Evolution, It's only a theory

Humans have a unique consciousness and self awareness as opposed to other life forms on the planet. Humans have the unique ability to understand morality, right and wrong, think creatively, invent, develop technologies, improve, and produce mass destruction...etc. Animals can learn how to behave a certain way, but they have severe limitations and no understanding of morality.

Evolution involves transmutations and transformations of species from lower to higher forms of life over eons of time, yet , with all those supposed millions of transformations at the cellular level bringing us to higher and higher life forms no other creatures have the same type of consciousness as humans. The Evolution model predicts that we should not be unique like this. The creation model asserts that we are unique in all of creation and makes no secondary assumptions about any of the evidence. Evolutionists are always modifying and making new assumptions to explain the evidence.

[edit on 7/3/09 by John Matrix]

To the OP. So what's the point. There can be separate theories using the same tangible evidence. I could say just as theoretically that God created the universe and life as you could say that it just all happened all on it's own just because. This debate is far from over.

[edit on 7-3-2009 by Fromabove]

reply to post by John Matrix


*deep sigh*

*Clicks "X" on top right of window*

reply to post by John Matrix


I am sorry but this comment comes off greatly humanocentric. We are largely an abberation if you look around at nature, a self destructive one at that. There is one speices like us that we know of, and that speices *us* seems committed to destroying itself.


[edit on 7-3-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by John Matrix

 

I am sorry but this comment comes off greatly humanocentric. We are largely an abberation if you look around at nature, a self destructive one at that. There is one speices like us that we know of, and that speices *us* seems committed to destroying itself.


[edit on 7-3-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

I don't really see the Galaxy as being a human majority(humanocentric) but I do see us as being uniquely created and placed on this planet, and possibly other planets.

I agree with you but with one side note. I am not self destructive and don't fit into self-destructive abberation catagory.

I do see us as being uniquely created and placed on this planet, and possibly other planets.

delusions of grandeur

Originally posted by iWork4NWO
delusions of grandeur

I am light years ahead of putting my faith in an ideology that requires the kind of tunnel vision one must acquire to believe in the "From Goo to You by Way of the Zoo" Darwitt teachings.

[edit on 7/3/09 by John Matrix]

reply to post by John Matrix


Individual humans tend not to be, usually, there are exceptions. But collectively we are, you need but to look around you to see that.

And incidently, there is a middle ground, it's not just created or random.


[edit on 7-3-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

Originally posted by B.A.C.


en.wikipedia.org...

In the natural sciences, abiogenesis, or origin of life, is the study of how life on Earth could have arisen from inanimate matter. It should not be confused with evolution, which is the study of how living things change over time. Amino acids, often called "the building blocks of life", occur naturally, due to chemical reactions unrelated to life. In all living things, these amino acids are organized into proteins, and the construction of these proteins is mediated by nucleic acids. Thus the question of how life on Earth originated is a question of how the first nucleic acids arose.

This post is amazing because it leaves alot out.
It is true that amino acids are naturally occuring, but what is not told is that these naturally occuring amino acids that are organised into proteins within all life are regulated and controlled by genes. Amono acids need to be combined in specific formations to achieve proteins.

14.2 Protein Synthesis in Overview

There are two principal stages in protein synthesis. The first stage is transcription, in which the information encoded in DNA is copied onto a length of messenger RNA (mRNA), which in eukaryotes moves from the cell nucleus to structures in the cytoplasm called ribosomes. The second stage is translation, in which amino acids are linked together at the ribosomes in the order specified by the mRNA sequence.

wps.prenhall.com...

We would need DNA to first organise the many amino acids into proteins. See the last bit in the first quote that is highlighted were they mention Nucleic Acid. That is DNA and RNA, nucleic acids, Deoxyribonucleic acid. DNA. A complex language and code must first exist to construct complex proteins from as many as 20 base amino acids that when combined form thousands of protein chains.
I hope you evolutionist's can really grasp the implication here.
ET cannot account for this. It contradicts the theory,
That is why we gey words like Nucleic Acid used in quotes that support ET instead of DNA, which most people know but may not relate to as simply Nucleic Acid.
We see no progression in this system either as would be per ET.

[edit on 7-3-2009 by atlasastro]

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
Individual humans tend not to be, usually, there are exceptions. But collectively we are, you need but to look around you to see that.

And incidently, there is a middle ground, it's not just created or random.

I'm trying to understand your point. I am a creationist that came to an evolutionist thread which attacks creation science. The OP makes assumptions concerning evidence which he thinks proves evolution when it's just assumptions and more secondary assumptions.

