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.

 

A challenge to evolutionists

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by theindependentjournal
 


Please, PLEASE understand the difference between a 'theory' and a 'scientific theory'. A scientific theory has evidence supporting it, and can be proven false at any moment if evidence to that effect was found. A normal theory, such as, say, Intelligent Design, is called a 'hypothesis' in scientific circles, as that is what one has before supporting evidence is found to elevate it to a theory.

So please, at least try to understand the words you use. It will help your argument.

I believe in evolution because the incredible amounts of cold, hard, evidence that exists in its support, and the fact there is not one shred of evidence or one discovery that has uprooted or unhinged Darwin's theory. It gets stronger and stronger each day.

And that Expelled movie is full of rubbish. Ben Stein is an excellent economist, but an amateur biologist. His arrogance in thinking he knows everything about biology is ridiculous. He's a clown.




posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Horus12
 


I said I believe, I never said God was proven fact, I said he wasn't. I also showed that evolution is a belief and not fact just as my belief in God is.

A belief can or can not be true, it is just a belief and both evolution and creation are beliefs as there is no indisputable evidence for either. Logic makes me think Creation, but it is just me thinking in what I assume is logical, others may BELIEVE otherwise but it is still a belief.

Explain to me how if evolution is true, and the law of angular momentum is true how planets spin in different directions? We know that the Law of Angular Momentum is true because it has been repeated and tested, and never has an exception been found.



posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by theindependentjournal
 


Evolution is a fact. We have observed it in labs. Scientists have taken a population of one species, and by separating them under different circumstances, has turned one species into two, that can no-longer interbreed. That is evolution. It's a fact because we can see it. The current theory of evolution is explaining that. Just as gravity is a fact (we can see its effects), the theory of gravity is what describes it. Both theories - evolution and gravity, can be disproved by contradictory evidence. As it happens, none has been found yet. Creationism isn't logical, as there is no evidence for it. Evolution is logical, because there is a mass of evidence for it, and a logical framework that describes how it happens has been put forward, and so far not one shred of evidence has been found that suggests it's not true.

So please don't compare the two as equal, as one is a hypothesis (creationism/ID) and one is an evidence-backed scientific theory (evolution).

How do planets spin in different directions? Really? Because of interaction with other bodies, either through impacts or gravitaty. A planet is not a closed system - it is constantly being affected by everything else in the universe.



posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by theindependentjournal
 


ohh dear guess it wasnt quite the fair and biased documentary the pro-christian pro-creationism documentary pretended to be


shall not discuss the main message of the film -- that American creationist scientists are being victimized for their views -- except to say that it was very much NOT its main message when the film was called Crossroads, and when I, together with PZ Myers, Eugenie Scott and others, were conned into taking part.

richarddawkins.net...

hmm aparently interviews were gained under false pretences and a whole lot of quote mining and misquoting went on ...... maybe hawkins didnt actually say he believed in IT as a treu statement they say Dawkins believes in aliens so there by IT

www.expelledexposed.com... yepp looks like they used false pretence

oo it gets better it seems the claims of The Expelled are as false as the seudo-science of the documentary

in most case it looks like they were expelled for being not very good at what they do and nothing to with thier beliefs ....

www.expelledexposed.com...

they were victimised as they were crap at thier job...... isnt that what happens cant do the job right get replaced ..



so in essence, a group of people lied about how why and even if they were perescuted for thier beliefs, they then lied in order to gain interviews, lied and misrepresented what was said at interviews, strung it all together with a bunch of false science and then churned it out

opps yeah forgot about the dodgy marketing to make it the most viewed documentary .. come see it and get your money back .... -_-

www.expelledexposed.com...



posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by dave420
reply to post by theindependentjournal
 


Evolution is a fact. We have observed it in labs. Scientists have taken a population of one species, and by separating them under different circumstances, has turned one species into two, that can no-longer interbreed. That is evolution.


Actuality no its not evolution it is changes within kind, but all the information is in the genes of both animals. I don't use the word species because mankind made that word, I use Kinds, and there are only so many kinds of animals on the planet. Those Kinds have many types of kinds but it is all within the genetic code of the animal. No horse has ever given birth to a cat. and no cat has ever given birth to a banana. It is only differences in the genetic code that are recessive or not. They didn't make a new species, they only engineered which genes will be dominant. This was proven with the many years of fruit fly experiments. They made many kinds of fruit flys but they were all fruit flys, they never changed KINDS...

