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.

 

proof against evolution

page: 7
7
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Horza
I ask atheists this:

Does the existence of a creator disprove the notion of evolution?

Not at all.. when I believed in god I accepted evolution. If any scientific theory is a threat to creationism it's the theory of relativity.. not ToE.

fixed typos

[edit on 2-7-2008 by riley]




posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 06:41 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


Your point is more than valid; I was a bit "black and white" i admit, but what i was trying to convey was that laws, unlike theories, are currently accepted as general truths . . .



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 09:53 PM
link   
Gradual evolution from 1 common ancestor is not supported by the evidence.
I just made this little music video today to help demonstrate the evidence of the Cambrian explosion.

Evolution Whoomped by the Tag Team





When terrestrial strata and the fossil record are examined, it is to be seen that all living organisms appeared simultaneously. The oldest stratum of the earth in which fossils of living creatures have been found is that of the Cambrian, which has an estimated age of 500-550 million years.
www.evolutiondeceit.com...



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Conspiriology


I believe that evolution is that process.


That would be your God and that would be your religion no?



No ... my belief in how the universe works is not a religion. There is no worship of a higher power and there is no belief in supernatural powers.

I have no need to depend on an eternal afterlife as a reward to motivate me in my life and I take full responsibility for my actions, without believing that the use of poems and chants will forgive me my trespasses.




Whether it is or isn't I do not believe we macro evolved because I haven't seen it


How many times have you actually seen Jesus?




He may be a scientist but he will be one ugly looking scientist and it will be him that learns about Science, the science of cause and effect.



How very Christian of you


I believe that when I die, eventually my energy will be returned to it's creator.


You are a scientist?



Sorry ... this one was a bit of a trap ... I knew you would jump on it with out actually reading between the lines.

It's also a little bit romantic and not quite 100% true ... but you will get the idea ...

Yes ... I will die ... my body will decompose and become soil or water ... the Earth will eventually become consumed by the Sun ... the components that made up my body will be return to one of the first places they began their journey to form into complex life.


I believe that there is no separation between all that exists and the force that created it.


So do I



Interesting ... I must apologies for not determining what the basis of the your religious beliefs are. I was assuming you were Christian.

Can you explain that to me please?

To be clear on what I meant here:

I believe that a creative force (a force just like gravity) effects everything equally. I do not believe that there is a "higher" power that has conscious and intelligent control over the destiny of existence.

In religious speak:

We are god and god is us.


The knowledge that I am the master of my own existence, gives me extreme comfort and confidence in living my life.


Tell that to the Car Jacker that believes your existence is to provide him with a car and takes you and your mastery of your life, out of this life.


I did not mean to imply that I have control over everything that happens to me.

I control everything that I do or do not do in my life, my existence.

If I am killed by forces outside my control then so be it.

If my existence ends then it means only that. It is not a loss or lack of control ... there is no longer an existence to control.

But in a direct response to your argument, I learn self defence, have my car "jack-proofed", move to the country and live in isolation and never to be car jacked.

This is obviously a circular argument you have started, why don't we finish it on that note.


Does evolution disprove the notion of a creator?


It does and a creator is intelligent, intelligence is not allowed in science. A creator is not allowed in science, a God is not allowed in science and as they will tell you the evidence of one is not allowed in science.



Why must a creator be intelligent?

Can't there be a unintelligent, non-manipulative, powerful and all pervading creative force that, like gravity, simply must do what it does?



that the bible is a book of fairytales


The bible is not a book of fairy tales. It is an excellent historical document that tells us the approximate way life was 2000 years ago. It also has some beautiful philosophical messages.

It also was written at a time that supernatural forces were commonly used to explain the unknown. There was also a lot of mysticism and belief in magic and, like today, religion was a commonly used as a method to control people.

There is definitely reasons to question the bible's validity.



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 10:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Conspiriology
 




Oh Don't even think evolution comes anywhere close to the Science of Chemistry, Physics, Computers, you are insulting prestigious real Science suggesting that garbage Darwin came up with is Science. We woujldn't mis out on a damn thing is Evolution were not taught in schools and what is Ironic is all the creature comforts and technology you list that I enjoy,, not one of them comes from the Science you have riding the coat tails of those other great Science contributions.