All of the same evidences have been examined by creation scientists as well, without making secondary assumptions.

In my view, having spent two years studying both scientific views and the evidences(which I still do BTW) I believe the creation model makes more sense, is more rational, logical and more reasonable.

I respect your view, but nothing here convinces me otherwise.

[edit on 7/3/09 by John Matrix]

reply to post by John Matrix


Oh merely pointing out both camps are taking an absolutist view in a necessarily variable world. Evolution as I think you have said before evolution can exist along side creation. Only the black and white polarists of both camps say otherwise.

And I respect your view as well and appreciate your respect.

[edit on 7-3-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

In my view, having spent two years studying both scientific views and the evidences(which I still do BTW) I believe the creation model makes more sense, is more rational, logical and more reasonable.

The King James version or Kalevala version or some other?

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by John Matrix

 

Oh merely pointing out both camps are taking an absolutist view in a necessarily variable world.

Evolution as I think you have said before evolution can exist along side creation. Only the black and white polarists of both camps say otherwise.

And I respect your view as well and appreciate your respect.

[edit on 7-3-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

Thank you for that.

I believe neither theory can be proven, but I see evolution as an attack on God. Also, when people present it as a proven model for all that exists, that lie must be strongly opposed. If both sides would simply come out and say, "we cannot prove our position, but here is what we think the evidences tells us about how life got here" then there would be less emotionally charged debates.

I advocate that we stand in the middle as unbiased and impartial observers and weigh the facts and evidence.

When I look at the same evidence within the two models I find evolution has more flaws, gives rise to many secondary assumptions, and is flat out unreasonable, illogical, and irrational. It's my opinion, based on not having been brainwashed by one view.

iWork4NWO

You are a troll on this thread as you have made two posts both consisting of smart ass, very short one line remarks which violate ATS policy.

Do you have someting to say about putting your faith in evolution science vs. faith in creation science?

Originally posted by John Matrix
iWork4NWO

You are a troll on this thread as you have made two posts both consisting of smart ass, very short one line remarks which violate ATS policy.

Do you have someting to say about putting your faith in evolution science vs. faith in creation science?

Since you're not going to answer I must assume that your model goes as follows:

1. God somehow becomes
2. God creates the Universe
3. God creates life

Is that really more logical than:

1. The Universe somehow becomes
2. Life evolves

?

Is it?

No, it's not. The first model is far more complex than the second one.

A being that is able to create the Universe and life becoming out of nothing is the most unlikely event ever. It's infinitely more likely that something much more simple (like the Universe) became out of nothing and life then evolved. It's not a matter of opinion. It's a fact. If you say "god always was" I reply "the potential for Universe was always there".

[edit on 7-3-2009 by iWork4NWO]

reply to post by John Matrix


But were you brainwashed would you know it? I am not saying you are of course, but, I wholeheartedly agree that both sides need to stop attacking each other.
Evolution is only an attack on "God" if it is used as such and is not the only possible "use" for it. What the zealots of one camp breath into it should be immaterial to the matter at hand and summarily ignored.

Originally posted by iWork4NWO
Since you're not going to answer I must assume that your model goes as follows:

1. God somehow becomes
2. God creates the Universe
3. God creates life

Is that really more logical than:

1. The Universe somehow becomes
2. Life evolves

?

Is it?

No, it's not.

There you go. You answered your own question. You are welcome to your opinion.

I don't agree with your opinion, and that is my opinion.
God is infinite and we are finite. Our finite eyes, ears, minds, cannot comprehend an infinite God living in an infinate spirit realm. IMHO the universe is the material outbirth of a spiritual realm in which there is no matter as we know it.

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
But were you brainwashed would you know it?

Knowing that you are brainwashed presents an oxymoron. If I was brainwashed I would not know it, because if I knew it I would no longer be brainwashed, however, I would know when I am not brainwashed.

There you go. You answered your own question. You are welcome to your opinion.

I don't agree with your opinion, and that is my opinion.
God is infinite and we are finite. Our finite eyes, ears, minds, cannot comprehend an infinite God living in an infinate spirit realm. IMHO the universe is the material outbirth of a spiritual realm in which there is no matter as we know it.

It's okay. We don't have to agree. Opinions on their own mean nothing. You need to be able to support your opinions. I did that (you failed to quote that part). Maybe you thought it ment nothing? IMO it's a lot more than what you just did there, but who cares.. just another opinion.

[edit on 7-3-2009 by iWork4NWO]

reply to post by John Matrix


Circular thinking at it's finest.