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: 56
65
<< 53  54  55    57  58  59 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 03:37 PM
link   
I've posted my concerns about the unexplained mysteries that evolution supporters conveniently gloss over in an earlier posting on this thread but yesterday I came across some interesting facts. The Human Genome Project has determined that our DNA only contains approx. 30,000 genes as compared to the 100,000+ figure that everyone expected. Of that 30,000, 99% is the same as the DNA of a chimpanzee, which means that ALL of the difference between us and chimpanzees is due to a mere 300 genes. I find that simply astonishing if you stop to consider all the differences including brain size, arrangement of vocal cords, differences in muscle strength, lack of fur, lack of hair, body size, relative size of arms and legs compared to the rest of the body, etc. As I said in my other post, there is a greater difference in DNA between horses and zebras than between humans and chimps and yet horses and zebras look very similar to each other except for skin coloration. When I combine the 300 gene difference with the other interesting fact that 223 of those 300 genes do NOT appear anywhere else in nature and are unique to humans, then one has to wonder just how 'random' was our evolution?




posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.
Hey Andre,

I'm gonna post some material, I wanna see if you have any answers for. Again, I'm against the theory as you are aware.

I'll start with this:


Evolutionists are laboring under the false impression that rock layers represent vastly different ages of time. When fossils of one species appear in widely-separated layers, but not the intervening ones, they have to concoct some explanation as to why that species existed in disconnected time frames. The three main explanations are the Lazarus taxon (the species did exist all along, but was so rare that no fossils have been found), the Elvis taxon (the species went extinct, but then a very similar imposter evolved later), and zombies (the fossils walked into another layer after they were dead). The real explanation is that they are just plain wrong about the different layers of rock representing vastly different periods of time.


It would help if you actually posted the links so i don't have to look it up myself.
Those two sections you quoted show that the sites are biased and untruthful.

In your first quote, it talks about geological layers. Most fossils do seem to fall within layers and this finding is why geologists came up with idea in the first place. There have been some fossils that have been found outside the layer they should have been found in. These fossils represent information that could discredit or disprove the theory of geological layers and so they are important to geologists.

Keep in mind that scientists are always seeking to disprove theories. Disproving scientific theories is one of the major ways that science moves forward. When a theory is falsified, scientists seek a new one that more closely matches what they've learned... and we move forward.

Anyway, the geological layer quote seems dishonest. I've never heard of the "zombie" or "Elvis" arguments. One legitimate answer is that flooding/rivers/etc... cuts through geological layers and can displace fossils. However, scientists know to look for evidence of rivers, flooding, etc. Kent Hovind is notorious for cherry-picking data about fossils out of their appropriate layers while ignoring the other geological findings like evidence that the fossil was located along an ancient riverbed.



Scientific American Evolution Issue 2009

Darwin was not only unable to say where variants came from, he did not explain how those new traits could spread in subsequent generations. He believed in blending inheritance, the idea that offspring take on characteristics intermediate between their parents. But even Darwin recognized that the theory was problematic because if traits truly blended, then any rare new variant would be progressively diluted by generations of breeding with the great mass of individuals that did not share the trait.


Evolutionary theory has progressed a lot since Darwin's time (genetics, etc.). The fact that Darwin held incorrect ideas (such as blended inheritance, or did not know that about genetic mutations as the source of variations) doesn't mean the whole of evolutionary theory is incorrect. We use the Copernican theory of astonomy today, even though Copernicus thought that the planets had circular orbits instead of elliptical ones. This doesn't mean that Copernicus was entirely wrong and that the sun revolves around the earth.

The Darwin quote is misleading also. Darwin did not know about Mendelian genetics, did he? He also didn't know about DNA. A part of a species evolving/diversifying deals with it being geologically isolated from it's parent species. We can see this even in human populations... like with people in artic regions becoming rounder with shorter limbs, people in hot/humid regions becoming skinnier, etc.

SIDE NOTE
Something that you might see on those Creationist websites (and elsewhere on line as well). There is a propaganda technique called "immunization" where the propaganda-spreading group takes a legitimate defense of a position and presents it in a derogatory or condescending manner. They then usually offer counter-arguments and/or arguments. These counter arguments do not even have to make sense. The fact that they present the logical argument with derision is the propaganda technique. It sets up their upcoming answer as artificially sounding more truthful. The target group sees the logical answer emotionally and merely toss off the canned nonsensical reply without thinking logically or critically.

[edit on 10-3-2009 by andre18]



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by andre18
SIDE NOTE
Something that you might see on those Creationist websites (and elsewhere on line as well). There is a propaganda technique called "immunization" where the propaganda-spreading group takes a legitimate defense of a position and presents it in a derogatory or condescending manner. They then usually offer counter-arguments and/or arguments. These counter arguments do not even have to make sense. The fact that they present the logical argument with derision is the propaganda technique. It sets up their upcoming answer as artificially sounding more truthful. The target group sees the logical answer emotionally and merely toss off the canned nonsensical reply without thinking logically or critically.
[edit on 10-3-2009 by andre18]


Yes, we learned this technique from Evolutionists



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 09:50 PM
link   
reply to post by andre18
 


"Keep in mind that scientists are always seeking to disprove theories".


