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.

 

Creation vs Evolution Debate

page: 4
3
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 11:29 AM
link   
jbondo , you realise theat homo-erectus is nothing like the modern humans?

this discovery doesnt undermine evolution at all. If true it just means habilus & erestus shared a common ancestor. Even in that article it points out scientists used to think humans evolved from neanderthals which is not the case as they lived side by side for thousands of years. Same thing in this case.

to the creationists- do you think god is honest or dishonest? becuase we can see humans have 46 chromosomes and apes have 48- now if we shared a common ancestor we must be able to see a "fused" chromosome in human DNA which is EXACTLY what we find. So either humans evolved from ape like creatures or God made humans LOOK like we evolved from ape like creatures.

[edit on 9-8-2007 by yeti101]




posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by jbondo
Maybe you guys missed the news today or are just avoiding it but there is another thread on it here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The point is that the "theory" that you all accept as fact has been blown wide open!

Welcome back "intelligent design", but then you never left, you were just buried under liberal rhetoric.

news.yahoo.com...

Explain this one away Mr. Science!


all this shows is that two species lived in the same time period, it doesn't disprove that one may have evolved from an isolated group of the other.



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

Originally posted by otester
Yes there are ways to prove it but they are not physically possible at the moment.


no, it has been proven. look at all the evidence available and it proves evolution. look at species becoming new species, we've seen it happen (don't ask me for examples, melatonin's the expert on this one)


Yes, MICRO-evolution, but not MACRO-evolution. I have yet to find someone who can find me a species that was split into 2 (variants) that could not be inseminated to produce offspring (hybrid). Fossils will not help you here.



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by otester
Yes, MICRO-evolution, but not MACRO-evolution. I have yet to find someone who can find me a species that was split into 2 (variants) that could not be inseminated to produce offspring (hybrid). Fossils will not help you here.


i'd suggest asking mel, he knows a lot about these things and will type them out in a manner that is most delightful when read with a british accent (something we assume he has because he's british)



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 04:55 PM
link   
jbondo wrote,


Maybe you guys missed the news today or are just avoiding it but there is another thread on it here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The point is that the "theory" that you all accept as fact has been blown wide open!


Well maybe you should finish reading the article before declaring victory. Here is another snippet from the same YAHOO article:


Susan Anton, a New York University anthropologist and co-author of the Leakey work, said she expects anti-evolution proponents to seize on the new research, but said it would be a mistake to try to use the new work to show flaws in evolution theory.

"This is not questioning the idea at all of evolution; it is refining some of the specific points," Anton said. "This is a great example of what science does and religion doesn't do. It's a continous self-testing process."

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.




Welcome back "intelligent design", but then you never left, you were just buried under liberal rhetoric.

Obviously you only read the parts that you thought you could use.
Welcome back to evolution !!
Oh, by the way, even if the article disproved evolution, it does not automatically mean ID is correct.



Explain this one away Mr. Science!

I jut did, thanks for asking


Also, a few people really don't understand what a theory is so let me give you the definition.

Scientific Theory: It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations.2 It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be.

So I really don't want to hear, "well it's just a theory", again.



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 04:59 PM
link   
yeti101,
Nice observation !!!



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 05:58 PM
link   
Look into Falcarius utahensis its a missing link between when I meat eating type Raptor turned into a Herbivore.

The bottom line for me is:

Creationism is very flawed, and denying thing that are correct isn't getting your cause any more good light.

You may find flaws in the Theory of evolution, but there are certain things that you need to come to terms with.

1) Big Bang Happened 9 billion years ago.
2) It did not come from nothing, leading theories , suggest a multi-verse.
Now this doesn't rule out God though, still do not know where that come from, but it DOES NOT suggest that Genesis is true. In fact I think creationist give God no credit at all and are very vain. No God only created us and instead of some master universal plan of how thing act and react to each other, he waved his magic wand and poof and only on earth. Seems like that would be the easy way.

3) Earth IS 4.5 billion years old

4) Dinosaurs and People did not live together

5) There are 289 different species of pigeons alone, did GOD really need to make such small differences in these animals and every other animal?

The problem, is general principles are wrong. See you have to embrace the truth, then you can add god to the parts. You would have a much better argument. You can still have god, he could be in charge of it all? The mathematics that work out and drive the universe, the laws of physics etc. The man/woman/thing behind the multi-verse but stop with the 5000 yr old earth and the rest of the nonsensical arguments. Look into your heart what really makes sense? Honestly, what makes sense all this science which you can still have God with or a book that was written by man and used to control people for 1000s of years. A book that was made at a time they though dinosaur bones where old giants and gods. Are you stuck that far back in time? Next time you use a car, instead use an oxen, and cart and live in a mud house, and be afraid of fire. Because you are living in the same time.

I do believe in a afterlife, I see scientific evidence of it, things that make sense, is it god?, its is part of another dimension? I don't know, but I do not allow myself to believe in make believe things when overwhelming evidence proves other wise.

You can believe in GOD and in evolution , you can believe in GOD and the big bang. But believe in GOD not some book that was written by people trying to make sense of things.


