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: 23
65
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by DocTesla
 


and i have a belly button, so i win.

Are you serious?





posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by DocTesla
well evolution has fossils so we win


creationism is also a theory but with much less proof


I almost spit my coffee all over my monitor when I read this.

LMAO



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by jrod
 


#1 aye?

so let me get this straight; you believe that EVERYTHING happened and happens by random chance as a result of atoms and sub matter reacting with each other? You think that's reasonable?



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by JPhish
reply to post by jrod
 


#1 aye?

so let me get this straight; you believe that EVERYTHING happened and happens by random chance as a result of atoms and sub matter reacting with each other? You think that's reasonable?


I never said that, but I am open to that idea and I am also open to the idea of a creator. Evolution does has evidence and many refuse to see it.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by jrod
 


fair enough, just trying to understand your tract.

i've seen the evidence of the theory you advocate, but i personally believe the others bear more actual weight. That's just my opinion



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by reasoner
 


First of all, thank you for responding to my post, and second; to the obvious intelligence you display in your posts. I do not see any narrowness but sound reasoning in your posts!
I appreciate balance and not dogmatic or fanatic responses.



Intelligent Design argues that it would be mathematically improbable that life could evolve on its own. That argument (like the argument that there must be other life in a universe this big, SETI style) is based on some guesses of probabilities we don't really know. If it has any traction, it will eventually convince enough scientists, but I have my doubts. More corroborating evidence is probably needed, as often happens in science.



Yes, with about 45% or less of the scientific community. Over 55% believe in an intelligent power or creator, however indifferent or limited this being may be, while the agnostics in this group are humble enough to say "I don't know." It is the dogmatic that twist my knickers who KNOW that a divine power with consciousness doesn't exist. I lose patience with this group's lack of humility, narrowness of thought, boxlike thinking, along with arrogance in assuming that we "know it all" to make that judgment.



Here's something I'd find to be real evidence: finding a complex species without any "junk DNA", nor vestigal organs etc (like the appendix). No design flaws (like human knees). No incremental ancestors. Basically, no signs of the byproducts of the inefficiencies of mutation and natural selection. I think that a truly engineered species's genome would stand out radically, in such a way that even skeptical scientists would eventually be convinced.



Here is where I believe in the concept of "The Sins of our Fathers" enters the DNA. Inheriting sin or shame that is passed down from one generation to another in our genetics. Completely on the sociological and psychological along with inherited sin (Biblical) that influences my thinking and experience. I work in psychology and so it is natural for me to answer this question in this non-provable vein.



Or how about finding undeniable DNA on asteroids or in comets? Evidence for panspermia would not be evidence for intelligent design per se, but it would open more doors for it.



How much access do we have to the entire cosmos for this to be ruled out?



Maybe some SETI communication that upon decoding explained the process by which our planet was seeded with life long ago?



Here is where we hit the infinite regression mode. Where did ET's get their start?



Or perhaps that some force did some artificial selection at a key juncture, as we do with breeding plants and animals (like the monument in 2001, somehow helping the local primate develop higher intelligence).



My thoughts.


All that could happen within science. But it hasn't yet. So far the critics of evolution have by and large been snipers, looking for minor holes or inconsistencies or mistakes and thinking that overrides the mass of evidence. They have not been willing to subject themselves and their alternatives to the same level of scrutiny.



True! I see this on both sides, however. Although a "believer" is dealing in a more abstract thought, based on the empirical "senses." Not easily explicable. Often they are too narrow to think outside the box. Atheists are too narrow to think outside their box of limited possibilities relying on their limited information, intelligence (strictly left brain thinking), and evidence, as you say.



I *welcome* falsifiable scientific hypotheses regarding conscious creation elements in the development of life, and the search for evidence thereof. Go for it!

(Be brave tho; the "intelligent designer" so discovered might not confirm to the picture painted by old religious texts, so religious folks undertaking this search may have more to fear from fellow religionists than from scientists, if what they find out challenges religion more than science.)



In order to do this one must stop putting limitations on brainstorming and narrowing the field of research and allow for truth to exist beyond science.


I am already considered a "false prophet" by the Christians already, and I find that I wear it well!
I am no longer religious nor Christian, so I don't feel the pain.

