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: 19
65
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


Why is it that I'm not allowed to explore the "creator" side of the equation? Do I need someone's permission? Please send me the appropriate Intelligent Design club application and I'll be happy to fill it out. This forum is for opinions....and I feel perfectly free to voice mine...anytime I feel like it.

MY opinion is that anything other than a scientifically testable situation is supernatural. Which implies a creator. You can call he/she god or any other name you like. But face it...anything having to do with creation/ID is just smoke screen for religion.

Again exercising my free right to express MY opinion.

[edit on 3-3-2009 by griffinrl]




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

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


Why is it that I'm not allowed to explore the "creator" side of the equation? Do I need someone's permission? Please send me the appropriate Intelligent Design club application and I'll be happy to fill it out. This forum is for opinions....and I feel perfectly free to voice mine...anytime I feel like it.

MY opinion is that anything other than a scientifically testable situation is supernatural. Which implies a creator. You can call he/she god or any other name you like. But face it...anything having to do with creation/ID is just smoke screen for religion.

Again exercising my free right to express MY opinion.

[edit on 3-3-2009 by griffinrl]


Exploring and Insulting people are two different things all together.

Like if I say "I agree with some parts of evolution, I mostly have a problem with origin of the species part", that's taking part in the discussion.

But if I say "Your avatar really creeps me out", that's insulting.

Understand?



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 12:45 PM
link   
I think what B.A.C. is trying to point out is that by talking about 'sides' and constantly bringing up religion, you are making it an 'evolution vs god' thing, when it shouldn't be. You are using evolution as a starting point in a tirade against religion. A truly unbiased and scientific minded person would be investigating evolution REGARDLESS of their beliefs (or unbeliefs) instead of using it as a standard for their fight against the other side.

I have nothing against accepting the theory of evolution, and am perfectly willing to accept it (and probably DO accept it as the most suitable explanation available today), but I really dislike and am annoyed by how it is used as a shield or standard by anti-theists against theists (and thus cornering theists into having to disprove it, when that shouldn't be necessary), because this means that when a better, or more fitting explanation comes along, people will be refusing to accept it, because they are already entrenched in their beliefs.

[edit on 3-3-2009 by babloyi]



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


I could personally care less if anyone insults me on the intertubes. My skin is a little thicker than that.

And I stand by my opinion that anything having to do with a mystical creator and the belief in such is nothing more than doublespeak for religion.

Understand?



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 12:46 PM
link   
I don't have the time nor desire to read all this post, so maybe someone addressed this already. You come across fairly persuasive, articulate, and well educated. So why do you ignore the Second LAW of Thermodynamics? EVERYTHING goes from an ordered state, to a disordered state. Also, The Theory of Evolution is, by scientifically adopted standards, NOT a theory, but a POSTULATE. There is not enough evidence to go beyond that to a theory. But, hey, its easier to say Theory, more convincing to all those people who believe God rather than Lucifer. The new twist on your 'lie' is that no, humans did not evolve on earth, but were genetically modified by 'aliens' to work as servants to mine gold here, and to serve the 'aliens'. That is easier to believe, since there are no links, and the leap to civilization was sudden. BUT, there are no links between the other forms of life, either. Darwin, on his death-bed, recognized this and felt terrible for starting such a load of potash. Funny, we never hear about that, just like we hardly hear about the nationwide protests against the Feds right now. Seems the media like the socialist/communist power grab going on right now in DC. But back to your postulate. If you want to see some proof that your Evolution is not a 'theory', try an indepth dictionary. Look up 'theory', and look up 'postulate'. You know, it's that big book open on a stand in the library. I'm torn between wanting to ridicule your ridiculous ranting about your postulate, and wanting to acknowledge your obvious education. But remember that education and wisdom are not the same thing, the educated merely like to pretend it is.


[edit on 3-3-2009 by Gregarious]



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Gregarious
 


The 2nd law of thermodynamics is nothing without the other 3. That's why they are known as the "laws" of thermodynamics.

[edit on 3-3-2009 by griffinrl]



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 12:49 PM
link   
reply to post by John Matrix
 


Thank you very much for the correction. Learn something new everyday.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by griffinrl
 


So if someone disagrees with The theory of evolution, it's because of religious beliefs?