My 10 cents lol



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 06:56 PM
link   


5) There are 289 different species of pigeons alone, did GOD really need to make such small differences in these animals and every other animal?


Not species, variants, through micro-evolution.

Assuming I'm right about macro-evolution theory being wrong, why would the earth need to be 4.5 bn years old?

[edit on 9-8-2007 by otester]



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 07:02 PM
link   
The earth doesn't NEED tobe 4.5 billion years old but it IS 4.5 billion years old.

I'm so tired of creationists using pseudo-science to try and combat the FACT OF EVOLUTION.



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by otester


5) There are 289 different species of pigeons alone, did GOD really need to make such small differences in these animals and every other animal?


Not species, variants, through micro-evolution.

Assuming I'm right about macro-evolution theory being wrong, why would the earth need to be 4.5 bn years old?

[edit on 9-8-2007 by otester]


So that being said, you believe in Micro evolution? You believe things in the same species at can change on there own with out GODs help? It's a start I guess , I bet some creationists do not even believe in that, since it doesn't say that in the bible either. God created ALL creature didn't he? even the variants, isn't that part of the creationist argument?

[edit on 9-8-2007 by ShiftTrio]



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 07:28 PM
link   
darkside wrote,

"Evolutionist scientists tell us that it all came from nothing. Yes, nothing."

and this:

"The Big Bang theory has been accepted by a majority of scientists today. It theorizes that a large quantity of nothing decided to pack tightly together,—and then explode outward into hydrogen and helium. This gas is said to have flowed outward through frictionless space ("frictionless," so the outflowing gas cannot stop or slow down) to eventually form stars, galaxies, planets, and moons. It all sounds so simple, just as you would find in a science fiction novel. And that is all it is."


Here is an ACTUAL big bang definition

The theory that the universe began in a state of extremely high density and has been expanding since some particular instant that marked the origin of the universe. The big bang is the generally accepted cosmological theory; the incorporation of developments in elementary particle theory has led to the inflationary universe version. The predictions of the inflationary universe and older big bang theories are the same after the first 10−35 s. See also Inflationary universe cosmology.

Two observations are at the base of observational big bang cosmology. First, the universe is expanding uniformly, with objects at greater distances receding at a greater velocity. Second, the Earth is bathed in the cosmic background radiation, an isotropic glow of radiation that has the characteristics expected from the remnant of a hot primeval fireball.

Tracing the expansion of the universe back in time shows that the universe would have been compressed to infinite density approximately 8–16 × 109 years ago. In the big bang theory, the universe began at that time as a so-called big bang began the expansion. The big bang was the origin of space and time.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


As you can see, the definition does not include the word "NOTHING" anywhere.



posted on Aug, 13 2007 @ 05:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShiftTrio

Originally posted by otester


5) There are 289 different species of pigeons alone, did GOD really need to make such small differences in these animals and every other animal?


Not species, variants, through micro-evolution.

Assuming I'm right about macro-evolution theory being wrong, why would the earth need to be 4.5 bn years old?

[edit on 9-8-2007 by otester]


So that being said, you believe in Micro evolution? You believe things in the same species at can change on there own with out GODs help? It's a start I guess , I bet some creationists do not even believe in that, since it doesn't say that in the bible either. God created ALL creature didn't he? even the variants, isn't that part of the creationist argument?

[edit on 9-8-2007 by ShiftTrio]


Yes I do believe in mciro-evolution.

Well why should God make all the variants to suite each part of the earth/weather when it can be done over time through micro-evolution. Maybe God did influence it some how or knew it would happen in accordance to his plans.

I think under creationism it is known as Adaption.

[edit on 13-8-2007 by otester]



posted on Aug, 13 2007 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by otester
Yes I do believe in mciro-evolution.

Well why should God make all the variants to suite each part of the earth/weather when it can be done over time through micro-evolution. Maybe God did influence it some how or knew it would happen in accordance to his plans.


maybe zeus, odin, or amon-ra influneced them... maybe it was the invisible pink unicorn or the flying spaghetti monster. you just can't say these things, it's unscientific.



I think under creationism it is known as Adaption.


i think under evolution it's called speciation.



posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 05:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

Originally posted by otester
Yes I do believe in mciro-evolution.

Well why should God make all the variants to suite each part of the earth/weather when it can be done over time through micro-evolution. Maybe God did influence it some how or knew it would happen in accordance to his plans.


maybe zeus, odin, or amon-ra influneced them... maybe it was the invisible pink unicorn or the flying spaghetti monster. you just can't say these things, it's unscientific.



I think under creationism it is known as Adaption.


i think under evolution it's called speciation.


I dojn't give those pagan gods the time of day, same for Egyptian ones.



posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by otester
I dojn't give those pagan gods the time of day, same for Egyptian ones.


why? they're just as likely to be real as the god you worship. all gods have an equal probability to existence, not giving those gods the time of day is simply hypocricy.



posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

Originally posted by otester
I dojn't give those pagan gods the time of day, same for Egyptian ones.


why? they're just as likely to be real as the god you worship. all gods have an equal probability to existence, not giving those gods the time of day is simply hypocricy.


