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.

 

Evolution Cannot be Proven

page: 1
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 05:58 PM
link   
Isn't science a wonderful thing? Anyone who rejects science of any kind; Biology, Chemistry, Genetics, Astronomy, etc. is rejecting knowledge. Ignorance is not bliss, and anyone who believes it is can simply continue to be ignorant. No skin off my nose.

There is a common misconception that Intellignt Design (ID) is not science. Those who believe in evolution would call the idea pseudoscience, and dismiss it without a second thought. In fact ID is just as scientific as Evolution, and I'll explain why very briefly.

To believe in Intelligent Design one has begin with the belief that God created the heavens and the earth; and proceeded to fill his creation with plants, animals, etc.. On the other hand, to believe in Evolution one has to begin with the belief that the heavens and earth were created by the big bang, and all the life on this planet evolved over millions of years. Both of these beliefs are presupositions, and can actually not be tested and proven. (I'm sure Evolutionists are thinking I've completely worng when it comes to proving Evolution, but stick with me here. I'm not done.)

In order to show Evolution cannot be proven let's take a look at an experiment started in the late 20th Cetury that seems to prove Evolution, and I will show how it actually favors ID. I will also ask an Evolutionist to scientifically prove me wrong. (I bet the Evolutionists will love ripping into me. Have at it!)

E. Coli Evolve in the Lab
www.newscientist.com...

In this experiment 12 cultures of E. Coli were grown in a lab. Each culture medium was comprised of mostly citrate, which E. Coli cannot metabolize, and a little gluclose. Over 40,000 generations were grown and at the 31,500th generation E. Coli learned to metabolize citrate.

This proves Evolution, right? Wrong. What happened here was that the layman was fooled into thinking E. Coli cannot metabolize citrate when indeed it can. Science began with the assumption Evolution is real, and proceeded to fool you all into thinking the assuption is correct when it is not.

Source:
creationontheweb.com...


So what happened? It is not yet clear from the published information, but a likely scenario is that mutations jammed the regulation of this operon so that the bacteria produce citrate transporter regardless of the oxidative state of the bacterium’s environment (that is, it is permanently switched on). This can be likened to having a light that switches on when the sun goes down—a sensor detects the lack of light and turns the light on. A fault in the sensor could result in the light being on all the time. That is the sort of change we are talking about.

Another possibility is that an existing transporter gene, such as the one that normally takes up tartrate, which does not normally transport citrate, mutated such that it lost specificity and could then transport citrate into the cell. Such a loss of specificity is also an expected outcome of random mutations. A loss of specificity equals a loss of information, but evolution is supposed to account for the creation of new information; information that specifies the enzymes and cofactors in new biochemical pathways, how to make feathers and bone, nerves, or the components and assembly of complex motors such as ATP synthase, for example.

However, mutations are good at destroying things, not creating them. Sometimes destroying things can be helpful (adaptive), but that does not account for the creation of the staggering amount of information in the DNA of all living things.


Does this side with ID instead of Evolution? Yes! In the beginning God created all living things. These creatures all have the ability to adapt. That is natural selection and it is scientifically sound. So go ahead and prove the science of Natural Selection wrong because that is ID science.

[edit on 18-9-2008 by the_watcher]




posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by the_watcher
In the beginning God created all living things.


So this "God" existed external to time? That makes no sense. Think about it. In order for a thing to exist, it must occupy at least some point within the framework of time. Sounds to me like you're just making up words.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 06:05 PM
link   
May I refer you to this existing thread on this very subject.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
You are welcome to add your opinions on the topic.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 06:10 PM
link   
Right my dear friend, hopes for God, but doubts muppet. It works like this.

Genetically, we are more closely related (have more DNA in common) with Great Apes than Tuna, but more in common with that than a banana. We share 60% of our DNA with bananas.

Now, AD, interesting, we assume in the past that it was a Deity. Ok, try it another way, you pick the mutations caused by that deity. Sacreledge mate. You cannot know the mind of a deity.

So in conclusion, you are not a deity, and what we are after is that you model it scientifically as random, not with God Given Arrogance.........



