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.

 

creationism, where is the evidence???!!! i see none

page: 14
5
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by ppkjjkpp
So you are saying that the universe came into being for an unknown reason and therefore base the rest of evolution, at least up to biology, on that unknown.


No, we base biological evolution on evidence.

But as of yet, we don't really know the reason as to how this universe came to be. There are hypotheses, but not have been adequately tested. Thus, one hypothesis suggests that 'strings' collided, leading to this universe. This stuff will be tested eventually.


So the only thing you actually know is biologcal evolution, more specifically microevolution. Again no macroevolutionary changes have ever been observed.


What would you consider to be a macroevolutionary change? You need to define these things really.


The theory you mentioned, that the singularity has always existed is supernatural and pure belief. Everyone knows that there was a beginning.


Actually, there are still proponents of the steady-state universe. However, they are few and far between. It doesn't need to have been supernatural at all. But it isn't really supported by evidence.


Only the supernatural is not limited by time, ie God.


The supernatural is not limited by anything. As I said, you can make any old sh!t up.


Also if you say cosmic evolution and biological evolution are not related than where did the Earth come from, to form the first cell?


I've just tried to explain it once. It could have been the case that the universe had always existed, but that would not speak to biological evolution. They are really distinct scientific processes.

The mechanism of the formation of the earth is also seperate from abiogenesis and evolution. Your god could have poofed it out his ass, and the cell could have developed naturally through an abiogenetic process, then led to all the species we see today through biological evolution.

[edit on 6-1-2008 by melatonin]




posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by ppkjjkpp
So you are saying that the universe came into being for an unknown reason and therefore base the rest of evolution, at least up to biology, on that unknown.


No, we base biological evolution on evidence.

But as of yet, we don't really know the reason as to how this universe came to be. There are hypotheses, but not have been adequately tested. Thus, one hypothesis suggests that 'strings' collided, leading to this universe. This stuff will be tested eventually.


So the only thing you actually know is biologcal evolution, more specifically microevolution. Again no macroevolutionary changes have ever been observed.


What would you consider to be a macroevolutionary change? You need to define these things really.


The theory you mentioned, that the singularity has always existed is supernatural and pure belief. Everyone knows that there was a beginning.


Actually, there are still proponents of the steady-state universe. However, they are few and far between. It doesn't need to have been supernatural at all. But it isn't really supported by evidence.


Only the supernatural is not limited by time, ie God.


The supernatural is not limited by anything. As I said, you can make any old sh!t up.


Also if you say cosmic evolution and biological evolution are not related than where did the Earth come from, to form the first cell?


I've just tried to explain it once. It could have been the case that the universe had always existed, but that would not speak to biological evolution. They are really distinct scientific processes.

The mechanism of the formation of the earth is also seperate from abiogenesis and evolution. Your god could have poofed it out his ass, and the cell could have developed naturally through an abiogenetic process, then led to all the species we see today through biological evolution.

[edit on 6-1-2008 by melatonin]


So basically you say we don't know where the universe came from which means you believe in the unknown if you believe the big bang. You are only aniticipating evidence but yet believe it. The origin of the universe can never be tested or observed.
Even if I was fine with the Big Bang, something packed that dot with all space, time, matter, energy, natural laws or it packed itself.
As soon as you take 'time' out, to explain anything, you are out of the realm of science and out of the real observable world. You are into the supernatural.
All we have is evidence for microevolution in biology.
By macroevolution I mean, 'Large-scale evolution occurring over geologic time that results in the formation of new taxonomic groups.' We have never observed this.



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by ppkjjkpp
So basically you say we don't know where the universe came from which means you believe in the unknown if you believe the big bang. You are only aniticipating evidence but yet believe it. The origin of the universe can never be tested or observed.


I think this is all a bit too complicated for you.

The evidence of the big bang stands alone as much as does evolutionary biology.

Again, the big bang could have popped out the ass of your god. The evidence that points to comsological expansion would still apply.


As soon as you take 'time' out, to explain anything, you are out of the realm of science and out of the real observable world. You are into the supernatural.


Not really. Time is just an aspect of the universe.


All we have is evidence for microevolution in biology.
By macroevolution I mean, 'Large-scale evolution occurring over geologic time that results in the formation of new taxonomic groups.' We have never observed this.


Of course we haven't observed it the way you want it observed. We can't directly observe changes over periods of millions of years, yet we can observe the effects of this change.