Then you need to start exposing the fundamental flaws in chemistry and physics. Those are the fundamental universal principles that work in any religion, any language, and any country. They are the solid foundation that supports the conclusions of evolution.
Come on, big science guy, show us the fundamental physics flaw in rates of radioactive decay.
Show us the fundamental chemistry flaws in DNA analysis.
Show us how lightning in a bottle did not create amino acids in only a week from a sample of primordial soup, over half a century ago.
You don't even believe in the scientific method!


Originally posted by Conspiriology
The only thing Darwin had any influence on that would shape the world

is Hitler


It is despicable how these desperate creationists, who proclaim "moral superiority," have to stoop to perverting history to try to justify their case.

Nazis were not atheists. Anti-semitism is a purely religious hatred created and inspired by the Bible. Every German soldier wore a belt buckle stamped with Got Mit Uns.

Just like creationism insists on only one possible pre-determined explanation, Nazi science was ideologically pre-determined to prove only Aryan superiority and was never confirmed by any scientists outside of their political system. It's loony, ideologically bound methods were never accepted as legitimate by science in other countries which relied on the standard scientific method.

The massive starvation in the Soviet Union was a consequence of Stalin's war on science. Their repeated catastrophic crop failures were the result of practicing ideologically restricted agriculture promoted by the fraudulent "science" of Trofim Lysenko.
His total control over Soviet agriculture did not end until the mid 1960's. It was also adopted by China, where it was responsible for still more catastrophic famines during Mao's "Great Leap Forward," and continued on there until rather recently.

Tragically, the US has reverted to yet another experiment in "faith based" ideological government over the last 8 years, with predictably disastrous results.
Career scientists in government who do not follow the state approved ideology are severely edited, or silenced completely. We have fallen seriously behind in public education, science, health, and every measure of civilized advancement. Governmental appointments are no longer earned on merit, but only on ideological loyalty.
Deadly toxic poisons, such as lead and mercury, once in the process of being eliminated from contaminating children and the general public, have been re-introduced through abject neglect of well established principles of science.
Hell, we aren't even capable of tracking dangerous pathogens entering our food supply anymore.



[edit on 2-7-2008 by Eyemagistus]



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 10:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 
i myself being Christian and believing in evolution find a hard time understanding thearguements presented by fellow Christians,

Both Macro- evolution and religion are beliefs, I don't understand what this video proves? I see it may lead to the presumption life was created 500 to 550 million years ago, but what happened to the stance of christians the Earth is only 6000 yrs old. Sometimes, The secular groups defined as religion jump to conclusions, they believe they are defending their beliefs yet say abunch of things in the process, which are inevitably proved wrong then, we lose all of our credibility. You are ruining the faith people have in the Book.

Simply put: Cretationism is a belief I share, I can't be expected to explain why I believe it I just do. I certainly can't prove I am right or even prove I truley believe. How can we suddenly accept scientific theories and hypothesis when it benefits us, and vehemently and violently deny them when they don't. Why do you uses scientific means to support your arguement of spiritual purpose. It's hypocracy, pure and simple.

By the same means Macro-evolution, big bang, or whatever is not even supported by Darwin. As you make your arguement you claim Micro evolution occurs not "macro" then term all evolutionists "Darwinism"? Macro evolution can not be proved, only some evidence of proven "micro" evolution leads us to "assume" some things as fact, for the purpose of further investigation. Darwinism isn't even involved in this theory as it was derived from the theory of relativity put forth by Einstein. Here's Wiki:


Georges Lemaître proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe, although he called it his 'hypothesis of the primeval atom'. The framework for the model relies on Albert Einstein's General Relativity as formulated by Alexander Friedmann.



Please don't be offended by my claims, this is never my intention. I do however expect my Christian brothers to be offended by anything, if history repeats itself!


[edit on 2-7-2008 by azblack]



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 11:03 PM
link   
reply to post by azblack
 


I'm confused by your post. Did you watch the video? I am not sure what you mean. How can you say Darwin didn't support macro evolution?

He invented it. "The origin of species"

Anyway my video was about the cambrian explosion and how the evidence suggests a wide variety of life appeared at once... there's no fossil evidence for gradual evolution from 1 common ancestor.

I beleive the big bang etc.

So not too sure where your post came from? And why it was directed at me.



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 11:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 

I did not mean to seem to be attacking you I really wasn't, I've been following this thread for sometime and I'm sick of people con fusing Darwinism and Macro-evolution it is most certainly not the same thing, Darwin mentions nothing of the term Macro-evolution it's origin lies here!