I am no longer content or comfortable with labels and prefer to be open-minded enough to consider all the possibilities. Ironically enough, all that I am learning - from all of you, is confirming my belief in a power with consciousness as it makes more intelligent sense. But it doesn't exclude the possibility that God is actually brighter than given credit, and could have figured out a brilliant plan in our design, including what all the scientific evidence may be showing.


Thanks!



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by JPhish
reply to post by jrod
 


fair enough, just trying to understand your tract.

i've seen the evidence of the theory you advocate, but i personally believe the others bear more actual weight. That's just my opinion


Are you saying you believe in Christianity or a different "god" - one not part of a large religion?

Do you also believe in evolution?

While I do not believe in Christianity, I think evolution and the idea of a single "creator" is the most logical explanation. Evolution doesn't disprove "religion"...could just be part of the design made.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Anonymous ATS
 



Lets say that you are God. You are bored, you know everything, are lonely, and have no beings to share your incredible knowledge with.



It is my thinking that this androgynous being was a new parent/Creator with a new playground or invention.


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.



Too me, I see evidence of designed intelligence everywhere. That it is likely he used a whole lot of science to do so, is not surprising.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbohenk
reply to post by jfj123
 


"We use science to create computers, cars, cures for disease, etc...
So if science wasn't accurate, those things wouldn't exist."

My point exactly, if we would have had real and uncensored science we would be transporting instantly without any consumption of energy. And our computers would be way faster and also wouldn't be using energy. But guess what... some people can't make money on that so efficiency will not be the case for now.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Please back up what you've just written.


"Now regarding any phenomena-If it happens, it is measurable. For example, if matter is created from nothing, that new mass in the universe can be measured and the energy used to create the new matter can be measured. Do you have any science showing this or is this something you've heard from somebody who claims they heard something who said they saw it once???"



90% of your information comes from sources that you haven't witnessed/measured/proven yourself. And is less logical when you try to put it into the whole picture.

Please be specific as to how you know this. For example, how do you know exactly 90%.
Once again, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by John Matrix
All of the exact same evidence fits much more reasonably into the creation model than it does the evolution model. It's also more logical.

OK, show us using scientific principals.


Evolution requires far too much blind faith. Evolution defies logic, reason, and the will of the Creator(cause) and his effect(creation: the Universe and life in it).

Evolution is backed by factual information. Your failure to understand the factual information does not change it.


Evolution is proof of just how far man will go to discredit his creator for the purpose of self arrogating:

If there was no evidence to support evolution, science wouldn't believe it. That simple.


see how intelligent we are.....we figured it all out......if we put enough time between the present and the past we can fool the masses and they will get sucked in by our false assumptions. Tell a BIG lie loud enough and often enough and the masses will come to believe it as fact---Adolf Hitler

Apparently for you, it's easier to live in the dark then it is to turn on a light

Prove that evolution is a lie. If you can't, then you're just trying to propagate false information.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by John Matrix
reply to post by Daniem
 


I have studied both considerably more than the masses have(2 years of evolution and creation research). People who believe the evolution model also vehemently attack people who believe in God as creator and they deny the existence of God.

This is not necessarily true. There are scientists who believe in evolution with all their heart but also believe in a god. They are not mutually exclusive.


Their motive for believing junk science is found in their hatred for God and hatred of believers in God as creator of the Universe.


[edit on 3/3/09 by John Matrix]

No there motive is to learn about ourselves, our history and the earths history. There is no ill intent to the study of evolution.
I have ZERO hate for god yet I believe in evolution so my statement alone completely disproves what you've just said.
My suggestion to you is DENY IGNORANCE.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by John Matrix

Originally posted by MacDonagh
What is the problem here?


The problem is that people cannot believe in the junk science of evolution without attacking or denying the existance of God. (not a proven fact by the way----you have been brain washed into believing it is a proven fact).

You cannot staddle both sides of the fence on this issue by thinking God is behind evolution. That is just absurd.

If you don't stand for the creator behind the creation, then you will fall for anything, including falling for something as profoundly ignorant as believing evolution is a proven fact, when in FACT it is not.


I'll make this simple for you.
Since you claim junk science is behind evolution all you have to do is DISPROVE EVOLUTION.
Show us the junk science and why it can't work and you'll disprove evolution.
You'll also get a nobel prize and world wide fame.
When will you be able to do this so I can check in on the thread? Do you think you'll have disproven evolution by tomorrow afternoon or should I wait until Thursday?



