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.

 

More Proof That Evolution is Not a Theory

page: 3
3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Sublime620
 


That's fine, but you came out guns blazing to the very first post.

I just went back and looked over my initial post on this thread. Perhaps you are right that I came out with 'guns blazing'. However, in my defense, the title is "More proof that evolution is not a theory", and the OP concluded with this snippet:

let me guess god did it.

Perhaps I was overly aggressive in assuming that this was another of those tired old threads that seem more like a orgy for anti-theists. I did mention that I considered it just another bait. This was not due to the article referenced, but due to the wording used.

While I was obviously not wrong in this, I may have had some hand in making it a self-fulfilling prophesy.

I also realized that I broke my own promise to myself by flying into dave420. Did he deserve it for his obviously poor concept of science? I think so. But I also erred by letting him get to me.


Look, evolution doesn't mean there's not God.

Agreed, my feelings exactly.

sublime, you are a gentleman, and I thank you. You have shown me the error of my ways on this thread. While I do not retract my sentiments towards the way science is bandied about as some sort of religious disproof (which it is not), I can and do apologize for the manner in which I have phrased those statements.

I grew up in a bygone age where facts were rare and honored things, and theories were another opportunity to glean knowledge into the way the universe works. I grew up very excited and interested in practically every scientific field imaginable. So, while I think you can understand my frustration when self-appointed experts claim things that are simply not true, or when those same experts accuse me of being that which I am not, it is not in anyone's best interests for me to overreact.

My apologies to everyone on this thread, and my gratitude to you, sublime620.

TheRedneck




posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


No probs man. I get the same way on sensitive subjects. Some of us just love to argue, and in the end, no matter how crazy it gets, there's never hard feelings.

You should have seen me on the "Sally Kern hates gays" thread.



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 02:22 AM
link   
There's a Phrase That Fits


Originally posted by TheRedneck

Originally posted by Astyanax
I can't witness my own digestive processes from beginning to end -- does that mean they only exist in theory?

You don't even seem to realize what a theory is. Just because something is a theory does not mean it is not true. It means it cannot be 100% proven beyond any shadow of any doubt.

Google search results for phrase 'exist only in theory'

The English language feeds and sustains me. It has been generous. Go, read, be enlightened.

[edit on 25-4-2008 by Astyanax]



posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 08:15 AM
link   
reply to post by thedangler
 

didn't one of the popes John paul? say that evolution is part of creationism?



posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 09:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Oh, great find. *yawn* I could have told you there would be some evolutionary evidence in that instance. You have just proved that animals can change over time to adapt to their environments.


SIGH!!! That IS evolution.


OK lets compromise... I am willing to conceed that you funnymentalists haven't evolved if you are willing admit that the rest of us have.


[edit on 26-4-2008 by grover]



posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 09:03 AM
link   
I honestly believe that evolution and "creationism" can go hand in hand; i may get ripped to pieces for saying that but im open minded enough to consider there to be a "higher" power at play. I dont believe that "god" is some dude sitting in/on a cloud watching us ready to send us to hell, i think"god" is way above that. Nature to me is god and everyone can then believe in such a thing as "god".

Anyway, i thought it would be interesting to add some "scientific" theory based on mathematical models (is that still science?) in here from another thread ET Likely Doesn't Exist, Finds Math Model. Now, if that is true, then why is it that Earth is the only planet to support all manners of life, so much so that we argue about where everything came from? Seems rather odd to me, those PhD dudes, they seem to like to play god themselves, i suppose someone needs/has to


A side note:- I am writing up a paper based on scientific peer reviewed journals/findings to support my belief that nature itself is conscious [of itself] which allowed for there to be any kind of life at all. Evolution seems to progress into more complex systems as time passes; the whole ecosystem is dependant of itself, plants need the environment to survive, animals need plants and other animals to survive and from what ive seen, nature appears to know how to cater for each system within itself.