You can only use the genetic code with what is in that code, you can not cross the kind barrier. Horses, Donkeys and Zebras are a great example of the selection of genes. In all the crossbreeding of the kinds the animal either makes a sterile version of the same kind of animal or it everts back to the original form. So a Zonkey can be produced but its offspring will be either a donkey or a zebra, it goes back to the original...



posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by theindependentjournal
 


Please define 'kind' in a biological sense. Because that was incredibly vague.



posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Actuality no its not evolution it is changes within kind, but all the information is in the genes of both animals. I don't use the word species because mankind made that word, I use Kinds, and there are only so many kinds of animals on the planet.

Just because you are using made up terms instead of the standard terms used by the rest of us does not make them correct. When a species is no longer able to reproduce with another species (or in your case, a kind with another kind), it is a new species. That is evolution.

Genetic material can change. It has changed in the human species in modern time (downs syndrome, YYX males, etc.) showing that there it one generation, it is possible to change the number of chromosomes that an species has.



posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 12:28 PM
link   
How do you come to the fact that a venus fly trap shows that evolution is false?

Its a plant that traps things that trigger it, there are other plants that "digest" bugs , and the fact that the plant has a trigger means nothing realy , plants move all the time, flowers open and leaves track the sun.. no diffrence that the fly trap tripping and closing its "jaws" on its food.

The fly tram is a great example of how a mutation causes some really odd creatures to evolve.

Other oddities in the plant and animal kingdom are every where, evolution is quite system adaptations that may be deformations or totally random things will happen the ones that survive carry on that trait to its offspring, the ones that die off due to lack of ability to adapt to there surrounding best have less chance to spread there genes.

Now why the venus flytrap came about , my bet is it was a adaptation to get added nutrients that may not have been available from the ground or sun.

Imagine this today you found out that you could read peoples minds, no one else could , then you had a child and this child could do the same, odds are that with that little genetic mutation you would live longer and a better life since you could read minds.. you and your offspring would have far better chance of be prosperous... thus more time to spread the mutation around compared to the other non mutant humans.. after many generations your gene pool would spread far and wide.

Just look at how us humans breed dogs for certain traits, most breads out there are combination of other breads to get certain traits in a breed.



posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by theindependentjournal
 


If you truly believe your theories have enough foundation in mathematics and chemical processes to disprove the Big Bang or evolution, then hold a session to discuss it with scientists, and if your data holds true, you could change the theories to which the scientific community adheres. That's the beauty of science... it's never an argument, it's a discussion. But in the meantime I personally believe there are flaws in your claims.

First of all: The first half of your post is talking about Big Bang Theory. This is not evolution. They both deal with mathematical and chemical processes, but they are not the same thing. That said, if you wish to deal with both at once, I'll play along.

BTW: I'm afraid this post, like yours, will have little to do with Venus Fly Traps, specifically. But since this thread is titled "A challenge to evolutionists," I figure it's still fair game. Moderators, please feel free to correct us if we're off-topic.

theindependentjournal:
By your description, I feel I must assume that if you were to approach a pool table just after somebody broke the balls, you'd point at it and say, "These balls are all spinning in different directions, with different velocities and angular momentums, and they aren't all equally separated. Therefore, they did not expand from a single origin but were in fact created to be this way." Granted, when it comes to the Big Bang, we don't have any giant pool players to raise an eyebrow at us. But Big Bang theory is really just an observation of the fact that all galaxies are moving apart from one another, which suggests that they were once much closer together, thus an expansion (not an explosion per se). Of course there's more to it than that... everything we think we know about light seems to support this theory.

The Big Bang does not claim that the universe came from nothing. It claims that, before any explosion, the universe was a singularity, which is just another way of saying a thing that is so compact that it has infinitely small dimensions... basically, zero volume, but lots of mass. If you were to say that this is impossible, by many models you would be correct. We don't know much about singularities other than the mathematics which suggests their existence. But the fact remains that mathematics DO suggest their existence, and even our observations of black holes, which are smaller-scale singularities if compared to the Big Bang, support their existence.

www.big-bang-theory.com...

