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.

 

Evolution: Anyone care to Fill in the Huge Blank?

page: 2
1
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 23 2005 @ 02:40 PM
link   
I've got a real good 'cheap shot' ( I belive that si what youll call it)but can soomoene fill in the whole in craetionalism.

What I mean is they basically say that god was just there so a complete consiousness just appeared from nowhere and was all powerfull blah blah blha blah blah.

IM sorry but launch anything against evolution but it has more fact to back it up and Both (yes both)crumble at the exact same place- the beginning, but the fact is evolution actually tries to explain it the bible just seems to miss it out.




posted on Jul, 23 2005 @ 04:25 PM
link   
what exactly do you want me to try to prove? the only thing that I can prove is that they are both religious and that the one that is taught in our schools is a violation of the first ammendment. it is a religion and should not me taught in our schools as a fact when it has not even been proven. the only evidences the evolution theory has is a bunch of lies, things that have been proven wrong years ago. for example the first five meanings to the Term evolution.

Creation is a theory just like evolution, however it explains many things about the word today. if you want ill share some with you.



posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 01:16 PM
link   
'Evolution is a bunch of lies'

Who told you that evolution is based on tons of scientific evidence it is still a theory but so is graivity. If you want you can prove gravity by jumping off a bridge. ON the other hand Creationalism IS a bunch of lies it was mad eup 2000 years ago by people who couldnt understasnd the world around them so they created something to give it meaning-god.



posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 01:33 PM
link   


Who told you that evolution is based on tons of scientific evidence


have you been to school? have you been in a biology class?
the textbooks state that it is a fact and not a theory.
and creation is not a bunch of lies, you can think or believe that, but you cant prove it.
and evolution is based on lies. ask any ACLU personnel. they might deny it at first, but if you show them everything in the textbooks that have been proven wrong. they will tell you that; yes all of those things have been proven wrong but there is nothing to replace the theory.

im sorry but evolution is a religion and has never been proven at all.
Cosmic/stellar/chemical/organic and macro evolution has never been proven. you have to believe or assume that those all happened.
but the textbooks will teach that life must have emerged in the organic soup 3.4 billion years ago.
if you havent noticed TIME is like the god of evolution. if you dont have time, nothin will happen. also if you dont have billions of years. the whole theory looks dumb.



posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 01:54 PM
link   
Well I dont know what youve ben reading but I think Darwin made enough proof for evolution and thers been loads ever since.

BUt proof of god well theres the bible vicars and the pope, hmmmm.



posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 03:43 PM
link   
what did darwin ever prove? he said in his book on page 170 that plants and animals were related to eachother.
darwin also questioned his own beliefs on page 22X.

Darwin studied finches and observed 14 varieties of finches.
he then concluded that birds are related to bananas.
the above reference on page 170 is what I am refering to when I say that.

darwin only had a degree in theology. thats the only degree he ever got. he was never a scientist.

what did darwin ever prove about evolution? he didnt prove a thing



posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by B1luetooth
there are six different meanings to the term evolution.
first you would have to have:

I can't help but be surprised at how many times this list is brought up by people. Its pretty meaningless.



The first five are purley religious none of those first five have every been proven.

No theories are ever proven. The theory of gravity is not proven. Atmoic theory is not proven. Yet things fall down and nukes explode with devastating effect. There's nothing 'religious' about it. They're all thoroughly scientific theories.


the only one that has been observed is micro evolution. (bad term but it happens) you can get different species within the same kind.

THere are no 'kinds', its a fake term with no biological reality. We observe speciation, that is evolution.


you will never get a monkey from a human or get a human from a monkey. it wont happen.

Your statement is unsupported and baseless.

hey the universe is pretty big, you expect me to believe that all the chemicals evolved the same throughout the entire universe?

What would that matter? We're talking about things here.

The geologic Collumn by which all fossil dating and strata dating is done, was made by charles lylle back before radiometric dating was invented.

Lyell did not invent the colum. I don't know why you'd think that. The colum was found out by lots of geologists working over long stretches of time, and this was well before darwin was around. Its got nothing to do with evolution.

by the way radiometric dating is very inaccurate. it is based on many faulty assumptions. if you want more on that, let me know

Let me know then.

the scientist on this site proves that the earth was never a hot molten mass. by the way, the earth was never a hot molten mass and this guy proves it.

