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 - Is It Provable

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 03:16 PM
link   
The basic argument regarding Evolution, has previously centered around whether or not there is or was, varifiable transitional life form.
Some remains have surfaced from ancient Archaeological digs, but none to date are completely reliable, in proving without a shadow of a doubt, that they are transitional.
With the advent of modern Medical technology surrounding DNA, all question and or doubt, should be easily dispelled. It has been concluded from numerous reliable sources, that the variation in DNA within the entire human race does not exceed 0.1%. The variation between human and animal DNA ranges from 2% to 4%.
It is also quite obvious from Scientific observation that humans, animals and vegetables produce after their kind. Only slight variations occur, due to cross breading.
When considering origin, we know that matter cannot be created or destroyed, by human hands. ( Laws Of Thermodynamics )
Is it all that difficult to understand, that there must be a Creator involved in providing the basic building blocks or elements, for our planet to exist and a Creator involved in arranging these building blocks or elements? Without a force acting upon an object, the object will remain at rest.

In all honesty, at the root of the problem is the inability of some, to allow themselves to become accountable to anyone or anything. In refusing to become accountable, the object to which they must become accountable, must be removed. When mankind declares that there is no God, in actuality they are refusing to become accountable to a Holy and Righteous God. If the individual(s) truly believed that there is no God, logic would ask, why am I attempting to disprove the existance of a God, that doesn't even exist? Only the fool would waste time in such an endeavor.

The complexity of not only the human being, but that of the earth and solar system, declare the handi-work of the Creator ie God.


[edited size and font codes - nygdan]




[edit on 2-8-2005 by Nygdan]

[edit on 2-8-2005 by Nygdan]




posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 12:56 PM
link   
In a word:NO! Something that isn't true can't be proven! If you read the Bible, there is a explanation for the Genetic commonality of humans. The Bible sais all humans are decended from a single pair that God created!

Tim



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 01:59 PM
link   
By definition - no. A scientific theory cannot be proven.

Excerpt:



Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.


full explaination at:
wilstar.com...

This is not about evolution or thermal dynamics or Christianity or any of the "hot topics" of the day. This is merely the definition of a scientific theory.

Please note, gentle readers, that a scientific theory is NOT the same as just a plain old theory as used in common speach. In other words, it's not the same thing as if I say "I have a theory that the creationists will not even bother to read this." Or, it is my theory that anybody who would pose such a question didn't pay attention in 6th grade science class.



[edit on 5-8-2005 by Al Davison]



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 02:00 PM
link   
Ghost.

Hiw about you try reading the bible for yourself. The bible says a lot of things. And it says a lot of the opposite of those things two.

With certainty, tell me the last words of Jesus as he died on the cross. All four gospels tell you those words. What were they?



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 04:58 PM
link   
Evolution, in biology, complex process by which the characteristics of living organisms change over many generations as traits are passed from one generation to the next. The science of evolution seeks to understand the biological forces that caused ancient organisms to develop into the tremendous and ever-changing variety of life seen on Earth today. It addresses how, over the course of time, various plant and animal species branch off to become entirely new species, and how different species are related through complicated family trees that span millions of years.

Evolution provides an essential framework for studying the ongoing history of life on Earth. A central, and historically controversial, component of evolutionary theory is that all living organisms, from microscopic bacteria to plants, insects, birds, and mammals, share a common ancestor. Species that are closely related share a recent common ancestor, while distantly related species have a common ancestor further in the past. The animal most closely related to humans, for example, is the chimpanzee. The common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees is believed to have lived approximately 6 million to 7 million years ago (see Human Evolution). On the other hand, an ancestor common to humans and reptiles lived some 300 million years ago. And the common ancestor to even more distantly related forms lived even further in the past. Evolutionary biologists attempt to determine the history of lineages as they diverge and how differences in characteristics developed over time.

Is this probable- yes,

Evolution is a science, creationism has made it their personal issue.

Sciences is a course of study and experimentation.

Creationism is a believe in religious faith.

One is on going studies.

The other is a stagnat believe base on faith.

One give theories that can either be proven or not.

The other give you one way your either believe or you can't call your self Christian.

Science keeps the door open to other ideas.

Religion shuts its doors to anything that contradict their faith.

encarta.msn.com...



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dra745
When mankind declares that there is no God, in actuality they are refusing to become accountable to a Holy and Righteous God. If the individual(s) truly believed that there is no God, logic would ask, why am I attempting to disprove the existance of a God, that doesn't even exist? Only the fool would waste time in such an endeavor.


And that discussion is for the Faith, Spirituality & Theology Debate forum.

