It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Slothrop
those of us who are Awake understand fully what a red herring the creation vs evolution debate has become.
no sane, intelligent person can deny that some version of the evolutionary model is the best explanation for the progression of life on planet earth. but here's the thing: just let those who prefer to be Asleep believe in creationism.
it's really no skin off my back. the smarter kids will immediately dismiss whatever creationist propaganda is taught in public schools and get on with their studies. as for the dumber kids....i really don't care if the guy who changes my oil or takes my order at quizno's believes the earth is 5000 years old and that dinosaur bones were just put inside the earth to test our faith. as long as they can change my oil and make my change, eh.
creationism v evolution is a total non-issue
Originally posted by dave420
reply to post by 1nelove
If DNA hadn't been discovered, you'd have a point. As it is, we can easily see the similarities in the genetic make-up of every single living creature. That make-up shows us how genes have propagated throughout the animal kingdom, and gives us massive, massive insight into our genetic background - ie the species that preceeded us. If non-human offspring of our ancestors exists (which they do), then we can easily place them in the family tree.
You seem to be arguing from 150 years ago. I'm arguing what we know today. I don't lump you in with the creationists, I lump you in with those who don't understand evolution. Sorry if that offends, but clearly you have some reading to do.
So bacteria have been observed to evolve?
What did they evolve into?
I'll bet they are still bacteria, aren't they?
NO scientist has ever proven that one species has "evolved" into another species.
That new species of anything have suddenly been found, does not prove that they are new, or that they "evolved" from something else.
There is no real basis to believe that present species on Earth "evolved" from the earlier forms that have been dug up. This is as much a fairy tale as the thought that there is a necessity for a "creator".
Why exactly are our minds being herded into the this versus that corral?
What about some of the fringe ideas?
Panspermia and colonization.
Originally posted by OnionCloud
You can read my posts in this thread and in my post history that sufficiently describe how we are fairly certain that evolution is real.
Evolutionary theory might have to change to encompass a new discovery? Good, it better, that's what science is all about. Taking empirical evidence that has been well proven and peer reviewed, and using it to further increased the knowledge to benefit all those who use it. This isn't even an issue in science since that's what science is all about.
Originally posted by OnionCloud
And yet you willingly skip over posts that explain it, and refuse to explain what exactly you think is so damning about epigenes.
Not only that, but you are condescending in an intolerable amount, by most peoples standards. If you view someone as truly childish, it's best not to patronize them, lest you make yourself appear childish as well.
[edit on 29-8-2008 by OnionCloud]
Don't you see the problem here? You can't just state this beautiful science without getting into it's meaning, that's all any human really cares about in the end.
The real ISSUE with Epigenetics is that it accomodates evolution (the word) within a species. The extent in which our science of DNA goes, is disconnected, in physical evolutionary function, from the DNA components that reside within the species definition.
What about mitochondrial DNA? The biggest announcement with that was the result of the extracts from Neandrathal skeletons from Africa and Germany. Does anyone know what they suggested? How many THEORIES were dismantled and dismissed as a result? How that relates to evolution greatly? You should. It was a big topic amoungst the scientific community early this decade. The mainstream media's coverage of it was short and misleading of course..but you guys aren't being directed by that mechanism are you? Is THAT what science is to you???
Noone, in their right mind would dismiss scientific evidence put in the right position. Creationists around the world believe in it. The vast majority of them so actually. There are only a few who actually think evolution, the word in it's definition, don't exist. I've never met one and I've met hundreds of Creationists. Maybe thousands.
You keep running around trying to show that evolution is real, but that's not the issue. Evolution, the noun, is used in an entirely different way. Confusion at it's best. The noun, incorporates ideas as to what our understandings of evolution suggest.
Yes the understanding of evolution is constantly changing and evolving, but a shame for not understanding that a lot of conclusions and absolutions that were picked up and enforced through the initial understandings now need to be questioned.
Convenient how that is never raised in the evo vs creat battle.
Ask any real scientist - Evolution has NOTHING to say about what, where, how life's origin took place.
What are you even arguing about? LMAO. All I see is pseudo-science trying to dismis a particular interpretation of something that science is nowhere near understanding at this moment.
Image of Evolutionist created by the Philosophical Society (Darwin's 'team'):
Believe's only in science's ability to confirm an event physically.
Thinks the idea of anything that hasn't been explained is non-existent.
Thinks the idea of anything that isn't tangible to our five senses is fantasy.
Thinks the idea of a creator, God, is make believe fantasty as well.
Justifies these ever existing traits as a result of 'wants and needs' of humans but, more specifically, dumber humans.
Bible thumper who takes the word of their religion as truth.
Believes that their religion is all the evidence they need.
Dumb, primitive and often psychologically hampered individuals who are in need of guidance.
doesn't believe in science because somehow their other believes reject it.
The purpose of these images? To dismiss the religion's that were dominately practiced throughout the modern world and to make way for revolutionary change that would, as always, be headed by the same group of mysterious agnostic elite's. Divide and then conquer. Then wait for another inevitable uprising of religious nature, and rinse wash and repeat. History certainly repeats itself as long as it's the same ones in control and people are directed by their senses over their mind.
This is what the Philosophical Society's intentions were, and they didn't hide that once. This is why Darwin's grandfather originally used truth, and as usual with these SPECIFIC AGNOSTIC people (go find out what their real beliefs were, if you can open yourself to it), twisted it to achieve their agenda. Darwin then used hilariously obvious, and undeniable observations to portray a short termed, small scoped view of why Creationism never happened. It's too bad, anyone with the strong ability to consciously deny their subconscious' influence should easily laugh at the ENTIRE argument as long as the details are given to them.
The original theory is essentially just a simple observation and it was DOMINANTLY philosophical. That's what will become of it as science develops. There was nothing wrong with his approach, but any Philosopher could destroy it because it has a billion holes logically (and top scientists and philosophers did just that immediately). It's just a game and you guys are being had because the strength of science is being used against you to worship it as a God or religion. Same trick used over and over, just a different dogma. Mind control.
I mean, do you not realize how insulting it is from someone who isn't an Evolutionist in this thread? No really, can you not see how people would be offended? Or are these lower, dumber and lesser people that are at their own fault for being offended by scientific 'fact'? Oh an don't assume anything of me, because believe it or not, I get offended when groups of people are generalized through physicality regardless of their connection to me.
"willingly skip over" excuse me? DO NOT make these assumptions. What is wrong with you? I'm at work and trying me best to participate but I cannot address everything in a time that you have created to demonstrate an act of 'skipping'? Please. I apologize in advance, because I will not be on this thread and responding as timely as you just demanded indirectly.
"refuse to explain" When did I refuse? What's with these assumptions? Thinking in absolutes? Great...
Now, explain to me how the epigenome coincides with evolution so perfectly. You see, there's a VERY big problem raised with this development and understanding of DNA. I want to see if you have any idea what you are talking about or if you can research properly.
You say I'm speaking from 150 years ago but I asked you a question about the issue raised with the EPIGENOME (are you at least looking it up now??? You have LOTS AND LOTS of reading to do and maybe that will hep you develop a better comprehension level). That a VERY recent development and understanding of our DNA.
I explained it on a basic level above, do you want more?
Originally posted by fmcanarney
So now scientists are begging the question by simply stating that there is an "Intelligent Design" to the universe.
The primary problem with atheists is they refuse to believe in an intelligence greater than themselves.
You cannot contain the infinite universe in a finite mind.
Actually the entire discipline of science is an evolutionary process of course.
We do not have to look farther in the past than two-three hundred years to pity the ineptitude and stupidity of the beliefs of "Science" as it existed back then.