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: 7
1
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 09:55 PM
link   
Evolutionary studies answer the following questions, creationism (ID) does not. Genesis does not answer these scientific questions on how God created. Credit for these lucid refutations of ID goes to Phil Porvaznik. Face it, ID is as much a pseudoscience as phrenology. Without even considering the manifold evidences in geosciences, evolution is proven vis-a'-vis biosciences on many levels.

The biological evidence for evolution fits into several categories: the unique universal phylogenetic tree of life, transitional forms and the fossil record, past history of vestiges / atavisms, evidence from embryology, from biogeography and global distribution of species, from anatomical and molecular paralogy / analogy, the molecular sequence evidence (cytochrome-c and pseudogenes), etc. Here are a few dozen questions taken from a summary, that six-day creationists, or any creationist who opposes macroevolution and "common descent" would find difficult to answer. Again, to answer "God did it" (although ultimately, theistic evolutionists agree) would not be a scientific explanation.


unique universal phylogenetic tree of life
Why do independently derived phylogenetic trees of all organisms match each other with an extremely high degree of statistical significance? Why does independent morphological and molecular measurements determine the standard phylogenetic tree to better than 41 decimal places? Why do all the separate lines of evidence converge on the same one historical phylogenetic tree if all species are not united in an objective genealogy?

*snip*

Macroevolution has answers to these questions, six-day "creationism" does not. "In the beginning God created...." does not answer these scientific questions on "how" God created. All the evidence clearly points to our evolutionary ancestry and "common descent" as the best scientific explanation of the facts of natural history, biology, paleontology, genetics, and the related sciences.

www.bringyou.to...


mod edit of lengthy cut and paste

[edit on 14-9-2005 by DontTreadOnMe]




posted on Sep, 25 2005 @ 03:36 PM
link   


past history of vestiges / atavisms, evidence from embryology


Vestigal structures are not supporting evidence for evolution and embryology is not either. these things have been proven wrong a long time ago.

there no way to prove by any means, macroevolution. no one has ever observed it, and it has never been demonstrated. so im sure that if "scientists can come to the conclusion that humans and apes share a common ancestar, than im sure they can tell us what kind of animal it was.
if they cant, than I would say that this claim is indeed not a fact and not even a good testable theory. Fossils do not provide any evidence either. you find a bone in the dirt and the only thing you know for sure, is that it died. you do not know how old it was when it died, you dont know how old it is, you put an interpretation on it and then assume that its the right one.
there are facts, and then there are interpretations of those facts. quit trying to erase the line between your interpretation and the fact.

all of the lies that support evolution have been proven wrong years ago, even the ACLU knows that the evolution theory is a fraud.

EC


[edit on 25-9-2005 by Evolution Cruncher]

[edit on 25-9-2005 by Evolution Cruncher]



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
Vestigal structures are not supporting evidence for evolution and embryology is not either. these things have been proven wrong a long time ago.

Why are they not evidence and how have they been proven 'wrong'?? Last time I checked, the facts of embryological studies were correct.


there no way to prove by any means, macroevolution.

MacoEvolution is evolution at and above the species level. Speciation is macroevolution, and spectiation has been observed.



all of the lies that support evolution have been proven wrong years ago,

You have failed to demonstrate a single instance of this.


even the ACLU knows that the evolution theory is a fraud.

Why would you look to the ACLU to find out the status of a scientific theory? THey are not a scientific research group? And since when do they say its 'a lie'



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
so im sure that if "scientists can come to the conclusion that humans and apes share a common ancestar, than im sure they can tell us what kind of animal it was.


using your ideology; that's like asking a christian what god looks like. hence, the fact that they cannot give a description as no one has ever laid eyes on god, then it makes it less plausable theory that there is a god.



all of the lies that support evolution have been proven wrong years ago, even the ACLU knows that the evolution theory is a fraud.


i find it hard to not laugh at you especially when you come up with wacky statments like this. it's just utter nonsense. keep telling yourself evolution theory is a fraud and false, and maybe one day your wish for it to be so may come true.



posted on Feb, 17 2008 @ 03:37 AM
link   
what kind of evolution are we talking about here? Cosmic, Stellar, Chemical, Organic, Macro,Micro? which one? all of them? some?

or maybe you have different terms for the like.