This fellow might dissagree with you. He seemed to be doing well until he found that general relativity itself makes the popular model of black holes an impossibilty. Perhaps someone can show him where he is wrong, he seems approachabe enough. No one has explained where he is wrong yet, though some very eminent people seem to have closed ranks on him. His findings are there for anyone with enough understanding to look through.


www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com...

[edit on 10-3-2009 by Cogito, Ergo Sum]



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 11:20 PM
link   
Until we can prove it, both Creationism and Evolution are theories, but as far as I'm concerned, the Evolutionists are working towards finding out what's going on while Creationists are repeating the same thing without offering any evidence to support their theories. So my question for the Creationists is this; Where is your attempt at evidence? We have ours, we're trying to figure things out for ourselves. Another question is, why did 'God' use the same genetic basis for almost all of the animals in the world? Infinite wisdom, but zero creativity, feh.



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kiltedninja
Until we can prove it, both Creationism and Evolution are theories, but as far as I'm concerned, the Evolutionists are working towards finding out what's going on while Creationists are repeating the same thing without offering any evidence to support their theories. So my question for the Creationists is this; Where is your attempt at evidence? We have ours, we're trying to figure things out for ourselves. Another question is, why did 'God' use the same genetic basis for almost all of the animals in the world? Infinite wisdom, but zero creativity, feh.


I suggest you start at the beginning of this thread then. Creationist proof never changes because the creation is as obvious as gravity.



why did 'God' use the same genetic basis for almost all of the animals in the world? Infinite wisdom, but zero creativity, feh.


O rly? I think God would be a tough act to follow, so if you think you can do better, then by all means YOU try making life from the dust of the ground.

Oh and by the way,

use your own dirt



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 12:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kiltedninja
Until we can prove it, both Creationism and Evolution are theories, but as far as I'm concerned, the Evolutionists are working towards finding out what's going on while Creationists are repeating the same thing without offering any evidence to support their theories. So my question for the Creationists is this; Where is your attempt at evidence? We have ours, we're trying to figure things out for ourselves. Another question is, why did 'God' use the same genetic basis for almost all of the animals in the world? Infinite wisdom, but zero creativity, feh.


#1 Creationism isn't a theory, it isn't falsifiable.

#2 We're not trying to prove it. To us it proves itself.

#3 Sounds like a perfect creation, the same genetic basis, yet millions of species. Why do it any different?

[edit on 14-3-2009 by B.A.C.]



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 12:28 AM
link   

We're not trying to prove it. To us it proves itself


How do you expect poeple who don't believe it, to believe it without evidence? - faith?



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 12:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by andre18

We're not trying to prove it. To us it proves itself


How do you expect poeple who don't believe it, to believe it without evidence? - faith?


If you require evidence it isn't Faith.

Simple.

Ro:1:20: For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Ro:1:21: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Ro:1:22: Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools


You asked or I wouldn't have posted scripture on your thread.

[edit on 14-3-2009 by B.A.C.]



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 12:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aermacchi
O rly? I think God would be a tough act to follow, so if you think you can do better, then by all means YOU try making life from the dust of the ground.

Oh and by the way,

use your own dirt


Ahhh, the old as dirt DIRT argument ... It's not about whose dirt it is, it is about how it's used


I always wondered why dust/dirt was needed in the first place. What happened with good old poofin' things into existance ?

But, yeah, like you said, he works in mysterious ways



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 12:48 AM
link   

If you require evidence it isn't Faith.


That's my point, so you can only believe in creation through faith. So then why is that a good thing - i mean in that case you've got the other faith based religions like hinduism, islam and if it's only faith that's required to believe in them then what separates other religions from yours?

If nothing then why believe in creation, why believe in the doctrine of Christianity when all the other religions are all based on faith as well? They all offer the same faith based beliefs so why Christianity over the others?




[edit on 14-3-2009 by andre18]



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 01:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by andre18

If you require evidence it isn't Faith.


That's my point, so you can only believe in creation through faith. So then why is that a good thing - i mean in that case you've got the other faith based religions like hinduism, islam and if it's only faith that's required to believe in them then what separates other religions from yours?

If nothing then why believe in creation, why believe in the doctrine of Christianity when all the other religions are all based on faith as well? They all offer the same faith based beliefs so why Christianity over the others?
[edit on 14-3-2009 by andre18]


Wow, we're pulling a hard right off topic. It's your thread so I'll reply.

Well, most faith based beliefs believe in God. They also believe God created the heavens and the earth. So this we have in common.

If we are talking Abrahamic faith's, then we also have Abraham in common. Which is where the Jew and the Christian get their start. I can't comment on Hinduism (I don't know much about it, other than they don't follow the Bible and they worship idols that they build) but it definitely isn't related to Christianity at all.

I can't answer for all Christian's but the thing that I think separates us from the non Abrahamic religions is that we have an Historical Jesus (most scholars will admit that Jesus did exist, whether he was divine or not they may question). We also have the Bible.

