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: 14
1
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 01:20 PM
link   
But Darkside, in an area where there is just herbivores, there is a massive death happening. We got a deer park near here, and the people who ran the park wanted to allow hunters in to take care of the deer/rabbit population since there were nothing eating them. Hippie tree hugging crybabies said no, don't shoot bambi/thumper, and now the park is closed off until all the corpses are removed/disease stops spreading. So a harbivore explosion is possible, and much more likely then a carnivore explosion.

Now say this happened on global scale, and no one stopped the disease from spreading. Now predators eat the diseased corpses, get infected, it spreads amongst them, and in the end you have a small population, to small to keep the species going.

But again, the astroid 100000x more likely since there is actual proof. At the KT Boundary is a mineral very rare on earth, but common in astroids. Yet ANYWHERE in the world you can find the KT Boundary if you dig deep enough.




posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by parabolee

But taking that as proof of creationism is foolish. There was never a begining of time and oh yeah I pointed that out not you .


Such foolish claims, there was never a beginning of time.
That is like saying "there is no begin of the X axis", of course in our human perception, living in these 4 dimensions (time being a dimension) we can not see outside or even beyond these boundaries, but that doesn't mean you know there IS no beginning.


When I stated Eienstein believed that you attacked him, it was you that said people who don't believe in creationism MUST believe in the big bang being the beginning etc. I made whole post why this was wrong and then you try and you use points that prove you wrong to prove me wrong


Sorry but your whole 6 day creation thing is a childrens book, a fairy tale, a dogmatic faith that defies logic.


Let me try to educate you on a few things.
Creationism does not mean you believe in the "6 day creation thing" and even for those who do believe in the "6 day creation thing", some of them take those verses literally and some don't.
You seem to conveniently take them literally before you dismis them as fairytales, does this mean you have never explored the idea of those verses not being literal?
Don't worry, you're not the only "anti Genesis" ATSer that only looks at the bible in the most ignorant and narrowminded way possible.


Do you know Einstein believed in god (a definition of anyway)? Just not yours. You missunderstand religious faith, you think anyone that disagree's with your faith must be atheist, never heard of an agnostic? or a secular faith?


First of all, I don't think you have any ideas in what God I believe, and second I never said anyone who is not a christian does not believe in a God.
Do you even understand the concept of Creationism?


We just have to continue to question what we know and let go of thousands of years old religious myths.
[edit on 1-7-2005 by parabolee]


Unless the myths are part of your personal religion-mix of course.
In fact we should let go of all ideas, unless they correspondent with how you feel about it exactly.


[edit on 1-7-2005 by Jakko]



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 03:02 PM
link   


Creationism does not mean you believe in the "6 day creation thing" and even for those who do believe in the "6 day creation thing", some of them take those verses literally and some don't.


those who dont believe in a literal 6 day creation often refer to the "gap" theory. this does not fit into the bible, because if you have millions of years between days. of even a long period of time between the days. you would probably have a death in there somewhere.
the bible teaches that mans sin brought death into the world. so if there were many years between the days, there would be a death in there somewhere. millions of years have deaths. if you look at what order God created things. he created certain things that have to come by the next day or certain things die.
the gap theory is not a feasible theory either. it tries to tie evolution in with creation.



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jakko

Let me try to educate you on a few things.


Well you successfulyl educated me on your ability to patronize people. lol



Creationism does not mean you believe in the "6 day creation thing" and even for those who do believe in the "6 day creation thing", some of them take those verses literally and some don't.
You seem to conveniently take them literally before you dismis them as fairytales, does this mean you have never explored the idea of those verses not being literal?
Don't worry, you're not the only "anti Genesis" ATSer that only looks at the bible in the most ignorant and narrowminded way possible.


I think that you did not read a large part of my post that covered the fact that I do understand that someone can put a version of creationism that is exceptable to me forward. But it is those that think evolution is false and creationism is an alternative to it that i have a problem with.


First of all, I don't think you have any ideas in what God I believe, and second I never said anyone who is not a christian does not believe in a God.
Do you even understand the concept of Creationism?


That is true, and if I made any presumptions then I appologies. But you made presumptions over my beliefs first, which is why I was forced to explain the time/space issue, which you did not understand.

Time has no start it just is! I am sorry you can not grasp that and you feel the need to insult me because you don't. I tried to explain it in laymans terms for you but I think you failed to read it.



Unless the myths are part of your personal religion-mix of course.
In fact we should let go of all ideas, unless they correspondent with how you feel about it exactly.


This point is another huge presumption rom you I question what I think I know every day. That is how I got to my belief system now, that is how I was an atheist and then became an agnostis, then a Buddhist and now a secular humanist. Have you always been a Christian?

