
link   
To me relgious attacks on science can be explained by one thing... insecurity... the religious institutions are worried that science will one day (which it will) show the world that everything the religions have told them are lies...



posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 09:26 PM
link   
.
I am comfortable with evolution being the mechanism of speciation, but do admit to qualms about abiogenesis. But untill it has been clarified some or another theory presented that works, it is what there is.

Abiogenesis seems like a much larger leap than simply getting from single cells to multicelled organisms and evolution.

Cassini has just discovered larger organic molecules on Titan, which sounds better.

I was also thinking, because oxygen and bacteria (microbes) are the major mechanism breaking down organic molecules today, but neither one of those was present on the early Earth. A large molecule if not physically violently or chemically disturbed, migh persist for very long periods of time, maybe even centuries.

We are so used to thinking any damp organic molecule/dead-cell will be broken down in short order, we forget the early Earth was quite different chemically and biologically. Imagine being one of the few organisms alone in the organic soup of early Earth, NO competition, a lot of things would have survived that wouldn't last 20 minutes in today's competitive biorealm.

Wouldn't it be wierd if early microorganisms had very long lives? We tend to think all microbes have short lives
.




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join