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: 16
1
<< 13  14  15    17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 01:23 PM
link   
I just wanted to quickly point out that Darwin's quote was taken out of context. Creationists rarely use this quote in arguments anymore because it is so easy to counter by quoting the rest of the quote. No offense, but I think some of the creationist argument websites you're using are outdated.

Nonetheless, creationists love to misquote evolutionary theory texts and articles.

Here is the full quote from Charles Darwin's Origin of the Species.



"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory."


If I remember correctly, we've been through the eyeball conversation in this thread, or perhaps your other similar thread.

Zip

[edit on 7/4/2005 by Zipdot]




posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 01:59 PM
link   
expert, i think we are moving around in circles. u ask a question, we so called 'evolutionists' answer it. u ask another question, we answer it again. u have been asking us to prove tht evolution is true. well dont u think its time to turn the tables a little. the onus of proof now lies on u.

i ask u to prove tht the bible is true! wht proof is there. there are no first hand accounts. there are no eye-witnesses. heck the book isnt even original, by any stretch of the imagination.

then why should we believe the bible. plain and simple faith? tht might be a good point but then there are so many religions in the world. so many different faiths. so many different 'creation' stories. all claiming to be the one true one. why should we believe the bible over any of these other ones?

i mean wht gives the bible the right to call itself superior to any of these other texts? and why should we consider it superior. hell it borrows everything in it from these other texts. it is nothing special. jus another religious book that is not even original.

then why should we believe it?

please answer my question



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 03:43 PM
link   


you cant prove the big bang.


Then explain what backround radiation is,if it's not from the Big bang.



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 03:45 PM
link   


i ask u to prove tht the bible is true! wht proof is there. there are no first hand accounts. there are no eye-witnesses. heck the book isnt even original, by any stretch of the imagination.


now do you KNOW that there were no eye witness acounts?, no you dont.
and if you look into both the evolution theory and the creation theory they are exact opposites, everything from what things were formed first, to how much time it took to make things.

I will get to your question. I am actually working on one big post to post on all of my threads as proof for creation. so just hold tight and you will get your answer.



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by expert999I will get to your question. I am actually working on one big post to post on all of my threads as proof for creation. so just hold tight and you will get your answer.


I'm afraid you won't convince anyone



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 05:35 PM
link   
After a good night's rest, I'll attempt to explain myself.


Micro-evolution:
Small scale genetic changes over just a few generations. It's been proven.

Macro-evolution:
Macro-evolution does not have a universal definition - Although it is described as a culmination of various micro-evolutionary steps, over a great period of time. This process can lead to speciation - The creation of a new species in a genus.

There's a family - then a genus - then a species, and various subspecies. Take the family Canidae.

There's two genuses - Canis and Vulpes. There's a various species, like wolves and coyotes - and red foxes and desert foxes.

The dingo (Canis Lupus Dingo) is a subspecies of the wolf (Canis Lupus.) The dingo has been the only member of the Canidae family in Australia for quite a long time. Yet it's still related to the wolf - Obviously, it must have evolved due to Australia's unique climate and geographical features. That led to a new species of wolf - the dingo.

There's an example of speciation. That can't be dismissed - It's hard evidence.


As said before, there's the family Canidae, and genuses Canis and Vulpes.

A long time ago (even before the dingo) there use to be a very simple evolutionary tree. It started with the family Canidae - Over time, due to their spreading to various climates and geographical locations, adjusted over time to eventually suit their environment and lifestyle, ending up with the genuses Canis and Vulpes - Depending on their lifestyle and environment. As time went on, and they further spread, there was more variation in their genes, due to their increase of environmental factors. That leads to the various species in each genus.

In short, most families were extremely simple - As time went on, it started branching out. You can liken it with a family tree. Two people have five children - They each have 3 children. Then those children have 2 each, and each of them have 3 children each. Their ancestral tree spreads out and becomes vast - Much like evolutionary trees for various families.



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 05:40 PM
link   
For further proof, take the Genus Homo, in the family Hominidae.