posted on Feb, 23 2008 @ 08:11 AM
link   
I got something bigger than any of these to talk about. A story you could say so listen and you might learn science sometimes does not make since. Two guys walk into a carbin dating system lab and give them some bones they found in there back yard. A week later they come back to find out that it is billions of years old and the scientist in the lab want to give them lots of cash. Then the guys that brought bones yell you have been fooled we had those bones with some chicken meat a month ago! The point to this story is carbin dating and attempting Evolution threw that does not work for carbin dating is wrong every time dare you to pool off the same stunt as these guys and you will become iether proof carbin dating has no meaning or there dumb and give you lots of cash for the bones hahaha lol so hope you people get my point you can fool even the smartest scientist and they still wont know they are talking about.



posted on Feb, 23 2008 @ 08:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
so im sure that if "scientists can come to the conclusion that humans and apes share a common ancestar, than im sure they can tell us what kind of animal it was.


using your ideology; that's like asking a christian what god looks like. hence, the fact that they cannot give a description as no one has ever laid eyes on god, then it makes it less plausable theory that there is a god.



all of the lies that support evolution have been proven wrong years ago, even the ACLU knows that the evolution theory is a fraud.


i find it hard to not laugh at you especially when you come up with wacky statments like this. it's just utter nonsense. keep telling yourself evolution theory is a fraud and false, and maybe one day your wish for it to be so may come true.
To the guy making a qutoe it's obvious he went to a public school and got taught lies in class and grew up to be an athiest I feel sorry for such mindless people who can't help them selves realize the secrets to life and a hint it don't start with the letter E so hope you understand your being fooled if you go to a public school and it's a waste of tax money witch should not even exsist such thieves the goverment is. Good luck getting new smart info to feel your head with real knowlege.



posted on Feb, 23 2008 @ 08:28 AM
link   
it seems to me in my opinion any way life seems to have been a by product of chemical reactions...an accident that can reooccur.

for instance dna is built up of diffrent chemicals strands of dna create life.

i dont think you could rule out dna being the first starting point for all life and other planets in the universe there could be rougue strands at this moment gathering diffrent chemicals to start the process there.


sty

posted on Feb, 23 2008 @ 08:45 AM
link   
Evolution is the base of medicine. Most of the applications developed in the last 100 years could not exist without evolution . I am excited to find out that actually a new science is emerging (Creationism ) , and i wish to ask what are the applications the Creationism would bring to microbiology / virology etc. A virus just mutated in the Chicago area . creationists would say it is not possible as nothing evolves.
However, creationists would believe that from Adam and Eve we got Africans, Asian, Nordic blond people , aborigines etc in less that 6000 years . (We know for a fact that Asians existed for 5000 years , African existed etc- would leave us 1000 years )Evolution would say it is too fast! Then we hav more than 400 races of dogs - all originated from a boat of Noah - this is a very fast evolution too! So my question is - do the Creationists believe in evolution or not? and what direct applications can be developed from their theory ? While you try to respond this , please take your time to watch this video:



by the way , why are the creationists so much against evolution? in what way is evolution making God less powerful ???


[edit on 23-2-2008 by sty]



posted on Feb, 28 2008 @ 09:32 AM
link   


Evolution is the base of medicine. Most of the applications developed in the last 100 years could not exist without evolution . I am excited to find out that actually a new science is emerging (Creationism ) , and i wish to ask what are the applications the Creationism would bring to microbiology / virology etc. A virus just mutated in the Chicago area . creationists would say it is not possible as nothing evolves.
However, creationists would believe that from Adam and Eve we got Africans, Asian, Nordic blond people , aborigines etc in less that 6000 years . (We know for a fact that Asians existed for 5000 years , African existed etc- would leave us 1000 years )Evolution would say it is too fast! Then we hav more than 400 races of dogs - all originated from a boat of Noah - this is a very fast evolution too! So my question is - do the Creationists believe in evolution or not? and what direct applications can be developed from their theory ? While you try to respond this , please take your time to watch this video:

by the way , why are the creationists so much against evolution? in what way is evolution making God less powerful ???



