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: 12
3
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 9 2004 @ 06:03 AM
link   
It's funny how people react when such core beliefs are criticized such as "creationism vs. evolution".

I've read most of this thread, and I now present to you my hypothesis. Again, this is a hypothesis, so don't anyone go crazy on me.

"1. Evolution is too impossible or improbable. It has a 1 in 62.3x10^600 chance in succeeding."

This one's my favorite. "The odds that DNA would be in this exact order to form ...", "The odds that the catastrophe would have caused the raction ...". The fact of the matter is, even if there is a remote possibility that such a reaction, event, or thing to occur, it's still possible. We don't know what iteration the universe is on. For all we know it could be on the 10th or the 6x10^600th. Eventually, everything fell into place. I know most people have a problem with believing that they and everything around them is just an accident -- I know I did ... but it makes a lot of sense.

2. Knowledge is Dangerous

From the tree of knowledge to Gallilleio's telescope, knowledge has been dangerous. It is the vice of humanity -- knowing too much. It destroys those in power and removes control. Understanding frees slaves -- that is why it was forbidden except by the elite few in the ancient world and even now. It is that which shackles us from greatness, and breeds hate and ignorance. All of this is a system of control -- so that those in control stay in control. This is why so many people object to "playing god" with DNA research or stem cells. This is why the Church forbade astronomy and science. This is why today remarkable inventions are placed into closets so that money can be made slowly on lesser technologies by select individuals and businesses.

3. Occham's Razor

Creationists believe that God is the Uncaused-Cause, which then created the Universe and consequently spawned life.

Non-creationists (or at least those who believe in the big bang), believe that the universe is the uncaused-cause and consequently life was spawned.

Now, here's how the steps work broken down:

God (Uncaused-Cause) -> Universe -> Earth & Life

Universe (Uncaused-Cause) -> Earth and Life

Using Occham's Razor -- well I think most of you can get the idea.

This is just my theory, after all. The simplest answer is always correct.



4. So where did everything start, really?

Who knows? But one thing is for sure -- no one is right. In this thread, both sides preach as if they were correct. No one is right -- and as long as we can remember that when we argue our opinions, the more we can learn from each other.


5. So what do I believe really happened?

The "God" portrayed in the Bible was an alien race who came to this planet and created a slave-race: humans. The system of control which this alien race enacted prevented and still prevents humans from becoming what we really are: those who created us. The Bible itself says that we are "created in the image of God". In essence, the more we learn the more we will become like our creator until we reach and surpass that limit. This is why knowledge is dangerous. This is why it must be controlled. Stupid people and those which you can distract with a shiny object or a trick of an advanced mental being are easy to control.

Deny Ignorance. Fear no boundary.

[Edited on 5-9-2004 by Hawk]




posted on May, 9 2004 @ 07:33 AM
link   
And that, my friend, was quite an impressive piece of work too! Well done, Hawk. I follow you mostly, but I would have to interfere with you too. Just a detail for most perhaps, but then again, not for me. How can a lifeform be alien if it created us? Wouldn't we per definition be more alien than them? If they created us, they were here before us, but then again, I know about something that's been here even longer. Since before the foundations of this universe were, well, founded. The Spirit which lives in us all, and the Love that has cared for that Spirit is truely my God, for only such a God, could make sure the Spirit would never suffer too much. If spirits could be wounded, my God would be able to heal it. Just like I hope I see now. That the Spirit of God one day will never again have to dispute the silly claims by really intelligent people, that humans and monkeys should somehow be two sides of the same story.



posted on May, 9 2004 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne: SilQ, you are an offensive and ignorant creature. As far as he and I are concerned you are a misinformed, pathetic human, blinded by the lies of Satan using a system of lies perpetuated by those who have twisted science to support an agenda. However, we see you as pathetic as we see us all; weak and subject to Satanic lies. The way you call him names, it is clear you are merely a caustic little creature, and one who'd return love with hate. This guy is more concerned with you buying into lies and going to Hell, and you, being the typical anti-Christian, return it with foul words.