* Family Hominidae: humans and other great apes
-o Subfamily Ponginae
--+ Genus Pongo
---# Bornean Orangutan, Pongo pygmaeus
---# Sumatran Orangutan, Pongo abelii
-o Subfamily Homininae
--+ Tribe Gorillini
---# Genus Gorilla
----* Western Gorilla, Gorilla gorilla
----* Eastern Gorilla, Gorilla beringei
--+ Tribe Hominini
---# Genus Pan
----* Common Chimpanzee, Pan troglodytes
----* Bonobo or Pygmy Chimpanzee, Pan paniscus
---# Genus Homo
----* Human, Homo sapiens


Source

We are vaguely related to various other primates, much like how foxes are vaguely related to wolves. We are animals, just like foxes and wolves, and other primates. We share a common ancestor with various other primates.

We're the only ones in the Genus Homo, because all the others died out.

Homo antecessor (extinct)
Homo cepranensis (extinct)
Homo erectus (extinct)
Homo ergaster (extinct)
Homo floresiensis (extinct)
Homo georgicus (extinct)
Homo habilis (extinct)
Homo heidelbergensis (extinct)
Homo neanderthalensis (extinct)
Homo rhodesiensis (extinct)
Homo rudolfensis (extinct)
Homo sapiens

Source

[edit on 4/7/05 by Xar Ke Zeth]



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 05:53 PM
link   

you cannot take a horse and a cow and get offspring, they are not they same KIND.


Who said so? SPECIES is the proper word by the way.


Darwin stated on page 170 that all organisms are related. (well thats not word for word, but thats basicall what he said)

I am not related to a plant. birds are not related to bananas.
any 5 year old kid can figure out that there is a difference between animals and plants.


Back down the line animals and plants have a common ancestor that is why they are related. But "related" doesn't mean a banana tree is going to evolve into a fly,stop your nonsense.

This has been proven,genes extracted from an animal and implanted into plant genomes have expressed themselves.This means the genetic code is universal,and that all life has a common ancestor.

YOU DON'T HAVE A CLUE ABOUT EVOLUTION!!!

[edit on 4-7-2005 by DarkSide]



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 11:43 PM
link   
hey how about you go read darwins book. and see for yourself that he said that "all plants and all animals throughout all space and time should be related.
and you dont know how much I nkow about evolution. obviously you believe in it and obviouslly you are offended by me downplaying it.

its a silly religion that can turn into something dangerous.

ok is a mustang a different species than the stallion?
yes they are...
but they are the same KIND of animal...

no matter how you want to put this. science has proved at least that part of the bible right... if two animals cannot produce offspring, than they are not the same kind. they can be two different species, but they have to be the same kind.

you dont even know what you believe in

and in case you dont know. there are six different meanings to the word evolution. if you want to know what they are refer to the thread that is titled as such.



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 12:11 AM
link   
And only two of those in your first post refer to Evolution, which I've outlined a couple of posts back. I've even stated the evolutionary tree with families, genus, and species are structured the same as an ancestral tree. It is possible that all life may have originated from a single animal.

Could you please use a scientific definition, and not "kind"? When dealing with science, it's customary to use science.

Here's some questions I have:
What's your definition of micro-evolution?
What's your definition of macro-evolution?
Can you please state where you got your definition for macro-evolution?



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 01:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by expert999
its a silly religion that can turn into something dangerous.


Howso? What dangers do you see in scientific original explanation? How do these perceived dangers compare with real religious dangers in the world and in history?


Originally posted by expert999
ok is a mustang a different species than the stallion?
yes they are...
but they are the same KIND of animal...


Actually, there is no special difference between "wild" horses and domesticated horses. "Wild" horses today are descendants of earlier domesticated horses. They are both of the same species, including Przewalski's horse, which, along with zebras and wild a-sses, are the only real wild horses left in the world, and they are thought to be extinct in the wild. There are three species of zebra, three species of a-ss, and the domestic/wild/semi-wild horses which belong to the same species.

If you like horses, and you sound like you would like to know more about them, check out this page. You will learn much about the evolution of horses and a-sses on that page as well. It's short but informative, with lots of pictures.


Originally posted by expert999
no matter how you want to put this. science has proved at least that part of the bible right... if two animals cannot produce offspring, than they are not the same kind. they can be two different species, but they have to be the same kind.