Russian Entomologist Yuri Filipchenko (or Philipchenko, depending on the transliteration) first coined the terms "macroevolution" and "microevolution" in 1927 in his German language work, "Variabilität und Variation"[3]. From WIki



Also here:

The history of the concept of macroevolution

In the "modern synthesis" of neo-Darwinism, which developed in the period from 1930 to 1950 with the reconciliation of evolution by natural selection and modern genetics, macroevolution is thought to be the combined effects of microevolutionary processes. In theories proposing "orthogenetic evolution" (literally, straight line evolution), macroevolution is thought to be of a different caliber and process than microevolution. Nobody has been able to make a good case for orthogenesis since the 1950s, especially since the uncovering of molecular genetics between 1952 and the late 1960s.

Antievolutionists argue that there has been no proof of macroevolutionary processes. However, synthesists claim that the same processes that cause within-species changes of the frequencies of alleles can be extrapolated to between species changes, so this argument fails unless some mechanism for preventing microevolution causing macroevolution is discovered. Since every step of the process has been demonstrated in genetics and the rest of biology, the argument against macroevolution fails.


Darwin studied that which he could see and test, all other things, which you would consider macro-evolution, he offered evidence both for and against these issues, leaving the decision up to you.

Did I hear you correctly, you said you believe in the big bang? The video I watched seemed to laugh at evolution and prove a creator, please correct me if I'm wrong? Science only proves the bible to me; I must have misunderstood the intentions of your post! Sorry I don't believe we all evolved from one species either. Your first video "never gonna give you up" was hillarious too, by the way!

[edit on 2-7-2008 by azblack]

[edit on 2-7-2008 by azblack]

[edit on 2-7-2008 by azblack]



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 11:41 PM
link   
reply to post by azblack
 





Did I hear you correctly, you said you believe in the big bang? The video I watched seemed to laugh at evolution and prove a creator, please correct me if I'm wrong? Science only proves the bible to me; I must have misunderstood the intentions of your post! Sorry I don't believe we all evolved from one species either. Your first video "never gonna give you up" was hillarious too, by the way!



Science proves the Bible to me too. But yes that video does laugh at the idea of a common ancestor - that's its point- because the fossil evidence shows a massive explosion of life. It is not about the Big Bang theory of cosmology at all. (which also proves creation) Those fossils i put in the video all appeared in the Cambrian era - hence "whoomp there it is" - not slow evolution from a bacteria- was my little humor with the hip hop song.


Yeah in was just Rick Rolling Evil Genius for his off topic remarks mentioning my name. Love a good rick roll



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 11:58 PM
link   
I have not read all the replies here but want to relay a story.
I dabble in painting now and then and have a great respect for the unaware abstract consciousness that comes to fruition when I can channel it.
I usually just start to paint and go with whatever happens.
I painted a whale in one painting and as I was doing this a had an urge to paint a meteor above it. As I looked at the picture it occurred to me that whales are some of the largest animals on earth. Why? I thought.
I then began to ponder that if in fact there was a meteor that struck earth at some time that decimated everything it would make sense that whales could have survived. I would say that they stayed relatively out of harms way underwater.
Which would explain there size.



posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 12:17 AM
link   
reply to post by JPhish
 


Wow ... You miss the point completely.



Gravity is not a SCIENTIFIC theory. It is the word attributed to the phenomenon which causes all forms of mass to be attracted to each other. The means by which this phenomenon operates are SCIENTIFICALLY theoretical.


So ... to use your structure of argument:

Evolution is not a SCIENTIFIC theory. It is the word attributed to the phenomenon which that shows that all living organisms have a common ancestor. The means by which this phenomenon operates are SCIENTIFICALLY theoretical.

Understand now?



You already inadvertently said that science is a faith based system in your first post i replied to. You’re now contradicting yourself.


Where did I say this?



By me
Environmental adaptation is one of the determining factors in evolution.

By you
That means absolutely nothing.


Yes it does. It means that part of the process of evolution is an organism's adaptation to it's environment.



It’s not macro-evolution, its micro evolution. Define your terms. After you do that, explain how my invisible pet dragon could not exist; mind you! He drinks kool-aid and kool-aid exits!


Micro, macro, micro, macro ... the only difference is time scale ... they are both evolution.