The irony meter just exploded.

Here, let me translate the above:

"I am just an ignorant, pathetic and weak gullible, who chucked my reason in the trash the day I became a born-again. I believe everything is a lie if it does not support the Bible. I have no clue what the hell Science is about, nor the Scientific Method, and I will not let my mind even consider anything outside of what I've heard from the pulpit and Jack Chick. I believe it is perfectly OK to lie for Jesus; and call anyone names that disses my God, and I'll whoop anyone's ass if they even dare question my faith. God's gonna burn you godless people in hell some day for saying them foul words. But remember: God Loves YOU! God Bless".


***The mind of the bible believer ........***



posted on May, 9 2004 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Camelopárdalis
He would probably have called him hipocrite, a foolish and blind man, a serpent, and a brood of vipers, just like he used to call his enemies over and over. Infact, if Jesus had been a member here at ATS, he would have been banned long time ago. No kidding.

On the other side, Jesjuah was by far more rightious than myself, so who knows, maybe he had reminded himself of Solomon's words which say: "Do not reprimande a fool, for he will come to hate you. Repremande rather the rightious, for he will surely love you!"

[Edited on 8-5-2004 by Camelopárdalis]

actually, jesus would probably consider me to be a "lost lamb" and try to help me find the way through persuasion just like junglejake said



posted on May, 9 2004 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by infovacume
Watch it? Watch what? A little peon like yourself will never be on my level.

ur right. i would never allow myself to sink that low.

I spend a minimum of 20 hours a week researching new science , and I have read multitudes of articles, Hey and try learning wtf you are talking about, I never learned # from a priest, do you know why dumbass, because I am NOT CATHOLIC, and yes I am a worm, but you know what , this worm has a 152 iq. So go get bent, Oh and please do tell me were they have recreated Evolution.

u must be very proud of urself. but unfortunately, i DO read up on many articles, books, etc. on top of that, i have a iq of 183


Because IT HASN"T HAPPENED! They have tried multiple times to recreate the start of "evolution" were chemicals and elements some how spontaneously start life. This is the equivalent of throwing a rock , two sticks, and some salt into a fish tank and making life! They have tried and failed, did you hear that too? Or hey how about this , go over to GENOME.com and see what the hell they have to say about it , because it seems through dna evidence, they no longer believe that evolution is all it is cracked up to be.

Scientific America
here u go. 15 reasons as to y evolution works and y creationism is wrong.

You are once again a ignorant bigot, you showed your real colors smart guy. You started this by jumping all over some guy because he brought up something that involved religion and you didn't like it, so like a sad little boy you went off crying and came back with the most played out pro evolution statements I have ever heard. I really liked your argument about creationism being false because in your opinion it can't be real. Nice scientific argument there.

ooooo. now i feel really bad.
*slaps self on the back of the hand*
bad silQ! bad!



posted on May, 9 2004 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpectatorII

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne: SilQ, you are an offensive and ignorant creature. As far as he and I are concerned you are a misinformed, pathetic human, blinded by the lies of Satan using a system of lies perpetuated by those who have twisted science to support an agenda. However, we see you as pathetic as we see us all; weak and subject to Satanic lies. The way you call him names, it is clear you are merely a caustic little creature, and one who'd return love with hate. This guy is more concerned with you buying into lies and going to Hell, and you, being the typical anti-Christian, return it with foul words.

Here, let me translate the above:
"I am just an ignorant, pathetic and weak gullible, who chucked my reason in the trash the day I became a born-again. I believe everything is a lie if it does not support the Bible. I have no clue what the hell Science is about, nor the Scientific Method, and I will not let my mind even consider anything outside of what I've heard from the pulpit and Jack Chick. I believe it is perfectly OK to lie for Jesus; and call anyone names that disses my God, and I'll whoop anyone's ass if they even dare question my faith. God's gonna burn you godless people in hell some day for saying them foul words. But remember: God Loves YOU! God Bless.

LOOOOOL!!! THX SPEC! FINALLY! some1 with some brains!