As far as the lifetime of Earth and the processes of evolution:
Everything we have observed about the movement of tectonic plates and the geothermic processes which lead to volcanoes suggests that the entire surface of the Earth recycles itself every 200 million years or so.

www.wisegeek.com...

When the tectonic plates are forced down closer to the hot interior of the planet, they are melted down, eradicating any fossils or geological formations that might have been there. Additionally, when a plate is on its way up or down from this process, it tends to spend a great deal of time below sea level, and thus underwater, which of course leads to vast deposits of sedimentary rock.

You're very correct that every individual cell is incredibly complex. Evolution does not claim that millions of cells appeared at once. It claims that life began as simple chemical processes which produced more complex structures, which in turn led to more complex processes, etc.

You said that the current scientific views seem unreasonable, but as you also said, when you rule out all the reasonable reasons for something, the unreasonable must be true. I'm a Trekkie as well, and I think I'm gonna have to go with Spock on this one.



posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 12:49 PM
link   
Even if some of evolution can be proven to be incorrect, that's not the same as proving creationism. Science evolves like life, and we don't understand evolution completely, and by pointing that out does not discredit the whole theory that's being built up, it only helps people explain evolution better. You still need to prove your own theories on god and you cannot revert to an alternative by default. That's not how science works, and by attempting to explain how we all exist, religious people are attempting to be scientists. Where did you god come from??? Answer that please before attempting to prove any more of your theories with any kind of crediblity!!!

I cannot believe how many foolish people there are on this planet, use you brain for once instead of expecting others to do the thinking for you. I might have to create an account here to reply to all the silly comments.



posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Magnus47
I'm a Trekkie as well, and I think I'm gonna have to go with Spock on this one.


not only are theindependentjournal's thoeries wrong but that quote is from sherlock holmes originally so he got that wrong too

star for the pool player +raised eyebrow comment made me laugh ^_^

and your bombadier beetle thing got demolished too
www.talkorigins.org... maybe you could do with a new couldnt have evolved we beastie, this ones has no made in gods shed etched in its foot

[edit on 21/10/08 by noobfun]

[edit on 21/10/08 by noobfun]



posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by theindependentjournal
reply to post by theindependentjournal
 

They made many kinds of fruit flys but they were all fruit flys, they never changed KINDS...


Flying fish and flying squirrels are, IMO, examples of evolution at its finest. These creatures are using creative methods to escape the large numbers of predators in their areas, and it's paying off. Those fish which jumped out of the water to escape a pursuing predator were more likely to survive... those with fins large enough to glide through the air for a short time were more likely to stay out of the water, and thus even MORE likely to survive. Now you've got fish flapping their "wings," reaching speeds of up to 60 km/h, and staying out of the water for as long as 45 seconds.

en.wikipedia.org...

This is incredible, if you ask me. I'd say we are witnessing the formation of a whole new "kind" of creature, here. If these fish started living closer to shore, and began catching insects for food while they were flying, who knows? Maybe the introduction of an entirely new food supply could give them an even greater survival advantage. Maybe it's happening already. And if their distant offspring were flying over the beaches of Japan, eating mosquitoes, would you still say they're the same "kind" of creature? Maybe I'm not clearly understanding what you mean by "kind."

I would post more but unfortunately I don't have time right now. Thanks for the discussion and have a nice day

P.S. Crazy flying fish video:
news.bbc.co.uk...

[edit on 21-10-2008 by Magnus47]



posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by theindependentjournal
 


i will point you towards cancer, cells mutate and become cancerous and a whole new thing is born from nothing but the matter within a cell, creationism is absolutely ridiculous as written in the bible, so many people choosing to live their lives and beliefs from a book of books that have been chosen from an enormous quantity of texts so that they can fit into a story thats rubbish. what you may find to be true is that both creationism and evolution theories are right and you will spend time arguing, if you use ancient text to rule/run your life look towards sumeria. maybe we evolved as ape like hominids to be mutated by more intelligent beings so that we could do their work, as it is written, but i suppose that the bible does not mention this



posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 02:16 AM
link   
Im not going to get into a debate over the merits, or lack of (depending on your view) evolution, but I find this interesting.