I wouldn't call that "science" per se. I don't know when man discovered that copulation between a man and a goat wouldn't yield a goatman, but I think it predates the scientific method.



Originally posted by expert999
you dont even know what you believe in

and in case you dont know. there are six different meanings to the word evolution. if you want to know what they are refer to the thread that is titled as such.


Your thread referred to your classifications or categories of evolution, not definitions of the actual word. In any case, abiogenesis and Big Bang theories and all of the other 1 through 4 categories that you have presented probably deserve their own threads because they are each complicated subjects.

Zip

[edit on 7/5/2005 by Zipdot]



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 02:13 AM
link   
(evolution) first hand accounts=About 15 billion years ago a tremendous explosion started the expansion of the universe. This explosion is known as the Big Bang.At the point of this event all of the matter and energy of space was contained at one point. What exisisted prior to this event is completely unknown and is a matter of pure speculation. This occurance was not a conventional explosion but rather an event filling all of space with all of the particles of the embryonic universe rushing away from each other. The Big Bang actually consisted of an explosion of space within itself unlike an explosion of a bomb were fragments are thrown outward. The galaxies were not all clumped together, but rather the Big Bang lay the foundations for the universe.

logical questions
I dont know to much about evolution and mabey I'm wrong but there are things that had to be created by someting.

1)-(15 billion years ago a tremendous explosion started the expansion of the universe) lets just say this is true, when was the time invented before the explosion or after the explosion?

2)-take expansion for example when was this process created before or after the explosion (expansion)=1. process of enlargement: the process of increasing, or increasing something, in size, extent, scope, or number
2. increase: an increase, or the amount by which something increases, in size, extent, or scope

now you cant say that this process of expansion or time already existed before the explosion becase nothing existed right.but if time already exixted how did it evolve? what was times earlier former?

3)-when did up & down, back & forward evolve before or after the explosion wait a second can these thing even evolve did these things development from earlier forms i mean what if 15 billion years ago it was the other way around down & up, Forth & Back. LOL

4)-(evolution is the theoretical process by which all species develop from earlier forms of life. According to this theory, natural variation in the genetic material of a population favors reproduction by some individuals more than others, so that over the generations all members of the population come to possess the favorable traits.)

OK LETS JUST SAY THATS TRUE "all species develop from earlier forms of life"
BUT WHERE DID THE LAWS THAT RULE NATUER DEVELOP FROM where did the principles that are set out to control the univers develop from.

TIME, GOOD & EVIL, MATH, THE LAWS OF PHYSICS, LOGIC, THE SISTEM THAT CONTRORLS WHAT WE FEEL LOVE HATE EVERYTHING WE CANT SEE BUT FEEL.

when did love & hate evolve before or after the big bang if it even evolved
can any of these scientists that claim evolution is true or anybody tell me please what was the earlier forms of love & hate

TIME can't evolve
GOOD & EVIL can't evolve
MATH can't evolve
THE LAWS OF PHYSICS can't evolve
LOGIC can't evolve
there just there they were created!!!!!

5)-hey if you belive in evolution whats the earlier form of (2+2=4), 100 billion years could pase and (2+2=4) is not going to change. (2+2=4) did it evolve or was it created?

Firstly, there's the question of how life itself originally got started. The theory of evolution suggests how to develop from one species to another, but it can't explain how to jump from no life to life or from unconscious to conscious.
A superior force Created the universe he is the universe.



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 02:47 AM
link   
1. When it happened.

2. Time didn't exist. And we are unable to fathom what other dimensions are like, other than our three spatial dimensions we reside in.

3. I think you mean direction. If something travels from point A to point B, it's going in a certain direction. Up/down/left/right/forward/back are simply points of reference.

4. Life is a tizzy of a thing to ponder, isn't it? That's one of the reasons religions exist, to explain the unknown.

Good and evil are relative, and hate and love are simple emotions.

"MATH can't evolve
THE LAWS OF PHYSICS can't evolve
LOGIC can't evolve"

Technically correct. But our understanding of said things can evolve.

5. Just in case you were misinformed, evolution deals with life, and not with mathematics. And you're right - Evolution doesn't state anything about the beginning of life. That's for another theory.