Evolution the base of medicine? um, well lets see here, the Bible says that God made plants for man to eat (fruit, herb etc) and we are to eat those along with the seeds. many diseases have been cured just by eating fruit.
The bible also says that "the life of the flesh is in the blood". George Washington died because they drained enogh blood to kill him, many people died this way. it was thought that if you got sick, you had bad blood. doesnt matter who thought of it, the fact is that theory is definately false. the bible has a lot of things in it that we dont pay attention to or we have modified things since then which makes the bible appear to be false. for example: bread used to be good for the heart. bread also used to last about 3 days before going bad. researchers found out how to make bread last longer and in doing this they took out the very things that strengthened the heart.

Creationists never said that things dont mutate. that virus is still a virus, it didnt turn into an insect or anything like that. creationists also believe in micro evolution (variations within the different kinds of animals) dogs will produce a variety of dogs, crossbreeding gives a variety very quickly, give it about 1,000 years and you have all sorts of things. evolution says this would take more time for these things to take place? well evolution is not law and its not fact (not to include micro evolution) so perhaps its wrong.

God didnt use evolution, he didnt have to.... so yes it does make God look less powerful and it calls him a liar. He says he created everything in six days, not millions of years, and if he had to use evolution to create everything, he doesnt know how to do it right the first time. My God got it right the first time and man messed it up.
you wanna know why this world is soo messed up? its our fault.
why does God allow this to happen? thats another topic, but in short, God gave us free will and allows things to happen because he loves us and he wants us to love him and there is no way you can get that if you force everything to go the way you want it. just like you cant make a robot love you without giving it the choice to love you. thats a different topic so ill stop there.

your word 'evolve' has a broad range of meaning, as you are probably unaware. creationists believe in Micro evolution but thats as far as we go, things were created to with the capability to adapt, but nothing evovles from one thing to another, this has never been observed.



posted on Feb, 28 2008 @ 09:39 AM
link   
The question is, what hand carved the template, the stencil. We know that electricity traces the line and curve structured by the stencil. Where is the origin. I AM.

[edit on 28-2-2008 by depth om]


sty

posted on Feb, 28 2008 @ 09:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Methuselah
 


there is NO such thing like micro or macro evolution. Scince calls MICRO evolution the changes we can notice on a small amount of time. Macro evolution is NOTHING else than a row of micro-evolutions you just agreed exists. If you believe that you can have Black people, Asian , Nordic , Aborigens etc - in 1000 years after the creation , then you are an evolutionist.You have to agree Chinesse people do exist for at least 5000 years. The only thing that makes the difference between creationism and evolutionism is TIME as the both sides accept changes on the DNA levels over a short period of time .



sty

posted on Feb, 28 2008 @ 09:55 AM
link   
age of the universe not 6000 years!!!!!



Older universe would give enough time for evolution to take place. Note, the evolution does not debate the origin of life, however it does study how it evolves from the less complex to more complex forms.



sty

posted on Feb, 28 2008 @ 09:57 AM
link   
reply to post by depth om
 


I guess you are close.. the real question is what started the spark of life indeed..


sty

posted on Feb, 29 2008 @ 10:58 AM
link   
another interesting video:




posted on Mar, 3 2008 @ 05:04 PM
link   


there is NO such thing like micro or macro evolution. Scince calls MICRO evolution the changes we can notice on a small amount of time. Macro evolution is NOTHING else than a row of micro-evolutions you just agreed exists. If you believe that you can have Black people, Asian , Nordic , Aborigens etc - in 1000 years after the creation , then you are an evolutionist.You have to agree Chinesse people do exist for at least 5000 years. The only thing that makes the difference between creationism and evolutionism is TIME as the both sides accept changes on the DNA levels over a short period of time .


there is no such thing.... but yet science calls..... sounds like you just contradicted yourself there bud.... its ok im sure there is more to come.
macro evolution = many micro evolutions is purely an assumption based on selective evidences you find in geologic structures. believing in micro evolution does not make one an evoltionist at all. we dont believe that micro leads to macro, that requires some faith and is assumed to occur over long periods of time.
change does happen, and as far as we know, change is limited to micro evolution only. species change over time short and long but species dont change into different kinds of plants or animals no matter how much time you give it. and you just admitted that changes over short periods of time occur too, so you just admitted that its possible to get everything we see today from noahs ark.
why would I have to agree on the chinese existing for 5000 years? their writing language itself supports over half of my bible just by the story written within each word. you should probably google that one. chinese writing and creation.



posted on Mar, 3 2008 @ 05:46 PM
link   

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


At this point, nobody knows for sure how life came to be. But that's no reason to immediately drop the "G" bomb! That causes problems of its own. Let's think about this a little bit...


