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.

 

Creation vs Evolution is pointless.

page: 2
7
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 18 2010 @ 02:14 PM
link   
As far as creationism and evolution goes it has to be one or the other. The two can't be mixed together, it just doesn't work. The earth can be 6000 years old and at the same time be created in six days. Read the bible and do the generational math; you'll get a number around 6000. Besides, there is more scientific evidence for the bible than there is for evolution( considering that the isn't any scientific evidence for evolution). WHich is more believable anyway: that man was made or that he was for in a chemical soup in a rock?.




posted on May, 18 2010 @ 02:15 PM
link   
As far as creationism and evolution goes it has to be one or the other. The two can't be mixed together, it just doesn't work. The earth can be 6000 years old and at the same time be created in six days. Read the bible and do the generational math; you'll get a number around 6000. Besides, there is more scientific evidence for the bible than there is for evolution( considering that the isn't any scientific evidence for evolution). WHich is more believable anyway: that man was made or that he was for in a chemical soup in a rock?.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dragiero
As far as creationism and evolution goes it has to be one or the other. The two can't be mixed together, it just doesn't work. The earth can be 6000 years old and at the same time be created in six days. Read the bible and do the generational math; you'll get a number around 6000. Besides, there is more scientific evidence for the bible than there is for evolution( considering that the isn't any scientific evidence for evolution). WHich is more believable anyway: that man was made or that he was for in a chemical soup in a rock?.


This is the biggest load of crap I've read in a while. More scientific evidence for the bible than evolution? You have to be kidding me.

Evolution - The change in the gene pool of a population.

Evolution doesn't say that life was created in a "chemical soup", what you're referring to is abiogenesis. Evolution is a process that's know to occur, it's been observed countless times.

I don't know where you get the idea that the bible has more scientific evidence than evolution. It seems to me you have little to no understanding or knowledge of science.



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 12:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Dragiero
 





No offense to you(just all of it), but you're a fool to believe that there is logic behind evolution. There is virtually no scientific evidence that gives evolution any sort of support,

wrong



where there is lot's more evidence supporting biblical claims.

wrong



Tell me what you really know about evolution?

not enough



Is it logical to believe that(according to evolution) living orginisms came from a soup of chemicals?

yes



Is it logical to believe that something that is so completly, so unimaginabley, so uncomprehensibley, so irreducebley complex such as the human body and its functions as well as all living creatures and their universe of complexity all happened merely by chance?

nope. and no-one does. nothing about the human body is irreducibly complex and none of it happened merely by chance.



According to the laws of chance the time it took for the earth to supposidly form is comepletly wrong. The chances of a human being made in the randomness of space and time are 537638403702023 to the power of 10 to the 45000000000 to 1. Now there is something in the laws of chance that is how much time it takes for randomness to have any specific outcome; 4500000000 compare to the odds might as well be here and now.

irrelevant and wholly invented numbers.

Abiogenesis is not random, it is simple and inevitable chemical reactions.

Evolution is not random. Mutations are random, yes, and every human individual has some 200 mutations or more compared to the genetic profile of the parents. Survival of an individual to pass on that mutation (or better success at reproduction) is natural selection and randomness has nothing to do with it.



[edit on 19/5/2010 by rnaa]

[edit on 19/5/2010 by rnaa]



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 03:34 PM
link   
SO if there is evidence of evolution then you should be able to tell me what it is. After all I can tell you much scientific evidence behind the BibleIf you think that the human body doesn't have irreducable complexity than watch unlocking the mysteries of life on youtube or simply take a biology class. I used to be taught evolution (didn't buy most of it ) and I have heard it stated that we formed in a chemical soup. Speaking of which you should be able to tell what chemicals exist that can all just be thrown together that won't destroy each other, because last I checked a soup of chemicals, no matter how many there are, don't produce anything. You also think that evolution isn't randomness, so tell me what is it then if it is not intelligent design or randomness. Humans are like watches in a way; everything that is there all works together harmoniously, just like a watch. However, if you take something away from it then the whole system collaspes, which by the way is called IRREDUCABLE COMPLEXITY.



