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.

 

DNA further disproves ID

page: 2
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 07:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Heronumber0
Can you please explain why the Creator should make all memebers of a species homogeneous - I am not judging you but need to see where your argument stems from.


OK this wont be the best example but here goes please bear with with me.

Say an higher power creating the earth is like baking an cake .
You bake the cake and to start with all of the cake is the same to begin with.
Now you add the toppings or the life forms on earth. Say you add crushed chocolate biscuits (all from the same packet as there coming from same higher power ) all the biscuits are the same even if put them on an differnt part of the cake.

Now if you added African and Indian Elephants you would have make subtle changes to the biscuits before adding them.
Why would you make such changes to the biscuits ?
The biscuits or elephants are fundamentally still the same so it would seem pointless to make such changes .


So logically the differences between African and Indian elephants could have only occurred if the two species had evolved over time.

11Bravo general Mules cant general breed but there have been rare cases of them doing so . Check this out .
You may also find the wolphin to be of interest see this article.




posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 09:20 PM
link   
Whether two animals are put together intentionally, or come together on their own to create offspring....The process of reproduction is a step in evolution. It is by way of small (or large) traits that offspring have either inherantly or by way of random mutation that the act of evolution occurs...This can either be random or aided by stimuli in the environment


.......It isn't that I don't believe in God, it is more that I believe God is more removed from the situation than what is preached out there. Like radio wave, there but not there.....

God is like the seconds only dream that seems to last forever...The dream of you standing there face to face with your grandfather you loved and admired so much, and still miss deeply 20 years after his passing.....No sound, no actual talking, you remember questions of him, which you had thought.....which he still seemed to answer.....and the rest of the time, the moments in life you shared with im dance around the two of you like a whirlwind.

I looked upon the face of God, and there was nothing.....the universe it all its glory stared back at me, stars twinkling like neurons firing far off in the distance.....and it was there that I realized that I was not alone for the star stuff from which I came was around me, and the spirits of generations past and present, from this star and the next, who gave their lives so others may live on stood with me shoulder to shoulder.



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Well then why wouldn't god create the environments to NOT change.


An environment that does not change could not support life.
YOu think that God would make a world where the wind doesnt blow and water doesnt flow?
Who would want to live in that kind of place?
Not even the animals.



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 11:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by 11Bravo
An environment that does not change could not support life.


That makes no sense in the context of your argument. If an higher power had put life on Mars then the life forms would have survived there because that's how things were laid out.



Who would want to live in that kind of place?

That is question is subjective and the answer can only be purely speculation.


Not even the animals.


Not unless they evolved to live in differnt environments elsewhere in the universe.



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 11:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11
Surely if an higher power (which doesn't and has never existed BTW)


Oh, and I'd like you to prove that please.
Yes, logic surely tells us that there is nothing more to life than what we see with our eyes.



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 12:12 AM
link   
Pjslug logic would suggest that the notion that an higher power is bogus because no one can explain where an higher power came fro and there is no evidence to suggest that an higher power exists.


Anyway if you want to continue with your line off thinking which is slightly off topic I suggest this thread .



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 12:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by MajorMalfunction
Add to that, if god was perfect, why did he create superfluous body parts on animals and on us?


In what way does ID explicitly imply this?

It is wrong of you to assume religious creationism has a monopoly on ID.


Originally posted by MajorMalfunction
If we were created we would not have these anomalous body parts.


See here.



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 01:20 AM
link   
how would a creationalist explain the the aboriginies in australia or the ice age ?



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 04:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11


The two elephant species diverged from a common ancestor some 7.6 million years ago, experts working in the US, Germany and Switzerland say.

They came to their conclusion after comparing a genetic analysis of the two species with material derived from the extinct woolly mammoth and mastodon.

The African elephant is much bigger than its Asian counterpart.

It is known for its large, floppy ears, and both sexes have great ivory tusks - unlike the Asian species, in which typically only the males have large external tusks.


source

Now this is where logic once again works against the bogus concept of creation . Surely if an higher power (which doesn't and has never existed BTW) created life Elephants everywhere would be exactly the same and all creatures extinct and living that share the same common traits would have the same DNA.

Of course people will argue against this logic and the weight of logic in general using ideas that have no supporting evidence and of course go against the weight of logic.


So why then don't all humans look the same?



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 04:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by 11Bravo

YOu people that dont believe in God amaze me.
I can fully understand why people dont believe in religion, or religious books, but to deny there is a God?

Good luck in your godless world.




I dont think we need your two cents worth on us people who dont believe in god. Who are you to question my beliefs? And the argument that this disproves creation is not an educated statement. Evolution is a fact. god creating man and all things is not fact. We can map these changes and pin point where most creatures evolved from using scientific methods. we cant go back and say for sure that all life started from god creating it. You can argue all you want about what you think the bible says, The fact is that there isnt a person alive that can read ancient hebrew writing. people seem to think that if where created than evolution is bogus. But they only say that about people evolving from apes. Now back to the question are these mammoths and mastodons related to the elephant. I would have to say yes . I tend to believe that dna does not lie. And speaking of dna, Look what scientist have discovered about coral.
findarticles.com...

