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: 3
1
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 03:58 PM
link   
Um hello,
Darwinists always demadn proof so do creationalists, the only different thing is what we use creationalists use the bible darwinists use science which in its self means proof(well the bible says knowledge but theyre the same thing.)




posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 07:38 PM
link   
the bible has not withstood the test of time, its only stood for 150 years since darwin, and since then numbers of church goers has dropped...do the math. the reason the bible was so popular before darwin is because that was the only choice. there were other people saying the bible was wrong, yet didn't have any sort of logic to base their ideas on, whereas darwin did. if darwin was/is going to be proved wrong then he would have done by now, yet his legacy still lives on.



posted on Aug, 13 2005 @ 03:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shenroon
Um hello,
Darwinists always demadn proof so do creationalists, the only different thing is what we use creationalists use the bible darwinists use science which in its self means proof(well the bible says knowledge but theyre the same thing.)


Sorry I typed the wrong word it was the dictionary says that science means knowledge not the bible incase anyone was confused by what i said.



posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 11:12 AM
link   
Evolution: Anyone care to Fill in the Huge Blank?

Yes, I do care to fill in the blank.

Creationism is the Huge Blank in the Evolution Theory.
AND....
Evolution is the Huge Blank in the Creation Theory.
AND ......
Theory is the Huge Blank in Creating Evolution
AND ......
Theory is the Huge Blank in the Evolution of Creation.
AND .....
............
The belief that evolutionism and creationism can't co-exist is the huge blank of it all.

I know I was created, and I can witness the evolution of the cells that comprise me under a microscope.






[edit on 08/12/71 by Esoteric Teacher]



posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 04:02 PM
link   


the bible has not withstood the test of time, its only stood for 150 years since darwin, and since then numbers of church goers has dropped...do the math.


one of the biggest reasons why people drop out of church is because they are told that the evolution theory is a fact and proven by science. (lie)
and becuase they think that it has been proven they turn to that theory because it gives them freedom from God. they accept the theory because of their sin not because of science.

EC



posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
one of the biggest reasons why people drop out of church is because they are told that the evolution theory is a fact and proven by science. (lie)


some people believe in both evolution and a god and that god put evolution in to motion. also i don't think someone being told evolution is a fact is reason enough to leave your faith, if you do leave your faith because 'someone' told you evolution is a fact then that faith is probably better off without you.



and becuase they think that it has been proven they turn to that theory because it gives them freedom from God.


again being told evolution is a fact shouldn't be reason enough to leave your faith.



they accept the theory because of their sin not because of science.


maybe they're just looking for an easy way out of their religion, are fed up with it, don't really believe in god etc.

by the by, evolution is a fact and a science, the theory is when, how and why it happens, of which we know more and more about everyday.



posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 04:30 PM
link   


by the by, evolution is a fact and a science


its a fact? and its science?
well let me ask you something.
what exactly is fact? speciation? variations within the different KINDS of animals?

yeah I agree. but thats not evolution.

EC



posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 06:48 PM
link   
if they don't count as evolution, what would you say the definitive term of evolution means?



posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 04:39 AM
link   


if they don't count as evolution, what would you say the definitive term of evolution means?


more like a gain in genetic complexity and not just a shift in gene frequency.
Evolution is like what I have mentioned before.
all the way from the big bang up until before micro evolution starts.


since micro evolution is a fact, it shouldnt be included in the theory, it makes the entire theory look like its been proven and it hasnt. there is nothing that prove that a bacteria can evolve into a human over millions of years. that is taken by faith. (religious)
there is no proof that life can spontaneously generate. that again is taken by faith. (religious)
there is no proof that all the chemicals in the universe evolved from just hydrogen and helium, that is again taken by faith. (religious)
and there is no proof whatsoever that fossils ever had the ability to produce something other than its kind. that is again taken by faith. (religious)

there are a few other things that are assumed and taken by faith. these are just a few.