Funny thing is, for 16 pages of this thread EVERYONE managed to respect each others beliefs and leave religion out of the discussion.

You've been the ONLY one to try to devolve the thread into a religious discussion, with your loaded comments.

I'm pretty sure that what I disagree with is an incomplete theory with many holes in it.

I'd have the same stance if I thought Gravitation, Relativity, etc were full of holes.

How about you reply to my post with the quotes from Darwin if you truly want to show us some science, and leave God out of the discussion.


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



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by griffinrl
reply to post by Gregarious
 


The 2nd law of thermodynamics is nothing without the other 3. That's why they are known as the "laws" of thermodynamics.

[edit on 3-3-2009 by griffinrl]


That is incorrect. "Laws" plural. Each one is completely separate.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


Explain how any of this disproves the fact of evolution?
Please show detailed science that disproves evolution.
Thanks.


How can this request be a fair one ?

The same questions might be asked of you by replacing "evolution" with "creationism," and I haven't had the bad manners of placing you in such an indefensible position ...

IMHO it all boils down to this - I either believe I am and everybody I've ever known is a meaningless, random event or I don't believe it.

Admittedly, it makes life a lot simpler to just rationalize our existence into the absurdity of nihilism, that is to say, nothing means anything.

Much simpler, yes, but a complete waste of life too, I would venture to say ...



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by visible_villain
 


Well said. Where everyone came from isn't really important. What's important is where you go from here. Anyway you slice it that's evolution whether it's physical, spiritual or mental.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


You're absolutely right B.A.C. I stand corrected.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by griffinrl
 


1st Law Of Thermodynamics:
Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. It can only change forms.

This doesn't require ANY of the other laws to be true.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


As I stated before...I stand corrected.

My bottom line is this...only one of the theories can be observed and tested. The other "theory" cannot. Until data that can be observed, tested and verified is offered on ALL sides for comparison it's nothing more than an argument of opinions. Those with strong ideas either way are entitled to that belief. But until data can be compared that's all it is....an argument that will not be settled based on personal beliefs.

[edit on 3-3-2009 by griffinrl]



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 01:42 PM
link   
Hi, evolving ATSers !

I did not read all 19 pages. But about evolution,
you can see it at work on "one" of the Galapagos islands.

On that island there are, evolving:

a bird: finch (songbird), with big beak, or small beak;
and trees, with big seeds and small seeds.

At a stage or moment of the evolution on that island, there are big beak finches,
and big seeds trees.

BUT, with time, too many big beaks eat too much on the big seeds trees, and there
is less and less and less big seeds to be found.
Soooooooo, the big beaks birds die more and more and more. . .

But there was a little little population of small beak finches, that did the same,
about 25 years before. Soooooo, because it is now at its small-population-stage,
the small seeds trees did gow more and more and more. . .

Now that the island is almost empty of the diminishing big beaks, the small beaks
begin to grow and to grow and to grow and to grow. . . and guess what ?
Years later, there is a lack of small seeds trees, and the small beaks
begin to die, to die to die. And, for the "low profile" big beaks, it is
AGAIN their turn to grow up in population again. . .

This cycle is about 25 years long.
It can be "contemplated", a few times, in ONE human life-time !

"Instant" Evolution Seen in Darwin's Finches.
news.nationalgeographic.com...

Now, it seems to happen/begin on other islands.

Darwin's finches evolving fast.
bioacoustics.cse.unsw.edu.au...

Blue skies.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 01:50 PM
link   
What if intention influences the evolving of the body/plant. For example: If the animal/plant is often in a problematic situation, could it be that the will/intention of the creature forms its body to overcome the problem over the generations.

Who/what else could know what the problem is and what to want to solve it?

And since intention has to do with consiousness and that has a connection to the higher self (that what people call god...and which we are al part of) both evolution theory and religion are right but incomplete or/and manipulated.

Keep in mind that quantum phisics showed us that consiousness can manipulate/create matter.
And it is alsow known (but not widely accepted) that healing can occur just by sending some intention.
Some monks can materialise things in their hands like apples and such.
And Cleve Backster showed us that every living thing is connected to the consiousness network, with over 40 years of his research.
So why couldn’t it work on the body of less conscious beings such as plants and animals but somewhat slower?
I am not saying that this would be the absolute way things went, it would be unlikely that its just one way, but I think its part of it



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 01:59 PM
link   

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


As I stated before...I stand corrected.

