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.

 

Where do people on ATS stand on this?

page: 10
7
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 22 2007 @ 07:32 AM
link   
Actually spacekaeser,
The theory of evolution has been proven. Please read up a few posts for the actual definition of THEORY.

Thanks.




posted on Jul, 22 2007 @ 07:38 AM
link   
I really wish people understood what a SCIENTIFIC THEORY is....

A brief definition of THEORY:
The most logical explanation of why things work the way they do. A theory is a former hypothesis that has been tested with repeated experiments and observations and found always to work.

let me repeat a really important part

TESTED with REPEATED EXPERIMENTS and observations and FOUND ALWAYS TO WORK.

Now that you understand what a theory is,
When you see "THEORY OF EVOLUTION" you can say

Evolution was a former hypothesis that has been tested with repeated experiments and observations and found always to work.

Should we rethink the facts of evolution because they don't mesh with unproven beliefs? If that is what we are going to do what about eliminating other things?

Are we going to eliminate math too? If 2 + 2 = 4 is an inconvenient truth for someone, why do we still learn it? Just remember, next time your checking account doesn't balance and you're overdrawn, just illiminate the minus sign in front of the amount and you're fine.

what about history? WW II didn't go well for the nazis so we should just remove WW II from our history books so nazis don't feel bad anymore.

Who cares if those pesky facts get in the way......



posted on Jul, 22 2007 @ 07:58 AM
link   
Lets say that you had no insight on god/religion. You were never taught by your parents, a preacher , through school or through a book about there being a god or religion. Would you still beleive in creationism or a god for that matter? What other hard evidence would you have if you eliminated all that was drilled into your head from youth about creationism?



posted on Jul, 22 2007 @ 08:17 AM
link   
Excellent point, ICU. It's the only explanation that makes sense, when you think about some of the crazy, circular, irrational arguments I've had about this subject with people who attempt to say that science is a religious belief.



posted on Jul, 22 2007 @ 08:26 AM
link   
science definitely is NOT a religious belief.
A belief is something that you think to be true even when there is an absence of proof whereas science is something you believe to be true ONLY if you have proof.



posted on Jul, 22 2007 @ 08:47 AM
link   
Oh, but then you get people splitting hairs because there's never any PROOF, only evidence.

There's enough evidence for evolution that it might as well be proof in my opinion.

The most amusing aspect of all this is the ones that say that evolution (or whatever) is only a theory, so it's not true, but they're perfectly OK with using a computer to say such silly stuff -- a computer that uses electronic theory and computer theory.

Theory is as theory does, as Forrest Gump would have said, were he smart.



posted on Jul, 22 2007 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by cyberspacekaiser
Both theories/beliefs can not be proven. Why argue one against the other anyway?


Quite the opposite.

Evolution's Proof:
*Carbon dating
*The number of fossils does not permit the age of the Earth to be a few thousand years old
*Oil
*The fact that DNA changes every generation
Creation's Proof:
*The quickness of evolution in some time periods
- The speed of Post Ice Age evolution
- Quickness of evolution of humans
- Humans developed talking only 20,000 years ago
*Mysterious "end" to all Trans-human species around the same time around 1 million years ago
*Humans kept in their own species throughout the past 1 million even though they were separated across the continents while other animals spread out into dozens of other species.
*Every civilization has a "flood" myth. Told in the same sense of one family surviving on a boat with 2 of every animal.

So their is proof either way. I keep in a mix. I believe the Bible was right, and that evolution is right. No conflict seen.

[edit on 22-7-2007 by Gorman91]



posted on Jul, 22 2007 @ 05:04 PM
link   
although many Cultures do have a flood myth, not all do, and each story is different, not exactly the same as you've described. It's not surprising that many cultures do have a flood myth because floods happen all the time, everywhere on earth.



posted on Jul, 22 2007 @ 05:10 PM
link   
Gorman, you have some of your facts very wrong. We've had language longer than 20,000 years, the last "other" species of human, the Neanderthals, died out approximately 65,000 to 30,000 years ago, etc.

Proof is not the correct word, the correct word is evidence.

Creationists do not have any evidence of creation or god, not in the scientific sense. Negative evidence of evolution does not prove creation. The supernatural is not the default position.



posted on Jul, 22 2007 @ 05:14 PM
link   
You said there was a Mysterious "end" to all Trans-human species around the same time around 1 million years ago.

This in fact is false:
Homo-sapiens were around approx .5 million years ago along with
homo sapien-neandertalensis and homo-erectus.

Australiopithecus Robustis did die out approx 1 million years ago however.

The current human species is known as Homo sapien sapien.

I am a little concerned that you simply don't understand the facts in which you speak and would like to clear the record.

Please research these items before presenting them as fact.

Thank you.



posted on Jul, 22 2007 @ 05:38 PM
link   
German,
Your most troubling comment to me is the thought that since you believe there are some unanswered questions within the Theory of Evolution, you automatically take a GIANT LEAP to the conclusion that since science has no answer to your questions, God is the default answer. This is simply NOT the case.



posted on Jul, 22 2007 @ 05:43 PM
link   
Just a few tidbits to back up jfj's and my "claims."



University Laboratory of Physiology, Oxford, UK.

Language developed for communication, to facilitate learning the use of tools and weapons, to plan hunting and defence, to develop a "theory of mind" and the tools of thought, and to attract and keep a mate. The adaptations required took place over many millions of years. The first important one was left-sided specialisation of the neural apparatus controlling involuntary emotional vocalisations that began more than 200 million years ago. The next was the development in primates of "mirror neurones" in the pre-motor cortex some 45 million years ago. These enabled the imitation and voluntary control of previously involuntary manual gestures and vocalisations. The third important adaptation was the descent of the larynx, 100,000 years ago, which greatly increased the phonological range of vocalisations that could be made. Thus, language did not develop all at once as suggested by Chomsky, but evolved gradually building upon adaptations originally meeting quite different needs.

abstract on PubMed


There is a fantastic long-ish review article on language evolution here.

