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.

 

What they won't say about Evolution.

page: 10
3
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 7 2004 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by amantine
Other primates use tools as well. Just look at all the similarities I gave in the post you only quoted a small part of. If you look at the level of cells, tissues or organs, we are very similar to other mammals. The development of the embryo is similar. Humans were not always technically advanced. If you compare a human living in the forest hunting and gathering, I doubt you find much difference with any other primate.

I will not reply to any more posts about whether humans should be considered an animal, because I think I have given plenty of arguments (>20).

BTW, it is Camélopardalis according to my Latin dictionairy and this was originally a Greek word.


While we are talking about embryo's I guess I should discuss this evolutionist pipe dream too. What used to be called the recapitulation theory has long been eliminated from scientific literature, but it is still being presented as a scientific reality by some evolutionist publications. The term recapitulation is a condensation of the dictum ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, put forward by the evolutionary biologist Ernst Haeckel at the end of the nineteenth century.

This theory of Haeckel's postulates that living embryos re-experience the evolutionary process that their pseudo-ancestors underwent. He theorized that during its development in its mother's womb, the human embryo first displayed the characteristics of a fish, and then those of a reptile, and finally those of a human.

It has since been proven that this theory is completely bogus. It is now known that the gills that supposedly appear in the early stages of the human embryo are in fact the initial phases of the middle-ear canal, parathyroid, and thymus. That part of the embryo that was likened to the egg yolk pouch turns out to be a pouch that produces blood for the infant. The part that was identified as a tail by Haeckel and his followers is in fact the backbone, which resembles a tail only because it takes shape before the legs do.

These are universally acknowledged facts in the scientific world, and are accepted even by evolutionists themselves. Two leading neo-Darwinists, George Gaylord Simpson and W. Beck have admitted:


Haeckel misstated the evolutionary principle involved. It is now firmly established that ontogeny does not repeat phylogeny.



As for our development being similar to other mammals, I beg the question again; would not a common creator create similar creations similarly? Just because we develop similarly in the womb as other primates(our closest relatives) why does this prove evolution? If evolution is true then we should share embryonic development with not only mammals but also reptiles and birds however, this is not the case.




posted on May, 7 2004 @ 12:37 PM
link   
I never stated embryo's go through the entire evolutionairy process again, I simply used the similarity between human and primate embryo's to show that human should be considered part of the animal kingdom.

Evolution is a scienfitic theory. It can be tested through experiments with bacteria, like Jenski's work and it can be easily falsified. If you read my links, one of the articles gives about 30 ways evolution can be falsified.

Now, about abiogenesis, which is not related to evolution, the general idea is that life started with a simple selfreplicating chemical complex. DNA is not included yet. This happened later. Some propose a RNA complex as a first form of life, others an enzyme. Even if it is not very likely that this happens by chance, remember that we have hunderds of millions of year and millions of simultaneous combinations per seconds. Science is still discussing abiogenesis and we are far from a final theory.

For me, evolution has proven enough to accept it. Abiogenesis still needs a lot of work in opinion. That is no reason, however, to just give up all scientific work on solving problem and simply postulate a creator. This doesn't further science.



posted on May, 7 2004 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by amantine
For me, evolution has proven enough to accept it. Abiogenesis still needs a lot of work in opinion. That is no reason, however, to just give up all scientific work on solving problem and simply postulate a creator. This doesn't further science.


If you lived to see the day they sent robots to Mars to start making an athmosphere, down here, the elite went off, payed millions of dollars to get to live a thousand years, scientists and engineers were working on a new kind of propulsion system which when completed would be able to help us reach the stars, they had already started cultivating Mars and place a breed of human created life stock there under ice domes, maybe even some kind of hominids to work the fields and make sure everything was going well. If you lived to witness something like that, would you then think twise about the stories in the Bible. That there might be something to it? How could Moses know that the human genome is limited to a maximum lifespan of some 120 years if you are healthy and lucky?



posted on May, 7 2004 @ 03:53 PM
link   
-Religion is based on belief. Creation is a belief, it is not meant to be tested or analysed-
Exactley so. "I slept with belief and awoke with a corpse, I slept with doubt, and she rose a virgin"[author forgotten]

I note that most of the pro-creationists are proposing the "Christian" Creation. I find that to be somewhat arrogant. What about the Egyptian Creation? Or the Hindu "Night of Shiva"? Or even the Qabalisitic "Breaking of the Vessels"? What makes the Christian mythos so much more accurate or reliable than the other, older, religeons?