Same for Satan?



posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by otester

Same for Satan?


God gave life. God gave truth. And we his people are not allowed to question the Big Bang. We are not allowed to question his ability to create other Universes, or the joys of genetic research. To us its all random, we can never know God's mind, and will he let us in on the secret? Selfish wanker.

[edit on 14-8-2007 by redled]



posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by otester

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

Originally posted by otester
I dojn't give those pagan gods the time of day, same for Egyptian ones.


why? they're just as likely to be real as the god you worship. all gods have an equal probability to existence, not giving those gods the time of day is simply hypocricy.


Same for Satan?


well, satan has the same chance as your god existing clearly because his existence would be directly linked to the existence of your god...
but i doubt that something like the buddhist concept of god would be equatable to satan. honestly, what in buddhism is wrong?

i mean, equating the whole of all other religions to satan is just blatant idiocy.

it's quite clear that you have no understanding of any other mythology except your own from your reply.



posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 05:25 PM
link   


I personally believe in Creation and I'm constantly see people making false assuming about it.
Like what ebe?



Creation is NOT all faith based there is science behind it, and evidence to support it. Many people aren't aware of this however because it's not taught in school and doesn't come up much in church. Never the less there is a science to support it.
Please give scientific evidence




And an awesome plus is the debate is with that jerk Michael Shermer from Skeptic magazine, he lost. I like seeing Mickey lose.
Dr Dino did a lot of bald faces lies like saying that Lucy was found spread over an area the size of a football field, and that humans came from rocks.



Anyway before debating the fact take some time look at them. Let the video run in the background for two hours while at work or where ever.
You want facts you got them my friend.
infidelguy.libsyn.com... Please check out that debate

Evolution 101

Fossils or organisms that show the intermediate states between an ancestral form and that of its descendants are referred to as transitional forms. There are numerous examples of transitional forms in the fossil record, providing an abundance of evidence for change over time.

Pakicetus (below left), is described as an early ancestor to modern whales. Although pakicetids were land mammals, it is clear that they are related to whales and dolphins based on a number of specializations of the ear, relating to hearing. The skull shown here displays nostrils at the front of the skull.
A skull of the beluga whale that roams the seas today (below right) has its nostrils placed at the top of its skull. It would appear from these two specimens that the position of the nostril has changed over time and thus we would





Note that the nostril placement in Aetiocetus is intermediate between the ancestral form Pakicetus and the modern beluga — an excellent example of a transitional form in the fossil record!

Note that the nostril placement in Aetiocetus is intermediate between the ancestral form Pakicetus and the modern beluga — an excellent example of a transitional form in the fossil record!

Our understanding of the evolution of horse feet, so often depicted in textbooks, is derived from a scattered sampling of horse fossils within the multi-branched horse evolutionary tree. These fossil organisms represent branches on the tree and not a direct line of descent leading to modern horses.

But, the standard diagram does clearly show transitional stages whereby the four-toed foot of Hyracotherium, otherwise known as Eohippus, became the single-toed foot of Equus. Fossils show that the transitional forms predicted by evolution did indeed exist.
As you can see to the left, each branch tip on the tree of horse evolution indicates a different genus, though the feet of only a few genera are illustrated to show the reduction of toes through time.



evolution.berkeley.edu...



posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 03:13 PM
link   
Here's some more proof of evolution

a Cambridge professor has repeated the key predation experiments with the peppered moth, only this time he has taken into account the criticisms and apparent flaws in the original research conducted 50 years ago. Michael Majerus, a professor of genetics at Cambridge University, has spent the past seven years collecting data from a series of experiments he has carried out in his own rambling back garden. It has involved him getting up each day before dawn and then spending several hours looking out of his study window armed with a telescope and notepad.
He wanted a definitive test of the idea that selective predation by birds really was responsible for the differences in the chances of survival among black and peppered varieties of B. betularia. His garden outside Cambridge is in an unpolluted area so in this setting it should be the typical or peppered variety of the moth that has a better chance of survival than that of the black or carbonaria form; it is unlikely to be seen by birds against the mottled background of the lichen-covered trees.
In a seminal description of his results to a scientific conference this week in Sweden, Professor Majerus gave a resounding vote of confidence in the peppered month story. He found unequivocal evidence that birds were indeed responsible for the lower numbers of the black carbonaria forms of the moth. It was a complete vindication of the peppered month story, he told the meeting.
"I conclude that differential bird predation here is a major factor responsible for the decline of carbonaria frequency in Cambridge between 2001 and 2007," Professor Majerus said.
"If the rise and fall of the peppered moth is one of the most visually impacting and easily understood examples of Darwinian evolution in action, it should be taught. It provides after all the proof of evolution," he said.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


The entire article can be found here
news.independent.co.uk...

I noticed the name of the thread title that says
Creation vs Evolution debate. I find it interesting in that there can be no debate because Creation vs Evolution are not competing theories. For creation to compete, it must provide evidence that creationism is correct. The best creationists can do is to show pseudo scientific reasons why evolution may not be correct which in no way proves creationism.




top topics



 
3
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join