***The mind of the bible believer ........***



posted on May, 9 2004 @ 11:25 AM
link   
JLC163, I read the article and I don't agree. The following points are wrong:

  • You can't use chromosomal numbers reliably to compare phylogenetic relations. Chromsomes break, merge and exchange genes all the time.
  • So what if 98,5% of the DNA is junk DNA? Junk DNA is even better for comparing phylogenetic relations between organisms, because a large part of it is not morphologically related.
  • The author assumes that the entire similarity between humans and chimps is in this junk DNA, while he cites no source for this.


Furthermore, the quotes from scientists are completely out of context.

BTW. I think this thread should be focussed more on the subject. There are too many posts not related to evolution or abiogenesis (which seems to have become a subject of this thread as well). Oh, and Silq, you should take more care to spell correctly. It would make your posts much easier to read.



posted on May, 9 2004 @ 11:33 AM
link   
amantine....Agreed.
The topic and original intent of it was focused on Flaws in the Assumptions of Evolutions.

If this thread cannot get back on topic, in regards to its intent and purpose, it will be closed.

This is not a thread nor topic concentrating on Creationism versus Evolution. There are a number of threads that already currently exist on this. The topic is presenting flaws in Evolution and counter debating if indeed they are flaws.

It would serve this threads original intent and purpose greatly if it would stay along those lines.
Again, if this is not brought back on track, the thread will be closed.



seekerof



posted on May, 9 2004 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpectatorII
Here, let me translate the above:

"I am just an ignorant, pathetic and weak gullible, who chucked my reason in the trash the day I became a born-again. I believe everything is a lie if it does not support the Bible. I have no clue what the hell Science is about, nor the Scientific Method, and I will not let my mind even consider anything outside of what I've heard from the pulpit and Jack Chick. I believe it is perfectly OK to lie for Jesus; and call anyone names that disses my God, and I'll whoop anyone's ass if they even dare question my faith. God's gonna burn you godless people in hell some day for saying them foul words. But remember: God Loves YOU! God Bless".


Some misunderstandings...
Thomas' post was a direct reply to the insults posted by Silq. Silq (and you also?) are not able to discuss this subject without the insults, which does not only make you look childish, but also shows everyone your lack of the ability to argue. (Silq's spelling mistakes are just a confirmation)

Attempts to get this thread back on topic are ignored by you and Silq, because your desire to "diss" is bigger than the general reason people come here, to have good discussions with eachother.

To me, both of you are utterly dumb and unable to seperate dissing from discussing.
Silq was allready ignored, and now you're also ignored, I just hope I am not the onlyone ignoring you.

On topic:

Hawk I really like your post up to the alien part. I wonder how you came to that conclusion in the end.
Can you explain that?


[Edited on 9-5-2004 by Jakko]



posted on May, 9 2004 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jakko
Some misunderstandings...
Thomas' post was a direct reply to the insults posted by Silq. Silq (and you also?) are not able to discuss this subject without the insults, which does not only make you look childish, but also shows everyone your lack of the ability to argue. (Silq's spelling mistakes are just a confirmation)

Attempts to get this thread back on topic are ignored by you and Silq, because your desire to "diss" is bigger than the general reason people come here, to have good discussions with eachother.

To me, both of you are utterly dumb and unable to seperate dissing from discussing.
Silq was allready ignored, and now you're also ignored, I just hope I am not the onlyone ignoring you.
[Edited on 9-5-2004 by Jakko]

HAHA! and what r u doing right now? discussing while making a pathetic attempt to "insult" us.

anyway, in response to the article, the following points were mentioned.

1)You can't use chromosomal numbers reliably to compare phylogenetic relations. Chromsomes break, merge and exchange genes all the time.
actually, this is true. chromosomes do tend to break, merge, and exchange genes. this happens during meiosis. also, there are things called "jumpin genes" that actuall break off during their normal cell cycle and move into the extracellular matrix. there, they are taken up by cells with special receptors on their membrane. they take in the genetic material and merge it with their own. therefore, it's pretty hard to compare phylogenetic relations but it's not impossible.