Evolution starts with with small changes either through random beneficial mutations or mutations that are a direct response to an organisms environment. What you call micro evolution

If you agree that micro-evolution exists then you agree that evolution exists. Period.

Your invisible pet dragon does not exist because dragons are a mythological beast, especially invisible ones. There is no evidence that stands up to scientific testing that they do exist. There is no Kool Aid being drunk by an invisible pet dragon because they do not exist. Kool Aid does exist.

Any way ... how many of you read this?

I only just found it.

The reason this is a big deal is that one of the traits of E.coli, used to distinguish it from other species, is it's inability to use citrate.

This is like humans developing gills ... or would that just be "adaptation"


www.newscientist.com...



posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 01:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bigwhammy


When terrestrial strata and the fossil record are examined, it is to be seen that all living organisms appeared simultaneously. The oldest stratum of the earth in which fossils of living creatures have been found is that of the Cambrian, which has an estimated age of 500-550 million years.
www.evolutiondeceit.com...



All living organisms huh? So i guess we just ignore fossils of stromatolites which appeared pre-cambian? Oh wait, not just pre-cambian, more like 3 B as in Billion years earlier?

An actual reliable source of info- the Univ. of Cal. Berkeley


The cyanobacteria have an extensive fossil record. The oldest known fossils, in fact, are cyanobacteria from Archaean rocks of western Australia, dated 3.5 billion years old. This may be somewhat surprising, since the oldest rocks are only a little older: 3.8 billion years old!


See, the problem with your posts are they are old and tired. You keep regurgitating the same cambrian explosion garbage with some new slick packaging (ie. cheesy videos) and never get a chance to learn something new and on the cutting edge. Here's an article I'm sure you missed which helps explain how things happened at the end of the Cambrian.

40 Year Old Theory Confirmed


The newly sequenced genome of a dainty, quill-like sea creature called a lancelet provides the best evidence yet that vertebrates evolved over the past 550 million years through a four-fold duplication of the genes of more primitive ancestors.

The late geneticist Susumu Ohno argued in 1970 that gene duplication was the most important force in the evolution of higher organisms, and Ohno's theory was the basis for original estimates that the human genome must contain up to 100,000 distinct genes.

Instead, the Human Genome Project found that humans today have only 20,000 to 25,000 genes, which means that, if our ancestors' primitive genome doubled and redoubled, most of the duplicate copies of genes must have been lost. An analysis of the lancelet, or amphioxus, genome, published in the June 19 issue of Nature, shows this to be the case.


A little later in the article...


Putnam noted another interesting finding reinforced by the amphioxus genome: Most creatures have a lot more genetic variation than humans. While two humans typically differ at only one nucleic acid per thousand in the genome, two lancelets differ at one of every 16 nucleic acids

"Marine invertebrates actually vary about 6 percent, which means that, on average, one of every 16 bases is different, which is pretty remarkable - it's the difference between humans and certain types of apes," Putnam said. "Humans really are a special case, because of the recent out-of-Africa bottleneck and because of the size of our population. There is a lot less variation than in these little wormy guys that live by the millions in shallow water."


Just a couple of new ideas you might have missed out on recently.

And to clear up something from the Cambrian


This stunning and unique evolutionary flowering is termed the "Cambrian explosion," taking the name of the geological age in whose early part it occurred. But it was not as rapid as an explosion: the changes seems to have happened in a range of about 30 million years, and some stages took 5 to 10 million years.


Not exactly simultaneous now is it.



posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 01:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by liamoohay
I have not read all the replies here but want to relay a story.
I dabble in painting now and then and have a great respect for the unaware abstract consciousness that comes to fruition when I can channel it.
I usually just start to paint and go with whatever happens.
I painted a whale in one painting and as I was doing this a had an urge to paint a meteor above it. As I looked at the picture it occurred to me that whales are some of the largest animals on earth. Why? I thought.
I then began to ponder that if in fact there was a meteor that struck earth at some time that decimated everything it would make sense that whales could have survived. I would say that they stayed relatively out of harms way underwater.
Which would explain there size.


There are over 200 confirmed impact craters on the land portions of Earth. Two-thirds of the planet is covered in water so it implies that at least 400 impacts have occurred in the oceans.



posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 01:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Horza
reply to post by JPhish
 

Wow ... You miss the point completely.

What point is that exactly? You’ve been contradicting yourself more than an evangelic abortionist.

