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: 3
7
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 22 2010 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Quest
 


Evolutionist debating a Creationist tells Creationist “You’re an idiot for believing a book written by men” then says “You need to go read up on Evolution”.

Just show me one undisputed fossilized skeleton of the “The Missing Link” then give me another 20 years for it to be debunked like all the rest.

Are we having fun yet?




posted on May, 22 2010 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by FearNoEvil
 


With every new discovery, they're getting closer. But at least they have clear steps that show our evolution from an ape-like ancestor. They just found out that neanderthals and homo sapiens mated, so there you go...that's evolution.

Creationists have nothing in terms of evidence that comes even close to what evolution has to support the theory. In fact, the core belief of Christianity is that there is a deity...and guess what, there is ZERO evidence for his/her/it's existence.

So attacking evolution, with all its evidence, while believinig in a theory with ZERO evidence is kinda laughable and sad considering we live in the 21st century.

But this discussion is clearly not the aim of this thread!!

Fact is, logic would dictate that we prove theories with tangible evidence. Religions can't provide that tangible evidence because we have none at the moment...so the only way out is to defy logic and not insist on tangible proof. This allows religions to create whatever theories they like, without ever having to back them up with real evidence and proof. The absence of logic is bliss for them, and the only way they can control the sheeple.

[edit on 22-5-2010 by MrXYZ]



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by FearNoEvil
 


The difference is the Bible is a book of myths which have no evidence backing them up (at least not the supernatural elements). There is no evidence anywhere in the Universe for magical creation.

Evolution on the other hand has genetic and fossil evidence enough to prove the theory a hundred times over.

That's why Creation versus Evolution is pointless as the thread says, its not comparing apples to oranges its comparing apples to bricks. Since Creationism is based in myth and magic and isn't science there's no reason for real scientists to bother debating.

[edit on 22-5-2010 by Titen-Sxull]



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by FearNoEvil
 


The difference is the Bible is a book of myths which have no evidence backing them up (at least not the supernatural elements). There is no evidence anywhere in the Universe for magical creation.

Evolution on the other hand has genetic and fossil evidence enough to prove the theory a hundred times over.

That's why Creation versus Evolution is pointless as the thread says, its not comparing apples to oranges its comparing apples to bricks. Since Creationism is based in myth and magic and isn't science there's no reason for real scientists to bother debating.

[edit on 22-5-2010 by Titen-Sxull]


LOL, the real funny part here that you're right... for all the wrong reason, but you're right.

The creation theory and the evolution theory are COMPLETELY different.

Creation is telling you where it all started. Evolution is only talking about what happened AFTER it was created. FYI: there is no evidence of evolution beyond modifications of an existing species. We have nothing showing a species turning into another species (i.e. the fish to man concept).

God created man, and he in that creation was the ability to adapt to its environment. That's why there are different races around the world - but sorry, no evidence of a monkey becoming a man. Just like there is no evidence of a rat becoming an elephant.



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 11:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Truent2
 





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.


Please view the third video in my post above.

The disconnect in your argument is that pencils and watches are not alive. They do not reproduce. They do not have genetic material to mutate. There is nothing for natural selection to act on.

Evolutionary processes only work on life.



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 11:11 PM
link   
reply to post by gncnew
 


Speciation has been observed.

Please educate yourself about evolution before you say things.

Speciation

That page explains what speciation is and gives quite a few examples of observed speciation.

Ignorance denied.



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 12:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Titen-Sxull
 


Dude... one kind of fish into another kind of fish IS NOT a fish to a rat...


educate yourself hommie. Nice link, and nice vocabulary. You should read your own link next time.

Now, you show me a link where that fish grew some legs and started walking... or maybe where the rodent grew hooves?

Like I said - the evidence is not there.



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 02:03 AM
link   
reply to post by gncnew
 


Evolution doesn't even work that way. Perhaps you should actually educate yourself as to what evolution permits. In order to get from fish to vertebrate land mammal took a long time, it wasn't something that happened all at once it was gradual. Evolution works very very gradually. Its not something that happens all at once, it typically takes many generations worth of genetic variation for speciation to even occur.

Tiktaalik was one of the most important steps in the transition:

Tiktaalik

Specifically Tiktaalik Roseae

Its all out there to be found, knowledge is a click away, unless you'd rather stay ignorant and believe a magical deity waved his hand over dirt to make man.