There is lots of evidence of macroevolution and common descent.

Can we have the definition I asked for before for species and subspecies of 'dogs'? If microevolution is change from species to subspecies, then what is change from species to new species?

[edit on 6-1-2008 by melatonin]



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


It's not complicated, it's simple really. You admitted that you don't know how the universe started. But you believe in the Big Bang. Therefore you are basing what you believe on what you don't know. That's it.
Something still had to put space, matter, time and natural laws in this singularity.
I don’t think you believe that God caused the big bang so why mention it. It’s a worthless argument. You still believe the universe came from something unknown.
“Time is just an aspect of the universe.” I agree. Is there anything outside of the universe?
Which effects of macroevolution have we observed?
My point about microevolution is that dogs only produce dogs. The dog family only produces new species of dogs and these dogs produce dogs within their species (subspecies). They will never evolve into anything but dogs.



[edit on 6-1-2008 by ppkjjkpp]



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by ppkjjkpp
It's not complicated, it's simple really. You admitted that you don't know how the universe started. But you believe in the Big Bang. Therefore you are basing what you believe on what you don't know. That's it.


No, I base what I don't know on what I don't know.

Get it?

I accept big-bang cosmology as a valid explanation for what happened from after Planck time till here today. That's not something I don't know, but something I do know.

And by the way this discussion has turned in the last few pages, few would have thunk it was simple.


I don’t think you believe that God caused the big bang so why mention it. It’s a worthless argument. You still believe the universe came from something unknown.
“Time is just an aspect of the universe.” I agree. Is there anything outside of the universe?


I don't know.

The reason I keep throwing the god stuff in is to show how these theories stand alone. We can throw in a superfluous meaningless explanation like 'goddidit', and the science still stands.


Which effects of macroevolution have we observed?


Start here with 29+ evidences.

When you have read and understood, get back to me.


My point about microevolution is that dogs only produce dogs. The dog family only produces new species of dogs and these dogs produce dogs within their species (subspecies). They will never evolve into anything but dogs.


OK, so nice move there. I guess you have been reading stuff, you do need to understand what you are talking about. So now the dog 'family' can produce new species, as well as species creating new subspecies?

So microevolution applies from everything to dog 'family' to subspecies. What determines this 'family', is a coyote and wolf part of this family, how about a fox? If a species can't breed with another, is it part of the same family? How do we determine a member of this family?

Moreover, what stops microevolution applying to changes outside of 'family' level groups over large amounts of time? In other words, where is the barrier?

[edit on 6-1-2008 by melatonin]



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


You are still saying that the universe created itself for no apparent reason not that something did it. It’s straight forward really.
As for macroevolution, common DNA in living things is proof of a common designer, but you wouldn’t see it this way. The evidence you suggest is not at all shown in the fossil record. There has not been one transitional fossil found according to the museum with the largest collection of fossils in the world:


Author Luther Sunderland saw the problems with the fossil record, so he determined to get the definitive answer from the top museums themselves. Sunderland interviewed five respected museum officials, recognized authorities in their individual fields of study, including representatives from the American Museum, the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, and the British Museum of Natural History. None of the five officials were able to offer a single example of a transitional series of fossilized organisms that document the transformation of one Kind of plant or animal into another. 1

The British Museum of Natural History boasts the largest collection of fossils in the world. Among the five respected museum officials, Sunderland interviewed Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum and editor of a prestigious scientific journal. Patterson is a well known expert having an intimate knowledge of the fossil record. He was unable to give a single example of Macro-Evolutionary transition. In fact, Patterson wrote a book for the British Museum of Natural History entitled, "Evolution". When asked why he had not included a single photograph of a transitional fossil in his book, Patterson responded:

...I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualize such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader? I wrote the text of my book four years ago. If I were to write it now, I think the book would be rather different. Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin's authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a paleontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least "show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived." I will lay it on the line - there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. 2

OK, I just wanted to complete that loop. In my research, I haven't found even one transitional fossil. Therefore, based on Darwin's own words, his original theory of macro-evolutionary progression didn't happen. Paleontology was a brand new scientific discipline in the mid-1800's, and now, roughly 150 years later, we know that the fossil record doesn't provide the support Darwin himself required.


If the scientist could not make a 'watertight' argument how can you?

Creation evidence-video.google.com...