"you cant run a country by a book of religeon, not by a heap or a lump or a smidgen, of foolish rules, of ancient date, designed to make you all feel great, as you fold spindle and mutilate those unbelievers from a neighboring state"- Frank Zappa, Dumb All Over/You Are What You IS



posted on May, 7 2004 @ 03:58 PM
link   
Evolution is just like Creationism a religion.

I am not pushing for Christian Creationism because I do not fully beleive it myself I am only pusing intelligent design.



posted on May, 7 2004 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by fraterdiogenes
I note that most of the pro-creationists are proposing the "Christian" Creation. I find that to be somewhat arrogant. What about the Egyptian Creation? Or the Hindu "Night of Shiva"? Or even the Qabalisitic "Breaking of the Vessels"? What makes the Christian mythos so much more accurate or reliable than the other, older, religeons?


Because most of the people talking about creation are Christian, and don't have as much knowlege about the other religion's creation concepts. It's not arrogant, it's debating what you know.

EDIT: I did say most, BlackJackal
Also, hope you or amantine get the way above award for this here, I know I voted for both of ya
Fascinating reading!

[Edited on 5-7-2004 by junglejake]



posted on May, 7 2004 @ 04:13 PM
link   
That really wasn't aimed at you so much, BlackJackel. Actually your viewpoints are quite lucid.

Allow me to define my position. Any "theory" that conflicts with empirical scientific observation must be flawed. I know that geological, biological, and[to a lesser extent] archeological science are accurate descriptors of the physical universe. I do not, however, rule out the "hand of providence" giving a directional nudge here or there. Physics and math are nothing less than a human interpretation of the "language of God[s]".



posted on May, 7 2004 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Funny that you should mention that. Well, there are two things. Firstly I believe that Eden infact may have been somewhere on the American continent. That Noah during the flood sailed from the Americas over the Atlantic and settled somewhere in West Africa or even in Spain. But the world may have looked a whole lot more different that we may imagine. For the Earth was in great change around Noah. Just a couple of generations after Noah came the generation of Peleg, in whose time the Earth was split. This may be a description of sudden continental drift, perhaps as a direct result of the Flood.

Secondly, North American natives are probably of mixed North European and East Asian origin. I have a friend whos half Norwegian half Philippine. He looks just like Geronimo.

But again, where in the bible does it say this????


Read what I wrote again: You give the CHRISTIANS the blame for what the political institutions (the Church and kings) have done. That's like giving the Germans the blame for what Hitler did. And not all kings were scared #less by the pope, but that's a totally different story. And what this has to do with Evolution and Creationism defies my explanation. Please, again, stay on topic.

Actually, i gave the CHURCH the blame.


Duh? And when we read the Book of Genesis, about these STARTRAVELERS, who comes FROM HEAVEN, who CAME HERE and made this place. If they can travel through space, don't you think that they can also have computers etc? You don't honestly believe that someone could create this with two bare hands, do you? It's not hokus pokus you know.

but in the beginning of the book never said that god was from space. all it said was that god said "let there be (stuff)." the bible also mentions that god can do anything so therefore, y would he still need a computer?


I don't care if there were flaws to the oral traditions. It is correct, the numbers and stuff, it is the right numbers. The age of the universe, the coarse of history the last 6000 years, how the climate at Earth has changed etc. It's all there. And again. Creationism/Evolutionism? And civilisation traces it's history about 6000 years back in time. How on Earth you manage to find written material further back baffles me. The fist alfabet was invented about that many years ago. The alfabet, the ability to read and write, was probably the fruit of the Tree of Wisdom.

so then isn't that basically listening to a potential lie since u don't really know as to how much of it is true? u did admit that when u said "I don't care if there were flaws to the oral traditions." Therefore, u kind of admitted that they were flawed.


