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, It's only a theory

page: 16
65
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 12:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by pjmcginty
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


Im not saying don't use wiki.
Im saying understand what you are quoting.
Don't just post something because its on topic and you think it helps your arguement. As in previous posts it has not.

As for the Hardy Winberg principles and Mendelian inheritance. You were stating that its not a theory of gravity. Its a law. Thats why we know its real. (paraphrase)

Well these are laws of biology.
Stating that something is a law does not make it infallible.
So by you arguing for gravity but against genetics on the grounds of it being a LAW is moot.


ADDED...


As for wiki being a good source. I'll have to disagree. Its a good starting off point to research a topic. But because anyone can put in anything, you cannot rely 100% on it.

[edit on 3-3-2009 by pjmcginty]


Hasn't helped my argument? This is getting ridiculous. One argument at a time. Mendel didn't help your argument either.

Anyone can put something on Wiki, but it will be removed quickly. As a lover of science you should see the genius of wiki.

Anything I've posted, I've understood. You think I'm just cutting and pasting? Did you read any of my hand typed arguments throughout this whole thread.

I probably have the highest count in this thread, all responses, so yes I have to work fast LOL

I've proved MANY wrong today.

Have you done your research? What did I say my belief was on this subject?

I'll save you the trouble of looking through the thread. I said I believe in lots of the science of evolution. The main problem I have is with the origin of the species part.



Origin Of The Species

Charles Darwin: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."



Charles Darwin: "the evolution of the eye by natural selection at first glance seemed "absurd in the highest possible degree". However, he went on to explain that despite the difficulty in imagining it, it was perfectly feasible"


Feasible? That doesn't sound too convincing to me. This is the kind of thing I'm talking about, feasible doesn't cut it, doesn't reek of proof to me.

Like I stated before, lots of holes in the theory, though there is lots of good stuff too.


Stuff like this.




posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 12:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Masterjaden

First off, we never observed the universe expanding. We noticed a shift to the red in spectroscopic analysis and interpreted it as a sort of dopler shift. That is by no means a proven theory. That is just the best explanation of the apparent red shift in spectroscopic analysis up to this point. We don't even know which stars are farther away or how far away individual stars are to even attempt to corroborate red shift as being a doppler shift and not some unknown phenomena like wave degradation over time or something else. And don't say we know how far away stars are with parallax shift, I'll laugh at you. If you aren't aware of parallax measurement's shortcomings, then you have no ability to think logically for yourself at all.

Jaden


Admittedly, my knowledge of the big bang is limited, but I do have an overall picture and I am aware of the evidence for it. It is logical to assume that if galaxies are flying away from us proportional to their distance, then the universe itself is expanding.

Also, there is no need to get hostile. I was simply pointing out the flaw of comparing the two. It's not exactly faith if something is supported by evidence. That would be inductive logic.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 12:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.
I've proved MANY wrong today.

Have you done your research? What did I say my belief was on this subject?

I'll save you the trouble of looking through the thread. I said I believe in lots of the science of evolution. The main problem I have is with the origin of the species part.



Origin Of The Species

Charles Darwin: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."



Charles Darwin: "the evolution of the eye by natural selection at first glance seemed "absurd in the highest possible degree". However, he went on to explain that despite the difficulty in imagining it, it was perfectly feasible"


Feasible? That doesn't sound too convincing to me. This is the kind of thing I'm talking about, feasible doesn't cut it, doesn't reek of proof to me.

Like I stated before, lots of holes in the theory, though there is lots of good stuff too.


Stuff like this.


What exactly dont you like about it?



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 12:47 AM
link   
This is just something I find interesting,

Just like a crime scene there’s all the evidence, the overwhelming mountain of evidence in this case that leads to the conclusions that scientists have had over the last hundred and fifty years of intense scrutiny that has held up to all of it.

It’s like a detective at a murder seen wasn’t there but he can piece together what happened, especially overwhelming evidence that pointed to what happened and who did it.

Of all the things you creationists say – how could we come from monkeys, it’s never been observed and so forth. I would like to point something out if I may.

You say it’s never been observed, you weren’t there. I find this quite ironic and hilarious considering that fact that it’s a Christian telling me this. That scientists are arrogant because they weren’t there and it hasn’t been observed, yet I have a question for you……

were you there for the writing of the old and new testament? Did you see Jesus? Were you there when god created the world and poofed everything into existence? Were you there when Moses lead his people to the promised land? – Did you observe all that, were you there?

Contrast that with the mountain of evidence there is for evolution, to the faith that you need to believe in the god of the bible.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 12:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freaky

Originally posted by B.A.C.
I've proved MANY wrong today.

Have you done your research? What did I say my belief was on this subject?

I'll save you the trouble of looking through the thread. I said I believe in lots of the science of evolution. The main problem I have is with the origin of the species part.



Origin Of The Species

Charles Darwin: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."



Charles Darwin: "the evolution of the eye by natural selection at first glance seemed "absurd in the highest possible degree". However, he went on to explain that despite the difficulty in imagining it, it was perfectly feasible"


Feasible? That doesn't sound too convincing to me. This is the kind of thing I'm talking about, feasible doesn't cut it, doesn't reek of proof to me.