2) So what if 98,5% of the DNA is junk DNA? Junk DNA is even better for comparing phylogenetic relations between organisms, because a large part of it is not morphologically related.

Those so called "junk DNA" (which is disagree with since i believe that they have some undiscovered purpose) is pretty reliable since most of them have gone through little if any changes during evolution.

3) The author assumes that the entire similarity between humans and chimps is in this junk DNA, while he cites no source for this.

This is also mostly true. he never assumes that ALL similarities are in the junk DNA, but MOST. when comparing their DNA, humans and chimps are almost 99% the same, which indicates that we split off from a common ancestor not to long ago. Also, over 50% of the DNA is junk in almost every animal. therefore, it only makes sense that these "junk DNA" would be used to compare similarities between other animals.



posted on May, 10 2004 @ 01:07 AM
link   
Hey, HAWK!

Hawk "1. Evolution is too impossible or improbable. It has a 1 in 62.3x10^600 chance in succeeding."
…The fact of the matter is, even if there is a remote possibility that such a reaction, event, or thing to occur, it's still possible. We don't know what iteration the universe is on.

Guess what, chiddies and chuddies? There is a LAW OF PROBABILITY! It is a LAW, not THEORY! Mathematical law, the language of science, and usually the least screwed up of the theories and laws.

Again, I love Dr. Bert Thompson!
www.apologeticspress.org...

Over the years, investigators have elucidated quite successfully what are known as the “laws of probability.” Building upon the work of such men as Blaise Pascal, the famous French mathematician and scientist, others forged the principles that are employed today on a daily basis in almost every scientific discipline. George Gamow was one such individual (1961). Emile Borel was another. Dr. Borel, one of the world’s foremost experts on mathematical probability, formulated what scientists and mathematicians alike refer to as the basic “law of probability,” which we would like to discuss here. … Borel’s law of probability states that the occurrence of any event, where the chances are beyond one in one followed by 50 zeroes, is an event that we can state with certainty will never happen, regardless of how much time is allotted and regardless of how many conceivable opportunities could exist for the event to take place (Borel, 1962, chapters 1 and 3; see also Borel, 1965, p. 62).
…Evolutionist Harold Morowitz estimated that the probability for the chance formation of the simplest form of living organisms would be approximately one chance in 1x10340,000,000 [or one chance out of 1 followed by 340 million zeroes!] (1968, p. 99). The magnitude of this figure is truly staggering, since there are supposed to be only around 1x1080 elementary particles (electrons and protons) in the whole Universe (Sagan, 1997, 22:967).
…Carl Sagan further estimated the chance of life evolving on any given single planet…is one chance in 1x102,000,000,000 [that is one chance out of 1 followed by 2 billion zeroes!] (1973, p. 46). …A number this large is so infinitely beyond one followed by 50 zeroes (Borel’s upper limit for such an event to occur) that it is simply mind-boggling. There is, then according to Borel’s law of probability, absolutely no chance that life “spontaneously evolved” on the Earth.

Now, this is hs conclusion after this and MUCH MORE INFORMATION!

R.W. Kaplan…stated: “One could conclude from this result that life could not have originated without a donor of information” (1971, p. 319).
Creationists suggest that “donor” was the Creator, and that the evolution model cannot circumvent basic laws of probability. Evolutionist Richard Dawkins once said:

The more statistically improbable a thing is, the less we can believe that it just happened by blind chance. Superficially the obvious alternative to chance is an intelligent Designer (1982, p. 130, emp. added).



[Edited on 11-5-2004 by jlc163]



posted on May, 10 2004 @ 02:25 AM
link   
Interesting, I never knew about somthing with 50 zeros behind it being held as impossible, cool.