This is the 'polonium halos' arguement? Here is a page with a 'short' refuatation of that research:

Polonium Halos do not prove a young earth
The biotite in which Gentry (1986) obtained some of his samples (Fission Mine and Silver Crater locations) was not from granite, but from a calcite dike. The biotite formed metamorphically as minerals in the walls of the dike migrated into the calcite. Biotite from the Faraday Mine came from a granite pegmatite that intruded a paragneiss that formed from highly metamorphosed sediments. Thus, all of the locations Gentry examined show evidence of an extensive history predating the formation of the micas; they show an appearance of age older than the three minutes his polonium halo theory allows. It is possible God created this appearance of age, but that reduces Gentry's argument to the omphalos argument, for which evidence is irrelevant (Wakefield 1998).



See what I believe agrees with many scientifc facts.
I believe in the bible. Genesis 1:1 "In the Beginning, God created the heaven and the earth"
that one verse explains the origin of time/space/matter.

How is that an explanation?

and by the way, not every scientist in the world believes in evolution, they dont go out claiming that they do becuase they will wither get fired, lose their grant money or be forgotten.

The majority of them 'beleive' in it. Its also completely incorrect to say that there are large numbers that are worried about lossing funding or being 'fired' over it. Its a falsehood.

Evolution is not an open minded theory, it is a tax funded and carefully protected religion.

Preposterous. Its a scientific theory with an enormous amount of evidence backing it up. Its been around for over a hundred years and has stood up to the very tough tests that scientifsts have put to it throughout that time.

if you want for me to explain how evoution is a religion, ill be more that glad.

Please Proceed.

hey werent called dinosaurs back then, they were called dragons. and if the bible is true like me as well as others believe it to be, that means that dinosaurs were always with man and were created within the same six days.

And yet the evidence contradicts that they coexisted. Also, there is nothing in the bible that specifically resembles a dinosaur. There are passages about big animals. Thats hardly 'got to be' a dinosaur.

the only evidences the evolution theory has is a bunch of lies, things that have been proven wrong years ago. for example the first five meanings to the Term evolution.

Those 'meanings' have not been 'disproven'.

Creation is a theory just like evolution

What is the scientific theory of creationism then?

however it explains many things about the word today.

Creationism explains absolutely nothing. It merely says that "God Did It", that is not an explanation.


if you want ill share some with you

Each post is your oppurtunity to do so. Please do not use this forum to 'recruit' people into some ministry or group or something.

have you been to school? have you been in a biology class?
the textbooks state that it is a fact and not a theory.

I suspect that perhaps you have been in school, but that you didn't pay attention.

There is the scientific fact that evolution, the change of allele frequencies in a population over generational time. It happens, its evolution. Evolution is a fact. Then there are the theories about what its mechanisms are and what its history has been. Darwin hypothesised that evolution occurs via a mechanism of natural selection, and that this leads to adaptation. That hypothesis, again, has stood up to nearly 200 years of hard scientific testing.

and evolution is based on lies. ask any ACLU personnel

Rather than ask someone in the ACLU, better to ask a scientist who actually does work in biological evolution.

they might deny it at first, but if you show them everything in the textbooks that have been proven wrong. they will tell you that; yes all of those things have been proven wrong but there is nothing to replace the theory.

I don't know why you think anyone is going ot beleive your little scenario. Its imaginary and inaccurate.

the whole theory looks dumb.

Creationism is dumb.

Darwin studied finches and observed 14 varieties of finches.
he then concluded that birds are related to bananas.

Wow, what an inciteful analysis of the scientific evidence.
Your inability to handle the materials invovled is irrelevant, it does not change the evidence.

darwin only had a degree in theology. thats the only degree he ever got. he was never a scientist.
[
This is an absurdity harped upon by the creationist movement. Darwin didn't have a scientific degree because he was part of the generation of scientists that were responsible for creating degress. Its silly to say that he wasn't a scientist merely because he was around in the victorian era and didn't have a degree in biology. His work and method are what firmly establish him as not just a scientists, but the epitome of a great scientist.



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 10:55 AM
link   
'All the chemical came from the same thing'
Well yeah protons neutrons and elctrons enough said about that.



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shenroon
NOte to ghost-before you post a topic check what your saying.

In evolution there isnt a 'everything came from nothing' there are many theories on how it came a bout scientifically.

Yes the very start of absolutly everything cant be explained yet by evolutionalist(scientists) but creation have the exact same hole where did everything start?

Also can I ask whihc has more sciencific fact? -the bible
-Science

And now can i ask for proof of creationalism besides
1.the bible or any other holy book
2.A feeling in your head
3.(dont read this one if you are easily offended) Your cell mate in the insane asylum


Well! First let me thank you for your sense of humor!
However, I don't think I'm crazy (Not yet anyway)!

I think we need both schools of though to understand Now, I'll admit if you are here to charge me with mixing religion and science, I'm Guilt as charged!


I have a personal belief that the existence of the Creator (God) is proven to some degree, but people don't know how to interprate the evidence yet. There is a new theory out there called String Theory. It states that all mater is composed of energy in motion!

