It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 6
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 16 2007 @ 08:26 AM
Raso, you forgot the biggest evidence of an intermediary form of all:


No offense, creationists, but in order for you to refute evolution, you need to understand it first. Please go take a class, perhaps introduction to Biology 101, then get back to us. Otherwise your arguments are weak, as well as being hilarious.

posted on Jul, 16 2007 @ 09:23 AM
well its simple matter what system of thought you adhere to, the fact remains that in the very beginning someone had to take the first measurement in some respect.

also, if you adhere to the 'THEORY' of evolution, you need to realize that a cat will always begat a cat, etc etc....simple genetics...and if that leaves too much room for doubt...ask yourself why, if you believe in evoluion and we are millenia old as humans, why only in the 20th century did we make such technological advances? why not sooner? did we evolve THAT much in the past 1000 years, doubtful as we are the same as we have been for 5000 years,,,, so why now? simply because we arent as old as some would like to think we are (evolution advocates would have us at least 200,000 years old as homo sapiens sapiens, as we are now)....not good enough? ok, lets address the population number on the planet, are people just having more sex than they did 100,000 years ago? i doubt it, especially when there was little else to do and no threat of disease the way there is now, plus with the education we have now about said wouldnt the world have filled up much much sooner? Look at the index for population growth we have today, why not then?

anyway, i tend to lean toward a higher power, without question...and that being said i am a christian that believes Y'Shua was the Messaih as predicted by the old testament prophets of old ...after all the man fullfilled every prophecy that was expected, numbering around 100 something...what are the odds? Riding into jerusalem on a donkey is my fav,,,,if the jews are still waiting for the messiah to show up for the FIRST time, who the hell is gonna ride a donkey anywhere nowadays and not be laughed at?

posted on Jul, 16 2007 @ 09:29 AM

Originally posted by theindependentjournal
1. All mankind came from Adam and Eve whom God created about 6000 years ago.


2. All mankind came from a rock about 3-4.5 billion years ago.


The Adam and Eve story, just like the Jesus story for example, are both real things that have taken place, its just that our understanding of what really happened is incorrect. The Bible is the truth, but the truth is also inbetween the lines. That doesn't mean im praising the Bible though.. its a simply the creation of those who had half-correct knowledge themselves, taking the meanings out of context: The ancient egyptian mystery schools and the information there, distorted, gave rise to Christianity.

But i also praise the other potential answer (number 2), in that humans have been subject to the process of evolution. However, to keep it simple, i will state that our current theory of evolution is ONLY the how, and not the WHY.

Our mystery history is far more interesting than we are being told.. you can be certain of that.

posted on Jul, 16 2007 @ 09:34 AM
the pictures you posted are pure imagination and pictures at most.
and I cannot believe you tried to bring Archaeopteryx into the picture, that is one of the biggest frauds in recent history. did you know that someone glued feathers on that dinosaur and sold it to a museum for a couple million dollars?

and I know how evolution works. and I know the processes that do not lead to any evolution but are said to be its foundation.

Natural Selection does nothing more than selects. its a conservative process. weeding out bad mutations or deformed chromosomes in a population of moths is not going to ever change a moth into a bird. natural selection can only work with the information that already exists. addition of new information would be real evolution and we never see that happen. you assume it happens because its the only other alternative to there being a designer/creator.

posted on Jul, 16 2007 @ 09:52 AM
Evolution aside, let me ask this.

-We do have fossil records of creatures that lived millions of years ago.
Agree or disagree?

-We have skeletal models of creatures that exist today.
Agree or disagree?

If evolution did not in some way change the creatures of old into modern animals, then why do we not have fossil records of the common house cat from 100 million years ago?

You may say selective breeding through human intervention. So then I ask, why do we not have fossil records of African elephants from 100 million years ago?

-Are there animals that exist today that did not exist millions of years ago? Did God put them here? Is God constantly bringing entirely new species into existence by simply waving his hand, or does he have a method of bringing new species into existence?

[edit on 16-7-2007 by Rasobasi420]

posted on Jul, 16 2007 @ 10:54 AM
hey raso...i don't disagree with you...but even the old testament speaks of the nephilim & giants that walked the earth (pre-deluvian) sure, thats totally possible, but we're speaking of modern humans here i believe.

posted on Jul, 16 2007 @ 10:56 AM

Originally posted by blueyedevil666
hey raso...i don't disagree with you...but even the old testament speaks of the nephilim & giants that walked the earth (pre-deluvian) sure, thats totally possible, but we're speaking of modern humans here i believe.