The cheetah. And soon, you and me. Using a Russian invention, special hydraulic boots, diesel driven. Can't remember but you could atleast reach half that speed. With a couple of years training and developing I guess a human could easily outrun a cheeta. Besides. Who needs seven mile boots, when we have motorcycles, cars, planes etc.

sweeeeeeet

but still, natural is more impressive since you're born with it. this only shows that we have an uber ability to solve problems.


This starts to remind me about the Book of Job. And humans using a simple rod.

yea but still...natural is more impressive since you're born with it. this only shows further that we have an uber ability to solve problems.


And humans in subs.

yet we still haven't gone ALLLLL the way down the mariana trench, the deepest part of the ocean in the world yet there is evidence that animals are down there. and whales have been suriving crushing pressures since they came into existence.


Which other primate you know about is able to survive a trip to the Antarctic, Mount Everest, space, swim across the English Channel etc.?

not a primate but an invertebrate. every hear about an animals called the tardigrade (a.k.a water bear). it can withstand extreme cold, heat, even the vaccuum of space without an help.


OK, so you say that since we are dependent on technology to survive we don't count? Monkeys also use technology and many other animals do. Is this wrong?
we don't count as what? animals? o hell no. we r animals. i'm just saying that humans relie way to much on excessive stuff while many other animals keep "technology" down to a minimum. therefore, we're pretty much screwed if we get lost in the wild without ANYTHING.


Since when was God a book anyway? And since he was infact the one who developed the technology he used, he started with simple organisms, he wrote the genetic operation system. He made us, why shouldn't he be allowed and have exclusive rights to do it? The book describes this stuff, or similar stuff: And then God said: "Let us create humans in our own image and likeness". What if it had been translated using modern terms: "Hey let's clone ourselves folks!"

well the bible basically did say that it was the word of god. And what if it didn't translate into "Hey let's clone ourselves folks!"? and again, since god is divine, he doesn't need ANYTHING to create life. and he didnt start with simple organisms. the bible said,"And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good." there, see? all he said was let there be (stuff) and there it was. he didnt start with simple things. hell he even created birds and whales at the same time! next, god makes all the things that walk the earth! since when were whales more simpler than ants?


And your point was?

that most of us here would rather live a free life than be controlled by christianity.


Well, let's start with the Bible which has alot about this. Let's look at the Hebrew words used and look at some of their alternative meanings etc.

The Bible says that when Adam asked God to create a woman to him, God first put him to a deep sleep. Today we would call this narcosis. Then he removes a RIB from Adam, and from that RIB he BUILT Woman. The word rib is also used by builders etc. and today also geneticists. It basically means a small room or a CELL. It even says here in the text that God even changed the genetic code of Man, who originally had mixed genitals, he was created a malefemale. But God "filled up the shameful wound down there with flesh, and closed it".

In 1 day?!?!?!?! he grew a whole adult women in 1 say? that makes sense. and sure it said that he took a rib. it never said that he used clay and a computer program to do it. it was just a rib. it never said DNA although i know that when he took the bone out it had DNA on it but it never said that that was what he used. it specifically said rib. what u just said was an interpretation. as in it was never mentioned in the book. it still never said specifically that god used DNA.

and again, the creation story is different in all religions. ur only advocating the christian side.

P.S. what about dinosaurs? the t-rex, stegasaurus, diploticaus, pteridactyl, iguanadons, etc?

P.S.S. For those of u who claim that there aren't any transitional fossils, paleontologists know of many detailed examples of fossils intermediate in form between various taxonomic groups. One of the most famous fossils of all time is Archaeopteryx, which combines feathers and skeletal structures peculiar to birds with features of dinosaurs. A flock's worth of other feathered fossil species, some more avian and some less, has also been found. A sequence of fossils spans the evolution of modern horses from the tiny Eohippus. Whales had four-legged ancestors that walked on land, and creatures known as Ambulocetus and Rodhocetus helped to make that transition [see "The Mammals That Conquered the Seas," by Kate Wong; Scientific American, May]. Fossil seashells trace the evolution of various mollusks through millions of years. Perhaps 20 or more hominids (not all of them our ancestors) fill the gap between Lucy the australopithecine and modern humans.
Creationists, though, dismiss these fossil studies. They argue that Archaeopteryx is not a missing link between reptiles and birds--it is just an extinct bird with reptilian features. They want evolutionists to produce a weird, chimeric monster that cannot be classified as belonging to any known group. Even if a creationist does accept a fossil as transitional between two species, he or she may then insist on seeing other fossils intermediate between it and the first two. These frustrating requests can proceed ad infinitum and place an unreasonable burden on the always incomplete fossil record.



