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.

 

Top Ten Scientific Facts : Evolution is False and Impossible.

page: 19
96
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 12:47 PM
link   
Well I guess what you are trying to get me to accept is that adaptation explains much of what we see, both now and in the fossil record.

Ok I agree.

Lets take this a step father though, the ToE as you say being taught in schools makes no mention of a Creator, as it directly contradicts what the ToE proposes.

If we say life can adapt, I would concur, but it is the start point of life that the ToE implies, and don't try to say otherwise or this would not be such a argued subject, can not hold water.

That is why ID causes such a stir, it still says there was a starting point and a designer, the ToE can not co-exist with this line of thought.




posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
Lets take this a step father though, the ToE as you say being taught in schools makes no mention of a Creator, as it directly contradicts what the ToE proposes.

If we say life can adapt, I would concur, but it is the start point of life that the ToE implies, and don't try to say otherwise or this would not be such a argued subject, can not hold water.

That is why ID causes such a stir, it still says there was a starting point and a designer, the ToE can not co-exist with this line of thought.


I think it's more a case that ToE can say nothing about a creator. It's not part of the theory, and it cannae be. Neither is that the first lifeform was produced by a natural non-directed process. That's a separate theory.

If we want to go back to abiogenesis, although science is working on naturalistic processes, again, it says nothing about a creator.

What you could say is that it could restrict what a supposed creator did. However, it is not impossible that the process we might eventually find could be telic, but appear to be entirely natural. We just can't speak to a creator in science. How can we? If said disembodied telic entity is beyond natural processes, how can we examine its actions using natural science? We can't test and measure supernatural processes.

ID isn't science, that's why it caused a 'stir'. The proponents of ID tried to subvert the scientific process and push this religiously motivated idea into schools by legal and political means. No science required. So, of course, people were a bit p****d off.

If you want to believe that the first replicators were designed, or that a supernatural disembodied telic entity fiddles with the genetics of organisms over time, that's cool. But it isn't science, and doesn't belong in a science class. Teach it in philosophy, teach it in religious education, teach it in sociology of science. But, science itself, no.



[edit on 7-8-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 01:13 PM
link   
What if the metaphysical and physical are related? I think they are, I think that eventually that connection will be made.



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
What if the metaphysical and physical are related? I think they are, I think that eventually that connection will be made.


yet there is absolutely no evidence to back up your claim. there aren't any scientific inroads, all you have is a hypothesis... actually it's a conclusion in your case... which is why creationism is a pseudoscience



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 02:01 PM
link   
Well science has no answer when you get to the 'sub-quantum' levels, nor to the largeness of the universe.

Life is pure energy, then whence did it come? Maybe its knowledge itself, therefore something had to create it, it just did not come from some cosmic fart.



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 12:47 AM
link   
Wow, this has become a huge thread, to much to read through it all right now.

There are two things that stands out to me though, and I feel compelled to reply to them.

First is the frequent claim from creationists that since we can find no transitional fossils then evolution must be wrong. This statement centers around two problems in creationist argumentation.

Problem 1) there seems to be a lack of understanding of how fossilization occurs, or even in some the idea that every creature that dies gets fossilized. Fossilization is the exception rather than the rule, it occurs under rare circumstances where the body or body parts of a dead creature get buried prior to decomposition, followed by a mineralization process where water intrusion deposits minerals in place of organic tissue. There are some great articles brought up by a google search on how this process works. Gaps in the fossil record are to be expected since not every living creature that dies gets fossilized. To know that this is true one just has to wonder why we don't come across fossils while camping, every time we dig a latrine. After all, even in a mere 6,000 years the chances that an animal died on the spot your digging are probably fairly high.

Problem 2) as frequently mentioned before "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence" Since fossilization is actually an uncommon event, it should come as no surprise that there are gaps in the fossil record, and obviously not every square inch of land is littered with fossils. To give a thought example, my grandfathers birth records were destroyed by a fire at the county courthouse near the town he was born in. The fact that we can't find his birth record is not evidence that he did not exist. Just the same, the fact that we might not be able to find a fossil from a "Transitional" creature, is not evidence that no such creature exists.

