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.

 

Fossils challenge old evoluton theory

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
Don't be silly. Like any good science, new findings will be taken in to current knowledge. Don't see any evidence for ID here.

You're not a good advertisment for ID, remember, it's not meant to be about religion...

HA


I'm not "advertising" anything. What's not meant to be about religion? Who mentioned religion?

It's funny how consistently "ancestral human" fossils are found in layers of strata that contradict evolution merely via their position in "time".




posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by jbondo
Why is it that when we're talking about creation (yea, I said it! I'm not ashamed of that nor trying to hide behind anything) it's "magic" even though evolution of man has never been proven? Where is your "magic" missing link?


The fundamental problem in proving the existence of God lies in the fact that belief in God relies on faith WITHOUT proof. This makes it very difficult for a christian, for example, to argue the legitimacy of God to someone who is basing their facts off of evidence thus far collected by science. I don't have the missing link for you, because it hasn't been found. I will say the evidence definitely suggests there is a missing link, and I expect that to be the case.


Originally posted by jbondo
Of course my hope is that some day Intelligent Design will be proven and whether you accept it or not this is an example and step toward that end.


Believe me, if Intelligent Design is legitimately proven, i'll believe it. But I think due to the very nature of God and religion, to prove Intelligent Design would be to defeat the entire purpose of faith. So, because of that, i don't think it will ever be proven.


Originally posted by jbondo
"Vilified"?!? So, in other words you are hoping that there is no God? Because that is ultimately what you are saying with that statement.


When I say followers of science will be vilified by the end of this thread, I mean they will be made into villains. Godless atheists who will stop at nothing to discount the ideals of good, god-fearing folk. It seems to happen in virtually every discussion, be it here, on television, in a documentary, at church, etc.


Originally posted by jbondo
You know, we Christians get tired of being attacked at every turn and insulted to the point of either leaving a thread or fighting back with the same ammo. Sometimes even the nicest people get fed up to the point of shooting back a little of what they've had to swallow for so long.


I think that is a perfect statement to encompass the GOOD people on both sides of this argument. I don't think i could have said it better. Every day my sister (born again christian) emails or calls me asking me to go to church with her, just once. It breaks my heart to know that i can't have the relationship i used to have with her, simply because I am not a christian. She doesn't talk to my father anymore, because he told her flat out that he doesn't believe in God, that this is all there is to life. I think that's sad.


Originally posted by jbondo
Yea, maybe I was a bit over the top yesterday but there are times when I feel I have little choice. If you took it personally and I offended you I apologize. Most of the time I disclaim my posts like that with "JMO" at the bottom. Every time I forget I get jumped. I can take quite allot of abuse but I will not deny my beliefs.


In reading through my post, I agree that I was probably too abrasive myself. You didn't offend me, and i'm guessing I didn't offend you. To be honest, we're not on opposite sides of this argument. While I may not believe in God in the traditional sense, I do believe that this existence is a result of a singular mind to which we all will ultimately return.

I believe science and "God" should co-exist. Honestly, I believe science is capable of answering the questions that can be answered here in this physical reality. "God" or whatever presence exists in the afterlife as our point of origin is the only thing that can offer any kind of answers to the things that could never be addressed by science. Like faith, for example.

I'm looking forward to seeing what you have to say. You give me some good arguments and at the end of the day, all i'm here to do is learn from the rest of you.



posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by jbondo
I'm not "advertising" anything. What's not meant to be about religion? Who mentioned religion?

It's funny how consistently "ancestral human" fossils are found in layers of strata that contradict evolution merely via their position in "time".



When are people going to realize and accept intelligent design?

All I can say is HA!

Science lays another egg!

Hey liberal God haters? Where are you?


So, we have

1. We should accept intelligent design

2. Science has apparently made a boo-boo

3. People who thought otherwise were liberal god-haters.


So, you are linking ID and god. Maybe you didn't get the creationist memo...

Some people provide the perfect ammunition to keep religiously motivated ideas out of school science. So, thanks, keep it up


But, you are well-off track, this does nothing to contradict evolution. I suppose it does to those who don't understand it. Not surprising in your case, as you fail to even understand that ID and god are not meant to be related, as ID apparently says nothing about the nature of the designer.

*giggle*

Maybe you can explain why these fossils contradict ToE...

[edit on 10-8-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Aug, 13 2007 @ 08:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatoninSo, you are linking ID and god. Maybe you didn't get the creationist memo...

ID and god are not meant to be related, as ID apparently says nothing about the nature of the designer.


Well I do think that ID will certainly lead to God for most once they understand it.

Those that worship nature as in evolutionists there can be no god, so they can not even accept the possibility of a Intelligent design. One thing to keep in mind here, evolution does not have room for a creator, period. It states in the grand scheme of things that if given enough time, life could develop by random chance, no need for God.

If this were not the case, why do creationists, ID'ers, and evolutionists argue so much. It inherent in the 'theory'.



posted on Aug, 13 2007 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
One thing to keep in mind here, evolution does not have room for a creator, period. It states in the grand scheme of things that if given enough time, life could develop by random chance, no need for God.


Yes, and germ theory, climate theories, atomic theory, psychological theories, and all scientific theories have no 'room' for god either.

No science has room for god. It is agnostic on such matters, it just can't speak to that sort of stuff.

Also, I'll repeat this again very slowly....the. theory. of. evolution. is. not. a. random. process. Natural. selection. is. NOT. random.


If this were not the case, why do creationists, ID'ers, and evolutionists argue so much. It inherent in the 'theory'.


Probably because creationists and IDers like to create a strawman view of areas of science, and also subvert the scientific process in an attempt to plant religion within a science classroom.



posted on Aug, 13 2007 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatoninAlso, I'll repeat this again very slowly....the. theory. of. evolution. is. not. a. random. process. Natural. selection. is. NOT. random.


Repeat as slowly as you like, it does imply random change or mutation. Considering most mutations are for the worse then sooner or later it adds up. Micro evolution/adaptation is not in question.

Again, evolution claims that life could if given enough time, could begin on a chance. There is not enough time, the odds to great.

Natural selection claims that we all came from one celled organisms that began by chance.

Survival of the fittest can not explain the starting point.



posted on Aug, 13 2007 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
Repeat as slowly as you like, it does imply random change or mutation. Considering most mutations are for the worse then sooner or later it adds up. Micro evolution/adaptation is not in question.


Mutations are essentially non-directed/random. However, ToE is not just about mutations. Most mutations actually seem to be fairly neutral. You probably have a hundred or so.

It is non-random selection of random variation.


Again, evolution claims that life could if given enough time, could begin on a chance. There is not enough time, the odds to great.

Natural selection claims that we all came from one celled organisms that began by chance.


The theory of evolution claims no such thing. It claims common descent, but says nothing about how the first organism arose. You're mixing abiogenesis and ToE again.

What are the odds? We don't even know what the first organism was, how can we calculate the odds of it forming?

I'd like to see some working out on that. I assume it is the usual '747 in a junkyard' type argument which ends with some really small number by some really poor maths.

Further, neither chemistry or biochemistry are chance. When I place sodium in water, the formation of sodium hydroxide is not random.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join