Thanks for stopping by the Creationism Conspiracy forum to say Hi.



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dra745
In all honesty, at the root of the problem is the inability of some, to allow themselves to become accountable to anyone or anything. In refusing to become accountable, the object to which they must become accountable, must be removed. When mankind declares that there is no God, in actuality they are refusing to become accountable to a Holy and Righteous God. If the individual(s) truly believed that there is no God, logic would ask, why am I attempting to disprove the existance of a God, that doesn't even exist? Only the fool would waste time in such an endeavor.


While you do make a rather decent point and put this in a perspective I'd never considered, I ask you the converse of this: If the individual is so convinced that there is a God, why would they attempt to prove the existance of something they're already certain of? IMO, it is because they view others who don't see their opinion as "uneducated" (not the right word, but the closest.) Same reason individuals who don't believe in a God try to prove that there isn't one.



The complexity of not only the human being, but that of the earth and solar system, declare the handi-work of the Creator ie God.


And for what reasoning? There's absolutely no chance, whatsoever, that this complexity is only complex to our perspective, and in the greater scheme of things is just about as simple as it gets?

Look at it this way: have you ever taken a look at something that's admittedly man-made--an engine, a computer program, a piece of electronics--that was utterly complex beyond your comprehension? If you haven't, then either you're one of the brightest people around or you don't get out much. I have--I'm trying to learn how to do 3d modeling right now, and when I first opened the program up my eyes glazed over. That doesn't mean that a God created it, that just means it's too complex for me to figure out. For the people who wrote the program, or those who work with it on a daily basis, it's probably second nature.

Inherent complexity does not mean that there is a higher power in and of itself. All that it means is that we simply don't understand how something works. A few centuries ago humans thought that viruses and infections were signs of higher powers; it was merely something they didn't understand at that time.

I'm not trying to say that there is no God; I'm just saying complexity doesn't denote God.



posted on Aug, 12 2005 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sight2reality
Ghost.

With certainty, tell me the last words of Jesus as he died on the cross. All four gospels tell you those words. What were they?


Forgive them father!

You wanted his last words, here they are! Now, what is it that you are trying to prove?

Tim



posted on Aug, 12 2005 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ghost.
Forgive them father!

..for they know not what they do".

On topic.. it will eventually be proven. All that is left is finding the pieces to the puzzle.. and they are not missing.. we just don't know where the pieces fit yet. Once DNA is completely figured out they'll see how everything is connected to everything else [I suspect it will be found in 'junk' [obsolete] dna]. Of course some will just call it a lie if they are not comfortable with it, which is okay as knowledge will grow without them.


[edit on 12-8-2005 by riley]



posted on Aug, 12 2005 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dra745
It has been concluded from numerous reliable sources, that the variation in DNA within the entire human race does not exceed 0.1%. The variation between human and animal DNA ranges from 2% to 4%.


Does this not prove that the difference between a human and its closest animal cousin (chimps) is only 20 times greater than the difference between humans themselves? That hardly seems insurmountable.


Originally posted by Dra745
When considering origin, we know that matter cannot be created or destroyed, by human hands. ( Laws Of Thermodynamics )
Is it all that difficult to understand, that there must be a Creator involved in providing the basic building blocks or elements, for our planet to exist and a Creator involved in arranging these building blocks or elements? Without a force acting upon an object, the object will remain at rest.


Is it all that difficult to understand that "cannot be created or destroyed" implies that it was not created? (you arbitrarily added "by human hands")


Originally posted by Dra745
In all honesty, at the root of the problem is the inability of some, to allow themselves to become accountable to anyone or anything.


The root of the problem is faith induced stupidity. Once you accept that "I wish it were true therefor it is" as a valid form of knowledge, you lose the ability to distinguish reality from fantasy.



posted on Aug, 12 2005 @ 08:31 PM
link   
Another two points.

First, it is commonly claimed by Christians that god doesn't give us proof he exists because that would eliminate our free will ability to choose him. But, isn't the whole creationist argument about proiving the existence of Biblegod through his creation? If they are right, wht doesn't that count as the very same proof god refuses to give us?

Second, creationists have no problem rejecting evolution because there are holes in the evidence (in their eyes), yet they have no problem agreeing with the big bang even though there are not only holes in the evidence, but massive holes in the theory itself! We do not have a quantum theory of gravity, nor any clue whatsoever as to what happened in the earliest phases of the big bang. Our knowledge simply doesn't go there, yet the typical entropy-proves-localized-order-can-not-arrise-Creationist has no problem latching onto the incomplete big bang theory to "prove" the universe was created supernaturally.