It's all about faith Andre, some people just can't believe without evidence (which they'll never get), though they seem to know in their heart that there is "something" out there.

Edit: Once you do have faith without evidence, the evidence will come without even looking for it. Sound crazy? To some maybe, but when you see a prophecy fulfilled, or get an answer for a prayer, or get persecuted because of your beliefs these are all evidence just like the Bible said would happen.

Edit 2: For instance 1 is the number of perfection. I am speaking about God right now. God is perfection. This post is the 1111 post on this thread. 11:11, I take this as a sign, you may say coincidence. See? The evidence just came.




[edit on 14-3-2009 by B.A.C.]



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 02:22 AM
link   
Some ATS member has a line in his/her sig that I find quite compelling.

it goes something like this: If God cannot defeat evil, then he is not omnipotent. IF God is omnipotent and allows evil to happen, then he is cruel and vindictive.

(I paraphrased)

So, for believers....which is it?



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 02:43 AM
link   

Wow, we're pulling a hard right off topic. It's your thread so I'll reply.


Well Kiltedninja said -


the Evolutionists are working towards finding out what's going on while Creationists are repeating the same thing without offering any evidence to support their theories.


and then you said -


We're not trying to prove it. To us it proves itself.


And then i said .....etc So it seems on topic to me.


I can't answer for all Christian's but the thing that I think separates us from the non Abrahamic religions is that we have an Historical Jesus (most scholars will admit that Jesus did exist, whether he was divine or not they may question). We also have the Bible.


Historicaly, well so is buddha, joseph smith, mohammed etc. why dont you join the muslims instead - their faith based beliefs are on par with yours - they have a historical mohammed, it's an Abrahamic religion and it requires nothing more then faith to believe in it - so why choose christianity over islam?


It's all about faith Andre, some people just can't believe without evidence (which they'll never get), though they seem to know in their heart that there is "something" out there.


That's fairly irrational, if i knew in my heart with faith there's a magical spirit inside the leaf i'm holding right now does that make that faith any more truer or real? If there was any evidence to back it up like historical claims (hostorical Jesus) then it wouldnt be faith - it would evidence. You said it's only a faith thing and then you claim there's evidence like historical Jesus and the bible. So there is evience, which goes back the original point Kiltedninja made - "Creationists are repeating the same thing without offering any evidence to support their theories" and then you said "We're not trying to prove it" but you are when you claim the bible and historical Jesus is evidence.

Unless, you believe the evience itself can only be believed through faith??
So now you've got evidence based on faith - so it's not even evidence to begin with. Do you see the circular logic your belief creates?

No belief can be any more certain or real then any other because of the very bases of it being faith. What makes one faith any more real then another???

[edit on 14-3-2009 by andre18]



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 03:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by andre18

We're not trying to prove it. To us it proves itself


How do you expect poeple who don't believe it, to believe it without evidence? - faith?


You might try this,

Quit disbelieving it



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 03:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Some ATS member has a line in his/her sig that I find quite compelling.

it goes something like this: If God cannot defeat evil, then he is not omnipotent. IF God is omnipotent and allows evil to happen, then he is cruel and vindictive.

(I paraphrased)

So, for believers....which is it?


aah epicurius

My translation = I hate a God with a mind of his own



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Some ATS member has a line in his/her sig that I find quite compelling.

it goes something like this: If God cannot defeat evil, then he is not omnipotent. IF God is omnipotent and allows evil to happen, then he is cruel and vindictive.

(I paraphrased)

So, for believers....which is it?


This assumes you know why he let's evil happen (which you don't). When he ends Evil (no need to defeat it, this is a one sided thing), it will bring him Glory.



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by andre18
 


No, it's not circular. Faith isn't about evidence. I said if you believe first, evidence will come. You're trying to apply Scientific process to faith. Doesn't work that way, the 2 aren't related, that's why I never brought it up on this thread.

I'm a Christian because I trust in Christ. That doesn't mean people from these other religions won't be saved (though I do question some).

The Bible tells me you will seek a sign (evidence), and that you won't get any:

M't:12:39: But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it

Did you miss my 2 edits on my post above?


Edit: Once you do have faith without evidence, the evidence will come without even looking for it. Sound crazy? To some maybe, but when you see a prophecy fulfilled, or get an answer for a prayer, or get persecuted because of your beliefs these are all evidence just like the Bible said would happen.


The first time I explained my beliefs to you, look what happened below:


Edit 2: For instance 1 is the number of perfection. I am speaking about God right now. God is perfection. This post is the 1111 post on this thread. 11:11, I take this as a sign, you may say coincidence. See? The evidence just came.


Go read all the threads about 11:11



[edit on 14-3-2009 by B.A.C.]



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


Here is a question for ya:

What do you think, is it possible to have good faith in something that is wrong, and to be empowered by this faith ?



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by 5thElement
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


Here is a question for ya:

What do you think, is it possible to have good faith in something that is wrong, and to be empowered by this faith ?


If it is wrong how can it also be good? That statement falls all over itself.



new topics

top topics



 
65
<< 53  54  55    57  58  59 >>

log in

join