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.

 

New discovery... problematic for evolution?

page: 2
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 12:08 PM
link   
There is always the possibility that the real old lizard had it, and went extinct. Then a few million years ago, it worked for the gecko and came back. There are not copy rights on these things.


There could be any number of scenarios really.

There are a few other cool creatures that I wish had stuck around. Like the shark that held ten people in its mouth. Or the brontosaurus. Why did it have to be a silly gecko?




posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 12:11 PM
link   
The crocodile has not evolved since before the age of dinosaurs. This fact does not disprove evolution or even make it problematic. For evolution, form must follow function. The function would to be the necessity to exploit a new niche in order to survive. If the current niche is able to comfortably sustain life for a given species, then it stands to reason that the "form" is not in need of change; thus, evolution stands still until needed.



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by mhc_70
 


I have said this at least 8 times in the last 24 hours.

The theory of Evolution has nothing to do with God. Not a thing.

There is a common misconception perpetuated by naivety, that evolution is creation without God and Creationism is God without evolution, but that is simply not true.

Evolution does not say where life comes from, or how life came from non-life, but it isn't anti-theist or anti-God. (I have a thread on this)

After all, most evolutionists are Christians and most Christians are evolutionists.


Science does not aim to disprove God exists, or that there is nothing supernatural out there, it's just the human desire to understand the cosmos and the laws of nature. Absolute truth is unattainable by humans, we don't know everything about everything. We don't know everything about anything, but what we do know, we don't know absolutely and what we do know absolutely we don't know completely accurately on all points.

Science doesn't permit faith and supernatural explanations inside anything labelled science. At no time in history has the acceptance of supernatural explanations for anything served us, it has only kept us in ignorance.

So the theory of evolution is science, without principals based on the supernatural.

[edit on 9/15/2008 by Good Wolf]



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Good Wolf
reply to post by mhc_70
 


I have said this at least 8 times in the last 24 hours.

The theory of Evolution nothing to do with God.

There is a common misconception perpetuated by naivety, that evolution is creation without God and Creationism is God without evolution, but that is simply not true.

Evolution does not say where life comes from, or how life came from non-life, but it isn't anti-theist or anti-God. (I have a thread on this)

After all, most evolutionists are Christians and most Christians are evolutionists.


Science does not aim to disprove God exists, or that there is nothing supernatural out there, it's just the human desire to understand the cosmos and the laws of nature. Absolute truth is unattainable by humans, we don't know everything about everything. We don't know everything about anything, but what we do know, we don't know absolutely and what we do know absolutely we don't know completely accurately on all points.

Science doesn't permit faith and supernatural explanations inside anything labelled science. At no time in history has the acceptance of supernatural explanations for anything served us, it has only kept us in ignorance.

So the theory of evolution is science, without principals based on the supernatural.


Then you must understand that this is thought of as a fiarly unique position in science, among non-believers, and, at least in my experience, after marginalized speculation ad nauseum, reduced to impossibly naive.

If I overlooked your position it was not intentional, heres a star, more like knee-jerk based on previous experience, my bad.

I haven't looked at your thread, yet, but I will, thanks.



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 01:27 PM
link   
No, I understand what you're saying, I used to be a fundie creationist, myself after all.

This is why I'm very appreciative of your openness.



new topics

top topics
 
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join