Originally posted by Horza
So ... to use your structure of argument:
Evolution is not a SCIENTIFIC theory.

Hardly my stance, Macro-Evolution is a scientific theory, you said it was yourself. Unless you’re talking about micro evolution, in which case you should define your terms.

It is the word attributed to the phenomenon which that shows that all living organisms have a common ancestor.

Macro-evolution is not a phenomenon because it is not observable . . . Micro evolution is not a phenomenon either, because how it operates is understood. Hardly something I would say.

The means by which this phenomenon operates are SCIENTIFICALLY theoretical.

Again . . . neither macro nor micro evolution is a phenomenon . . . The means by which micro-evolution operates is not necessarily scientifically theoretical. Again, define your terms.

Understand now?

I’ve understood all along. It is you who is having trouble.

Originally posted by JPhish
You already inadvertently said that science is a faith based system in your first post i replied to. You’re now contradicting yourself.


Originally posted by Horza
Where did I say this?


Originally posted by Horza
hundreds of failed experiments by Thomas Edison and his assistants in attempting to make a light bulb. Only the last one showed that it might be possible.

If only the last experiment showed that it might be possible. The only force driving him in the hundreds of preceding experiments was his faith.

Originally posted by Horza
Environmental adaptation is one of the determining factors in evolution.


Originally posted by JPhish
That means absolutely nothing. That’s like saying that my invisible pet dragon has more grounds for existence, simply because he drinks kool-aid and kool-aid exists . . . are you [still] serious?


Originally posted by Horza
Yes it does. It means that part of the process of evolution is an organism's adaptation to it's environment.


No it doesn’t. It means that the possible process of macro-evolution is dependant on micro-evolution; the same way that my invisible dragon is dependant on kool-aid. If he doesn’t drink it, he will die of thirst.

Originally posted by Horza
Micro, macro, micro, macro ... the only difference is time scale ... they are both evolution.

Let’s not downplay the difference between 30 years and 30 million years. Environmental adaptation is not evolution. I’m waiting for Melatonin to help me, help you understand this stuff . . .

Evolution starts with with small changes either through random beneficial mutations or mutations that are a direct response to an organisms environment. What you call micro evolution

That’s not micro evolution because that’s not where micro evolution starts. That’s (for the most part) what micro evolution is.

If you agree that micro-evolution exists then you agree that evolution exists. Period.

With that logic . . . If a sports team makes it into the playoffs, they will automatically make it to the finals. Don’t place any sports bets anytime soon.

Your invisible pet dragon does not exist because dragons are a mythological beast, especially invisible ones. There is no evidence that stands up to scientific testing that they do exist. There is no Kool Aid being drunk by an invisible pet dragon because they do not exist. Kool Aid does exist.

Exactly my point! Yay you agree with me! The idea that my invisible dragon (a theory) consumes Kool-aid (an accepted truth) does not give it more grounds for its existence. The same way that environmental adaptation (an accepted truth) does not add to the validity of macro-evolution (a theory).

The reason this is a big deal is that one of the traits of E.coli, used to distinguish it from other species, is it's inability to use citrate.


Really? Do you know what the definition of a species is? You’re talking about phylotypes. There is no such thing as different species of e-coli. They reproduce A-Sexually. There is technically no such thing as different species of a-sexual organisms. That includes all (i think?) single celled organisms for that matter. These scientists are blowing smoke up your butt.

This is like humans developing gills ... or would that just be "adaptation"

I'd call it Kevin Costner in Water World.


[edit on 7/3/2008 by JPhish]



posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 02:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Horza


No ... my belief in how the universe works is not a religion. There is no worship of a higher power and there is no belief in supernatural powers.

I have no need to depend on an eternal afterlife as a reward to motivate me in my life and I take full responsibility for my actions, without believing that the use of poems and chants will forgive me my trespasses.



mmm I see how you are,, well that's nice,, but I didn't ask if you were Catholic I just asked if that was your religion your god and a simple yes or no was all that was required.

The additional mocking of poems and chants I'm sure went over well for those who are into that kinda stuff. Like that eternal life thing to motivate you lol. I get it you are above all that and see yourself as a self actualizer, capatain of your own ship kinda thing.

Great stuff,, Oprah teach you that?

Yeah,, you get like that I get like that and didn't want to go there. I thought you weren't that type of person but I was wrong. I see after reading your post, you like to throw in a lot of sarcastic condescending self aggrandizing garbage.