[Edited on 10-5-2004 by infovacume]



posted on May, 10 2004 @ 02:39 AM
link   
First, amantine posted his reasons

1.) He wasn’t assuming phylogenic relations to prove that they exist, but because he wants to point out that, if they are there, they don’t follow evolution and should stop being brought up as scientific fact by the ignorant masses—usually journalists who won’t stay for more than an hour at his seminars, yet write a story as if they were there for the whole of it—happened when he was down here, sigh…
exchange of genes—is where the DNA from the father crosses with the mother’s? creating a slight variation WITHIN A SPECIES, never has documented one that changes the man to the monkey
break—LOSS of DNA, none new added, does not show how things are ADDED to one or the other
merge-never was taught that one in school, please show me a documented case—even if you have to u2u me. If it’s what I think it is, show me outside of a lab and insulin-producing bacteria—man engineered, proves nothing
The only extra chromosome I’ve ever seen added to humans was one that causes, two problems, one where there is 3 to 4 female genes, and one where there’s 1 male and 2 or 3 female genes—these poor people CANNOT REPRODUCE and are RETARTED. So, just as he brought up the FACT that many animals don’t match up by the amount of chromosomes is important, mayhap more so than the issue of other DNA relation factors. The only time it provably happens in humans, it has been a major DEFECTIVE MUTATION.
Remember, he said:

To put it another way, humans always have had 46 chromosomes, whereas chimps always have had 48.

2.)He called it junk DNA? That’s a term used for it by his pro-evolution PEERS.

Here we go again!

These findings indicate that even if all of the human genes were different from those of a chimpanzee, the DNA still could be 98.5 percent similar if the “junk” DNA of humans and chimpanzees were identical.

Restated: IF Junk DNA was exactly the same, there would still be a 1.5% difference betwixt the two, by the other man’s calculations. IT DOES NOT STATE THAT THEY ARE THE SAME. He goes on to stat that approx ¼ of the DNA should be similar b/c they use the same coding system.
(EXAMPLE: When I was in writing programs for class assignments, in JAVA, most everyone in the class had their own version of the program, but we ultimately would use around a ¼ to ½ of the same source code in almost exactly the same sequence. The programs had nothing to do with each other, as each student came up with their own, but it was towards the same goal. This is a WAY oversimplified version of what God COULD do with various life forms on his own.)
He was pointing out the amount of assumption between taking 1.5-2% of the DNA for granted.

One of the downfalls of previous molecular genetic studies has been the limit at which chimpanzees and humans could be compared accurately.
… Today, however, we have the majority of the human genome sequences, practically all of which have been released and made public.
… This study compared the alignments of 77,461 chimpanzee bacterial artificial chromosome (BAC) end sequences to human genomic sequences. Fujiyama and colleagues “detected candidate positions, including two clusters on human chromosome 21, that suggest large, nonrandom regions of differences between the two genomes” (2002, 295:131). In other words, the comparison revealed some “large” differences between the genomes of chimps and humans.

Amazingly, the authors found that only 48.6% of the whole human genome matched chimpanzee nucleotide sequences. [Only 4.8% of the human Y chromosome could be matched to chimpanzee sequences.] … The data already support what creationists have said for years—the 98-99% figure representing DNA similarity is grossly misleading, as revealed in a study carried out by Roy Britten of the California Institute of Technology (see Britten, 2002).

Honestly, this makes it seem like you did not read the full text, but just that which I have posted here. This is the part of one of that thing you said would be more accurate to use, right?
3.

Just thirteen short years after Watson and Crick received their famed Nobel Prize, the declaration was made “that the average human polypeptide is more than 99 percent identical to its chimpanzee counterpart” (King and Wilson, 1975, pp. 114-115).


Jared Diamond even titled one of his books The Third Chimpanzee, thereby viewing the human species as just another big mammal. From all appearances, it seemed that evolutionists had won a battle—humans were more than 98% identical to chimpanzees.


The beginning of the article, sweetie.

4.) Oh, and when I bother to state something is out of context, I try to state what it was IN context with. Just randomly saying, "Oh...they're out of context," helps no one improve, so, with what you have posted on this stays in the public domain of opinion until you have proof. Please, show me why you doubt; it keeps down the shouting matches...



posted on May, 10 2004 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
The topic and original intent of it was focused on Flaws in the Assumptions of Evolutions.

].

