It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
According to idealized principles of scientific discourse, the arousal of dormant issues should reflect fresh data that give renewed life to abandoned notions. Those outside the current debate may therefore be excused for suspecting that creationists have come up with something new, or that evolutionists have generated some serious internal trouble. But nothing has changed; the creationists have presented not a single new fact or argument. Darrow and Bryan were at least more entertaining than we lesser antagonists today. The rise of creationism is politics, pure and simple; it represents one issue (and by no means the major concern) of the resurgent evangelical right. Arguments that seemed kooky just a decade ago have reentered the mainstream.
The basic attack of modern creationists falls apart on two general counts before we even reach the supposed factual details of their assault against evolution. First, they play upon a vernacular misunderstanding of the word "theory" to convey the false impression that we evolutionists are covering up the rotten core of our edifice. Second, they misuse a popular philosophy of science to argue that they are behaving scientifically in attacking evolution. Yet the same philosophy demonstrates that their own belief is not science, and that "scientific creationism" is a meaningless and self-contradictory phrase, an example of what Orwell called "newspeak."
Our confidence that evolution occurred centers upon three general arguments. First, we have abundant, direct, observational evidence of evolution in action, from both the field and laboratory. This evidence ranges from countless experiments on change in nearly everything about fruit flies subjected to artificial selection in the laboratory to the famous populations of British moths that became black when industrial soot darkened the trees upon which the moths rest.
The second and third arguments for evolution—the case for major changes—do not involve direct observation of evolution in action. They rest upon inference, but are no less secure for that reason. Major evolutionary change requires too much time for direct observation on the scale of recorded human history. All historical sciences rest upon inference, and evolution is no different from geology, cosmology, or human history in this respect. In principle, we cannot observe processes that operated in the past. We must infer them from results that still surround us: living and fossil organisms for evolution, documents and artifacts for human history, strata and topography for geology.
The third argument is more direct: transitions are often found in the fossil record. Preserved transitions are not common—and should not be, according to our understanding of evolution but they are not entirely wanting, as creationists often claim. The lower jaw of reptiles contains several bones, that of mammals only one. The non-mammalian jawbones are reduced, step by step, in mammalian ancestors until they become tiny nubbins located at the back of the jaw. The "hammer" and "anvil" bones of the mammalian ear are descendants of these nubbins. How could such a transition be accomplished? the creationists ask. Surely a bone is either entirely in the jaw or in the ear. Yet paleontologists have discovered two transitional lineages of therapsids (the so-called mammal-like reptiles) with a double jaw joint—one composed of the old quadrate and articular bones (soon to become the hammer and anvil), the other of the squamosal and dentary bones (as in modern mammals). For that matter, what better transitional form could we expect to find than the oldest human, Australopithecus afarensis, with its apelike palate, its human upright stance, and a cranial capacity larger than any ape’s of the same body size but a full 1,000 cubic centimeters below ours? If God made each of the half-dozen human species discovered in ancient rocks, why did he create in an unbroken temporal sequence of progressively more modern features—increasing cranial capacity, reduced face and teeth, larger body size? Did he create to mimic evolution and test our faith thereby?
Originally posted by weedwhacker
JM.....'growing earth' is just ridiculous!!!!!
It is the stupidest thing I've seen!!!!
Please, give ONE example, from science, why a planet would 'expand'!
And, I mean a rocky planet....not a gas giant.
NOTHING in that YT video takes into account the passage of millenia....and varying ocean levels....and erosion....not to mention, plate tectonics!!!
I'll entertain some wild theories.....but this one??? Just ridiculous, unscientific and unsubstantiated in any way.
If you actually go back and look at the link Andre used to argue my second post on the thread you will see that he does not understand the flaws in the topic. He actually posted a link that supported my arguement. Andre also linked a source in reply to BAC that I talk about a few posts back, once again it highlights a flaw in ET, but Andre was posting the source as a support for his own beliefs.
Originally posted by jfj123
Originally posted by atlasastro
Yes, I think it is more appropriate that ANDRE abandon this thread as he has a poor understanding of the topic
Actually he's shown a very good understanding of the topic. Your failure to recognize this shows your lack of understanding.
. Oh please. Also look at the links i supplied, this is one of many threads Andre has started against religion, vieled as it is. From these observations I made a statement. Purely for humour of course. You obviously missed.
Almost nobody here has attacked religion in any way. Your perception of the attack is your problem. This isn't about religion, this is about science. There is a difference.
. He believe that ET is fact. Based on observations. The observations that I have contradict ET. Andre, nor you, will discuss these. Instead quoting dogma to support you beliefs. Religion anyone.