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 03:41 PM
link   
You are right though the body does have about 200 mutations due to randomness, but let me tell you another fact. There are about 100 trillion cells in a human adults body, each one of those cells have around 50000 chemical reaction all going on at once and each one of those chemical reactions happens hundreds of times per second. Just how evolution going to pull something off like that in millions of years without the species going extinct?



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 03:48 PM
link   
I also say that yes natural selection does work and is truely and completly real, but think about it, in natural selection it may change a feature of a creature, but never has it been known (today) to cause a species to change entirely into another species. In their gene pool that mutation exist, but in order for evolution to work you have to completely change nearly everything about that creature into something else entirely and natural selection doesn't do that. It only works on things that are within the gene pool and unless you're telling me that there is a recorded incident of natural selection changing the genes the way evolution states it did, then this fact remains.



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Nygdan
 


Um... wait a second there.

I agree that some in the Faith camp are scared but I for one am a Christian that believes in evolution - we see it every day, we see it in humans today.

How else could you explain Asians, Caucasians, Negros, South Americans...

How could you explain just the differences in between Chinese, Korean, Japanese, and Taiwanese?

And that's just the human race.

But if I believe that God created such a fantastic machine as the human body - it's much less a leap to believe that he created that machine to be (*gasp*) adaptable to its environment.

I will say this though - they still have yet to find that "missing" link... they still can't figure out how we went from monkey (animal) to homo-erectus....

Strange huh?

BTW - lemme give props to this one because they were making the same point:

reply to post by Dragiero
 




[edit on 19-5-2010 by gncnew]



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dragiero
I also say that yes natural selection does work and is truely and completly real, but think about it, in natural selection it may change a feature of a creature, but never has it been known (today) to cause a species to change entirely into another species. In their gene pool that mutation exist, but in order for evolution to work you have to completely change nearly everything about that creature into something else entirely and natural selection doesn't do that. It only works on things that are within the gene pool and unless you're telling me that there is a recorded incident of natural selection changing the genes the way evolution states it did, then this fact remains.


You have no idea what you're talking about.

There are many instances of speciation. I'm not going to do your research for you, look it up. You'll find plenty of information about it.

Evolution = A change in the gene pool of a population.

The Theory of Evolution = The explanation of how and why evolution happens.

Evolution does not say that an animal has to completely change, it's simply a change in the gene pool of a population.



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Dragiero
 




SO if there is evidence of evolution then you should be able to tell me what it is.


This has been repeated here SO many times that it just isn't worth it to repeat it for the umpteenth time. Please review some of the other threads in the forum for scientific arguments.

You are new here, or at least your user ID is, so I will cut you a little slack.

Start here: 29+ Evidences for Macro-Evolution. The focus here is on explaining what scientific evidence is, what constitutes testing hypotheses, and many examples.

Then find each of your personal favorite objections to the theory of evolution answered here: An Index to Creationist Claims This list is linked to in one of the 'sticky' threads for the forum. That thread also contains links to several other sites, both pro and con, that discuss the scientific evidence.



After all I can tell you much scientific evidence behind the Bible.

Go for your life. Don't be offended if I don't respond to total nonsense that has nothing to do with evolution. Others may wish to respond, but I've gone through too many cycles of this lately and I'm on vacation from that.



If you think that the human body doesn't have irreducable complexity than watch unlocking the mysteries of life on youtube or simply take a biology class.

Been there, done that. You might try that biology class suggestion yourself. Here is a short 4 answer summary of the complexity issue: CB200. There is more detail about specific mechanisms in CB200.1, CB200.2, CB200.3, CB200.4, and CB200.5. You can navigate to these from CB200 (use the "Next Claim" button in the page header).