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 03:43 AM
link   

This member removed an administrative edit to his post, for which he received a red-flag warning.

This member had copied-and-pasted an entire article from a proven dubious website, the Kent Hovind Dr. Dino site. An edit to his post indicated removal of the material.

This member removed my notice, then re-pasted the copied material.

This notice will remain so that ATS members can gauge the earnestness and honesty of expert999 in his posts. Removal of this administrative notice will result in a posting ban.



[edit on 5-7-2005 by SkepticOverlord]



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 08:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by expert999
here is one link to show carbon dating does not work...

That is pseudo science and fraud. No scientist worthy of the name would even try to carbon date things older than 5000 years or so or objects that did not get their carbon from the atmosphere. Further, carbon dating is by far not the only radiometric dating method.



Originally posted by expert999
Dr Barney Maddox, proved macro evolution to be wrong. he said that the differences between teh chimp and the human is 1.6%, but if you look at it more closely, thats a difference of millions of nucleotides, but a change of three is fatal.

Only one different nucleotide can be fatal but the difference among different humans is several orders of magnitude larger than one. Similarly, that difference does NOT show conclusively that man and apes don't have a common ancestor.
This shows once again you are deliberately using pseudo science and fake arguments for your position. Further, if you would ask any person whether it is possible for donkeys and horses to have a common ancestor few would disagree, yet with humans and apes all of a sudden people have issues because of emotional reasons of superiority or theological reasons. Yet both humans and apes and horses and donkeys only differ by one chromosome pair and both can have (sterile offspring). In the case of donkeys and horses these are called mules, the case of humans and apes has unfortunately not been tried yet. I hope it will one day as it would seriously shake a lot of people out of their delusions of superiority and divine origin.



Originally posted by expert999
there are SIX different meanings to the word Evolution...

1. Cosmic Evolution- The origin of time space and matter. (Big Bang), there is no proof for this theory, but it is stated that it is a fact and it happens every 100 billion years.

2. Chemical Evolution- All 92 elements plus the synthetic ones evolve somehow. Energy is needed for fusion to occur. Fusion does occur in stars, but you cannot fuse past iron. but there is a chicken and the egg problem. you need stars for the energy, but you need the chemicals to make up the stars.

3. Stellar Evolution- Stars and planets evolving. no one has ever seen a star form, nor have they witnessed a planet form.

4. Organic Evolution- Life evolving from non-living material. this was proven wrong a while ago. life begats life. and it was even proved in the lab.

5. Macro Evolution- Evolving from one KIND of animal to a different KIND of animal. example: from a cat to a dog.

6. Micro Evolution- Variation within the KIND of animal.

Once again you repeat the same false information, ignoring the obvious errors that have been pointed out already. The creation of elements does NOT occur solely by nuclear fusion but can also happen by for example neutron capture, as just one example. Further, abiogenesis was NOT proven wrong in the lab, the only thing "proven" so far is that although the building blocks of life can be produced under the conditions presumed to exist on the early earth, no life forms were actually produced. Star formation is further observed throughout the universe.



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by expert999
hey how about you go read darwins book. and see for yourself that he said that "all plants and all animals throughout all space and time should be related.


Of course all life is related because there is a common ancestor to all species.


and you dont know how much I nkow about evolution. obviously you believe in it and obviouslly you are offended by me downplaying it.


I am offended by the way you are ignoring the facts we are showing you,and your refusal to understand evolution.You are not downplaying evolution,your are humiliating yourself and other creationnists along with yourself.


its a silly religion that can turn into something dangerous.


In what way is it a religion? I don't pray to darwin,and I don't believe I'll go the heaven. Evolution is a scientific theory with tons of evidence. Religion is man made fairy tales.

Religion is belief,science is knowledge.


no matter how you want to put this. science has proved at least that part of the bible right... if two animals cannot produce offspring, than they are not the same kind. they can be two different species, but they have to be the same kind.


Did we say the opposite?

Solenopsis xyloni and Solenopsis fugax are 2 different SPECIES,but they belong to the same GENUS because they are similar and have a common ancestor.



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 10:00 AM
link   
FYI: expert999 is on a temporary posting ban for continually pasting material from other sites despite clear warnings from administration.