Like I stated before, lots of holes in the theory, though there is lots of good stuff too.


Stuff like this.


What exactly dont you like about it?


This is a post I made:



Origin Of The Species

Charles Darwin: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."



Charles Darwin: "the evolution of the eye by natural selection at first glance seemed "absurd in the highest possible degree". However, he went on to explain that despite the difficulty in imagining it, it was perfectly feasible"


Feasible? That doesn't sound too convincing to me. This is the kind of thing I'm talking about, feasible doesn't cut it, doesn't reek of proof to me.

Like I stated before, lots of holes in the theory, though there is lots of good stuff too.


Read it, it's from Darwin himself.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 12:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by vcwxvwligen
Not every theory is based on physical evidence. Lots of theories, like assertions that other theories work, are based on pushing pencils.

An example of theories on top of theories: string theory. People are pretty sure that it works, but no one knows how. However,


Actually, string theory is built atop physical observations. Each variation is tested against whatever constraints our observations can produce. And I would disagree that "string theory works". What I read in the scientific press is that string theory hasn't yet produced convincing results; it's still "promising but incomplete". To be accepted as well as evolution, would require far, far more corroboration than presently exists. Making a few predictions that could be tested would really help too, though not every science has that option.



Originally posted by vcwxvwligen
If mainstream science were based purely on logical argumentation, then anthropogenic global warming would have been the subject of ridicule rather than Nobel Prize-winning documentaries.


Yes, I understand. Those who oppose AGW are completely logical and immune to politics, and all scientists who accept AGW are incompetent or politically influenced. The truth that eludes most climate scientists is usually pretty obvious in a few minutes to any layman who watches the right movie. (Al Gore's film is the wrong movie; people who form conclusions from that movie are naive and deluded; such judgements should only be formed by watching OTHER movies that unfairly didn't win the right prizes)

I've heard it many times. It gets pretty deep. See, the political conspiracy includes not just the IPCC, but basically every august scientific body on the planet - the Royal Academy, most the of the national academies, etc. All but a courageous handful of brilliant climate scientists who dissent. Yeah right.

Look, politics has distorted both sides of that debate. It's quite possible to scientifically question AGW and this does happen in scientific journals. But to act like all the evidence for AGW can be dismissed with a wave of the hand as something that logical minds would ridicule is, well, not scientific but political.

Any alternative needs to stand up to the same scrutiny as AGW. Movies (pro or anti) tend to "control the horizontal and the vertical", and not tell the full story. AIT plays too casually with past CO2 peaks and temperatures as if they were stronger evidence than they are; anti-AGW films fail to mention that CO2 is posited as an amplifying mechanism rather than a cause in past warmings and pretend the time lag disproves something the pro-AGW folks do not assert. There is a bunch of garbage, and some real science, on BOTH sides.

Again - politics is sand in the gears of good science, not grease. That science eventually grinds forward anyway is to its credit. The fewer politicized non-scientists in the mix, the better.

reasoner



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 12:54 AM
link   
I'm just gonna go and get rid of the quotes.
Do you remember the title of this thread?
Feasible doesnt sound too convincing? Its just a theory, once again, a theory, he was explaining that it could happen.

[edit on 3/3/09 by Freaky]



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 12:57 AM
link   
OK I'm starting to see spots. I've been on this thread since 10 am this morning, it is now 2 am (16 hrs). While I've been working on client stuff from home, hopefully all their stuff will still run LMAO

Anyways, I'll continue on tomorrow.

Down with evolution (I'm on topic)

Cheers.

[edit on 3-3-2009 by B.A.C.]



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 01:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freaky
I'm just gonna go and get rid of the quotes.
Do you remember the title of this thread?
Feasible doesnt sound too convincing? Its just a theory, once again, a theory, he was explaining that it could happen.

[edit on 3/3/09 by Freaky]


One more post before bed, argh.

It could happen? I agree. Is that proof, nope. That's my whole point.

Cheers.

[edit on 3-3-2009 by B.A.C.]



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 01:04 AM
link   
Before I read the whole post, I just wanted to say ...

Nice one Andre ... nice one



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 01:07 AM
link   
And this thread further illustrates ad nauseum how long two opposing groups of believers will always bicker. Despite the fact that the doctrines they unswervingly pledge complete allegiance to need not be in conflict.

[edit on 3-3-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 01:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.

Originally posted by Freaky
I'm just gonna go and get rid of the quotes.
Do you remember the title of this thread?
Feasible doesnt sound too convincing? Its just a theory, once again, a theory, he was explaining that it could happen.

[edit on 3/3/09 by Freaky]


One more post before bed, argh.

It could happen? I agree. Is that proof, nope. That's my whole point.

Cheers.

[edit on 3-3-2009 by B.A.C.]


Yay, finally, we reach the middle-man. Have a great sleep, its been fun arguing with you.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 01:08 AM
link   
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


I didn't bother reading all your posts.
As your first one was so strikingly ignorant.
I replied to it first, I don't have time to trawl through the entire thread.

