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.

 

Can Evolution be proven? or is it just a theory/religion?

page: 10
1
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by kenshiro2012
Intelligent Design
This allows for both, religious based creationism and evolution to work and complement each other


In reality, no.

"Intelligent Design" has been usurped by the evangelical creationists as a potentially more palatable way to challenge the teaching of evolution in public schools (interesting how private Catholic schools teach evolution). It's still a philosophical issue and has no place in science classrooms.

Science is about "what we see".

Philosophy attempts to answer "why we see it."

Two different subjects.

(simplistic, but you get the idea)




posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 02:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by expert999
according to other religions, if you are bad you go to hell, but you only stay there for a certain time period.

Not only do you seem unaware of basic science, you also seem unaware of other religions and worst of all, you are also quite uninformed about your own.



Originally posted by expert999
see in my book (the bible) once you are in hell, there is no going to heaven. if you go to hell you stay there.

So what book do catholics, who know the concept of purgatory as well, use?



Originally posted by expert999
so like I said before, when I die, I win no matter what.

No you don't. First, you die, which is rarely pleasant. Second, if there is for example a creator, which I sincerely doubt, which is called Allah, the version muslim extremists believe exist, you'll burn in hell for eternity.



Originally posted by Zipdot
... YOUR OWN ANTI-CREATIONIST SOURCE THAT YOU DID NOT BOTHER TO READ AT ALL.

Finding out as well there is no use in trying to argue with a brainwashed religious fundamentalist?



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 02:24 AM
link   
So if a theory is merely an explanation for facts as we see them, a theory can either be a right explanation, or an invalid explanation.
The theory of gravity is the explanation for the acceleration that all objects have towards large objects. We do not know exactly how it works, as in we can not stop, bend or recreate gravity like gravity on earth, but we do know what effects it has in a pretty precise way.

The theory of evolution is merely an explanation for how life came to be to its current stage on earth, some parts of the explanation may be right, some parts of the explanation may be wrong.

It's kinda like with the big bang, first they say they know how the universe came to be, and then they find out that the current setup of solar systems and stars doesn't make sense with the big bang theory.



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 03:07 AM
link   
What's your point with that argument?



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 03:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Simon666
What's your point with that argument?


Instead of the useless discussions about wether or not the explanation for life on earth is "just a theory" or not, it would be more interested to see how much sense these explanations make.
Is there a lot of assuming and "creativity" involved in the entire set of explanations that make up the evolution theory?



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 04:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jakko
Is there a lot of assuming and "creativity" involved in the entire set of explanations that make up the evolution theory?

Nope. I'd like to hear examples of the contrary.



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 09:45 AM
link   
This is page 10. Your question about evidence and "making sense" has been anwered already. The word "theory" has already been defined, much better than you have done.

Moreover, it has already been stated that the foundation of science is the explanation of observations. When new observations are made about things that don't fit with old theories, the new data is investigated and a new explanation is pursued. Thus, when a Christian says, "Science changes its mind all the time !@#$@#%" and intends it to be some kind of insult, that Christian misunderstands the "correctness" of science - if data doesn't fit an old theory, *SCRAP*.

For instance,


Part of the appeal of the Newtonian paradigm was its universality. Newtonian physics seemed to explain a vast range of phenomena, from the very small to the very large. As the empirical horizons widened, Newtonian physics became inadequate, but instead of being replaced by one new theory, it was necessary to introduce two. Furthermore, these two theories happen to be incompatible. In other words, either theory loses its predictive power whenever it becomes impossible to ignore the other. Therefore besides the purely aesthetic need to have a single theory of everything, there is a very real need for a theory which explains what happens at those tiny length scales at which neither quantum mechanics nor gravity can be ignored. String theory emerged in the mid-eighties as a likely candidate for such a theory.


Scientific discovery is ongoing, but more importantly, it is rather NEW. We would not have automobiles, moon landings, plastic, etc., without scientific discovery proceeding at an accelerated pace leading up to and throughout the Industrial Revolution.