I have yet to finish the paper but once complete i will post it up. There is so much information out there that for it to be as accurate and as indisputable as possible [and i strongly believe it will], i need a good 6 months more to review and finalise the piece but be sure, ATS will be the first to see it. Once it is complete i believe that people of all walks of life [hopefully] will agree upon my premise and agree that nature if anything is our god, so then, evolution and creationism to some degree will reconcile, for once [i hope]. But of course, it depends on your definitions of "god", "evolution" et al.

I will be back, any criticisms or questions are welcome in the mean time



posted on May, 8 2008 @ 06:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shere Khaan
Actully they have plenty of fossil evidence to show the process of speciation which leads to the differences you are talking about. Whether you accept that evidence leads to proof is up to you; however, it is exceedingly close-minded and ignorant of you to say there is no evidence at all.
[edit on 22-4-2008 by Shere Khaan]


Speciation isn't the brainchild of Darwinian Evolution and the only mechanism it has to keep this relic theory from dying is that it is the only thing Atheists have to advance their Atheism to a captive audience of young impressionable minds. I love the clever way you worded that however. " process of speciation which leads to the differences you are talking about"

It "leads up to" ?? what is leading it if not intelligence? Where would you say is the line of demarcation one can make a classic distinction we have a Cat turning into a Fish? or whatever? I hear this from evolutionists all the time and quite frankly I could prove the flying spaghetti monster before Science gets around putting up or shutting up this dumb idea once and for all.

It doesn't happen

it hasn't happened

it never will happen via macro-evolution.

Their IS no mountain of evidence

Their never was a mountain of evidence

Their never will be a mountain of evidence

It isn't a matter of us believing in the evidence until they produce any.

It's a myth a scam a false doctrine of Science if it is Science at all.

It should be kicked to the curb removed from our Schools as it is as silly as believing the earth is flat and that we are the center of the universe. It is the very reason, criticism of Religion by Atheists don't hold water because when it comes to which is harder to prove, God or Macro Evolution,

Evolutionists got

Johnson

-Con


[edit on 8-5-2008 by Conspiriology]



posted on May, 8 2008 @ 06:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by grover

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Oh, great find. *yawn* I could have told you there would be some evolutionary evidence in that instance. You have just proved that animals can change over time to adapt to their environments.


SIGH!!! That IS evolution.


OK lets compromise... I am willing to conceed that you funnymentalists haven't evolved if you are willing admit that the rest of us have.


[edit on 26-4-2008 by grover]


Typical Atheist using the emoticons acting like they know what they are talking about and using micro-evolution or transmutation stealing it and calling Darwinian Macro-evolution to substantiate how new species come about. First, lets find out more about Speciation shall we?

I'm sure you'll agree, just getting a concensus on what the hell species means will get you a plethora of differen't meanings across the board here.

Just pick the model and we'll go from there. Then YOU can show me a true example of macro-evolution anythng, and Ill show you why evolutionists are either being dis-honest as many manufactured proofs have been passed off as fact. They were later to be found lies and deceptive practices this group of pseudo Scientist seem to be accustomed to.

Or they will be existing species exhibiting adaptations already inherent in their DNA.

When you consider how long Darwinian evolution has been around without being able to prove the same problem plaguing Darwin back then as now,,
Where they get off telling Creationists or ID they have no business in Science is pure arrogance personified. Id tell them, hey it's been since 1857 and ya haven't show us a thing.

They keep making up more big words and say we must assume this or that or we can't do this or that because no one was around back then ,

Well that is THEIR problem, don't talk about the labor pains

Just show me the BABY

- Con



posted on May, 8 2008 @ 07:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck

I just went back and looked over my initial post on this thread. Perhaps you are right that I came out with 'guns blazing'.


Well seeing how you were treated by Dave, I think guns blazing is the ONLY way to deal with that kind of tactic.

He has literally said the same thing to all of us just reshuffles the words.

- Con


[edit on 8-5-2008 by Conspiriology]



posted on May, 8 2008 @ 07:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax

The English language feeds and sustains me. It has been generous. Go, read, be enlightened.