This is not a thread nor topic concentrating on Creationism versus Evolution.
seekerof



Exactly, evolution or natural selection is not by any means a perfect theory. Darwin, himself abandoned it before his death after further research and reflection upon his findings. If evolution were presented as a new thesis today, it would be quickly dismissed using guidelines currently employed. I've seen some very compelling information presented in this thread and I hope it continues along the lines that Seekerof has indicated.

With the advance in science and technology come the ability to challenge what we think we know and there are always going to be those clinging to these theories as facts for reasons other than scientific. In the past 30 years, we've seen countless "facts" disproven by actual research and today, we have those who still turn their blind eyes in defiance of what is put in front of them. Evolution, global warming, and various others have failed the test of actual research but that isn't to say they were never viable theories. Its important to recognize the good faith effort put behind them and to continue to encourage free thinking in those areas but can we really ever find the truth if we fail to let go of what we now know to be false? Sadly, its a human trait to resist the change especially if i disagrees with our preferences.



posted on May, 10 2004 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by jlc163
1.) He wasn’t assuming phylogenic relations to prove that they exist, but because he wants to point out that, if they are there, they don’t follow evolution and should stop being brought up as scientific fact by the ignorant masses—usually journalists who won’t stay for more than an hour at his seminars, yet write a story as if they were there for the whole of it—happened when he was down here, sigh…
exchange of genes—is where the DNA from the father crosses with the mother’s? creating a slight variation WITHIN A SPECIES, never has documented one that changes the man to the monkey
break—LOSS of DNA, none new added, does not show how things are ADDED to one or the other
merge-never was taught that one in school, please show me a documented case—even if you have to u2u me. If it’s what I think it is, show me outside of a lab and insulin-producing bacteria—man engineered, proves nothing
The only extra chromosome I’ve ever seen added to humans was one that causes, two problems, one where there is 3 to 4 female genes, and one where there’s 1 male and 2 or 3 female genes—these poor people CANNOT REPRODUCE and are RETARTED. So, just as he brought up the FACT that many animals don’t match up by the amount of chromosomes is important, mayhap more so than the issue of other DNA relation factors. The only time it provably happens in humans, it has been a major DEFECTIVE MUTATION.
Remember, he said:

To put it another way, humans always have had 46 chromosomes, whereas chimps always have had 48.



No, with exchange I mean crossing-over or insertion. Merging of chromosomes can happen if all the coding DNA of a chromosome is exchanged in a crossing-over with for non-coding DNA. This leaves one entirely non-coding chromosome, which can get lost.
Even if this didn't happen in human evolution, the different chromosome numbers between humans now and chimpanzees now is no problem, a common ancestor might have had a different number than modern chimps or humans.



He was pointing out the amount of assumption between taking 1.5-2% of the DNA for granted.

One of the downfalls of previous molecular genetic studies has been the limit at which chimpanzees and humans could be compared accurately.
… Today, however, we have the majority of the human genome sequences, practically all of which have been released and made public.
… This study compared the alignments of 77,461 chimpanzee bacterial artificial chromosome (BAC) end sequences to human genomic sequences. Fujiyama and colleagues “detected candidate positions, including two clusters on human chromosome 21, that suggest large, nonrandom regions of differences between the two genomes” (2002, 295:131). In other words, the comparison revealed some “large” differences between the genomes of chimps and humans.

Amazingly, the authors found that only 48.6% of the whole human genome matched chimpanzee nucleotide sequences. [Only 4.8% of the human Y chromosome could be matched to chimpanzee sequences.] … The data already support what creationists have said for years—the 98-99% figure representing DNA similarity is grossly misleading, as revealed in a study carried out by Roy Britten of the California Institute of Technology (see Britten, 2002).

Honestly, this makes it seem like you did not read the full text, but just that which I have posted here. This is the part of one of that thing you said would be more accurate to use, right?