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by ppkjjkpp
You are still saying that the universe created itself for no apparent reason not that something did it. It’s straight forward really.


The universe developed for a reason that we don't know at the moment.


As for macroevolution, common DNA in living things is proof of a common designer, but you wouldn’t see it this way. The evidence you suggest is not at all shown in the fossil record. There has not been one transitional fossil found according to the museum with the largest collection of fossils in the world:


Yeah, the non-answer common design. In the same way that all your blood relatives have DNA that is more related than my family, it's just common design, heh.

That was a quote mine. A dishonest method used by many creationists where they present a person's words out of context, removing the original context so it shows a different thing than the writer suggested.

We can place that under 'bearing false witness'. Even if it was true, which it isn't, it would be the opinion of one scientist made in 1979.

What do you think is a transistional? Before I can show you one, I need to know what you expect its chracteristics to be...

[edit on 6-1-2008 by melatonin]



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 07:41 PM
link   
What do you make of this:
video.google.com...


[edit on 6-1-2008 by ppkjjkpp]

[edit on 6-1-2008 by ppkjjkpp]



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by ppkjjkpp
What do you make of this:
video.google.com...


I'll watch it when I get time, I'm just finishing my last couple of UG scripts, whahey!

I hope it's better than the other vids you presented, but be patient, I'll get there.

ABE: maybe you can outline what you find compelling about it, will ease my reply.

ABE2: And I need your definition of transitional. What does it mean to you? What would we expect of one?

[edit on 6-1-2008 by melatonin]



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by ppkjjkpp
What do you make of this:
video.google.com...


I'll watch it when I get time, I'm just finishing my last couple of UG scripts, whahey!

I hope it's better than the other vids you presented, but be patient, I'll get there.

ABE: maybe you can outline what you find compelling about it, will ease my reply.

ABE2: And I need your definition of transitional. What does it mean to you? What would we expect of one?

[edit on 6-1-2008 by melatonin]


1) It shows that the mussel had to be designed from the very beginning or else it would die.
2) Fossils that are an intermediate which have largely different traits than today's animals that aren't fully formed. ie an animal with a wings and legs. We should have thousands over the course of evolution.





[edit on 6-1-2008 by ppkjjkpp]

[edit on 6-1-2008 by ppkjjkpp]



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by ppkjjkpp
1) It shows that the muscle had to be designed from the very beginning or else it would die.


Doesn't really.

This is sort of like irreducible complexity methinks. A biological organism becomes dependent over time on a particular system. Remove the system, bad stuff happens. The human ear is the same, take out one bone, and you can't hear. But we have very good evidence that these bones are the remnants of the jaw bone of an ancestor.

I don't see why this particular system couldn't have evolved. It is quite likely that at some point in the past the animal specialised to such an extent that it became dependent on that system. No great shakes. The video also made a big play of complex behaviours, again, can't see why they couldn't be tuned by natural selection.

I also see that the dude in the video used the random chance canard. I'll repeat once more, natural selection is non-random.


2) Fossils that are an intermediate which have largely different traits than today's animals that aren't fully formed. ie an animal with a wings and legs. We should have thousands over the course of evolution.


You mean like a bird? What do you mean by not fully formed?

Half a wing and legs? Like an ostrich?

[edit on 6-1-2008 by melatonin]



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by ppkjjkpp
1) It shows that the muscle had to be designed from the very beginning or else it would die.


Doesn't really.

This is sort of like irreducible complexity methinks. A biological organism becomes dependent over time on a particular system. Remove the system, bad stuff happens. The human ear is the same, take out one bone, and you can't hear. But we have very good evidence that these bones are the remnants of the jaw bone of an ancestor.

I don't see why this particular system couldn't have evolved. It is quite likely that at some point in the past the animal specialised to such an extent that it became dependent on that system. No great shakes. The video also made a big play of complex behaviours, again, can't see why they couldn't be tuned by natural selection.

I also see that the dude in the video used the random chance canard. I'll repeat once more, natural selection is non-random.


2) Fossils that are an intermediate which have largely different traits than today's animals that aren't fully formed. ie an animal with a wings and legs. We should have thousands over the course of evolution.


You mean like a bird? What do you mean by not fully formed?

Half a wing and legs? Like an ostrich?