One of the most obvious flaws in any kind of argument about "beginnings" is the raw and flawed assumption that time is perfectly linear and always moves from the past through the present and into the future. We tend to think of reality working that way, but it's really just an illusion created by our organic memories so that we can try to anticipate what might happen in any given set of circumstances.

But there's nothing inherent to time that has it progressing from any obvious starting point, and nothing preventing what we perceive as cause and effect from working in the reverse of our perceptions.

Once we free ourselves from our flawed notion of time, then all kinds of possibilities open up that allow life to manifest without the need for any specific creator entity (or "reason" for life to exist).

Personally, I suspect that the first living organism is a result of a either a physical or conceptual shift of an organic form (something small, like a bacteria or a single-celled organism) from what is essentially the present or the future back into the past. It could involve a significantly large random fluctuation in zero-point space that "pushes" a bacterium into virtual subspace and then bounces it back out into reality at a point in time we would consider to be the past.

It happens to reappear in a survivable environment, and from there it's off to the races. It divides, grows, adapts, and eventually evolves into us, in the present.

Another possibility is that some form of consciousness (not to be confused with "God," however badly you care to define that) manipulates molecules and chemicals in the past to "build" a working cell. Our own minds manipulate matter and energy all the time on various levels, including the quantum, which is not limited by time. Maybe some super Einstein genius on this planet, or some alien super brain, will have the skill and ability to manipulate energy good enough to fashion a working cell in the past with the power of their minds -- imagination and consciousness working "backwards" in time.

Then again, once a living cell is created in the past, it quickly "bootstraps" itself into more complex organisms, eventually evolving into an organism like us, who has the power to create itself in the past. It's a very long open temporal loop, with no particular beginning or end, as life and consciousness continues to expand even beyond the point at which the action is made in the future to cause the creation of the cell in the past.

Anyway, the point is that there is no particular "creator" involved. It may even be a group effort. And there is no particular "reason" why we exist. We exist because we observe reality, and by doing so we define reality in all times. If we didn't exist, life and possibly the universe would not exist, because there would be no one observing it and determining what virtual existence out of all the possible virtual existences comes into being.

You can pray to it if you want, I guess. But it's not personal. It's just an odd thing that happened. There's no God looking out for you. The consciousness(es) responsible for reality may not even be aware of what they've done. We could all be the result of an alien baby dreaming of a DNA strand and making it real in the past.


[edit on 3-3-2008 by Nohup]



posted on Mar, 5 2008 @ 06:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Nohup
 


again here you go throwing other theories around that have no confirmation or structure of facts and you tried to make it confusing which makes it easier for people to accept since they think you know what you are talking about....

just accept the fact that you dont know where life came from, even based on your own theories involving the origin of life found in most textbooks all over america, you still cannot produce life in the lab. several other methods have been tried and have failed.

now check this out, its a fact that life cannot be spontaneously generated. so since that is prety much impossible, is there possibly another explanation? life started somewhere somehow, doesnt matter what planet it started on either, it got started somehow. did someone create life? or did life create itself? or does the thought of doubting your godless theory of how this universe evolved tug at your heart?

without life you have no evolution...all you have are a bunch of chemicals (which also had to evolve) and a bunch of blown up stardust....oh and maybe some water. and saying that it happened millions of years ago doesnt make it any more feasible. suggesting that time fills in the holes in the evolution theory is not very scientific at all either.

you cant just assume things happen, just because you dont like or believe in the other theories that cannot be disproven doesnt give you the right to claim yours as the only logical explanation. because its not. if its wrong, then its wrong.



posted on Mar, 10 2008 @ 11:00 AM
link   
This thread is a massive pile of fail.

Evolution (macro/micro) is heavily supported by scientific evidence. Creationism is not. Evolution is falsifiable, Creationism is not. One is scientific, one is not. One can be debated, the other can not.



posted on Mar, 10 2008 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by dave420
 


Even as a Christian, I agree. I don't believe the first part of Genesis was meant to be taken 100% literally, anyways.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join