So the argument that people came from the ocean may hold some water.
So the bible is reported to be around 3,313 years old.
www.hanefesh.com...

Now we talk about dinosaurs and there age. Most people believe that they lived millions of years ago.But others say its not so, Take a look.
www.answersingenesis.org...

If this is true what they are saying, then dinosaurs roamed the earth with man. Now do people who believe in god and the bible agree that cavemen also existed. If you do then the fact is that they roamed the earth at the same time. But how can that be. The bible does not mention any of these things. Or maybe it does and we just cant understand what it says because we cant read old hebrew. Just my thoughts. Oh yea, we share close to the same dna as a cow. Are we related to the cow somehow. It just goes to show that us humans are still in the dark when it comes to knowing the truth. Do you see all the contradictions in what i have posted. There are to many people saying different things. And if you believe or dont believe in god, Well thats your buisness. But dont put people down for there beliefs just because you dont believe in them. What if where all wrong. then what? What if when we die thats it, lights out non existence. Most people would refuse to believe that because then they would have to realize we are insignificant and that would give us a reason to not try to find answers and the living structures built around our belief of an after life would crumble and there would be utter chaos.

Im just giving alternative thoughts here so dont think i believe any of it. because i dont. I didnt tell you my beliefs on life and how we got here. Ill save that for another time.
There is only two facts in life that cant be argued and that is death and taxes. the rest is always up for debate. And by the way, I dont think it matters whether the elephant evolved or not. What the op is really saying is that since it did evolve than that proves creation to be wrong. And in my opinion that is the most ignorant statement ive heard in a long time.

Just as ignorant as people who believe in creation denying evolution. Cant both exist? There needs to be a new approach to debating this topic. We need to set aside the creation vs. evolution debate and look for something better. Thank you.



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 04:22 AM
link   
Chriswok who is your question aimed at ?
Anyway here is my answer.
Humans don't look all the same because we all don't come from the same parents or place and we have evolved over time rather then being planted here on earth by an higher power. Someone has already mentioned aborigines of Australia the same question applies to the differnt races of Asia and Europe.



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 04:51 AM
link   
(The 2nd quote i'm answering to in my post, brought a question in my mind, which I will put here for anyone to answer, just read the rest of the post as normal, this question is merely an addition)

So here's a question for you, or anyone else that believes that God would have made species x or y *perfect* in the sense of ''the supreme survivalist" or w/e.

Why would he HAVE to or WANT to create the "perfect" species?
===================
Actual post
|
V


Originally posted by 11Bravo
You got me on that one man.

Correct me if Im wrong, but mules cant breed can they?
They cant have any of their 'own kind'.


Well, I'm not sure if it goes for ALL mules.
But Certain (not all) crossbreedings have a high chance of producing infertile offspring.

It had something to do with the difference in the amount of chromosomes between (in this example) a horse and a donkey.


Originally posted by jfj123
Well then why wouldn't god create the environments to NOT change.


An environment that doesn't change would be frozen in time, *everything* would have to be ''frozen'' and remain immobile, even the molecules and atoms, to prevent an environment from changing.

I know I sure as hell wouldn't like to live in a 3d painting that remains unaffected by anything.

Though from your response to 11Bravo I take it you are probably referring to an epic change, like a desert turning into some kind of swamp.

So let's take your MARS example.
God creates something that can live on Mars.
What does it eat? Rocks? The surface of Mars?
If the environment doesn't change, it cannot support life because it will be eaten away by these ''rockeaters''.

But of course since It's god he'll find a way to make them immortal or have special 0 effort food materializing powers, or something random like that.
Or he'll create "Rockplants" that regenerate when they get eaten. (hey look at that, regeneration, changing environment)

The question remains, why would god HAVE to or WANT to create the perfect species?

Here's a simple question, if man is made to the image of god (including emotions, and all the stuff that comes with it), then who are you to say that god doesn't want to see a ''challenge''? Rather than a supreme race that conquers all with ease.

Though of course this is just as much speculation as your arguments are.

As much as you can claim that god would do this or that to make species survive anywhere, I could claim that this is to him like a game of Settlers is to us, and he simply wants to crank up the ''difficulty'' for survival.

[edit on 27/7/07 by -0mega-]



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 06:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by -0mega-
So here's a question for you, or anyone else that believes that God would have made species x or y *perfect* in the sense of ''the supreme survivalist" or w/e.


Although you do raise a valid question at hand that I would like to see answered the question does divert from the core of the topic. Anyway to answer your question I cant think of any reason why an higher power if one existed would create species that aren't going to survive that would be like planting an tree and knowingly let it die.