My bottom line is this...only one of the theories can be observed and tested. The other "theory" cannot. Until data that can be observed, tested and verified is offered on ALL sides for comparison it's nothing more than an argument of opinions. Those with strong ideas either way are entitled to that belief. But until data can be compared that's all it is....an argument that will not be settled based on personal beliefs.

[edit on 3-3-2009 by griffinrl]


Which theories are you talking about? I thought we are only speaking of ONE theory on this thread, the theory of evolution.

Those who disagree with the theory aren't necessarily in disagreement to the whole theory. Some of us are in disagreement with ALL of it being presented as fact, when in reality there are still a lot of unknowns involved.

For instance:

The current scientific consensus is that the complex biochemistry that makes up life came from simpler chemical reactions, but it is unclear how this occurred.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 02:16 PM
link   
I'm speaking of creation/ID. Or can we not speak on that in the effort to disprove or prove the theory of evolution? Please let me know your rules.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by griffinrl
I'm speaking of creation/ID. Or can we not speak on that in the effort to disprove or prove the theory of evolution? Please let me know your rules.


Speak of what you will. I was just wondering what theories you were speaking of.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 02:45 PM
link   
Why does every discussion of evolution have to involve a dispute between religion and science?

What I find particularly interesting is how it is the proponents of evolution that seem bent on confronting people who believe in creation and beat them over the head with the "facts".

Let me say that I am not a creationist nor am I a big believer in evolution. I consider the question of the origin of life and the species something like the creation of the Universe. We can speculate and theorize but we do not KNOW how it happened. That is why evolution is a theory and not the LAW OF EVOLUTION.

If you want to do an interesting study of evolution, just take a look online at the evolution in the theory. It has changed and continues to change and evolve. I made this point earlier. A case in point, RNA, DNA, amino acids, mitachondria, proteins, viruses, were all discovered after the theory of evolution was first put forward. The theory was changed to accomodate these discoveries.

Does evolution exist? Yes, it probably does but we don't know that for sure. Those of you quoting mutations of existing organisms and holding it up as proof of evolution should do some more study. Mutation and evolution are not the same thing, not even remotely.

One previous poster put forward the fact that the development of eyes is problematic for the theory of evolution. That is because there are at least 3 different types of eyes in the animal kingdom (to say nothing of light sensing plants), and they are not related, nor can any existing eye be developed through mutation. Eyes are one of the organs that just seem to appear fully developed in the fossil record.

This does not even address the issue of the spontaneous creation of life. An issue that even many PhDs avoid, because science cannot explain how amino acids, suddenly become proteins, or how those proteins spontaneously chain together to form RNA or DNA. So, there are gaps in the theory to say the least.

Also, don't try the idea that the earth was seeded with life from space. That still does not handle the issue of where that life came from, or how it spontaneously sprouted.

So, let's just say that there is a lot that we don't know. There is a lot that we will never know.

On the subject of creation, there are plenty of holes there too. The questions of who, what, when, where, to name a few.

What I would say though is that creation does not exclusively eliminate evolution as a mechanism, nor does evolution expressly eliminate a creator.

The human race is advancing rapidly in the field of genetics and bioengineering, we are not far from being able to create new life (not talking about splicing existing genes here.). So, who are we to say that it cannot be done by someone else? Call that person God if you like, or the Greys, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I don't care.

What I would like all evolutionists to do, is take a look at the order of creation in Genesis and you will see that it is basically correct. The heavens are created, then the earth, then the land is separated from the sea, then plants, then animals, then man. I think that it is amazing that someone who knew nothing of modern science (presumably) got that much right. Are there errors? Sure, there are errors and I don't think that the Adam and Eve story is intended to be literal. Every story needs a starting point and I think that the Book of Genesis is a great starting point for what follows. That is how I view it.

I really don't see why some folks get their panties all bunched up over it. Religion says who did what, but does not explain the how. Science is focused on the how and why, but never worries about the who. These two philosophies, and that is what they are, are not necessarily incompatible. It is close minds that make them so.



new topics

top topics



 
65
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join