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 03:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Titen-Sxull
 


And SNAP, you fell into the creationist trap again. You can't argue with logic and rationality, and they won't stop to criticize evolution, no matter how wrong their view of it is, or how little (aka NO) proof they have for their own theory.



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 04:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by gncnew

no evidence of a monkey becoming a man. Just like there is no evidence of a rat becoming an elephant.


Maybe that's because man didn't evolve from monkeys and elephants didn't evolve from rats? have you thought of that yet genius?


Originally posted by gncnew
reply to post by Titen-Sxull
 


Dude... one kind of fish into another kind of fish IS NOT a fish to a rat...


educate yourself hommie. Nice link, and nice vocabulary. You should read your own link next time.

Now, you show me a link where that fish grew some legs and started walking... or maybe where the rodent grew hooves?

Like I said - the evidence is not there.


Fishes do not suddenly turn into rats and rodents don't suddenly grow hooves. No where in evolutionary theory does it say that such things can happen. Looks like you're the one that needs to "educate yourself hommie."

[edit on 23-5-2010 by NegativeBeef]



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Point taken, what was I doing... Okay, I've snapped out of it, no more correcting Creationists or trying to educate them... They'll just have to break out of their ignorance the good old fashioned way like I did



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by gncnew
 


Ever heard of the Fossil Record? We have a pretty decent understanding of the evolution of Horses and Whales, and even the decent of Mankind.



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 10:43 PM
link   
reply to post by gncnew
 





Now, you show me a link where that fish grew some legs and started walking... or maybe where the rodent grew hooves?


If you are asking for an example of a fish suddenly growing legs and walking up on dry land as a 'proof' of the "Modern Evolutionary Synthesis", you are just displaying your ignorance and badly need to educate your self (homie).

If either of your examples were found it would in fact DISPROVE the MES, or at least that portion of it that pertains explicitly to the mechanism of evolution. See 29+ Evidences for MacroEvolution for many pages of possible ways to disprove the MES. Please feel free to win your Nobel prize by demonstrating one of them. (this is relinked for your convience... I've posted this link earlier in the thread).

If you are asking for an example of fishes that walk instead of swim, well, there are lots of them. Handfishes (family Brachionichthyidae), a type of anglerfish, have been in the news lately because nine species have just been described in the literature and added to the endangered/vulnerable lists in Australia and it has been all over the media including a thread discussing them on ATS.

There is no suggestion that Handfishes were precursors to land animals, I believe that the current hypothesis is that Lungfishes are closer to the common ancestor of land animals. However, Handfishes definitely show that 'legs' and 'walking' could have evolved in the sea even where swimming would seem to be the obvious mode of locomotion.

New Handfish species walk on by

Handfish article in Wikipedia

Image of the Spotted Handfish

...life history evolution of anglerfishes...



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 08:29 AM
link   
I have seen a lot of creationist lectures and looked over their material for years now. What I find most disturbing is their effort to purposely misrepresent the other side, the evolution side. It is not just Christian fundamentalists doing this. Consider the dilemma of the Hindus. A stall in Washington DC described why the big bang could not be true. I got the idea that the exhibitors wanted to promote the old steady state universe theory because that way reincarnation could have gone on and on. Otherwise, they needed to create the "souls" as it were. I'm sure that other religions also have problems with scientific inquiry into the world around us. Look at Exodus. You'd think that a huge number of slaves speaking a non Egyptian language would have left abundant records of their presence. No. You'd think that the people might mention the pyramids in the bible. No. You'd think that so many slaves leaving Egypt might had a pronounced effect on the economy. No. You'd think that so many people living for 40 years in the desert would leave evidence behind. No. You'd think that the conquest of the chosen land would leave evidence of sieges at the cities. No.

When it comes to the fact of evolution and its various scientific theories, there seems to be little scientific effort on the part of creationists to support their argument. I know that the effort is not 0. It isn't just a bunch of naysayers. There is a park in Texas where dinosaur prints are found. A creationist group bought land nearby and began a search for human and dinosaur prints in the same strata. That's the sort of thing creationists should do and if their claim is correct they should be able to find evidence that the evolutionary story is false. They don't have to find 1,000 or 10,000 mixed fossils. Not at all. Find one human print with one dino print and I'll instantly know that the evolutionary story is seriously flawed. To date no such find. Instead the evidence keeps piling up heavily in support of evolution and Darwinism.