I looked up Britten, 2002, Fujiyama, 2002 and Coglan, 2002. Brittin lists a 95.2% similarity with indels and a 98,8% similarity without. I don't have a subscription to Science, so I couldn't view the results. This site, however, lists the Fujiyama results as a >90% similarity. It also lists Ebersburger, 2002, which gets a 98,76% similarity from a smaller sample. I don't where the author of that article got his 48,6% figure, but he sure didn't get it from any of those articles.

The 98% figure was the result of Britten's hydroxyapatite method for measuring sequence divergence (Hoyer, B. H., De Velde, N. W., Goodman, M., & Roberts, R. B. (1972). J. Hum. Evol. 1, 645-649). It was the best figure we had. The new results are not that different from the old ones.



posted on May, 10 2004 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by infovacume
Interesting, I never knew about somthing with 50 zeros behind it being held as impossible, cool.


There are sonething like 10^70, that's a 1with 71 zeros behind it, electrons in the universe. That tells you abit about the above probablity.



posted on May, 10 2004 @ 12:09 PM
link   
A quick preface to this post, it is from a scientific viewpoint, not from a faith-based viewpoint.


Originally posted by astrocreep
Evolution, global warming, and various others have failed the test of actual research


Since when has Evolution failed the test of actual research. As I've pointed out before, just because your preacher says 'Evolution has failed the test of actual research' does not make it so. Evolution, as a theory, is a bloody long way from being thrown out the window. It is becoming more and more solid. For someone to utterly disprove the theory of evolution would be a feat of similar magnitude to someone proving the theory of gravity is false. Its really that solid.

Sure there will be refinements and adjustments over time, thats the basis of scientific study. Darwins thoughts on natural selection are a far distant ancestor of modern evolutionary theory. Many aspects of evolutionary theory are known and proven, there are gaps, but they are small, and all scientific theories have gaps, the very point of science is to fill in the blanks.

There is no real scientific challenge to Evolution, there is no legitimate competing theory that comes close. As pointed out earlier, Occams razor sees to that nicely.

Drifting on to Abiogenesis, as far as the 'probability' figures quoted, they are worthless. The reasons behind this are explained here. A few more articles on this can be found from this page.

Really though, as also pointed out, even if there was a way to work out the probability of life arising on a planet. And even if it was a tiny chance. It is irrelevant, purely because of the fact that we are here. To just say 'its a tiny chance, that means someone created us' is just burying you head in the sand. As who created the creator, whether it be aliens or god, or aliens created by god. Somewhere down the line you are going to have the 'original'. How did the original come about, to just say 'the original always existed' is burying your head further into the sand.

But of course, it all comes down to faith. It may turn out that there is indeed a god, and on judgement day he is going to have a good hearty laugh at the 'Evolutionists' for falling for his prank. Right before shuffling us off to hell. The idea of scientific problems with evolution has been raised, and must be looked at in a scientific light. Faith has no place in the scientific analysis of these topics. They are two discrete topics.



posted on May, 10 2004 @ 01:00 PM
link   
Kano, you seem to make a clear line between evolution and abiogenesis, when they actually have a lot to do with eachother.
Micro-evolution is proven and a very solid theory, but tracking back what organisms had what ancestors (using macro-evolution theory) requires a lot more knowledge and information than what we have today.
If evolutionists are right, then abiogenesis was the first form of macro-evolution ever.
If creationists are right, the building blocks were created by God, but the current situation on earth would still be result of several types of evolution, because evolution would be designed by God as well.



posted on May, 10 2004 @ 01:19 PM
link   
As far as Im concerned abiogenesis is the very start of Macroevolution. Abiogenesis is the cornerstone of macro evolution. And it doesn't make sense at all.



posted on May, 10 2004 @ 01:24 PM
link   
One last time. Abiogenesis and macroevolution are two completely unrelated theories.

Evolution starts when the first organism is there. It doesn't matter how the organism got here. Abiogenesis explains how the first organism got there. If abiogenesis is wrong, evolution doesn't have to be wrong. If evolution is wrong, abiogenesis doesn't have to be wrong. They don't need eachother. They are both theories made by the scientific method, but they don't need the other theory to be true themselves. Kano is correct.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join