Maybe you do question what you know, but your seeming acceptance of a book that's contents origins are highly in question makes it seem that you don't. I would be happy to get back into the "time is an illusion" issue in detail with you, but right now I'm going home.


[edit on 1-7-2005 by parabolee]

[edit on 1-7-2005 by parabolee]



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jestaman
But Darkside, in an area where there is just herbivores, there is a massive death happening. We got a deer park near here, and the people who ran the park wanted to allow hunters in to take care of the deer/rabbit population since there were nothing eating them. Hippie tree hugging crybabies said no, don't shoot bambi/thumper, and now the park is closed off until all the corpses are removed/disease stops spreading. So a harbivore explosion is possible, and much more likely then a carnivore explosion.


Yes but that is not a natural ecosystem. It is manmade and unbalanced by man by the removal of predators.


Now say this happened on global scale, and no one stopped the disease from spreading. Now predators eat the diseased corpses, get infected, it spreads amongst them, and in the end you have a small population, to small to keep the species going.


Lets say the herbivore population increases,the predators will have more food and their population will grow as a result.

More predators means more herbivore are eaten.So the herbivore population decreases until there are not enough prey to feed all the predators.

So then the predator population decreases and an equilibrium is found.



posted on Jul, 2 2005 @ 12:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by expert999



Creationism does not mean you believe in the "6 day creation thing" and even for those who do believe in the "6 day creation thing", some of them take those verses literally and some don't.


those who dont believe in a literal 6 day creation often refer to the "gap" theory. this does not fit into the bible, because if you have millions of years between days. of even a long period of time between the days. you would probably have a death in there somewhere.
the bible teaches that mans sin brought death into the world. so if there were many years between the days, there would be a death in there somewhere. millions of years have deaths. if you look at what order God created things. he created certain things that have to come by the next day or certain things die.
the gap theory is not a feasible theory either. it tries to tie evolution in with creation.


but why is it necessary for the creation theory to fit in with the bible exactly!!?? i do not get this point of view?

secondly. parabolee i must say that your own conception of God is very very similar to what i also personally believe in. Infact you used the same term to describe God that i do when discussing the concept with anyone, "ENERGY"

that is what i too think god can be best described as. no shape no form. no interest in the day to day lives of us puny humans. jus pure energy that flows through everything in the universe, binding us all


[edit on 7/2/2005 by puneetsg]



posted on Jul, 2 2005 @ 12:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by puneetsg
secondly. parabolee i must say that your own conception of God is very very similar to what i also personally believe in. Infact you used the same term to describe God that i do when discussing the concept with anyone, "ENERGY"

that is what i too think god can be best described as. no shape no form. no interest in the day to day lives of us puny humans. jus pure energy that flows through everything in the universe, binding us all



Coincidentally, Albert Einstein showed us that all matter in the universe is merely energy vibrating at different frequencies.

Zip



posted on Jul, 2 2005 @ 02:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zipdot


Coincidentally, Albert Einstein showed us that all matter in the universe is merely energy vibrating at different frequencies.

Zip


then that just reaffirms my belief


i simply cant understand fundamentalists. they refuse to look at other viewpoints. steadfastedly believe they are right no matter the mountain of evidence to the contrary. attack others who do not agree with them. they are not rational people
unfortunately there are tooo many of them in this world. be it the muslim fundamentalists who wage "jihad" the hindu fundamentalists who try and break down mosques or the christian ones who denounce everyone else as evil simply because they do not share their faith

but anyway getting back to the topic. i read sometime back that all mutations that have been found so far have been through a loss of genetic material, and not the gaining of new material. is there any evidence to the contrary?

i mean there has to be some gain as new functions are evovled etc. how do the scientists explain this?



posted on Jul, 2 2005 @ 02:40 AM
link   
That claim is insubstantial to say the least.

This page discusses genetic mutations with regard to creationist claims.

Zip



posted on Jul, 2 2005 @ 06:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by expert999
if you look at what order God created things.

Yes, please, you do have an outstanding question you still need to answer: did God create animals BEFORE or AFTER humans, mister "the bible doesn't contain any contradictions"?



posted on Jul, 2 2005 @ 06:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zipdot
Coincidentally, Albert Einstein showed us that all matter in the universe is merely energy vibrating at different frequencies.

Wrong, that would be quantum theory, not relativity theory.



posted on Jul, 2 2005 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Simon666

Originally posted by Zipdot
Coincidentally, Albert Einstein showed us that all matter in the universe is merely energy vibrating at different frequencies.