[Edited on 7-5-2004 by silQ]



posted on May, 7 2004 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bobbo
and you are getting this info from where?

post something. anything. that may back up your claims.

otherwise you lack credibility.


I wish I could find it, but I know just about everthing he just said is a fact. Especially the formula for figuring out the chances of life just spontaniously starting.



posted on May, 7 2004 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by mauskov
Creationism is bunk.
Special Creationism....Well, that's almost bunk.

There's virtually no support for creationism, aside from that book which is often "thumped" by those who seem to lack the fundamental grey matter to comprehend "ee-vo-lusion." Meanwhile, there are case studies (Hell, go back to Darwin's finches, for goodness sake), from which can be extrapolated that evolution is a very real thing.

Statistically, the universe occupies an infinite amount of space. Thus, even if planets do not occupy this much space, there are still an infinite number of planets, no? Infinity - 1 is still infinity.
So, yes. The staggaring improbability of life evolving as it has is not impossible. It is merely improbable.
That is, if you put enough monkeys at enough typewriters, eventually they'll bang out "Hamlet."

So please make your case against evolution again? kthx


Could one not say that creationsim has a chance of happening, I see a better chance for a higher life form than everything just coming into being, you also forget that although you don't think the chances for life starting are that big, remember this there was also a extremely narrow window for this to happen in. You ask he to make another argument and yet you spout off about infinte and how "Bunk" Creationism is , did he insult you? No so why not give him so respect.



posted on May, 7 2004 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by silQ
here we go again.....another pathetic religion junkie that's trying to convert us all into believing a cult that goes by lies. there are definitely a lot more flaws in creationism than evolution. evolution is still a THEORY as in it's still stubject to change. it's not rock solid until it's called the evolutionary PRINCIPLE. whereas the bible claims that the idea of creationism is rock solid. pfft....we obviously have the common sense (well...most of us anyway) to know that something as big as life on earth can't be created in just 7 days. also, animals are evolving right now. in australia, this monkey just evolved a special omnivorous intestine whereas ten years ago, it had a herbivore's intestine. there are obviously a lot more evidence and common sense supporting evolution than creationism. by the way...considering the fact that the church tried to suppress lots of scientific discoveries, such as the sun being the center and not the earth which the church finally accepted in the early 20th century, the church is obviously a control freak bent on dominating the world. who ever follows the church doesn't deserve to have a voice here. what ever happened to "deny ignorance?" so go kiss a bible, ya lying freak.


You are a stone cold idiot, the world would never get anywhere if it were filled with close minded people like you, Let me ask you this, how many digs have you went on? How many bones have studied, how many sediment samples have you examined, whyy is it that carbon ddating is so out of whack. Hmmmmm, tell me about hose things, because unless you have done all of those, than you sir are only going on what others tell you, and so forth by your standards you are nothing but a Darwanist thumping blind follower.



posted on May, 7 2004 @ 07:15 PM
link   
SilQ: im not going to tell you again about insults!!



posted on May, 7 2004 @ 07:18 PM
link   
Please excuse my horrible typing I am on a laptop ion my bed , lol.



posted on May, 7 2004 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by silQ
Actually, i gave the CHURCH the blame.


You gave the people who believed in Jesus the blame for what the Catholic Church has done. Must I go back two steps and find it for you? You're a big mouthed, arrogant firestarter, who has no intention of contributing to the discussion, only make people angry. Why do you keep posting in this part of the forum when you don't even know how to find the stories of Creation and Noah's Ark?

[Edited on 7-5-2004 by Camelopárdalis]



posted on May, 8 2004 @ 03:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlackJackal
Evolution is just like Creationism a religion.