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 11:24 AM
link   


Xar Ke Zeth
Good and evil are relative, and hate and love are simple emotions.


wow relative, so your in to that new age crap, I guess if somebody rapes a child and then kills it that would be relative?


love & hate are JUST simple emotions? thats embarrassing
the whole universe is based in the principles of love & hate every single species in the universe is governed by these principals and let me ask you something during the time every single species in the universe was evolving they defenetly had some king of characteristics that could character there emotions lets just say love, hate, happiness, sadness etc......
why did'ent the emotions evolve whith the species all together?

i mean first there was nothing then bang and everything i mean everything
started to evolve with the exception of every single emotion.
that part did'ent evolve I guess 15 billion years ago species could'nt love or hate because that part hadent evolve yet?

Every single thing in the universe is based on laws, principals & emotions that CANT evolve they are so perfect they had to be created by something.

What is the purpose for teaching evolution?
to destroy faith in that something by saying that that somthing had nothing to do with creation so there doesn't need to be that something what is evolution? evolution is a religion which has to be believed by "faith"! all these discoveries such as " missing links" have been proved to be either fakes , or theories. Evolution is really a religion of unbelief in god. That's its whole idea in a false faith based on false assumptions, theories, hypotheses, and puer guesswork, lies and phoneis to get people who hate god and sell them that crap indoctrinate them with it in schools universities and it all comes down to that, the people that own this world hate god.



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 11:24 AM
link   


Xar Ke Zeth
Good and evil are relative, and hate and love are simple emotions.


wow relative, so your in to that new age crap, I guess if somebody rapes a child and then kills it that would be relative?


love & hate are JUST simple emotions? thats embarrassing
the whole universe is based in the principles of love & hate every single species in the universe is governed by these principals and let me ask you something during the time every single species in the universe was evolving they defenetly had some king of characteristics that could character there emotions lets just say love, hate, happiness, sadness etc......
why did'ent the emotions evolve whith the species all together?

i mean first there was nothing then bang and everything i mean everything
started to evolve with the exception of every single emotion.
that part did'ent evolve I guess 15 billion years ago species could'nt love or hate because that part hadent evolve yet?

Every single thing in the universe is based on laws, principals & emotions that CANT evolve they are so perfect they had to be created by something.

What is the purpose for teaching evolution?
to destroy faith in that something by saying that that somthing had nothing to do with creation so there doesn't need to be that something what is evolution? evolution is a religion which has to be believed by "faith"! all these discoveries such as " missing links" have been proved to be either fakes , or theories. Evolution is really a religion of unbelief in god. That's its whole idea in a false faith based on false assumptions, theories, hypotheses, and puer guesswork, lies and phoneis to get people who hate god and sell them that crap indoctrinate them with it in schools universities and it all comes down to that, the people that own this world hate god.



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sevenstars_777
wow relative, so your in to that new age crap, I guess if somebody rapes a child and then kills it that would be relative?


Let's see what the Bible says about rape:

If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29

Great isn't it?



love & hate are JUST simple emotions?


Yes,chemical reactions in your nervous system.


i mean first there was nothing then bang and everything i mean everything
started to evolve with the exception of every single emotion.
that part did'ent evolve I guess 15 billion years ago species could'nt love or hate because that part hadent evolve yet?


What the hell are you saying?


Every single thing in the universe is based on laws, principals & emotions that CANT evolve they are so perfect they had to be created by something.


Bad Logic.


What is the purpose for teaching evolution?
to destroy faith in that something by saying that that somthing had nothing to do with creation so there doesn't need to be that something what is evolution? evolution is a religion which has to be believed by "faith"! all these discoveries such as " missing links" have been proved to be either fakes , or theories. Evolution is really a religion of unbelief in god. That's its whole idea in a false faith based on false assumptions, theories, hypotheses, and puer guesswork, lies and phoneis to get people who hate god and sell them that crap indoctrinate them with it in schools universities and it all comes down to that, the people that own this world hate god.


Your wrong. Evolution is not a religion,infact there loads of evidence to support it,but none to support the existence of your god,which is a figment of your imagination.




top topics



 
1
<< 13  14  15    17  18 >>

log in

join