So it is simple to say, "science does not have all the answers." Sure. Yet. Regardless, we have more answers than you.

Zip



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 10:23 AM
link   
so you as an evolutionist are saying that life is not a design, its an accident or a chance?



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 10:28 AM
link   



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by expert999
so you as an evolutionist are saying that life is not a design, its an accident or a chance?


The term "evolutionist" has been invented by the creationist crowd as a means to try and classify evolution as a belief system. Outside of evangelicals, the term has no meaning.

Those who have learned science understand that the visible evidence indicates life has indeed sprung by "chance", but that the primordial mix of elements on this planet billions of years ago made that "chance" a distinct possibility.

I think this has been explained to you repeatedly, why are you unable to accept these generally understood attributes of science?



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by expert999
so you as an evolutionist are saying that life is not a design, its an accident or a chance?


This is a fundamental flaw in the opposing view to evolution, you think that to disagree that a deity created the universe that means the person must believe the universe was "an accident".

This is not true, although I'm sure some "evolutionists" (lol @ that name) think that is the case it is not required to believe a deity did not create the universe.

For example certain trains of thought consider the problems when considering a nothing/something universe. For example what was there before the big bang (or even creation for that matter), how can there have been nothing. What is nothing? How can it be described? Surely "not something" does not work. If there was a time before time began how long was that time? Infinite or none at all? How can there be an amount of time before time?

All examples of nothing in our reality are merely "something on a background of nothing", but on closer inspection the background is as much something as the something.

I know this is all very complex and I am creating more questions that I answer but the point I am trying to make is that I along with many scientists/philosophers believe that existence is neither a accident/coincidence or a creation of a diety but an unavoidable reality.

Infinity must be a fact due to the inability of any theory to explain anything without an infinite variable. So if anything is infinite everything must be infinite and therfore every single possibility must occure no matter how unlikely it may seem. Life is unavoidable, as it is a possibility within a universe of infinite possibilities. It did not need to be created, nothing does, it just is.

Any other explanation defies logic, seriously try and think about nothing existing. Try it. Think of a reality before reality, a universe before the universe. Whatever word you use to define existence (the world, reality, the universe, creation etc.) think of it before it came to be, what was there before there was something? "Nothing" is a world that means very little when thought about in depth. How big was nothing? It was no size. How long did nothing last? It didn't last any amount of time. Or to put it another way how much time went by before time began? No amount of time. Then how can there ever have been a time before time?

Even if you put god into all these equations you have the same problems, how big is god if only s/he existed before creation? What was s/he made of, where was s/he? The only answers are ones that include the infinite variable thus again allowing life without creation due to infinite possibilities.

Seemingly very complex I know, but so was the concept of zero before it was understood.



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 11:26 AM
link   
how is it that any of the evidence i give you is either false, with error, or simply not true? how is that? how is it that all your information is accurate? how do you know that people who try to prove that the earth is billions of years old dont twist facts to make it fit the evolution theory?

you dont, just like you dont know if my bible is actually true...



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by expert999
how do you know that people who try to prove that the earth is billions of years old dont twist facts to make it fit the evolution theory?


The age of the earth and evolution are two different sciences. Earth's age has nothing to do with evolution.

The age of the earth has been explained to you in this thread. A multitude of scientists over the past hundred years (and more) have performed a host of different tests that all point to a very old earth. This is a fact of geology, not evolution.



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 11:52 AM
link   
The links you provide, Expert, are not "evidence" or "proof" or anything like that. You MUST be aware of this... You are pointing us to opinions.

Before I tell a quick story about this kind of thing, I want to say this:


You have voted parabolee for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have used all of your votes for this month.


I really liked that, parabolee. Well done.