Here are some links:
The Official String Theory Website
String Theory Basics
What is String Theory
String Theory Defined

Now your Asking: What does String Theory have to do with God? Well according to my beliefs, a spirit is basically a moving energy feild with a will of it's own. Energy is by definition infinte because of the law of Conservation of Energy which states: Energy is nither Created nor Destroyed, but only changes forms!

If God is pure energy, then he is infinite by definition! It his GOD's free will and creativity that allowed the background energy to take form as mass (Matter). This is How he created the universe and all the life in it!

It's not perfect, and it's an out-on-a-limb idea! However, to me it makes more sense then a universe that is random and based on chance! There's my theory, any objections?

Tim



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frosty
Besides, how do creationist account for the dinosaurs who roamed the panet 250 million years ago?


Frosty I suggest you check out This site which explains dinosaurs this way:



Dinosaurs. Every true christian knows that earth was created about 6000 years ago! This is told in the Holy Bible which, as we know, is the Word of God because it is told in it! So dinosaurs were created at that time as well. Bible says, two of all unclean animals were on the ark, so, the remaning (not yet extint) dinosaurs were on the ark. They degenerated faster than other animals and died later.


Its a very informative site

It also tells you what to avoid to live a good christian life!



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 10:59 PM
link   
.
"And then the Big Magic God waved his magic wand and said 'Abracadabra' and life was created."

Is that your alternative ghost?


Christian bedtime stories can be so sweet.
.



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 11:14 PM
link   
"Any of the brilliant Darwinist care to tell me where the first living Orginism came from?"

I'm not sure the first living Organism has even existed yet.

Humanity has (in the past 7,000+ years) been looking for the "observer" within. The "Self" if you will. We have looked in every orafice of the body. We have looked in every organ, and every region of the brain, every cortex, every lobe of the brain. And NO ONE can hold in their hand the "observer" that is within us. Sure we know what regions do what, but not what constitutes an observer.

Therefore: How can you continue to judge the world as real, when the self determining to be real is intangible?

Also:

If I were to shrink you down to the size of an atom and have you reach out to grab any sub-atomic particle, a neutron, a proton, an electron ..... You could not do it! It's not "matter", its energy, compressed energy, nothing there to grab!

Therefore:
Since you cannot produce the "observer", and you cannot prove "matter" exists ....

You can not prove creation, nor evolution. But, we can see both of them happen all the time.

Peace.



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by slank
.
"And then the Big Magic God waved his magic wand and said 'Abracadabra' and life was created."

Is that your alternative ghost?


Christian bedtime stories can be so sweet.
.


EASY Slank ..... The wand wasn't made until the 7th day, when God was resting, and not paying attention. I think Ghost made the wand.



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kidfinger
, before I get hacked to death for saying God didnt do it, let me just say that I think God DID do it. I look at it like this. Got got bored and started to play with his chemistry set to see what he could come up with.

BUT, the process that life has come from is natural and scientifically explainable. I just think God sent the lightening bolt that started the chemical reaction for life




[edit on 7/11/05 by Kidfinger]


Yes! This is such a possibility. If there's a God, why wouldn't he create something and let it evolve???
Life could have evolved in all parts of the galaxy at different times, and maybe even in different dimensions Humans can't quite comprehend yet!

How could any logical brain think that this is NOT a possibility???



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 12:26 AM
link   
.
Entropy is based on the extremely [like you can not believe] high probability of a system of disparate elements in a non-ordered arrangement over the extremely low probability of an ordered arrangement.

Some things on the other hand are static [non-entropic] such as matter cooled to quasi-solid states or due to chemical bonding.

Infact as some chemical bonds form they create more order/structure than existed before. [anti-entropic]

The gravity field of the Earth along with a solid surface [plus protection via magnetic field] and a stablization of volcanic and comet violence, allowed for a condensation of lighter [organic] atoms on the planet's surface.

In this condensed soup of atoms, small molecules, water solution, dry land, more elaborate chemical bonds inevitably formed. Any of those bonds that were particularly stable persisted for longer periods. If at some point a chain of small molecules that is more stable through the chain than at each end this will tend to persist as a dynamic molecule for some length of time. adding or subtracting small molecules from the ends and for the most part untouched in the middle of the chain. If you have a chain that has a higher propensity to accrue matter than lose it it will persist for a longer period and tend to grow. As it grows longer it will [due to more places to be broken at] have a higher probability of breaking somewhere in the middle.

You now have an accruing chain/linear molecule that is growing/lengthening and intermitentantly sub-dividing.

That is essentially the mechanism of life, even viruses.
accrue matter, divide into new units.