Originally posted by theindependentjournal
Just so it is CLEAR, I DO believe in Creation and GOD CREATED. I am this way because no other explanation to date has ever been proven.


So given two possibilities, neither of which you feel have been proven, why is 'god' such a clear choice over evolution? Or do you feel the existence of god has been proven?


Originally posted by theindependentjournal
Now don't get me wrong, if you want to BELIEVE in evolution by all means go ahead, I believe in God. But a belief is not a fact until shown to be true through science, by that I mean that scientists can recreate the experiment and get the same results. Theory's are untested or unproven guesses, scientific facts are repeatable.


Fair enough reason I guess, as youre right in saying science has yet to spark life in a test tube, and had it evolve.
But you never know. Science couldnt prove a lot of things through experimentation until the required discovery was made.

Do you believe in black holes, or other such things that 'theories' describe and predict their actions for, but have yet to be recreated through experiment?

Are you comfortable with the thought that god will never be more than a theory, as he will never be able to be recreated in experiment. Or does god being god mean he gets a free pass on that?



posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 05:55 AM
link   
Woah. Only 2 pages in and the evolutionists seem to have completely destroyed the creationists arguments already. Judging off what a lot of the creationists are saying about evolution theory and creation theory (both being unproven theories) then why exactly is the creation myth the one they believe in when its far more ridiculous?

I have a question for creationists too. If everything was created to be exactly as it is now, explain the giraffe. Did God get near the end of creating everything and say "wow, i've got a lot of neck left. Better create something with a massive neck to use it all up"?



posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 08:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by mister.old.school
He has not made any such statement about biological evolution. Here is the statement often misunderstood by creationists --

www.infidels.org...

For instance: if there is a true answer to "the question of why it is that we and the universe exist" it can only be because, as a matter of fact, the universe was and/or is caused to exist by something outside itself. Even if that is indeed the case it still does not necessarily follow -- as is too often and too easily assumed[4] -- that such a cause must be a personal God capable of harbouring purposes in creating and sustaining us and the universe which we inhabit.


The worse (sic) question is what caused existence to exist? The question appears to have an answer that both creation and science may completely agree and disagree on simultaneously.



posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 09:13 AM
link   
reply to post by theindependentjournal
 





That is not true, or it wouldn't be called a Theory it would be a fact or science or a law. 54% of scientists do not subscribe to the theory, that is over half. Let's keep it to the facts only, and no interject speculation and theory.


Well, if we are going to rule that anything that is theory is not a fact, than I guess gravity is out as it is only a theory. The soul is out, because there is no proof of that, only theories. The afterlife is definitely out as no one who goes there comes back.


n science a theory is 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. For the scientist, "theory" is not in any way an antonym of "fact". For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behavior are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and the general theory of relativity.

[Link]

Everything can be summed up as theory. To claim something is not valid or worth considering simply because the word theory precedes it is juvenile and short sighted.




Now don't get me wrong, if you want to BELIEVE in evolution by all means go ahead, I believe in God. But a belief is not a fact until shown to be true through science, by that I mean that scientists can recreate the experiment and get the same results. Theory's are untested or unproven guesses, scientific facts are repeatable.


By all means, if you want to BELIEVE in creation go ahead, I believe in evolution. But as you stated, a belief is not a fact until shown to be true through science (which, by the way, creation does not qualify as).



posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 09:31 AM
link   
In a age that we are learning new things every day about missing links, I dont think its wise to hang on to the things we yet to understand. To say prove to you a missing link to the evolution of a fly trap plant DOES NOT show anyone that there is not a link. It only shows it is on the list of things that we dont understand. Mother nature is the most amazing cycle here on this planet. We are finding fish fossils that seemed to evolve to becoming creatures that could leave the water and scoot onto land. Without finding this, we could assume fish never left the water. With finding this, a whole new world of ideas opens. This is not a good age to have a close mind.

Peace,
LV



posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 10:29 AM
link   
What are the other venus like meat eating plants ? Conan the barbarian was sacerficed to one . but of cource he got away, and up rooted the plant and terrerized the village with it ,hehehehheh



posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by theindependentjournal
 


Come on, then! Tell us the absolute meanings of these vague words, and we can continue the discussion.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join