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 06:10 PM
link   
Ah, yes it would see that way because as a human being and with our limited intelligence it is hard to imagine a deity that exists outside of the natural world. We cannot observe it, study it, prove it, and we certainly have a very hard time even imagining a being that simply exists. A being that has no beginning and no end.

Unfortunately science cannot brought into the debate here and prove God, and I've already stated that. So one must take it on faith, but one must also take Evolution on faith.

Pick one.

[edit on 18-9-2008 by the_watcher]



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 06:12 PM
link   
Evolution Cannot be Proven

Thats almost saying.....

"This debate can never evolve an answer"

[edit on 18-9-2008 by N.B.A.Y.S.O.H]



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 06:14 PM
link   
wow so in order to believe(used very loosely) in ID, you have to "To believe in Intelligent Design one has begin with the belief that God created the heavens and the earth"
WAIT!!! you have to believe in a religious belief!!?? Blasphemy.

Afterall, one can believe in Intelligent Design, without necessarily believing that god itself is the designer. Heck, I can believe that Skeptic Overlord is the intelligent designer, if I so choose.

I'd like to see proof of that claim that you just made.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by redled
So in conclusion, you are not a deity, and what we are after is that you model it scientifically as random, not with God Given Arrogance.........


Ya know I have met people who believe in ID that will try and say Evolution is completely random. I, on the other hand, cannot say that with certainty.

See, as stated in my post, I beleive in natural selection. When a species of animal reproduces and it's offspring has a trait that allows it survive better than it's parents I cannot call that random, and I cannot say God was not involved. He may very well have been.

If Evolution were true, and that is a huge IF, who is to say it's all random?

[edit on 18-9-2008 by the_watcher]



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by agent violet
wow so in order to believe(used very loosely) in ID, you have to "To believe in Intelligent Design one has begin with the belief that God created the heavens and the earth"
WAIT!!! you have to believe in a religious belief!!?? Blasphemy.

Afterall, one can believe in Intelligent Design, without necessarily believing that god itself is the designer. Heck, I can believe that Skeptic Overlord is the intelligent designer, if I so choose.

I'd like to see proof of that claim that you just made.


Basic, it's random, chaotic or controlled. I believe in the first two, I don't care if the third is a local clown.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by agent violet
Afterall, one can believe in Intelligent Design, without necessarily believing that god itself is the designer. Heck, I can believe that Skeptic Overlord is the intelligent designer, if I so choose.


Ah-ha! I will admit you are correct. It doesn't have to be God, but I said what I said because I believe God exists, and when science confirms my beliefs it is because of what I read in the Bible.

Science actually confirms many accounts in Genesis.

But I will concede that I was wrong there. One does not have to accept the designer is God.

[edit on 18-9-2008 by the_watcher]



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by the_watcher
Science actually confirms many accounts in Genesis.


Really, would you please elaborate?
Some examples perhaps.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by agent violet
Afterall, one can believe in Intelligent Design, without necessarily believing that god itself is the designer.


Quite true. There's no need to bring this vague and incomprehensible notion of "God" into the mix. All you need to create the Universe is:

1) Time that doesn't necessarily run only in one direction (check, thanks to Feynman, et al)
2) An intelligence, which could be anything from a human or animal mind to an alien superbrain the size of a planet in some distant galaxy (check, with the human)
3) A way for that intelligence to directly influence matter (check, it's called imagination, which actively controls energy on a quantum level).

If you want to throw in a little U.S. Army-tested and approved atemporal Remote Viewing into the mix, then it gets even easier.

The question is, would an advocate of Intelligent Design still be so hot on the idea if the "intelligence" turned out to be something other than "God?"



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
Really, would you please elaborate?
Some examples perhaps.


Certainly! One that is extremely obvious is found right in the story of the creation.

Genesis 1:24,25
24And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so.
25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

In the very beginning God made animals that all reproduced accorind there kind. In other words God made wolves that breed wolves, lions that breed lions, and dinosaurs that breed more dinosaurs.

And that is exactly what we observe today. If you don't believe me ask an animal biologist. I assure you he/she will confirm.