Fine with me,, just save the names ok,, I been called em all.



How many times have you actually seen Jesus?


Jesus I believe in by faith not by the kind people like you have to believe i Darwins macro evolution but to each his own.


How very Christian of you


Hey guy, if I was as "perfect as you think YOU are,, I wouldn't need a savior, and in spite of the Christian reputation you are trying to get me to live up to,, I don't seek your approval moreover the guy who calls me a retard to my face just might end up needing a savior too.

Providence is like that sometimes


Sorry ... this one was a bit of a trap ... I knew you would jump on it with out actually reading between the lines.


forgive me for thinking you were being above board and not seeing you as the disengenuous conniving master manipulator you really are.



It's also a little bit romantic and not quite 100% true ... but you will get the idea ...

Yes ... I will die ... my body will decompose and become soil or water ... the Earth will eventually become consumed by the Sun ... the components that made up my body will be return to one of the first places they began their journey to form into complex life.


whew! that wasn't so bad.



Interesting ... I must apologies for not determining what the basis of the your religious beliefs are. I was assuming you were Christian.

Can you explain that to me please?


Sure, you said:" I believe that there is no separation between all that exists and the force that created it."

I believe the same thing only the force that created it is God.

yeah that would be the Christian one so you were right, I just saw a way i could agree with you is all



To be clear on what I meant here:

I believe that a creative force (a force just like gravity) effects everything equally. I do not believe that there is a "higher" power that has conscious and intelligent control over the destiny of existence.

In religious speak:

We are god and god is us.



Gulp* umm I see,, ok



This is obviously a circular argument you have started, why don't we finish it on that note.


Done,

as you don't wanna know what I would have said about the rest of your "stuff"

- Con




[edit on 3-7-2008 by Conspiriology]



posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 07:59 AM
link   
Ok JPhish

I want to clear something up and define my terms.

The terms Micro and Macro are actually rarely used by the majority of scientists when describing evolution.

Because it is accepted that they are both talking about exactly the same thing, just on different time scales, there is a generally held view that there is no need to distinguish between them.

The term "micro-evolution" is most commonly used by some creationists and I.D. proponents who use it in a very strategic way to try to disprove evolution and the theory of evolution.



Macro-evolution is not a phenomenon because it is not observable . . . Micro evolution is not a phenomenon either, because how it operates is understood. Hardly something I would say.


Wrong. A phenomenon is a fact, something that exists or can be seen, felt, tasted etc.

You agree that evolution can happen within your lifetime, so "micro-evolution" is a phenomenon.

We also have huge amounts of fossil data, that overwhelmingly and consistently corresponds to the theory of evolution, that shows that evolution happens over geological time frames, so "macro-evolution" is a phenomenon.

JPish, you are incorrect in your definition of the word phenomenon.



Originally posted by JPhish
You already inadvertently said that science is a faith based system in your first post i replied to. You’re now contradicting yourself.

Originally posted by Horza
Where did I say this?

Originally posted by Horza
hundreds of failed experiments by Thomas Edison and his assistants in attempting to make a light bulb. Only the last one showed that it might be possible.


This was posted by Bob Sholz ... please double check your sources and please do not put my name to posts that I did not make. Please see below.


Originally posted by Eyemagistus
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 


Each one of the hundreds of failed experiments by Thomas Edison and his assistants in attempting to make a light bulb, only proved that light bulbs are a myth. Only the last one showed that it might be possible.
Therefore, there is overwhelming documented proof that light bulbs are a myth!


This post was made well before my first post on this thread.



Let’s not downplay the difference between 30 years and 30 million years. Environmental adaptation is not evolution. I’m waiting for Melatonin to help me, help you understand this stuff . . .


As far as evolution is concerned, there is no difference. It happens over 30 years, as seen in bacteria, and it happens over 30 millions years as the fossil records show for reptiles and birds.

Is Melatonin an evolutionary biologist?



originally posted by Horza

The reason this is a big deal is that one of the traits of E.coli, used to distinguish it from other species, is it's inability to use citrate




originally posted by JPhish
Really? Do you know what the definition of a species is? You’re talking about phylotypes. There is no such thing as different species of e-coli. They reproduce A-Sexually. There is technically no such thing as different species of a-sexual organisms. That includes all (i think?) single celled organisms for that matter. These scientists are blowing smoke up your butt.