I'm not exactly sure as to what you are referring actually. Are you saying that evolution applies to all creatures on this world except for humans?

posted on Jul, 16 2007 @ 10:57 AM
everyone should, even for entertainment purposes, read the books of Daniel as well as the books of luke, mark, john, etc.....there are a few answers found within that address a lot of people questions, even if a tad cryptic. The answer to the animals not found today, but way back then, can be attributed by the deluge...and the new species that re-populated the earth, they've even found strata of earth that actually cuts off a certain date with specific species, that's also quite it flood or meteor or what have you.

posted on Jul, 16 2007 @ 11:00 AM
Not saying anything specifically, just kinda vectoring with a few facts here....i do believe that if people were as old as evolution theorists would have us.....we'd be far more advanced and the planet would have filled up a millennia ago. How do account for the population growth being the way it is today and not then? Shouldn't we have run out of room long long ago? Doubtful that our planet is growing with us. Hell look at china and india alone.

posted on Jul, 16 2007 @ 11:26 AM

Originally posted by blueyedevil666
Not saying anything specifically, just kinda vectoring with a few facts here....i do believe that if people were as old as evolution theorists would have us.....we'd be far more advanced and the planet would have filled up a millennia ago.

Not necessarily. Until recently the sole purpose of hominids (and every other creature) was to survive as a species. And, like any species, the way for many to do that was to focus only on survival, and by keeping the population down so that there is enough recourses to go around. Humans stayed at a very basic level of existence (eat, drink, sleep safely, procreate) until they developed a means to do more without risking losing any of the above.

It's only because of our level of advanced tech that we are able to survive as we do.

How do account for the population growth being the way it is today and not then? Shouldn't we have run out of room long long ago? Doubtful that our planet is growing with us. Hell look at china and india alone.

The level of medical advances only recently made it to the point where people will more often survive a simple infection or disease than die from it. This will of course increase the human pop. Just compare medicine from the 15-1800s to that of today and you should see how population could so drastically increase.

And I'll add that if not for scientific theory and progress, we'd still be bleeding patients to relieve them of evil spirits in their blood. People often say science is a religion (of course those that do don't understand what science is, or what religion is), but if it was, it's a religion that has allowed our species to survive, adapt, and progress as a species far greater than any previous religions.

posted on Jul, 16 2007 @ 01:03 PM
even still we would have been industrialize looooong before the turn of last century......especially since we've been here for 200k+ years as sapien(s)...makes no sense to me. Plus the population would be that much bigger....look at the most densely populated areas, these areas have NO advanced medicine, so, its no different now than fact they would have been healthier then as opposed to now as there was more food to go around, etc., also less chance of spreading disease as populations adhered to certain areas of agriculture. So, ya it mos def makes no logical sense, and it shouldn't to anyone when viewed in the current scientific scope it is. So....

posted on Jul, 16 2007 @ 01:11 PM
Responding to the OP, I believe in both evolution and God. I think that evolution did occur and likely the big bang as well, but that some divine being had to set the entire chain of events in motion at the beginning.

posted on Jul, 16 2007 @ 02:23 PM
Blueeye, so mankind's technological and population advancement didn't move as quickly as you'd expect. That's all well and good, but I don't understand what that has to do with evolution being false. Maybe you could bridge the two issues for me.

posted on Jul, 16 2007 @ 02:33 PM

Look at simple genetics, if you will, the dna that every creature has and passes on generation to generation contains all the information necessary to develop a second generation of the same species parented......ergo, a cat will always begat a cat, a horse a horse and so on. The information contained within the nucleic acids is there are instances of mutation/recessive congenital diseases,etc..but these are subsequently weeded out if you will by virtue of 'natural selection', not to confused with Darwinism, even if it takes multiple generations (we see this even today with Downs syndrome, dwarfism, etc_2 seemingly normal parents can have a dwarf, and then the dwarf can have normal children, its complicated, i know).

Ok, with this in mind...could someone explain to me how you create something from nothing, by this i mean random unexplained x-factors that remain post-generation (different than the parent) and then continue into further generations to become a constant? This is only true if ALL of the species is within the same controlled experiment.....otherwise you would have offshoots and variations within our own species of homo sapiens sapiens..i see none..we can all mate and share blood. So, if that alone can be explained to me, then perhaps ill lend creedance to the theory of evolution.