Or as a biologist put it the main drives of life:
(1) Get a date
(2) Get a meal
[I think that is such a clever encapsulation]

This could, and i gotta argue did, happen because of the very large numbers of chemical reactions in a condensed environment. It sure didn't happen overnight. Half a billion years, but with [guessing] qudrillions of organic molecules interacting in a quasi-benign environment.

I suppose the key element is a molecule that favors accruing matter in a chain or surface [cell wall] as opposed to a non-descript glob [ball].

It would appear [and this is circumstantial] that the most pervasive/effective method of accruing matter and optimal subdividing is using some systematic method.
To the point it tended to wipe out [consume] other less efficient systems.

What it implies, at least for life, is that organization, rooted in the reality of context, is the most efficient and effective method for molecules to accrue matterial and subdivide into new units.

Actually computer virues propagate quite similarly, especially in an interactive data exchange environment. Accrue memory/program space for copies, create new copies.
With enough interactions and length of time [billions of years] a naturally occuring computer virus might occur due to occasional corrupted data.
.



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 01:04 AM
link   
slank,

Why did you dump the wand theory?



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 08:53 AM
link   
.
esotericteacher,

this is what you see when you subdivide the magic wand video frame rate about a quadrillion fold.

Every magician has quick [very quick] hands and tricks up his sleeve.

The magic wand is just there to distract you from the sweat and tears of actual creation and overlook a couple of billion years.

"Don't look at that man behind the curtain, Dorothy.
I am the Great and Powerful Oz!"

[edit on 10-8-2005 by slank]



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 12:20 PM
link   
This is a theory I've had for a very long time but what if matter adn energy if you went down far enough-molecule,atom,proton,quark ect. That it all ome down to the same thing but they just combine in different ways and from everything that we see before us. But i dont think this has anything to do with souls becuase wel lthey arent anything. All self consiousness is, is chemical reactions in the brain.



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 01:00 PM
link   
Given time, the right molecules, and a "reverse" entropy triggered by
the input of energy.
I believe the spark of life is an unavoidable consequence of the basic laws of physics.
An external expression, of the underlying behavior of the above mentioned laws.

Life, as special as we think it is, is springing into being, every second, of every day, somewhere in the vast universe.
And someday, when we can see farther, and visit other habitable worlds in a more timely manner. The question then,
will not be, "is life present?" The question will be, "how long has this life been present?"

Of course, this is my opinion. I can't prove it "yet"..
But I COULD start a religion, based on it.
Just replace "laws of physics" with "god".
And write a book..



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by ghost
The Evolutionist get to ignore the obvious flaws in their point of view.


putting everyone in the same boat is not a logical thing to do. even if there were 'obvious flaws', why would that make evolution incorrect? because science can't prove and show exactly when life begin and how, doesn't mean evolution is 100% wrong, nor does it mean it's 100% right. the part of evolution that is theory is that, the when it began and how it began. the rest of evolution is fact, as we know it is a natural process that happens.



However they insist that the Creationist (like me) prove Every detail of our position.


who's 'they'? the monsters in your head? the monsters under your bed? the voices that scream in the night...? the only time people asked creationists to justify their beliefs is because some creationists might say, 'evolution is wrong'. and as a human being i would like an explanation of why you think it would be wrong, what leads you to that and why then is your view the right one. its the same vice versa too, as some creationists will ask evolutionists, 'why they don't believe in god, or why they believe in evolution', and want them to justify it.



The last thead I read, the writer didn't even want anyone to point out his flaws in logic! If you all want a Real Scientific discussion, you have to consider all the facts, not just the ones you like!


just sounds like you wanted to have a bitch at this point.



Now, Creationism explains how and why life exists. It has a beginning point! Evolution doesn't, It starts with the assumption the life was always there. Do we really need to prove what doesn't make sense here?


creation explains 'how' because of genesis, and 'why' because of god, hence both working on the assumption that the bible is true. creation may have a beginning point, yet god does not, it is thought that he has 'always been', the same as the 'big bang' theory that 'something' was always here. evolution does have a start, life has not 'always' been here. what doesn't make sense is your illogical ill-thought out rant.



Any of the brilliant Darwinist care to tell me where the first living Orginism came from?


even if all the scientists got together in the world and each gave you an explanation you would still probably deny it, so what's the point in ATS members doing it. obviously you've already made your mind up that the very thought of 'where did the first living organsim come from, according to darwinists', hence there will need to be some sort of substantial evidence to change your mind. we cannot go back billions of years, so it can never be proven 100% fact, just the same as the bible or adam & eve. the only way the bible can every 'really' prove itself is by jesus coming back etc.

i'm not sure your reasons for starting this thread. seems like your reasons were to have people give their opinions on how life started only for you to shoot them down.




top topics



 
1
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join