Okay - I clicked on a gooooogle ad on the ATS ad sidebar yesterday that was entitled something along the lines of, "Evidence for Jesus Right Here." I read the article, which was on a Christian site, looking for evidence - of course, the reason I clicked it is because in actuality there is no evidence for the existence of a historical Jesus, so I knew that the article would be wrong in some way.

Let me count the ways. I wish I still had the link, but I don't. Among the "evidence" that it listed for Jesus was a statement that was something like, "Jesus Existed Because His Moral Character Matched What The Bible Described About Him."

What?

That's not evidence - that's not even logical.

The web site you provided about DNA basically said "DNA is too complex to not have been created by a God." The complexity of something says nothing about its inception, period. This is a TIRED argument, with no merit, and it is a definite logical fallacy.

But, you know this. You KNOW that your links are not real evidence, and you say, "well, you guys always say there is something wrong with my links." We say this because there is.

In supporting yourself in an argument or discussion here or anywhere, it is meaningless to point to an external source that is just saying the same thing you're saying with nothing real to back it up (ad popularum). Cite something REAL to back yourself up.

The problem is, many people Just Can't Tell what's real or not. They Just Can't Tell what is logical and illogical, fact or conjecture. I'm going to begin working on a post about logic and source validity, sometime, and hopefully someone can make it a sticky somewhere.

Zip

[edit on 6/28/2005 by Zipdot]



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
This is a fact of geology, not evolution.



Be careful SO, they might start calling us *gasp* Geologists!


Here is the original post.


Originally posted by Expert999

Can Evolution be proven? or is it just a theory/religion?

The word Evolution actually has 6 meanings here they are:

1. Cosmic Evolution – The origin with time space and matter (religious)
2. Stellar Evolution – The forming of the starts (religious) stars cannot form according to boyles gas laws
3. Chemical Evolution – the forming of all the elements (religious) fusion works, but you cant fuse past iron
4. Organic Evolution – The origin of life (religious) life begets life. With or without oxygen, life cannot form from non-living material
5. Macro Evolution – changing from a kind of animal or plant to a different animal or plant (religious) no one has ever seen this happen
6. Micro Evolution – variety in the kind (scientific) variation in the kind of animal has been scientificallty proven.



Only the last two are related to evolution in any way.

I don't even know what number 4 is saying.

Expert999, I know that you don't want to believe us, but please at least concede that only the last two things on your list count as "evolution".

Even if they are the same thing.

[edit on 28-6-2005 by LeftBehind]



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 02:07 PM
link   


The age of the earth and evolution are two different sciences. Earth's age has nothing to do with evolution.


ok, either you are ignorant of the evolution theory or you are trying to lie to me.
yes the age of the earth has a lot to do with the evolution theory.
see if you take billions of years away, and then take away millions, and and if you take all away except for 10,000 years, evolution doesnt have time to fit. see evolution needs billions of years to fit into science, and it still doesnt fit. the evolution theory is always changing the age of the earth. at first it was 100,000 and then it was millions, and then it was in the billions, then I learned in the textbooks back in high school that the earth was 3.4 billion years old. newer text books say 4.6 and now they have used the round number of 5 billion years old. so they keep rasiing the age of the earth quite a bit. it makes their theory sound a little more feasible.
but if someone were to prove that the earth was less than 10,000 years old, evolution would be out the window. dont you agree.... without billions of years, can anything evolve? without millions of years, can anything evolve? without hundreds of thousands of years, can anything evolve?
within 10,000 years, can anything evolve?
and what I mean by "evolve" is, can one organism change to a different kind of organism? example:from a cat to a dog.
can everything start from a bacteria and evolve all the way up to a human within 10,000 years?

even the bible says that only a two of one kind can bring forth and produce offspring. and example of that would be: a dog and a wolf can bring forth. a horse and a zebra can bring forth. and this is scientifically proven. if you get the same kind of animal that are the sime kind but a different species, they can bring forth and produce offspring. you cannot take two different KINDS of animals and get anything. they cannot reproduce.
yes mutations may occur but there are no beneficial mutations. a mutation is a loss or scrambling of existing information. nothing new is created.

beneficial mutations is the raw material for natural selection.
www.physics.hku.hk...
if this page is true than we all did come a rock. and life happened by chance.
if evolution is true, then there is no purpose to life.
if evolution is true, nothing has any value which means we are worth nothing, it also means we are a problem because we are polutors of the environment and the more we get rid of, the better,
if evolution is true there is no after-life.

if evolution is true, how do you determine right from wrong? where is the standard?