EC



posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 04:59 AM
link   
again with the faith and religious stuff, why?

the thing is we can never take a bacteria or few elements and say 'this is what we evolved from', basically because we can't go back billions of years to see it in process. however, we can piece together other pieces of information, evidence and other things we 'know' to help prove evolution, and to help prove we did come from a few elements or bacteria. most of the time evidence for evolution is not accepted by religious people, in the same way they don't accept sea shells are on mount everest because at one point in time that part of everest was at sea level and was pushed up over millions of years, they believe it was because of the flood. that's two completly different ways of looking at evidence, which is exactly the same scenario for evolution.



posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 08:33 AM
link   


the thing is we can never take a bacteria or few elements and say 'this is what we evolved from', basically because we can't go back billions of years to see it in process. however, we can piece together other pieces of information, evidence and other things we 'know' to help prove evolution, and to help prove we did come from a few elements or bacteria. most of the time evidence for evolution is not accepted by religious people, in the same way they don't accept sea shells are on mount everest because at one point in time that part of everest was at sea level and was pushed up over millions of years, they believe it was because of the flood. that's two completly different ways of looking at evidence, which is exactly the same scenario for evolution.


mount everest is no where near the ocean. and the clam shells that are found on that mountain are huge, and they are petrified. rapid deposit of sediments would cause that and the only way for that to occur would be a flood. but being that the mountain is very far from the beach, makes it impossible for clams to find their way to the top of that mountain even if it did start off at sea level. that is more evidence for a flood rather than evolution of millions of years.



again with the faith and religious stuff, why?


you seem very puzzled about this.... its because it takes FAITH. there is no evidence for it at all. you are trying to erase the line between your interpretation and the facts. you cant do that.

EC

[edit on 15-8-2005 by Evolution Cruncher]


Urn

posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher


again with the faith and religious stuff, why?

you seem very puzzled about this.... its because it takes FAITH. there is no evidence for it at all. you are trying to erase the line between your interpretation and the facts. you cant do that.


if it takes all this FAITH to believe this stuff, then why do you feel the need to try and prove it with a bunch of pseudo scientific dribble...

why not just take it on your "so called" faith and be done with it??

i simply don't understand where your coming from...

just take it on your faith, and walk away... theres no evidence for creation, or a 6000 year old earth, and you know it...(in fact there is INSURMOUNTABLE evidence to the contrary)
so why do you insist on recieving the abuse???

you said it yourself...it takes FAITH, to have FAITH...so why are you even persisting in this madness,its an exersize in futility, and you know it...




[edit on 15-8-2005 by Urn]

[edit on 15-8-2005 by Urn]



posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
mount everest is no where near the ocean. and the clam shells that are found on that mountain are huge, and they are petrified. rapid deposit of sediments would cause that and the only way for that to occur would be a flood. but being that the mountain is very far from the beach, makes it impossible for clams to find their way to the top of that mountain even if it did start off at sea level. that is more evidence for a flood rather than evolution of millions of years.


who said everest had to be near an ocean today? those shells could be millions of years old.

so all the clams just decided during the flood to stick to mount everest? there are millions (supposedly) on mount everest and i doubt millions found their way during 40 days of the most insane currents ever. we drill for oil on land, yet the things that contributed in making that oil could still have come from the sea.

[edit on 15-8-2005 by shaunybaby]



posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 12:42 PM
link   
Evolution can be witnessed by viewing microscopic life forms. One can literally watch the genetics change from 1 cell to another during mitosis. The nucleus's genetics can be witnessed (seen) and measured.

Since cells are what comprise us, and they morph ......

And what of spiritual evolution ... ???