From what I've read, he isn't posting his beliefs but just factual information based on scientific observation
Are you saying that a theory that is supported by evidence is fact. There are currently hundreds of different theories explaining the same mechanisms of life, DNA, photosynthesis, abiogenesis. All believe they have supporting evidence. Are they all fact too. Like ET. LOL. What about the existence of the universe, do you know how many theories are there too, with evidence. LOL. I can keep going you know. If you are willing to accept it as fact and form your beliefs around that, fine.
And, you've decided that evolution is contrary to that of religion. That's your problem but it still doesn't change that the theory of evolution is real and is supported by scientific evidence.
But this is just a theory I have made from observations......
If you actually go back and look at the link Andre used to argue my second post on the thread you will see that he does not understand the flaws in the topic. He actually posted a link that supported my arguement.
Early on in the thread the arguements of BAC against the Theory itself were labled creationist.
Andre himself declared he need to start a thread against creationism
Andre has continuously ignored, as you have, my arguement against the theory
Instead quoting dogma to support you beliefs. Religion anyone.
Ok now it's just getting personal.
What you're talking about is the link i gave about Photosynthesis right?. I still don't know what your problem is with that, i said so what if we don't know about that specific aspect of evolution, that doesn't mean evolution ingeneral is not a fact.
I know we are still learning Andre. You believe that ET is fact yet concede that we still have much to learn. The fact is that science is obliged to question itself consistently to make sure its theories are sound. I have scientific questions ET cannot answers. That are not trivial. They are conerstones, essential answers in understanding and PROVING ET. When you grasp that, then we can have an open and honest discussion about what is fact and what is just theory derived from observation(please spare me the wiki quotes on science fact and theory, I learnt them at university).
It means we're still learning. There is something you'll never grasp, do you expect evolution to not have gaps? Do you expect it to be perfect? it wont be, it wont ever be - nothing in science is. You seem to fail to grasp this simple fact.
. No. It is a process, I expect science to be cautious about what it claims as fact, science actually behaves this way which is why questioning all theory is par for the course and expected, why you believe ET is beyond that is mind boggling and boardering on religious fanatacism. I know Science is fully aware that the complexity of life and existence may be beyond our potential to realise but never the less endeavours to explore, describe and document specific elements of that nature in the hope of understanding the bigger picture.
A question: Do you expect science to find out every thing about evolution straight away?
Thanks for proving my point. In fact ET is being tested all the time in the scientific and intellectual community, that you would debase this as creationism reeks of the psuedo-intellectual dogma of "believers". Believers not interested in the truth but destroying any opposition to that which they claim as the truth.
That's because they are, no one tries to attack evolution calling it 'only a theory' unless they're creationists.
Originally posted by Aermacchi
Originally posted by ShiningSabrewolf
Would you please stop calling evolution a religion? A religion and a scientific theory are NOT THE SAME THING!
Who said anything about a scientific theory? I was talking about Darwits evolution. Gee I bet ID scientists would trade their feelings for yours any day with you Darwits always callin ID a religion when if anyone acts as zealous and as pious and as dogmatic as religion, it's Evolutionists.
GuFaW!!!! Lo and Behold! What does the Darwit have to show me but yet another decendent from a another feathered FRAUD!
HA HA HA HA I guess when you can't discover the mountan of evidence to support your Religion Science,,
You'll make one. Seriously, is THIS all Darwits know how to do is lie cheat and fabricate. They call this SCIENCE????
Originally posted by ShiningSabrewolf
Yes, and yet in my debates with BAC I've shown that evolution makes more sense when compared to current, living animals than Creationism or ID does.
I personally have not ignored your posts
You speak of Evolution as a Theory AND a FACT.This isn't right
you can show me all the quotes from scientists you want
There is some confusion about evolution as a fact and evolution as a theory. Often you can find critics claiming that evolution is “just a theory” rather than a fact, as if this demonstrated that it shouldn’t be given serious consideration. Such arguments are based upon a misunderstanding of both the nature of science and the nature of evolution.
In reality, evolution is both a fact and a theory.
To understand how it can be both, it is necessary to understand that evolution can be used in more than one way in biology. A common way to use the term evolution is simply to describe the change in the gene pool of a population over time; that this occurs is an indisputable fact. Such changes have been observed in the laboratory and in nature
Evolutionary Theory isn't Evolution. It is the THEORY about Evolution.
Theory will never be fact.
Does the Theory of Evolution change? YES. Everytime you add a new fact to it. .
Evolution" and "The Theory of Evolution" are two different things.