[edit on 25-4-2008 by Astyanax]


Their is nothing wrong with his english, at least he doesn't come off so ostentatious thinking all the verbal gymnastics in the world isn't going to impress us astyanananx.

Yours doesn't

- Con



posted on May, 8 2008 @ 07:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax


But I did not state it. Read my post again.

There is no evidence -- I repeat, no evidence -- against evolution.

Not.

One.

Shred.



Yeah I been seeing this one around more and more. It seems now, they couldn't find anything to substantiate jack squat for Darwinian macro-evolution, Atheists decided to use it in reverse. As long as we don't find any that proves it DOESN'T happen, then that means it DOES! HA HA

Find a fossil? Good just call it evolution!

Reminds me of the burden of proof argument, where now they want us to prove macro-evo doesn't exist. Sheesh you guys are evolving into Christianity.


So, does the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father and the Son, or from the Father through the Son? An empire broke asunder over this question.


and a subject almost goes off topic over this question.

Clever astyanananx

- Love Con

[edit on 8-5-2008 by Conspiriology]



posted on May, 8 2008 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Unit541
 


Here is a question I've always wondered about. Why if bacteria can "evolve" so quickly doesn't it ever turn into anything other than bacteria? I would like some sources that account for those issues.



posted on May, 8 2008 @ 12:17 PM
link   
This is not evolution. This just shows the animals ability to adapt in an environment as similar as theirs was. An evolution would be throwing those 5 lizards in the arctic and upon our return we see lizards with fur.



posted on May, 8 2008 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Equinox99
 


Which shows just how much you know about evolution. Hint: not a great deal.



posted on May, 8 2008 @ 01:35 PM
link   
Evolution IS A THEORY, by the meaning of the word in the way that a scientist would use it.

YOUR idea of a theory is "a guess, though not proven".

But when scientists use the word "theory" they mean "an explanation for phenomena observed in the natural world that is consistent with data and results of experiments, for which the evidence to support it is abundant, and no significant data has been observed which logically refutes the explanation. A concise and descriptive prediction of observed phenomena in the natural world, derived from basic laws and forces inherent to it."

Science will not ever and has not ever attempted to "prove" anything! What it does do is create, test, and revise hypotheses based on evidence gathered with experiments. When a hypothesis survives a great deal of testing and robustly explains observed events without any serious contradiction to evidence, and can be used as a predictive tool to determine the results of a situation when the factors that determine it are known, it then becomes a "theory".

Common theories in science:

Theory of gravity
Theory of relativity
Quantum theory
Electromagnetic theory
Theory of evolution


Even though you and I both use the word "theory" they don't mean the same thing to both of us.

To a scientist, a "theory" is not an unsubstantiated guess, but that is how a common person on the street perceives it.

This is why you're confused. The meaning of the word is different depending on whether you ask the average Joe on the street, or a PhD working in a lab.

It's no different than the way lawyers interpret words in law. They use similar words to common english, but to a scholar of law, they could mean something very different. An example would be the word "income". To the average person, this means "money earned by an individual at work". To a professor who teaches constitutional law it means "profit from corporate activity."

[edit on 8-5-2008 by ianr5741]



posted on May, 8 2008 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bugman82
reply to post by Unit541
 


Here is a question I've always wondered about. Why if bacteria can "evolve" so quickly doesn't it ever turn into anything other than bacteria? I would like some sources that account for those issues.


Why would you expect them to? Things that aren't bacteria have been things other than bacteria for a very long time, and have gotten quite good at it. Were a bacteria to evolve into something other than a bacteria, placing it into direct competition with, say, a protist, it would be out-competed and die off long before we'd have a chance to find it. because the protist has about two billion years worth of lead on the new not-bacteria at being something other than bacteria.

And I'll have you know that bacteria is every bit as evolved as humans, if not far more evolved. It is far more successful than we could ever dream to be.