No JPhish, you are wrong and yes I do know the definition of "species".

Technically, there are so many different species of bacteria that we cannot determine how many there are with today's technology.

One rough estimate is that there are 10 million to 1 billion different species of bacteria.

So, what I am talking about is E.coli's inability to use citrate is what is used to distiguish it from other species of bacteria.

The fact that E.coli mutated, changing one of it's defining features as a species is why this is such a big deal.

Stop blowing smoke up my butt.



posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Amaterasu
reply to post by Conspiriology
 


I am not going to call you names. I am merely going to impart my observation of your behavior as I interpret it.

It would seem you have a paradigm with no repeatable evidence to back it up. Given that, you seem to behave belligerently, grandiosely, and with a mind that will not open to any other paradigm, perhaps to compensate for your lacks.

I will offer you The Terra Papers to consider. Here are my predictions based on my observations of your behavior:

1. You will not read in detail all of the work (and likely not read all the way through);

2. You will declare it science fiction;

3. You will dismiss anything I might say regarding the Papers.

Here's the link to the thread here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

If you are brave enough to read them in detail, all the way through, I would love to hear your thoughts.


Or...

4. You will ignore me.



posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Horza
Is Melatonin an evolutionary biologist?


No sir!

But from a quick jetlagged perusal of your post, I see the situation in a similar way.

Macroevolution is important for paleontologists - as they see such large scale changes over long time scales, that is, the appearance of new higher level taxa. From what I gather, some have suggested that maybe there is something different for macro, but I don't see why there need be, and neither do many others.

But the adaptation game is another creationists like to play - 'oh! It's just adaptation'. For it to have any real concern to the issue is to suggest adaptation solely involves changes in pre-existing traits (e.g., fluxes in beak sizes of finches), otherwise if we have the capability for new traits (which we see) then macroevolution is as much adaptation as micro.

Silly games really. When a whale eventually evolved from its long gone land ancestor, it adapted to the environment over time, becoming a very fishie-like mammal.

Adaptation? If not, why not?

Macroevolution? If not, why not?

Creationists need to attempt to make this firm differentiation to place the illusion of some barrier to large scale changes (i.e., between 'kinds' - whatever the frig they are). But there just isn't one.

And whilst common descent is theoretical, it's supported by a wealth of evidence.

I also liked the claim somewhere that time is in some way comparable to a 'god of the gaps' explanation. A bit of a difference though. The passage of time is observable. We even see massive changes in species diversity over time, and also an evidence-based mechanistic explanation to account for it.

The other is just a magical gap filler in every way possible. A non-answer.

Poof!



posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 08:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Conspiriology
 


Sorry Con. I apologise for getting personal.

I do not want to get into a debate about my belief system on this thread.

It was 4 am in the morning when I wrote that, I was jacked up on caffeine and I had just read your very long, passionate post.

This thread is about facts.

Established Facts:

Specific:

Evolution is a natural phenomenon and the description of how evolution occurs is called the theory of evolution.

Evolution happens on both long and short term time scales.

Evolution has been documented and the empirical data overwhelmingly supports the theory of evolution.

There is no viable scientific alternative to the theory of evolution

General:

Scientific Theories and Scientific Laws:

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole.

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena.

Note that a theory never becomes a law unless it was very narrow to begin with.

Some laws can also be expressed as theories, like gravity.

The law of gravity is expressed as a single mathematical expression; Einstein's General Theory of Relativity is a scientific theory in which gravity plays a crucial role.

Creationism and Intelligent Design are philosophical and theological based hypothesis on the origin of life.

Ok. So I have posted some some facts that support the evolution argument.

I would like to see Creationist post some facts that support the creation argument.

Please present some scientific evidence that supports the validity of creation.



posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 09:12 AM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


Thanks for that melatonin.

From what JPhish said I thought that you were a creationist. There was a little sarcasm in my question of you being a evolutionary biologist.

I wonder if you could share something with me.

As yet I have not had a debate with a creationist that has actually presented some alternative evidence to the evidence I have presented. They have never presented evidence of creation or I.D. (ok ... besides Kirk and the banana).

I have only had debates with creationists involve them trying to prove evolution wrong and not trying to prove creation or I.D right.

Have you ever had any experiences to the contrary?

[edit on 3/7/08 by Horza]



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join