I am not pushing for Christian Creationism because I do not fully beleive it myself I am only pusing intelligent design.


I don't agree. Evolution is founded on empirical observations. There are plenty of experiments proving microevolution and I think even you won't deny that. Macroevolution also has evidence supporting it and can be falsified by new evidence as well. Evolution gives predictions, which can be tested. Evolution says the bacteria in Jenski's experiment would adapt and they did. A scientific theory has to explain current observations, has to be falsifiable by new observations and experiments and must give testable predictions. Evolution has these three components.

Creationism and Intelligent Design do not. The only way to get them to work with evolution is to say that the creator for some reason decided to make it seem in a lot of cases like evolution has happened. "It may seem like whales evolved from land-dwelling ancestors from the fossil record, but that were all different species which were created in a series and went extinct in exactly the same order." If you make predictions purely on Creationism and Intelligent Design, you don't expect any evidence supporting evolution at all. But there is evidence supporting evolution, whether you like it or not, so Creationism and Intelligent Design simply propose an Ad Hoc hypothesis. That is not scientific.

They are also not falsifiable. If predictions made from the theory are wrong and there is evidence supporting the other theory, and people still think the theory needs no adaption at all, what can falsify them?



posted on May, 8 2004 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by amantine
A scientific theory has to explain current observations, has to be falsifiable by new observations and experiments and must give testable predictions.


Excuse me? Or was there something I missed here? Added the bolds. Now why would an experiment need to be falsifiable? Falsify=A willful act or declaration contrary to truth. Is this the word you meant to use, Amantine?



posted on May, 8 2004 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by infovacume
You are a stone cold idiot, the world would never get anywhere if it were filled with close minded people like you, Let me ask you this, how many digs have you went on? How many bones have studied, how many sediment samples have you examined, whyy is it that carbon ddating is so out of whack. Hmmmmm, tell me about hose things, because unless you have done all of those, than you sir are only going on what others tell you, and so forth by your standards you are nothing but a Darwanist thumping blind follower.

well that's pretty hypocratical of u, ya bible thumping worm. if u believe in creationism, then ur basicly throwing up what ur priest told u. i have not personally done the experiments but many knowledgable scientists have. u've also never recreated creation and never will since this is a false theory and therefore, impossible. so watch urself as to who ur calling ignorant. me, who got all the information from multiple books, journals, and articles written by prominant scientists, or u who got creationism from ppl who've read 1 false book or have heard from 1 lying priest.



posted on May, 8 2004 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by asala
SilQ: im not going to tell you again about insults!!


WHAT DID I SAY THIS TIME?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!



posted on May, 8 2004 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Camelopárdalis

Originally posted by silQ
Actually, i gave the CHURCH the blame.


You gave the people who believed in Jesus the blame for what the Catholic Church has done. Must I go back two steps and find it for you? You're a big mouthed, arrogant firestarter, who has no intention of contributing to the discussion, only make people angry. Why do you keep posting in this part of the forum when you don't even know how to find the stories of Creation and Noah's Ark?

[Edited on 7-5-2004 by Camelopárdalis]

actually, i specifically blamed the church but that's ok. this is what i'd expect from some1 who lives their life according to a lie. u have to find a scapegoat just like what they did to the jews during the medieval times. that's ok. o and about me not being able to find the story of creation and noah's ark, nah. i use to be a christian to, believe it or not. that is....until i figured out the truth.



posted on May, 8 2004 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Camelopárdalis
Excuse me? Or was there something I missed here? Added the bolds. Now why would an experiment need to be falsifiable? Falsify=A willful act or declaration contrary to truth. Is this the word you meant to use, Amantine?


It means that there are certain observations that would disprove a theory if those observations were ever observed. For example, gravity is falsifiable by seeing someone fall upwards instead of down. Another example: conservation of energy can be falsified by observing a closed system suddenly increase in energy content.

A good theory can be always be falsified by some observations, because it does certain predictions about the environment and if these predictions do not occur, the theory is wrong and should be discarded or changed. This allows us to test if theories are good.

Read more about Karl Popper, who came up with this theory, here.







 
3
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join