There is also the account of Adam and Eve, the very first humans. Eve was to be the "mother of all life," and we all know mtDNA can trace down a Mitochondrial Eve that is only 6,500 years old.

Source:
www.answersingenesis.org...

Of course plants also reproduce after their own kind. And there is more, but I do not have the time to conduct an in-depth search at the moment.


[edit on 18-9-2008 by the_watcher]

[edit on 18-9-2008 by the_watcher]



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Nohup
 


Yes I do believe I already admited that you don't have to believe God was the designer.

It is interesting how people do not want to accept God but will come up with insanely crazy ideas that make even less sense.

That is most likely a topic for an entirely different thread though. I won't be speaking anymore on the subject.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by the_watcher
 


You mean there's more of your own opinion backed up by a christian website.


Answers in Genesis is an apologetics (i.e., Christianity-defending) ministry, dedicated to enabling Christians to defend their faith and to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ effectively. We focus particularly on providing answers to questions surrounding the book of Genesis, as it is the most-attacked book of the Bible. We also desire to train others to develop a biblical worldview, and seek to expose the bankruptcy of evolutionary ideas, and its bedfellow, a “millions of years old” earth (and even older universe).

aig about

I can't wait till you DO have the time to back this up further.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 06:33 PM
link   
Something I'm not following here, hopefully you can clarify for me...

How does not being able to prove evolution (which is a false statement, but thats neither heere nor there) prove that there is a higher power? There's no logic to that. Even if evolution can be DISPROVEN, that does not prove the existance of god.

Also, to believe in evolution, one absolutely does NOT have to believe in the big bang theory. It is a theory, one of many.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by N.B.A.Y.S.O.H
Evolution Cannot be Proven

Thats almost saying.....

"This debate can never evolve an answer"

[edit on 18-9-2008 by N.B.A.Y.S.O.H]


Agreed, but people need to quit blindly believeing in Eovlution when there has no evidence of it. Ever.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by the_watcher
 


Though it it seems logical to believe in God though there is even less evidence for.
Not to mention that evolution is not "believed in", it is an ongoing scientific discussion.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by cautiouslypessimistic
How does not being able to prove evolution (which is a false statement, but thats neither heere nor there) prove that there is a higher power? There's no logic to that. Even if evolution can be DISPROVEN, that does not prove the existance of god.


Well I am looking at this from a Christian perspective. You can certainly be of the opinion that Isis did it. I've already accepted that I made that mistake. My bad.

What I am trying to say here is that proof given for evolution is false. One proof for evolution is also proof of ID. You cannot simply blindly accept Evolution based on absolutely no defining evidence.

Of course one can absolutely make the same argument for religion, but if you notice I did state that natural selection actually agrees with the bible. So... sure you can choose to go another route, but I would hope that you choose one that at least has SOME corolation to science.

I mean... if you want to believe something absurd you have every right... so don't let anyone get in your way.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by the_watcher

Originally posted by cautiouslypessimistic
How does not being able to prove evolution (which is a false statement, but thats neither heere nor there) prove that there is a higher power? There's no logic to that. Even if evolution can be DISPROVEN, that does not prove the existance of god.


Well I am looking at this from a Christian perspective. You can certainly be of the opinion that Isis did it. I've already accepted that I made that mistake. My bad.

What I am trying to say here is that proof given for evolution is false. One proof for evolution is also proof of ID. You cannot simply blindly accept Evolution based on absolutely no defining evidence.

Of course one can absolutely make the same argument for religion, but if you notice I did state that natural selection actually agrees with the bible. So... sure you can choose to go another route, but I would hope that you choose one that at least has SOME corolation to science.

I mean... if you want to believe something absurd you have every right... so don't let anyone get in your way.

Theres nothing more rich than bible thumper attacking someone's beliefs.

Natural selection agrees as much (actually moreso) with the theory of evolution than it does with christianity, but the truth is, if you want to play simantics, you can rewowrd anything to make it for or against your argument.

Until you can show proof of what you believe, it is completely foolish to attack someone's belief in a theory.




top topics



 
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join