The other issue in creationist argumentation is the refusal to acknowledge what transitional fossils have been found, and the insane requirement that the evidence be ever more granular. If I present a fossil of an animal that is beieved to be an ancestor of a Giraffe, but it only has a neck a foot long while the Modern day Giraffe has a neck of four to six feet long the Creationist will demand to see the fossil with the neck at 2 feet long, should we prvide such a fossil, then the creationist will say :show me the fossil with a neck that is 3 feet long. When we can't produce the fossil that is three feet, or 3.5 or 3.75 then the creationist wrongly claims victory because the fossil record is incomplete.

Talk Origins Transition FAQ



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 12:58 AM
link   
Another point. Belittling Evolution because it doesn't speak to origin is a little like belittling a chef because he is not a farmer, or a programmer because he can't explain how a microchip is made. They are two different fields of study.

Evolution does not even attempt to discuss how it all started. It only speaks to how things have changed over time after they began. As has been said many times before, Abiogenesis is the study of the origins of life, and there are lots of good theories on that as well, which can be found just by googling the term.

The theory of Evolution is not at all incompatible with a large variety of abiogenesis scenarios, including god doing it. A supreme being may well have snapped his fingers, creating all matter/energy/ and appropriate starting conditions, and the theory of evolution would still be the best explanation of the things we see in the natural world around us.



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 04:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
Well science has no answer when you get to the 'sub-quantum' levels, nor to the largeness of the universe.


it doesn't have the answers YET. you have to give it time, it's a process.



Life is pure energy, then whence did it come?


"life" doesn't exist. life is a state of being. things are alive, but a thing called "life" is non-existent. there isn't something you can point to in this universe and say "that is life" unless you're talking about living things.



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 08:50 PM
link   
19 pages?! wowzers.

Well here's my little bitty offering on the subject, things that have crossed my mind on this subject:

Bees.
Their dances, behaviors, function within their own community and impact on other communities around them (such as the life cycle of plants), variation in function, switching of roles in time of need, and all in a brain the size of a grain of salt. These guys, no matter how small, are amazingly complex.

And

Significant survival of the fittest functions that are supposedly weeded out of later species in the same chain.

Example: Regeneration of missing limbs is a trait that no doubt adds to the life expectancy of the species so gifted. So does night vision. Wings. Abilty to breathe water. Tough, scaly skin. Fur coats with summer and winter adaptations. Large brains. Incredibly strong musculature. Redundant systems (in case one fails). And so on.

Philosophically, I have a problem with ToE because it was initiated by a bunch of guys who were completely convinced that non-causian races were not fully human, but rather were less evolved species from lower life forms.

[edit on 30-9-2007 by undo]



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 09:30 PM
link   
Ugh. Why people still debate evolution like this is beyond me.

First, let's start off differentiating what is fact and what is theory. A fact, in science, is an observation. A theory is an explanation of that observation.

Take it a step further, and look at gravity. Things falling is an observation of the attraction and pull between two objects. Gravity is the explanation of that attraction and pull. Gravity is a fact.

Take it one step further and look at fruit flies. Fruit flies rapidly reproduce. Fruit flies during this rapid reproduction, change from year to year. Evolution is the explanation of this change. Evolution is a fact.

I mean, you may argue "well those are just flies! what about humans!" Here's some advice. Pick up a book on paleoanthropology.

However, the various theories of gravity that existed long ago all needed testing until the right one was found - and so do the theories of evolution Does it take place vis a vis the aquatic ape hypothesis? Or a is it a process of natural selection. THIS is what is up for debate. Not whether or not evolution exists.



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 10:54 PM
link   
I'm not here to defend or pick apart any side in this matter.

about the gimp wing.
I dont believe they would or did evolve wings if they were useless.
We are seeing them after their wings were viable for them at some stage...arent we? Some perfected it and more efficient..others lost and didnt need it....anymore.

You say we are alone, how can you look at what we know about our solar sytem. You know other big round things like earth floating around. and stuff.
you mean they are all vacant and we are like in the twilight zone where the guy breaks his glasses? If thats true..we are definately in some experiment... and quite frankly I'm scared of whos running the show.



posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 07:13 PM
link   
If evolution is true without any intelligent guidance, then we all be amoebas with vocal chords.