It is true, however, that species for the sake of survival will 'adapt' to their given environ (natural selection), this is different than the process of evolution as we all are familiar with it.

posted on Jul, 16 2007 @ 04:10 PM
Blue, we had an Ice age that virtually stalled all development of human activity. We were more focused on surviving the cold then building tools and nails. After the Ice age ended, it took 8000 years fro the first city to form (maybe 5000 years for the first villages and farming communities. After the Ice Age, we focused on mind, not survival. And as to why we took so long to get here after that? WAR! Thats just obvious. War means all stops on technology and such, then religion stopped the rest of any development by calling them heretics. Of course, being a Christian, I thank you for standing up for God.

posted on Jul, 16 2007 @ 04:17 PM
Also blue, please explain what is growing in my front yard. Its a mutant plant that has the same adaptation for the environment as other trees, it just simply is different, but still mates. Not abandoned by nature, thats for sure. Here is a thread about my little mutant (LOL, google "mutant tree "above top secret"" and its the first one down.)

... And no, it's not graphed on if thats what you're thinking.

posted on Jul, 16 2007 @ 04:34 PM
You see blue, I think you see evolution as a gradual change over time (one generation has a bump, then the next has it longer, then it turns into a finger ages later) But in fact this is false, evolution is a simple change that happens in one generation that makes it different, but still accepted. For example, if a cat is born it 5 fingers, its different, but not abandoned (mainly because mother doesn't see how it will cripple the kitten in the future) SO this 5 finger cat mates, one happens to be born with 5 finger and the rest with a normal 4. Now you have a 5 fingered cat in the gene pool. If, by chance, it finds a mate that has 5 fingers also (very rare, but it happens) then it will have more kids born with 5 fingers. If, by chance, the 5 fingered cats inbreed, then the gene becomes dominate. Over time, the gene become a major one, perhaps this gene allows it to climb faster, so it is more of a good mutation then bad, and because it is seen to be better, mates will be attracted to it rather then a slower 4 fingered cat. Eventually over time, all cats in the local group have 5 fingers. Now, if that local group remains isolated from 4 fingered cats, and its gene pool remains pure, it will slowly become a dominate gene, and replace the 4 fingered gene. Now, one more thing must happen. Tiny mutations happen in everyone, one of which is the inability, or difficulty, to mate with isolated gene pools. Like the liger. It shows that tigers and lions are still close enough genetically to mate, but so far away genetically, that the different chromosomes make the product sterile. So, after the 5 fingered cats become isolated for enough generations, it become impossible, or extremely difficult, to mate with 4 fingered cats. It may not even work, and the product would be sterile. Once the product become sterile, that means a new species is born, because now it no longer can mate with the original species.

Does that clear it up a bit? This has no conflict for me with the bible, as the bible talks about how everything changes, and how God made it so things could change.

posted on Jul, 16 2007 @ 06:23 PM
Or maybe the cat has transmegafigated (Something like that were your words
) with something else causing the offspring to turn into 5 fingered cats :O.

ON topic:
We have.:
1.: Humans (this is how it was written): CAME FROM Adam & Eve
2.: Rock (wtf?)

In any case. If the case were Adam & Eve.
Then please tell me how we managed to get such a big population, because I'd imagine something would happen that happens to couples that only do incest and keep their children. And have their children do incest as well, etc. etc.

[edit on 16/7/07 by -0mega-]

posted on Jul, 16 2007 @ 07:11 PM

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
the earth is only 6000 years old. It's preposterous!!

I suppose you think that all of the dinosaur bones were placed there by Satan or God to deceive man,

Remember the video of the tsunami in Indonesia. Very devastating. Remember the devastation of New Orleans. Water is a tremendous force and is very destructive and you cannot stop it.

From these 2 incidents, especially the video of the tsunami, there shouldn't be a doubt in anyone's mind what water can do if it is out of control.

I say all that to remind people of the worldwide flood that occurred about 4000 years ago. The intensity of it would have drastically altered the earth.

posted on Jul, 16 2007 @ 07:19 PM
There was no worldwide flood 4000 years ago. There is absolutely no evidence of it in the fossil record. There were localized floods of places in the Middle East however, such as an event that they believe is the basis of the Noah story -- when the Mediterranean flooded to the Black Sea.

I suppose god took the fossil evidence of the great flood out when he was putting fossils of the dinosaurs in?

Seems a whole lot of work to do just to mess with people's heads and make them have faith without any empiric evidence whatsoever.

That Yahweh guy must be some tired by now.

new topics

top topics

<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in