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 06:42 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


Prove that evolution is a lie? Is that what this thread is coming to?


Gravitational Theory - explains the LAW of Gravity.

Electromagnetic Theory - explains the many LAWS of electricity.

But

The Theory of Evolution - attempts to explain it's own theory.

Cheers.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by griffinrl
impregnating sleeping virgins...I mean what's not logical about that?

I believe drugging and having sex with a woman is a felony in all 50 states



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by John Matrix

Originally posted by Daniem
i mean come on, the evidence is there, the research is clear... read it... or go out and do the same tests yourself if you dont believe what they conlcluded.


Creation scientists also examine the same facts, same evidence and do research as well.

Really? Well lets see their science and research.

If you feel so strongly that "creation science" is so much superior, please post examples. If you can't then we must assume you're just chest thumping.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by John Matrix

Originally posted by MacDonagh
What is the problem here?


The problem is that people cannot believe in the junk science of evolution without attacking or denying the existance of God. (not a proven fact by the way----you have been brain washed into believing it is a proven fact).

You cannot staddle both sides of the fence on this issue by thinking God is behind evolution. That is just absurd.

If you don't stand for the creator behind the creation, then you will fall for anything, including falling for something as profoundly ignorant as believing evolution is a proven fact, when in FACT it is not.


I'll make this simple for you.
Since you claim junk science is behind evolution all you have to do is DISPROVE EVOLUTION.
Show us the junk science and why it can't work and you'll disprove evolution.
You'll also get a nobel prize and world wide fame.
When will you be able to do this so I can check in on the thread? Do you think you'll have disproven evolution by tomorrow afternoon or should I wait until Thursday?


So by Thursday you can PROVE evolution?

Go read many quotes by leading scientist that admit they have a LOT of the answers concerning evolution, but not ALL of the answers.

Is there evidence for evolution? Absolutely.

Is there lot's of evidence for evolution? Possibly.

Can you or anyone else say you have all the answers for evolution? Nope.

Therefore it is not fact yet. It is still just a theory, no matter how you'd like to redefine theory.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gregarious
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.

Actually no it's a theory and many posts have proven this on past pages.


Doesn't evolution violate the second law of thermodynamics? After all, order cannot come from disorder.

Answer: Evolution does not violate the second law of thermodynamics. Order emerges from disorder all the time. Snowflakes form, trees grow, and embryos develop, etc.

more details here
www.talkorigins.org...



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by jrod
 



I read a post saying how 'evolutionists' are on the attack of creationist and God. This is backwards, it is us the evolutionist who are trying to show the reasoning and evidence behind evolution while being attacked by weak arguments from the extreme creationist side.



Have you not read "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins? You will find that he heavily crusades against creationism and God. He openly says he is "hostile" against the concept of God. Biased would you say? Non-prejudiced would you say? Not making a religion out of science to support his atheism...would you say?



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by visible_villain
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 ?

You made a claim. I asked you to back up your claim. If you didn't want to back it up, you shouldn't have brought it up.


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 ...

Are you asking me to disprove creationism?
If so, read about evolution and you'll have your answer. I've posted plenty of evidence to support evolution.


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.

Believe what you like, that is your right. Your personal beliefs however, do not change reality.
For example, I could believe that I can defy gravity. It doesn't matter how much I believe this, I cannot defy gravity



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

You misunderstand. I never said nothing means anything. Every life has meaning in my opinion regardless of whether or not it was random.


[edit on 3-3-2009 by jfj123]



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by peaceonearth
The 1st Law of Thermodynamics states that you can never have an increase or decrease of energy/matter, which means that matter/energy can not be created from nothingness, how did we get all the matter and energy in the universe? If science is all there is and there is no God, then the 1st Law of Thermodynamics reigns supreme and therefore it would be impossible to have matter and energy in existence right now. Simply put, when you open your eyes and see matter and experience energy, what you see is impossible according to the known Laws of science if, in fact, there is no God. Therefore, science itself says there must be a God.


You're making an assumption based on something we don't know.
We don't know what existed before the big bang so you assume God did it. Maybe god did, we don't know but maybe god didn't.



new topics

top topics



 
65
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join