The fundamental mistake you (and Behe) make is that Irreducible Complexity is a description of a system's current state, not how it got to that state. Here is a video that discusses this in detail:





I used to be taught evolution (didn't buy most of it ) and I have heard it stated that we formed in a chemical soup. Speaking of which you should be able to tell what chemicals exist that can all just be thrown together that won't destroy each other, because last I checked a soup of chemicals, no matter how many there are, don't produce anything.

So when is the last time you checked? Ever checked up on what you do when you bake a cake? Perhaps you should add chemistry to your new syllabus. I suggest concentrating on organic chemistry, but you will probably be required to take inorganic as a prerequisite.

Anyway, that is not evolution and if that is what you were taught, you were taught wrong. The transition from 'non-life' to 'life' is called Abiogenesis. Evolution speaks only to what happens to life AFTER life exists, nothing more, nothing less. Evolution has NOTHING to do with how life got started. Abiogenesis addresses how life got started.

There is no commonly agreed 'Theory of Abiogenesis' yet, but it is actively under development. There are many hypotheses that are being studied and those with merit will one day be formed into a coherent theory, no doubt. In the mean time, this video, from one of the leading researchers in Abiogenesis, can answer many of your questions about your "chemical soup".



Simple chemistry. No magic.



You also think that evolution isn't randomness, so tell me what is it then if it is not intelligent design or randomness.


Evolution is change in populations over time. Mutations are random, but mutations only change individuals. For a mutation to work its way into an entire population, it must provide its bearer with some benefit that improves the individuals ability to reproduce relative to the other members of its generation. That is Natural Selection and there is nothing random about it.

Note that the reproductive benefit need not be immediate, the mutation may be 'neutral' at first, and be 'archived' in the genes of a small portion of the population for many generations until some environmental change occurs that draws it out. So mutations can accumulate in the gene pool over time without having any overt affect on the population. Then some environmental change can occur which allows only the subset of individuals with an advantageous set of previously neutral mutations to survive. This can 'wash through' a population in a very few number of generations.

So the building up of the gene pool is by random mutation, the filtering of the useful from the non-useful is by non-random natural selection. Random mutation provides the raw material for evolution. Natural, non-random selection is the driving force of evolution.



Humans are like watches in a way; everything that is there all works together harmoniously, just like a watch. However, if you take something away from it then the whole system collaspes, which by the way is called IRREDUCABLE COMPLEXITY.

Have you ever seen a Human with one leg? Is this what you mean by the whole thing collapses when you take something away? No, I thought not.

Here is another video that address your watch analogy.



(edit: spelling and grammar)

(edit 2: added link to video on irreducible complexity

[edit on 19/5/2010 by rnaa]

[edit on 19/5/2010 by rnaa]

[edit on 19/5/2010 by rnaa]

[edit on 20/5/2010 by rnaa]



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by gncnew
I will say this though - they still have yet to find that "missing" link... they still can't figure out how we went from monkey (animal) to homo-erectus....
[edit on 19-5-2010 by gncnew]


It's possible that the "missing link" may never be found. Most animals that have ever existed on earth were not fossilized, and to determine the true "missing link" scientists would need DNA, and complete DNA is almost impossible to find in fossils.

Also, humans are animals, and technically we are monkeys.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 05:30 PM
link   
You used a cake in your example; it is a good example, but think about it. The cake had to be formed, had to be made into what it is before it is placed in an oven . It requires the use of someone to mix the ingredients together in the right way in the right order before it is ready to bake. The same goes for evolution. Let's say that evolution is completely and entirely true, how did the matter that is there get there? Let's say it was the big bang, how did the matter for the big bang get there? If you dug, say 200 miles into the earth and then you found a dollar bill. Would you say that this bill had formed over millions of years? Of course not, what is it about the dollar that you would say is not formed over millions of years?

Tell me what things of the bible you want scientific evidence for or do you just want things in general?



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 05:36 PM
link   
I understand that if you took a human leg away then the body wouldn't collapse. People can be born without legs therefore it is within human genes. Say you took away the brain or the bones or the muscle or the heart; can you tell me of anyone who has anything like these missing? And quick question, according to evolution did people evolve from monkeys? If not what animal or being?