As for Mars IF an higher power had put life on that plant then surely you would also have to assume that the same higher power created the food chain on that plant. But of course that idea relies on the existence of an higher power. Life on Mars (assuming there isnt any) doesn't exit because the environment may not be right or it hasn't evolved yet or it died out at some point.

There is the possibility that life on other plants has evolved very differently to life on earth but that is another topic.




[edit on 27-7-2007 by xpert11]

[edit on 27-7-2007 by xpert11]



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 06:14 AM
link   
man was made in the image of god , eve was made out of adams rib , its never mentioned that shes in any form made in gods image

then again bible never speaks about adams first wife , nor the fact that she tried to hump god ,


what i do find intriging is all the incest the bible is filled with , how do they explain that scientificly ? is it some metafor for one celled organisms splitting up ???

or the fact that they ripped most of the stories from somewhere else ,

was god acturly a pre age copyright pirate ??
and if so who made the material he then stole , ??


i mean i once head a theory that the first photo picture is the only real evidence of a past and everything beyond that picture never happend ,
everything else is here to test my faith in that everything that has happend before that picture never happend , and so on and so on and so on



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 06:23 AM
link   
Does it say anywhere that God is a logical being/entity/whatever?

We're projecting our own views/thoughts and trying to attribute same to God.

Hey, maybe the big fella's just having a giggle, and playing with our heads in the hope that after a few millenia of discussion, we might actually become rational beings.

It's like the argument about God in "Hitch hikers Guide to the Galaxy", concerning the babel fish - pointless and unwinnable.

What we are talking about here is belief - there can never be absolute proof that God exists, but there also can never be absolute proof that he doesn't.



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 06:34 AM
link   
I don't know why anyone wouldn't believe that a God exists. Sure, evolution is pretty much fact by now, ofcourse hardcore christians apparently threaten with death anyone saying such things....but why can't there be a God?
Maybe you look at God from the perspective of most religions...being that he created man, and all the animals...but maybe God is just a source of pure positive energy that our energy will one day link back up with upon our death. Maybe God had something to do with the creation of existence as a whole....I'm sure you are going to say that some strange gasses exploded and caused everything...but who created the gas?
I believe that there is a God, because there is always a positive, but there is also always a negetive, hence the creation of the devil. The words are right in front of everyone "God", "Good", "Devil", "Evil". Maybe upon death, whatever you were more leaning towards...good or evil....your essence will link with a collective or either positive or negative energies.
That all being said, creationism and evolutonism both exist, as life on this planet is like a box of animal crackers, some are cracked, some have extra heads(had one of those once), and some look nothing like an animal and are just thrown into the box because the factory worker wasn't paying attention.



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by saintnuke
I don't know why anyone wouldn't believe that a God exists. Sure, evolution is pretty much fact by now, ofcourse hardcore christians apparently threaten with death anyone saying such things....but why can't there be a God?


I'm not taking a shot at you here saintnuke but in nature and in the universe there is one thing that is always constant. That is Occam's Razor- the thought that the simplest explanation to a problem is almost always the right one. The entire universe and all of physics runs on 'effeciency' if you will.
So with this whole argument as to why would there be intelligent design, or a creator or what not look at it this way. We can have 2 scenarios for a problem

A) God created man and the animals etc. and then let evolution take over
or B) Evolution happened naturally

If we go back to the beginning of the universe we can look at it and say
A) There is a creator that is and always was there and the universe got created this way or
B) There was no creator and the universe got this way on its own.

A and B both lead us to the same conclusion except B cuts out the only difference, the creator. As Occam's Razor says, the simplest solution is most likely the right one. So why do we bumble around with god when we can come to the same conclusions without him?



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mantys
A and B both lead us to the same conclusion except B cuts out the only difference, the creator. As Occam's Razor says, the simplest solution is most likely the right one. So why do we bumble around with god when we can come to the same conclusions without him


You misunderstand your own logic. B does not cut out the creator, it includes him and all other factors in the universe regardless.



posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 03:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by SteveR
You misunderstand your own logic. B does not cut out the creator, it includes him and all other factors in the universe regardless.


Hmmmm how is that possible?
If we have 2 possibilities, A Universe with a creator and a Universe without a creator, then the simpler of the two would be the universe WITHOUT the creator.

Or to put it mathematically
Universe=1
Creator =1

A=Universe+Creator=2
B=Universe=1

B is simpler

The problem might be that you are assuming that the creator is a part of the universe, which would of course be illogical. Because if we assume the creator is outside the universe (since it created the universe) then it would be simpler to just cut the creator out of the picture all together.



posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 03:38 PM
link   
You should look up what universe means. It is all inclusive. Whenever you say the universe, you are including him. This is a broken logic based on semantics.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join