I believe I have a good theory about this, but let me hear your side of the story...



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by expert999
ok, either you are ignorant of the evolution theory or you are trying to lie to me.

Many here are suggesting this is your strategy on this topic. You have stated several falsehoods, and have ignored the resulting challenges.



yes the age of the earth has a lot to do with the evolution theory.

The earth was around a very long time before there were organisms of any type. The science of geology and evolution are two very different things. Yes, evolution requires time, but the earth's geologic progression to its current form took several magnitudes of time longer than the evolution of life. Life is a blip on the earth's geologic clock.



if you take all away except for 10,000 years, evolution doesnt have time to fit.

That's a true statement... but a straw-man since geologic evidence supports a very old earth.



the evolution theory is always changing the age of the earth.

Another falsehood. Evolution theory has nothing to do with the age of the earth.



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by expert999
and what I mean by "evolve" is, can one organism change to a different kind of organism? example:from a cat to a dog.


I really like dogs.


Originally posted by expert999
even the bible says that only a two of one kind can bring forth and produce offspring. and example of that would be: a dog and a wolf can bring forth. a horse and a zebra can bring forth. and this is scientifically proven. if you get the same kind of animal that are the sime kind but a different species, they can bring forth and produce offspring. you cannot take two different KINDS of animals and get anything. they cannot reproduce.


If somebody in this thread said otherwise, you should quote their statement to refute it.


Originally posted by expert999
yes mutations may occur but there are no beneficial mutations. a mutation is a loss or scrambling of existing information. nothing new is created.


You do not understand what a mutation is.


Originally posted by expert999
if this page is true than we all did come a rock. and life happened by chance.
if evolution is true, then there is no purpose to life.


Life itself is the purpose of life. Life is for living, whether you are a plant or a goose.


Originally posted by expert999
if evolution is true, nothing has any value which means we are worth nothing, it also means we are a problem because we are polutors of the environment and the more we get rid of, the better,
if evolution is true there is no after-life.


That's one way of looking at things. If you "die and go to heaven" (:lol
, though, what are you worth then? Are you somehow worth something just because you're walking on golden roads or whatever? You're just as meaningless there as here, if you want to look at things that way. Down here at least you can accomplish things, create offspring, and enjoy yourself.


Originally posted by expert999
if evolution is true, how do you determine right from wrong? where is the standard?


Groups of people in the world agree upon things and take action. Our government and justice system, along with other countries' governments and justice systems, are arguably not God-based. How do we determine that murder is wrong? Because we don't want ourselves or our children murdered, so as a society, we get together and say, "if someone murders someone, they should be punished by those of us who don't murder people." It works.

Christians commonly associate atheistm with amorality and such. That is completely insulting.

Zip



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 02:51 PM
link   


Only the last two are related to evolution in any way.


well how do you explain the evolution of the universe, stars had to evolve, all of the chemical had to evolve, and time, space and matter have to come into existance simultaneously. they work in what is called a continuum.
here is some interesting reading. maybe some of you evolutionists dont know all of what you believe, so im going to show you.
ourworld.compuserve.com...

life had to evolve from non-living material if evolution is true. that plays a part in evolution. in order to get the rest of the universe, the rest of the universe has to evolve, you cant just skip all of those steps.



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 02:53 PM
link   


That's a true statement... but a straw-man since geologic evidence supports a very old earth.


what exactly is the evidence for an old earth?



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join