I'd love to see the source for your information that language is only 20,000 years old. The Discovery Institute perhaps?



posted on Jul, 22 2007 @ 05:57 PM
link   
Majormalfunction,
Thanks for the WELL RESEARCHED info.
It's greatly appreciated.



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 06:33 PM
link   


Lets say that you had no insight on god/religion. You were never taught by your parents, a preacher , through school or through a book about there being a god or religion. Would you still beleive in creationism or a god for that matter? What other hard evidence would you have if you eliminated all that was drilled into your head from youth about creationism?


Just take a look at everything around you. the way things work together to support life. the way the giraffes neck works so it doesnt pass out after bending over to drink from the pool of water. the way the woodpecker can open and close its eyes in between pecks, the way the bombardier beetle uses chemicals to produce controlled explosions as its defense. the way certain animals know how to do certain things or know where to go without learning. the way the human eye is designed. the use of the human tail-bone and its importance.

if you take a look at everything in this world, and you think about how it is designed, you will come to the conclusion that is was designed, not just chance and evolution.

variations occur but they are limited to the same species/kind of plant or animal.



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 06:51 PM
link   
Ahhh, the argument from "it's all so bleedin' amazin'".

That's probably the most convincing I've heard today


I suppose it is quite amazing to think the evidence suggests all this complexity was the result of natural design processes like natural selection.



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 10:05 PM
link   


science definitely is NOT a religious belief.
A belief is something that you think to be true even when there is an absence of proof whereas science is something you believe to be true ONLY if you have proof.


and where exactly is the proof for evolution?

Fossils? not proof, you cant prove they had any offspring. fossils do not have dates stamped on them. and radiometric dating is inaccurate. many articles have shown the inaccuracy of radiometric dating.

The deteriorating magnetic field of the earth proves that the earth is less than 30,000 years old or at least life could not have existed on earth any time before 30,000 years ago. going back in time at the rate its deteriorating gives us a limiting factor. also, there are no magnetic reversals in the ocean, and the earths magnetic field it not reversing. in order for that to occur, the flow of magma around the earths core would have to be reversed also. think about it.

the we are losing the moon at the rate of 1 inch per year. factor in the inverse square law and we were in big trouble if you go back too far in time. plus the closer you put the moon to the earth, the fast it has to go to stay above the earth.

the law of conservation of angular momentum go against the big bang theory entirely. problems within our own solar system show that it didnt.

boyles law goes against the theory of star formation. people disagree with that but thats because they dont look at the entire law. its in the writing and its in the equations.

spontaneous generation has been proven wrong a long time ago. if I put a frog in a blender to made frog nog, how long would it take to re-assemble the frog? you get my point.

animals changing from one species/kind to another is not supported by anything. you cant assume because you find fossils in the dirt in different layers in an order that appears to be supportive to evolution theory that they changed over time. basically you are saying that since we dont know for sure, because no one on earth has the that amount of time , it had to of occurred.
thats flawed logic.

the entire evolution theory is based on flawed logic. you cant assume it all happened and then state it as fact. I dont call the bible fact and indoctrinate students. I believe and thats all.

[edit on 25-7-2007 by Methuselah]

[edit on 25-7-2007 by Methuselah]

[edit on 25-7-2007 by Methuselah]

[edit on 25-7-2007 by Methuselah]



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 06:25 AM
link   
eee, it's like a carnival of Hovindisms.

Radiodating
www.asa3.org...

Moon receding
www.talkorigins.org...

More Hovindisms inc. angular momentum
www.skepticreport.com...

Magnetic field
www.infidels.org...

www.talkorigins.org...

Spontaneous generation was never a part of evolutionary theory, if a frog sprung into existence spontaneously, that would not be evolution. That's the province of fairy-tales, like genesis.

I won't ask you to go into detail about these things, as I don't think it would be fair.

[edit on 26-7-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420

Because if people only got sicker and sicker the species wouldn't survive.


Is that not where we are at right now?

You have absolutely no way to prove people have been improving their general health. It would be interesting to see how long people lived 20,000 years ago. I would hazard a guess, but that is the best I can do at the moment.

I know they built some impressive structures, for people with stone tools. Using the ruins from around the world as evidence, I would think they were far more advanced than we give them credit for.

The structures we build today have trouble standing for a few hundred years. This has been a definite reduction in quality. This same thing could be what human beings have gone through also. A decline in the length of years a person lives.

I do believe we are decaying, as a species, not improving. We are continually seeing new diseases, threats to the survival of other species we effect by our destroying ways, and a general decline in the wellness of the planet. Our next stop is extinction, in my book.



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Just take a look at everything around you. the way things work together to support life. the way the giraffes neck works so it doesnt pass out after bending over to drink from the pool of water. the way the woodpecker can open and close its eyes in between pecks, the way the bombardier beetle uses chemicals to produce controlled explosions as its defense. the way certain animals know how to do certain things or know where to go without learning. the way the human eye is designed. the use of the human tail-bone and its importance.

if you take a look at everything in this world, and you think about how it is designed, you will come to the conclusion that is was designed, not just chance and evolution.


methusela,
You just described some great examples of evolution over time. Good job. Probably not what you were looking to do but they are indeed good examples of how evolution has allowed change for survival.

Evolution is a wonderous thing



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

Evolution is a wonderous thing




A wonderful thing for who? People who like to believe in "Uncle Monkey"?
Of course Stalin was a big fan, too.



new topics




 
7
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join