Wrong, that would be quantum theory, not relativity theory.


Nope, I'm talking about Albert Einstein's work. The theory of relativity showed that matter and energy were two forms of the same thing and were convertible. It was already understood in Einstein's time that, even in the solid phase, particles were constantly vibrating with different frequencies. Quantum theory merely expands the description and gives us more of an idea of what goes on at the quantum level, but the groundwork was already laid completely by Einstein.

Zip



posted on Jul, 2 2005 @ 12:54 PM
link   
anyways. can evolution be proven? or is it based on assumptions?



posted on Jul, 2 2005 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by expert999
anyways. can evolution be proven? or is it based on assumptions?


We are on page 14 of your thread here, expert. Please do not pretend as if this question has not already been answered.

Check out earlier pages, specifically 1-10.

Zip


Urn

posted on Jul, 2 2005 @ 09:29 PM
link   
expert999, i notice you have repeatedly ignored simon666's question.
you yourself asked for an example of contridiction in the bible, and kindly offered to explain.


Originally posted by Simon666

Gen.1:25-27 (Humans were created after the other animals.) And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image.... So God created man in his own image.

VERSUS

Gen.2:18-19 (Humans were created before the other animals.) And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.


i am very interested in your explination of the above discrepancy.

[edit on 2-7-2005 by Urn]



posted on Jul, 2 2005 @ 11:44 PM
link   
First off it was MAN not humans, he made adam before eve.
so it was MAN.
ok I guess I can see where you all get lost in believing that these two contradict eachother. if you read the first chapter, you will notice that it says "he made the beasts" not "every beast. not everything was created at the same time. so the way I see it, you are questioning Gods power to create more beasts and fowl.
see here, notice the difference.

And God made THE beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and EVERY thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: from chapter 1

And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed EVERY beast of the field, and EVERY fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called EVERY living creature, that was the name thereof.

notice that not everything was created at the same time. God made animals, and then he made ALL the animals.

but im probably wrong, because it probably doesnt make sense to you.

now I have a question for you, how do you date fossils, and how do you date the strata layers? they dont do it according to radioactive decay, one reason they dont, is because its been proven that it does not work.

do lets here how the evolutionists date rocks and how they date fossils. I here its done by index fossils in certain strats layers... or something lke that...
help me out.



posted on Jul, 3 2005 @ 01:30 AM
link   

do lets here how the evolutionists date rocks and how they date fossils. I here its done by index fossils in certain strats layers... or something lke that...
help me out.

What would be the point? All the requested evidence you've been given.. you've either refused to read, completely ignored and dismissed without explanation.. at which time you usually start yet another thread so you don't have to.

Oh wait.. you have.

Hopefully people won't answer it untill you actually answer all their points [especially the scientific ones].

[edit on 3-7-2005 by riley]



posted on Jul, 3 2005 @ 02:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by expert999
now I have a question for you, how do you date fossils, and how do you date the strata layers? they dont do it according to radioactive decay, one reason they dont, is because its been proven that it does not work.


Bull. Please state where you came up with such a "fact."
Radiometric Dating



posted on Jul, 3 2005 @ 06:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by expert999
ok I guess I can see where you all get lost in believing that these two contradict eachother. if you read the first chapter, you will notice that it says "he made the beasts" not "every beast. not everything was created at the same time.

Wrong, in the second chapter it clearly says "every beast", so your attempt at saving the bible by interpreting that "the beast(s)" doesn't mean every beast does not solve the contradiction on its own.



Originally posted by zipdot
It was already understood in Einstein's time that, even in the solid phase, particles were constantly vibrating with different frequencies. Quantum theory merely expands the description and gives us more of an idea of what goes on at the quantum level, but the groundwork was already laid completely by Einstein.

Einstein's time WAS the time quantum theory was developed. That all matter can be described as a wave packet is one of the pillars of Schrödinger's quantum theory - it is not part of Heisenberg's matrix mechanics - of which the groundwork was NOT laid by Einstein, but rather by de Broglie. Einstein did deliver a contribution to quantum mechanics with the explanation of the photoelectric effect, but this did not make use yet of the assumption that matter can be described as a wave packet.

www.bartleby.com...

[edit on 3-7-2005 by Simon666]



posted on Jul, 3 2005 @ 12:50 PM
link   
here is one link to show carbon dating does not work...
members.cox.net...

another
www.contenderministries.org...

another
www.worldbydesign.org...
and here is another giving many examples of carbon dating not working.
www.ankerberg.com...

oh and by the way, your geologic collumn was thought up way before radiometric dating was even thought of. and none of them work. its all based on assumptions.




top topics



 
1
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join