[edit on 6-1-2008 by melatonin]


First of all the mussel can't has to be fully formed to reproduce. How would you explain it reproducing before it was formed? It has to have those certain complex structures at the beginning to survive.
I'm talking about reptiles to birds. all reptiles have legs. I haven't seen one with wings in the fossil record.



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 09:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by mamasita
there are so many posts about creationist debunking evolution - but they never actually back up their beliefs with evidence.
I am curious - wat evidence besides the bible actually exists regarding creationism?


Absoluely none, to be exact. Plus - the Bible is evidence of ....nothing. There is NO evidence to substanciate the 'Creationist' point of view. The science is simply not there.

J.



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by ppkjjkpp
First of all the mussel can't has to be fully formed to reproduce. How would you explain it reproducing before it was formed? It has to have those certain complex structures at the beginning to survive.


It would be a case of evolving the complicated system over time.

This is comparable to saying that humans needed to have each individual ear bone in place in the beginning to hear. We have evidence of how such systems can evolve. They become so inextricably linked over time. At one point, they were not so tightly constrained, over time they evolve to a complex interlinked system. To the point that if you remove one part of the system, it fails.


I'm talking about reptiles to birds. all reptiles have legs. I haven't seen one with wings in the fossil record.


So, you want a reptile to bird transitional? I assume it would need some features of birds and reptiles?

[edit on 6-1-2008 by melatonin]



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimbo999
Absoluely none, to be exact. Plus - the Bible is evidence of ....nothing. There is NO evidence to substanciate the 'Creationist' point of view. The science is simply not there.

J.


I think this thread sort of shows that beyond doubt, heh.

We're over 10 pages and still discussing evolution. Not surprising, there's so much to talk about with it, all that evidence, we could go on for another 100...



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 10:15 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


No it would die because it needs to reproduce right away. What other reproduction method are you proposing?

Yes, give me a half bird half reptile transitional fossil, that is not a fake or already been disproven.

Also the Bible is a historical book, not fairy tales. What do you make of the dead sea scrolls? Do you deny Jesus was an actual person?

[edit on 6-1-2008 by ppkjjkpp]



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 04:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by jimbo999
Absoluely none, to be exact. Plus - the Bible is evidence of ....nothing. There is NO evidence to substanciate the 'Creationist' point of view. The science is simply not there.

J.


I think this thread sort of shows that beyond doubt, heh.

We're over 10 pages and still discussing evolution. Not surprising, there's so much to talk about with it, all that evidence, we could go on for another 100...


i'm quite astonished actually - you think with all these churches and religious people - they'd have at least something to base their beliefs on?! makes me wonder if faith and gambling actually have the same definition
no wonder why so many people get scammed so often.



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 04:54 AM
link   
quote]

Yes, give me a half bird half reptile transitional fossil, that is not a fake or already been disproven.

www.talkorigins.org...



there are many - i thought this was general knowledge
heres a famous example
[



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 05:10 AM
link   
reply to post by ppkjjkpp
 


archeoptharix (i probably spelled that wrong)
actually... any fossil is a transitional form, as we're all tiny steps in evolution



What do you make of the dead sea scrolls?


well, they're confirmation that, circa the early first century CE, people were using similar books of the old testament...



Do you deny Jesus was an actual person?


can you prove that he was?



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 07:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by ppkjjkpp
No it would die because it needs to reproduce right away. What other reproduction method are you proposing?


One that is simpler than the organism uses now. Complexity evolves from simplicity.

It depends on this reproductive process now, it doesn't mean it always did. It's a bit like the parasitic wasps who lay their eggs in particular organisms. If we remove the target organism in one swoop, it will have nowhere to lay its young. But it is likely in the evolutionary past, the method of reproduction was not so specialised.


Yes, give me a half bird half reptile transitional fossil, that is not a fake or already been disproven.


Rather than one, I'll raise many of the family of fossils for the dromaeosaurids. This includes the flying feathered microraptor to ground-based protofeathered non-flyers (like a big nasty ostrich).

And, as stated above, archaeopteryx. But I know what you will reply to that one, even though it will be wrong. There are numerous non-avian theropods which have features of both reptiles and birds.


Also the Bible is a historical book, not fairy tales. What do you make of the dead sea scrolls? Do you deny Jesus was an actual person?


Never read the dead sea scrolls, I'm sure they are as dry and badly written as the bible.

I don't actually care whether this jesus character is based on some real person. Makes no difference to me either way.




top topics



 
5
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join