It's the same reason that as long as there are humans, no other sentient lifeforms will come into existence on earth, barring any we create. We're better at being smart than any other critter out there, and so we have a far greater share of the world's resources. There were, after all, many other species in our genus, some could have someday become as smart as humans, but we out competed them, and now we're the only ones left.



posted on May, 8 2008 @ 10:16 PM
link   
Could the OP please explain why the coelacanth (a prehistoric fish thought to have died out 90 million years ago) is in fact, alive, as well as unchanged from its prehistoric form?

(The earliest coelacanth appears in the fossil record about 375 million years ago, yet it is unchanged)



The problem with "scientific theory" is, it often contradicts itself.

[edit on 8-5-2008 by West Coast]



posted on May, 8 2008 @ 10:26 PM
link   
reply to post by West Coast
 


I don't get the problem. It probably hasn't changed because it never underwent a mutation that gave the mutated offspring a survival advantage. And if it did, we haven't traced that lineage, and the original species continued to survive.



posted on May, 9 2008 @ 05:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck

From en.wikipedia.org... :

In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.



Micro-evolution (natural selection?) might comply with this at a stretch but certainly not macro-evolution due to it's extremely long term nature. Does that mean macro-evolution is not a theory?

Before I continue I would like to give my background in this area. I was raised as a Christian, but have for most of my adulthood (I'm now 40) decided to be a pantheist even before I knew there was a word for it. I am open-minded, which means if you can prove something to me I will accept it. I believe in the 'creator' / universal consciousness / whatever and that it is part of the universe like our souls are parts of our bodies. I also believe in micro-evolution (duh), but NOT macro-evolution. The reason for that being the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record.

My reasoning goes like this:

Evolutionists say (I think) that fish evolved into birds over millions of years. Therefore you have the following occuring over millions of years:
1. You have a fish
2. You have a fish with some bird-like features still with gills and breathing in water.
3. You have a fish with some bird-like features, lungs and gills and which are amphibean
4 to x. Fish evolving into bird.
x + 1. You have a bird.

Remember that this happens over millions of years. What this means to me is that you should have more fossils of 2 to x than you should have of 1 (fish) and x+1 (bird). That however is not the case. There are plenty of fossils of birds and fish and SOME (I think) of 2 to x. With the 100s of 1000s of species currently occupying our planet there should be millions of fossils of transitional forms, i.e. a LOT more than fully formed fossils. Is this the case? I'm sure EVERYONE here will agree with me that it is not the case.

If I've got this wrong please forgive my ignorance and correct me where I'm wrong.



posted on May, 10 2008 @ 12:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lannock


I also believe in micro-evolution (duh), but NOT macro-evolution. The reason for that being the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record.

My reasoning goes like this:

Evolutionists say (I think) that fish evolved into birds over millions of years. Therefore you have the following occuring over millions of years:
1. You have a fish
2. You have a fish with some bird-like features still with gills and breathing in water.
3. You have a fish with some bird-like features, lungs and gills and which are amphibean
4 to x. Fish evolving into bird.
x + 1. You have a bird.

With the 100s of 1000s of species currently occupying our planet there should be millions of fossils of transitional forms, i.e. a LOT more than fully formed fossils. Is this the case? I'm sure EVERYONE here will agree with me that it is not the case.

If I've got this wrong please forgive my ignorance and correct me where I'm wrong.


Nope you are not wrong and if Atheist evolutionists weren't trying so hard to stop people like Ben Stein and others that have known about this for so long People like Darwin, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and their Messhia Dick Dawkins would have got his walking papers a long time ago.

Your illustration substantiates that quite clearly but what are the public schools teaching these poor kids? Oh a myriad of artist rendered intermediate species that never existed and those that have been busted long ago for being frauds and hoax but the Atheist Evolutionist who say after they are called a hoax that Science is "self correcting". Ill believe that when they get the crap out of our kids new text books where piltdown man is still being shown as an ancestor to modern man because atheist evolutionist insist on teaching their junk science while having the audacity to think they have room to talk when suggesting ID or Creationism should be kept out of Science. I'm like? Why? It's not like they are teaching any science now?

The only Science I see is

Science Fiction

- Con



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join