One who is not "awakened", but becomes "enlightened". If growth is denied within one realm of existance, does this not imply growth is a mute expectation of other realms of an individual's reality? (heart, mind, body, soul).



posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 01:51 PM
link   


so all the clams just decided during the flood to stick to mount everest? there are millions (supposedly) on mount everest and i doubt millions found their way during 40 days of the most insane currents ever. we drill for oil on land, yet the things that contributed in making that oil could still have come from the sea.


hydrolotic sorting my friend. in moving waterm things are sorted by their density.

and teacher;
thats all we observe, and that is not evolution. Genetic information is never gained, it is if anything, lost. mitosis will not turn a bacteria into a human of billions of years.


EC



posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
hydrolotic sorting my friend. in moving waterm things are sorted by their density.

Hydologic sorting will absolutely not produce anything like the arrangment in the fossil record.


Genetic information is never gained

Mutations are a gain in information, they can result in beneficial traits.



posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 11:16 PM
link   


Mutations are a gain in information, they can result in beneficial traits.


mutations never put new information into the gene code. mutations only scramble, lose, or copy existing information.

so what happens if those "mutated, good genes" get mixed back in with the population? do they get lost?

EC



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 02:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by KidfingerI'll give it a shot. In the beginning, the earth was a hot and violent place. Electric storms, volcanic eruptions, high methane content in the air, quakes, asteroids and comets. It was just an all around hospitable place. Then in some soupy pool of hot mineral water, some lightening struck right in the middle. The reaction of the mineral water and electricity, backed by the methane components in the atmosphere, created a new molecule. An Amino Acid. That is your first instance of how life may have begun.

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




One classic experiment that is used to support the belief that life “built itself”, is an experiment by Stanley Miller in 1953. In this experiment sparks were discharged into an apparatus, which was circulating common gases. These gases reacted to form various organic products, which were collected and analyzed. The experiment succeeded in producing only a few of the 20 amino acids required by living cells. Yet the results have repeatedly been heralded as evidence that life could have arisen by itself. Furthermore, the dozens of major problems with this experiment as an explanation for the formation of life are seldom reported.¹

For instance, our early atmosphere was assumed to have no oxygen because this would stop amino acid formation. However, with no oxygen, there would be no ozone shield. With no ozone shield, life would also be impossible. Furthermore, oxidized rocks throughout the geologic record indicate that oxygen has always been present. In addition to this, the same gases that can react to form amino acids undergo known reactions in the presence of sunlight, which removes them from the atmosphere. The required gases would not have been around long enough for life to have developed! In addition, a cold trap was used to keep the reaction products from being destroyed as fast as they formed.

The biggest problem is that the amino acids formed in this experiment are always a 50/50 mixture of stereotypes (L and D forms). Stereotypes are like a drawer full of right-hand and left-hand gloves, identical in every way except a mirror image of each other. Life contains only L stereotypes of these randomly produced amino acids. Yet equal proportions of both types are always produced. How could the first cell have selected only L stereotypes from a random, equally reactive mixture? No answer to this has ever been found.


No Chance of Life by Chance


Well it goes back to what I learned in SETI, The odds of these first amino acids forming in the exact combination are 10^100th power or so, even if the universe was 100 billion years old, thats not enough time for it to occur by chance...

KF, you say maybe God tossed the magic bolt. Well thats a start so I guess you would believe in Intelligent Design then?



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 07:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
Well it goes back to what I learned in SETI, The odds of these first amino acids forming in the exact combination are 10^100th power or so, even if the universe was 100 billion years old, thats not enough time for it to occur by chance...


chance has no meaning in a universe that is 'infinite'. make the 'chance' as big as you want, means no difference in an infinite environment. being infinite means life will eventually occur in the universe whatever the odds of life are.



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby

Originally posted by edsinger
Well it goes back to what I learned in SETI, The odds of these first amino acids forming in the exact combination are 10^100th power or so, even if the universe was 100 billion years old, thats not enough time for it to occur by chance...


chance has no meaning in a universe that is 'infinite'. make the 'chance' as big as you want, means no difference in an infinite environment. being infinite means life will eventually occur in the universe whatever the odds of life are.


Fair enough but I do not believe that the Universe is infinite.


Personally I think its finite....




top topics



 
1
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join