And his statement that "If someone could find an organ which does not arise.."
Is backed by more present work such as : (i cant remember what this is called someone help me out) Only morphologically compatible mutations can result in a new phenotype. Like a bird cant develop feathers without some prior trait, scales, from which to build off.



Natural selection, or as i'd rather call it. Selection. Is again, a cog in the machine.
And as popular as Darwin's theories are it is by no means Evolution in a nutshell as many seem to think.

Sorry for the long wait, I like to argue, but I am also studyin for a midterm.

Added...

Oh okay heres a better example incase i get a birds didnt develop feathers first, dinosaurs did. So whatever, before some stupid arguement comes up that does not actually argue the point im trying to make...
Simple Fish Gas Bladder ---> pystomous gas bladder(connected to esophagus)---> Basic lung sac ----> further developed lung sac





[edit on 3-3-2009 by pjmcginty]



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 01:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Freaky
 


You too, now let me sleep LOL



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 01:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by pjmcginty
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


I didn't bother reading all your posts.
As your first one was so strikingly ignorant.
I replied to it first, I don't have time to trawl through the entire thread.

And his statement that "If someone could find an organ which does not arise.."
Is backed by more present work such as : (i cant remember what this is called someone help me out) Only morphologically compatible mutations can result in a new phenotype. Like a bird cant develop feathers without some prior trait, scales, from which to build off.



Natural selection, or as i'd rather call it. Selection. Is again, a cog in the machine.
And as popular as Darwin's theories are it is by no means Evolution in a nutshell as many seem to think.

Sorry for the long wait, I like to argue, but I am also studyin for a midterm.

Added...

Oh okay heres a better example incase i get a birds didnt develop feathers first, dinosaurs did. So whatever, before some stupid arguement comes up that does not actually argue the point im trying to make...
Simple Fish Gas Bladder ---> pystomous gas bladder(connected to esophagus)---> Basic lung sac ----> further developed lung sac





[edit on 3-3-2009 by pjmcginty]


Oh, same thing I done to you earlier? We're even then


I'll argue some more tomorrow with ya. I'll read up on some of your topics too.

Gnite.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 01:21 AM
link   
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


Enjoy.
Thanks for the spirited arguement. And filling study time with something less boring.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 01:27 AM
link   
Lets say that you are God. You are bored, you know everything, are lonely, and have no beings to share your incredible knowledge with. Then you decide to take half of forever to create some beings you can share your knowledge, and show kindness toward them. Since you that the only thing that can limit your power is your knowledge you have all the power there is. You happen to like the number seven so you create everything you want in 7 periods of time. You chose the last period of time to reflect on how nice and good everything you created is. To show the being you created that it has a mind that can make choices based on free will you reqest the being to not do one thing, just one or it would die. You provide the being with tools of knowledge so someday it can understand the meaning of life and why it was created so it could someday talk with you.

Now you know that God does care and doesn't walk away whistling along the way. nothing is an accident or we would look pretty messed up. If some rocks, warm water, and protiens created us, they must have been pretty intelligent. Natural selection is evidence of creation. Macro evolution is false.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 02:21 AM
link   
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


"Not only is evolution not observable, it is not testable or repeatable in a lab."

Of course it is - take flu for example - it is changing and mutating all the time.

"The Missing Links, where are they? If evolution were true where are all these skeletons that are halfway through evolving? There are none."

Exactly what part of evolution is missing?

"Even today, this world is filled with simple one-cell structured living organisms. Why didn't they evolve?"

They did evolve - they were completely different million years ago - they evolved in what they are now.

"What about the written record? The cuneiform writing system originated perhaps around 2900 BC, if man has been here evolving for so long, why don't we see evidence of it?"

I know about cuneiform, though don't understand your point.

"Why don't we see new species emerging? There should be new species evolving before our very eyes, where are they? Instead we see the extinction of species. Has evolution now stopped?"

We see bacteria evolving very fast. The more complex the organisms the slower evolution it appears, so you are not able to observe without microscope.

"Answer these questions for me. "

You are easy - bless.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 03:13 AM
link   



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 03:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.
OK I'l be one of the religious nuts to respond


In science, the word theory is used as a plausible general principle or body of principles offered to explain a phenomenon.

The word is derived from Greek θεωρία theoria (Jerome), Greek "contemplation, speculation"

en.wikipedia.org...

Why don't I believe in evolution?

It is speculation.

Not only is evolution not observable, it is not testable or repeatable in a lab.


Completely totally utterly WRONG. Just because you choose to ignore this does not mean it is not the case.

There is so much evidence it beggers belief that you you deny it. Mind you I suppose it proves how ignorant and in denial you wish to be. Presumably it's the only way you can keep your faith.

For those readers who don't know about "the evidence" it will do you all a lot of good to use the internet, search, read, learn.....clue: viruses, bacteria are the top of the list but humans are on there too!!!!!!!!!



new topics

top topics



 
65
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join