It seems reason and evidence only matter when they supports their position, but not when they prove it false.



posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 07:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham
Is it all that difficult to understand that "cannot be created or destroyed" implies that it was not created? (you arbitrarily added "by human hands")


Assuming that the statement in the quotes is true, that would mean that the universe has to be of infinite age and that the "Big Bang" never happened. The univers is simpally an unquantified amount of matter.

Are you sure about this?

Tim



posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by ghost

Originally posted by spamandham
Is it all that difficult to understand that "cannot be created or destroyed" implies that it was not created? (you arbitrarily added "by human hands")


Assuming that the statement in the quotes is true, that would mean that the universe has to be of infinite age and that the "Big Bang" never happened. The univers is simpally an unquantified amount of matter.


Why must the universe be of infinite age, or the Big Bang never happened? Since time is part of the universe itself, there is no inconsistency between a finite age and an uncreated universe.

That said, we know that our knowledge of physics is incomplete. So, we really can't draw any firm conclusions about the origin of the universe. But what we can say, is that based on what we observe, there is no basis for the assumption that the universe was created.



posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham
Why must the universe be of infinite age, or the Big Bang never happened? Since time is part of the universe itself, there is no inconsistency between a finite age and an uncreated universe.

That said, we know that our knowledge of physics is incomplete. So, we really can't draw any firm conclusions about the origin of the universe. But what we can say, is that based on what we observe, there is no basis for the assumption that the universe was created.


You said "Matter cannot be created or distroyed." If you can NOT Create matter, it would have to have existed infintly. Are you suggesting that matter, and therfore space existed BEFORE the universe came into existence? Do you not understand that this Clearly does NOT make any sense?

You are saying that there is nothing inconsistent about this statement:



Since time is part of the universe itself, there is no inconsistency between a finite age and an uncreated universe.


Websters dictonary defines Infinite as: subject to no limitations, without end.

How can something with no beginning point have a finite age? this clearly doesn't work!

Tim



posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by ghost
You said "Matter cannot be created or distroyed." If you can NOT Create matter, it would have to have existed infintly.


No, it merely has to exist for all time. But the past need not be of infinite duration. You can never grasp this as long as you think of time as something separate from the universe.


Originally posted by ghost
Are you suggesting that matter, and therfore space existed BEFORE the universe came into existence?


No, I'm suggesting that based on what we know, there is no "before the universe"


Originally posted by ghost


Since time is part of the universe itself, there is no inconsistency between a finite age and an uncreated universe.


Websters dictonary defines Infinite as: subject to no limitations, without end.

How can something with no beginning point have a finite age? this clearly doesn't work!


It does if the something in question is time itself.



posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 02:39 AM
link   
Please forgive me because I want to turn the table on the religious fanatics:

Nevermind evolution.

Is religion, any religion, provable.

Now, be factual. The argument that it is written would not suffice. The bible we have now is incomplete (the Pope threw out a few "books") and handed down what His Holiness deemed appropriate. What we have today is at the mercy of the Pope of around 1000 AD. Who knows what was real and what was "created" by THAT Pope and his cronies . . .



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 11:42 AM
link   
Evolution is a Lie.
They say man evolved from an Ape.

Explain this to me, If it were true that man evolved from an Ape, How come we still have Men and still have Apes and none has changed in 1000,s of years ?



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lastday Prophet
Evolution is a Lie.
They say man evolved from an Ape.


No they don't. It doesn't reflect well on you to accuse others of lying and immediately turn around and make false statements.


Originally posted by Lastday Prophet
Explain this to me, If it were true that man evolved from an Ape, How come we still have Men and still have Apes and none has changed in 1000,s of years ?


Let's suspend the evidence for a moment and presume that men actually did evolve from apes. Why could apes not also still exist?

Further, what is the basis of the claim that neither men nor apes have changed in 1000's of years? Further still, if what you are saying is true that neither men nor apes have changed in 1000's of years, then how is the diversity of species following Noah's ark accounted for? Even creationist types typically accept "micro-evolution"



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 02:57 PM
link   
Evolution is as provable as creationisum is. The problem is that because we can feel touch and see evolution it becomes more substatial and more real then a faith based ideology.

Evolution is about finding missing links that prove an assumption

Evolution is simlar to 5 blind men descibing 5 differant parts of an elephant, then trying to come up with a way to explain how it all fits together.

The evolution theory still exists becasue it HASN'T been proven, and probly never will to everyone's satisfaction



posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 12:19 AM
link   
And yet science I believe can proof of 6000 year old flood, that is only recorded in the bible.




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join