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Quest
 




Some people want a logical world of people who can not have faith and some people want a faithful world that ignores logic.


How about a world where faith and religion adapt to the facts according, where instead of defending a book of myths as absolute truth they actually accept the evidence. Most Christians do this, most believe that God used evolution instead of magical creation because the evidence says so.

Magical Creation is just utter ignorant hogwash and honestly the debate is pointless. I've tried and tried to debate Creationists but just in the last few days I've been considering retiring from it. Their minds are too closed off to the evidence, they have limited their God to only creating via supernatural means. The debate has become pointless and honestly most Evolutionists realize this and don't even bother debating Creation because the creationist claims aren't even on the same level.



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 03:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Dragiero
 





You used a cake in your example; it is a good example, but think about it. The cake had to be formed, had to be made into what it is before it is placed in an oven . It requires the use of someone to mix the ingredients together in the right way in the right order before it is ready to bake.


Please view the second video I posted above. Organic chemicals are common throughout the universe. The video shows that simple chemistry is all that is required.



The same goes for evolution. Let's say that evolution is completely and entirely true, how did the matter that is there get there? Let's say it was the big bang, how did the matter for the big bang get there?


Sorry this has NOTHING to do with evolution; it is Cosmology. Please understand: evolution only addresses what happens to life after life exists. It does not have anything to do with how matter came into being and it doesn't address how unliving matter became living matter.



If you dug, say 200 miles into the earth and then you found a dollar bill. Would you say that this bill had formed over millions of years? Of course not, what is it about the dollar that you would say is not formed over millions of years?


Do you have evidence that a dollar bill was found in undisturbed earth 200 miles down? No? Then it doesn't have anything to do with the discussion. It is just a silly distraction.

EXCEPT: that is EXACTLY the kind of anomaly that would disprove evolution and geology and much else of the physical sciences. That is exactly why Biology is science and Religion is not. It can be disproved by finding evidence that shows the explanations provided do not account for the observed evidence.

Please review the first link in my post above pointing to 29+ Evidences for Macro Evolution. That link provides page after page (29+) of potential falsifications for evolution, none of which are as outlandish as finding a dollar bill 200 miles down.



Tell me what things of the bible you want scientific evidence for or do you just want things in general?


I'm not asking for anything. You are the one that offered, show us what you got.



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 03:30 AM
link   
Evolution may work on logic....but it takes a great deal of faith to believe in a bunch of skeletons a few hundred thousand yrs apart being our evolution.



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 03:32 AM
link   
reply to post by tauempire
 


If you think the only evidence for evolution is skeletons than you have no idea what you are talking about.

Do a little research about the evidence supporting evolution, you might be surprised by how well its proven. No faith required.



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 12:26 PM
link   
This is like the show lost. Jack goes from Man of Science to Man of Faith. This happens after all of the experiences his character goes through during the show. I like to think of myself as a big contraction because I mostly a Man of Science but I also have Faith and my views on life VERY OFTEN contradict each other.

Very interesting read. thanks so much.



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 12:59 PM
link   
S&F for you. This explains why all the creationist vs evolutionist threads end up in a giant cycle jerk.

You can't argue with someone about logic if their whole belief isn't based on logic and rationality. I love the creationists coming to this thread though arguing that creationism is logic, lol



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Dragiero
 


Regarding Dragiero's statements, it does not seem logical that if nature could make something as complex as the human body that nature could easily make.... oh say... a pencil, or even a watch. Of course! BUT yet it doesn't, it gives us the materials but not the product, it takes a creature capable of THINKING!!!!!! (aka the anything living). Plus the Big Bang theory doesn't make sense! EXPLOSIONS KILL AND DESTROY!! THEY DON'T CREATE!! Now I mean this in all due respect you all, but you must look at all possibilities of any unknown thing before deciding. Besides you still didn't answer his questions.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join