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by FearNoEvil
Just show me one undisputed fossilized skeleton of the “The Missing Link” then give me another 20 years for it to be debunked like all the rest.

Missing link between what?

Here are links between our early ancestor (B) and us (N). A is modern chimpanzee.




Not all of them are our direct ancestors. For example J - M represent our sister group - Neanderthals.


edit:

Link for whole picture as this forum doesn't know how to scale:

files.abovetopsecret.com...


PS.

Creation vs evolution is indeed totally pointless. It's like Santa Claus (or God) vs. your mom

The other you can actually see, while the other is just a silly made up story.

[edit on 24-5-2010 by rhinoceros]



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 01:56 PM
link   
*Can't post a "reply" to all of you guys on here at once, so I'll just type away:

Ok, let's seriously look at this from a logical perspective. In one breath you're telling me that we can't look at modern examples of Speciation because it takes "millions of years" to get the kind of changes we're talking about.

Yet you're belief is that we started with a protein cocktail in a puddle, got some single celled organisms, made a jump to fish, which made a jump to land crawlers, which made a jump to fliers, diggers, big ones, small ones, teeth, insects, lizards....

OMG! Do you not ever seriously sit back and take stock of the unreal amount of "faith" you have in this ridiculous theory?

I believe in evolution. I believe in it to a limited extent that life was created with the ability to adapt to its environment.

Just the absolutely astounding concept of going from single celled organism to complex and sentient beings is beyond all reason. You look down your nose at faith as if it's some uneducated superstition but then blindly accept the ludicrous idea that this all happens over 4.55 billion years?

Do the math. If there's a thousand millions in a billion, we're looking at about 4 and a half thousand millions of years.

Let's say it takes the odd 5 million years to get from animal A to animal B.

So in the generally accepted age of the earth that gives me room for 800 different types of animals and mutations of animals right? for kicks and grins, let's multiple that by about 100 just to take into account the exponential effect we'd get after the first 500 or so animals.

Dude - there are over 900,000 types of just insects... not to mention fish, birds, mammals, lizards...

I believe in Occam's razor. What's the simplest explanation? That the amino acids in a smoldering lava puddle suddenly sprouted to life, eventually grew gills and a stomach, two sexes (male and female), a reproductive process that is COMPLETELY ABSURD, and then warped into humans at some point?

OR

That something intelligent put this crap together?

Before you call people "uninformed" you should just do some basic logic checks of what you're spouting. If you believe in science with the blind faith you show - then at least believe in SOUND science.

I feel like the song is playing and you're all dancing "Come on baby, do the evolution"...

want to see the lemmings running for the cliff - look no further than the mirror. I'll be you guys all donated to Al Gore's science too right?

Blind Faith is Blind Faith. Either you choose to blissfully accept what someone tells you (cough cough - evolution) or you just take a sane, logical, and reasonable approach to things. I'm not saying I've got the answers, all I'm saying is that the idea that there was no intelligent hand in this thing we call life is the mental equivalent of plugging your ears and going "la la la la la la".

Open minds... pfaw... hardly. Seems to me you've got your blinders on.

[edit on 24-5-2010 by gncnew]



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by gncnew
 


Math isn't one of your strengths...and for someone who says he believes in evolution "to a limited extent", your knowledge of it is fairly poor


Read the detailed explanations people have posted throughout this thread...



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 02:53 PM
link   
Piekeeper you said that how matter got there was piontless, but it isn't. If that matter was made by God then you almost have to acknowledge it. But if it was created by God then that means that there is any such thing as evolution.
(For proof of creation please refer to
www.creationism.org...
www.allaboutcreation.org...)
Now evolution and the bible can't mix because if you take the book of genesis figuratively and say that six days could really be millions of years then where do you draw the line for things that are literal and things that are figurative?



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Dragiero
 


Just to clarify, none of the sources you posted "prove creationism"



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 


Here are links between our early ancestor (B) and us (N). A is modern chimpanzee.

You do know that are DNA is more simaliar to a mouse and worm than any monkey in existance, but we look nothing like them. Just because there are simalarities in the skulls doesn't mean that we evolved from them.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join