1. Human are so far ahead of any other species. There is human, and then: there is the rest.
2. Fossil records of dinasaurs found aplenty, yet not a single bone of the "missinglink"?

The fact that we call it the missing link, or should I say "the never found link" or the "nonexistent link" should give you a clue of the blind FAITH of evolutionists.



posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 07:23 PM
link   
I think evolution can exist as a process but not as the source or origin of man.

the material I would source is a book as usual and as usual I recommend reading it.. BILLIONS OF MISSING LINKS by Geoffrey Simmons m.d.



posted on Oct, 2 2007 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by docklands
If evolution is true without any intelligent guidance, then we all be amoebas with vocal chords.

1. Human are so far ahead of any other species. There is human, and then: there is the rest.


how so?
we're just ahead in intelligence, communication and dexterity.

that's it.



2. Fossil records of dinasaurs found aplenty, yet not a single bone of the "missinglink"?


well, what is the "missing link"
oh, it's that thing we don't have. there will always be a missing link, because not every species will have a fossil specimen.



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 10:54 AM
link   
hahaha that is so ridiculous i only really have one thing to say (or I could pull apart every topic you mentioned but I dont have the time - you think because we dont have 100% evidence of everything its not true? then tell me where the evidence of creationism is?! from a book full of mystical tales? is that it? why do you's keep changing your story each time we actually go out and find proof to collaborate a now scientifically and generally accepted story when you only spend time debunking supported evidence rather than coming up with the goods? coz you got nothing!



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by docklands
 



Finding one species and finding all the species of dinosaurs is completely different! of course we'll never discover all the dinosaurs - and we are uncovering new kinds all the time



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by edsinger
 


You obviously havent read the origin of species, you sound like a child confronting a master. If you can read the origin of species and continue denying the idea of evolution, then more power to you.



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 05:36 PM
link   
Reviving a 3 year old thread for no apparent reason.

Here is my 2 cents on the subject since I'm bored and procrastinating on a Macbeth paper due tomorrow.

It is an extremely foolish act to "believe" in something, e.g Santa, god, aqua man... The scientific community does not "believe" in evolution, they only recognize it as the one and only theory that logically explains the origins of species by means of natural selection. Remember, it is the origin of species not the origin of the #ing universe.

I don't see any reason how any serious thinking person can prefer creationism/I.D over evolution. I just can't see any statistical logic to this. Evolution offers a tremendous amount of evidence. On the contrary, creationism /I.D offers no evidence whatsoever and the only alibi they have is from creating non-existing problems in other theories. (BTW, irreducible complexity, the most common alibi for I.D has already been proven false.)
So why are people hesitant to get on board? Is it because they want gifts for Christmas and goto heaven when they die? Is it because they feel safer knowing that there is a God to protect them from the terrorizers? And why are people starving in India when there are cows right in front of them? I'm going to stop here as I'm hungry and would like to go eat something. Please use some logic in future discussion. Is it really worth it defending something so indenfensible that the only response someone can give is because God made it that way?

I have a theological question.
Why would an omnipotent entity, God, create the universe. Since the act of doing something is the fulfillment of a lacking in something, then how can God be lacking in something? If it is lacking in something then by definition it is not God.

I have another question which is just a derivative of the stone paradox.
God is omnipotent, therefor it is a law as it cannot not be omnipotent. So where did this law originate from which allows God to be omnipotent because if you say, since he is god then he can do whatever he wants...then by suggesting that he could do whatever he wants suggests that he cannot not do whatever he wants which suggests that he is limited by a law which allows him to do whatever he wants. If you then say God is not limited by any laws then that itself is a law which states that he is not limited by any laws so he cannot violate this law. Where did this law come from because even if he sets his own laws suggests that he cannot not set his own laws which is a law itself. I'm going to stop writing this now because I said I was going to eat 20 minutes ago. Bye now.



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Anonymous ATS
 





I have a theological question.


philosophically, we'd be hard-pressed to answer any question relating to the divine. we understand only 1 dmeision. if there are many, we're only "seeing in a glass darkly."



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


Arguing over what kind of question it is does not answer the question...



new topics

top topics



 
96
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join