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: 19
3
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 06:46 PM
link   
You want proof of evolution?

HIV virus. Evolves practically in real time.

[edit on 27-6-2005 by cargo]




posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 02:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by cargo
You want proof of evolution?

HIV virus. Evolves practically in real time.

[edit on 27-6-2005 by cargo]


You mean mutates.
And what parts of evolution does the HIV virus prove really?
Evolution is not just one thing.



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 05:13 AM
link   
Prolonged use of antiviral agents, which inhibit the replication of viruses, provides time for HIV to spawn viruses which are immune to the agents. These viruses survive and replicate. This is something that scientists can watch in almost realtime. As opposed to watching evolution of animal species over hundreds or thousands of years, in which you can only see the results.

Im interested though in hearing why you think mutation and evolution are mutually exclusive.

[edit on 28-6-2005 by cargo]



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 12:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mistress of Night
Take a look at this site. I'm sure if you are educated enough you'll change your mind about "evolution." deletia


By "educated enough" you must mean brain-washed beyond the point of rational thought. Looks like "Dr. Dino" would enforce mandatory attendence at re-education camps. It's just another transparent attempt to de-educate the populace, which is already dumbed-down horribly.

Pointing out apparent flaws or gaps in an explanation DOES NOT PROVE another hypothesis by default. If you want to assert creationism, prove it, period. Among all the foregoing banter in this thread, there is no proof of creationism or ID. Creationism relies only upon authoritarianism. It's like saying, "scripture proves scripture," which is an absurdity I have heard (though easily refuted as a circular argument).

The Church throughout history has commanded compliance with all its dogma for only one reason - control. Since it has lost a controlling interest in the population, it is now attempting to regain mind-control. But it is doing so at a very dear cost, the technological and innovative edge of which America was once proud. Unfortunately, the country is out-sourcing its very brains.



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 06:42 AM
link   
.
Evolution is a theory that fits with and is supported by every other science.

Fossils, Geology, DNA, genetics, biology, Organic Chemistry, Physics, Chemistry.

It has lots of substance to it.
It probably has a few holes in it.

Creationism is one big HOLE.
A hole for a-holes?

If you want to believe voodoo and superstition every adult has the freedom in America to think and act like a juvenile.
.



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 07:07 AM
link   
i believe different things are created by different beings i.e. humans. as one human species is made from another by an intelligent being to be created to its own likeness by genticly augmenting the genes of one species to give rise to a new species.

like neaderthals being different than us humans. i believe neaderthals were a false attempt at creating soemthing different than us humans and died out becasue it may have been a poor specimen compared to us and was deleted. were suppose to be all the same, with the same size brain and organ structure. although all of us children on earth aren't evolving technologically in equalls proportions. asians being good at math, euros being good at science., papua new guineas being one of the very last human species to obtain original culture, or africans that live in huts,etc...

see the difference in our technological evo here. makes me feel that we are created by different beings to what they want in life. as though were given the intelligence that these highers want us to have. its like god made an african child as the foundational blueprints of human life for other intelligents to find and begin to make thier human creation from the genetic make-up of this africans DNA structure.

i mean we have 6000 langauges and dialects around the world. 1500 in Africa alone. it's quite odd as to how we came up with so many langauges and cultures. were so much the same, but yet very different in character depending on nationality/ethnicity. the way were made to fight others that aren't like us. they way disease is strickin amongst certain groups of people like sickle cell anemia, or 70% of the worlds AIDS population in Africa.

a lot of people and scientist say that were different in features becasue of region and environment. hotter enviornment for darker color people and colder environment for lighter people. im kind of confused with these scientist because if scientist say its pigment to region than children of the himalayas would be white like europeans, or eskimos of artic and alaska would be stone white with eyes the color of my shephard (blueish/white color). eskimos live in the coldest area of anyone on this planet and yet they have dark skin,eyes, and broad noses.

my.02 that we are created by different intelligent beings to thier likeness. this theory goes for all creatures that roam this earth.

there are to many unseen outside forces around I that clearly show at times that they are not together.



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 10:10 PM
link   
The contention of creationism relies upon that the Bible is literally true. To debunk such myth, the Bible is self- contradictory and thus can not be taken as literal fact.

Here are a few of the contradictions:

Should we kill?
Ex. 20:13 Thou shalt not commit murder.
Ex. 32:27 Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, put every man his sword by his side...and slay every man his brother...companion..neighbor.(See also 1 Sam. 6:19; 15:2,3; Num. 15:36)

Ex 20:5 "...for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God..." (see also Ex 34:14, Deut 4:24, Josh 24:19, and Nah 1:2)
Gal 5:19-20 "Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are...jealousy..." (See also 2 Cor 12:20)

Should we tell lies?
Ex. 20:16 Thou shalt not bear false witness.(Prov. 12:22; Rev. 21:8)
1 Kings 22:23 The Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee. (II Thess. 2:11; Josh. 2:4-6 with James 2:25)

Should we steal?
Ex. 20:15 Thou shalt not steal. (Lev. 19:13)
Ex. 3:22. And ye shall spoil the Egyptians. (Ex. 12:35-36; Luke 19:29-33)

Shall we keep the Sabbath?
Ex. 20:8 Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. (Ex. 31:15; Num. 15:32,36)
Is. 1:13 The new moons and the Sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity. (John 5:16; Matt. 12:1-5)


Shall we make Graven images?
Ex. 20:4. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven...earth...water. (Lev. 26:1)
EX. 25:18 And thou shalt make two cherubims of gold, of beaten work shalt thou make them.

Are we "saved" through works?
Eph. 2:8,9 For by grace are ye saved through faith...not of works. (Rom. 3:20, 28; Gal. 2:16)
James 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.(Matt. 19:16-21)


Should good works be seen?
Matt. 5:16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works. (I Peter 2:12)
Matt. 6:1-4 Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them...that thine alms may be in secret. (Matt. 23:5)


Should we own slaves?
Lev. 25:45-46 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy...and they shall be your posession...they shall be your bondmen forever. (Gen. 9:25; Ex. 21:2,7; Joel 3:8; Luke 12:47; Col. 3:22)
Is. 58:6 Undo the heavy burdens...break every yoke. (Matt. 23:10)


Does God change his mind?
Mal. 3:6. For I am the Lord; I change not. Num. 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent. (Ezek. 24:14; James 1:17)
Ex. 32:14. And the Lord repented of the evil which he had thought to do unto his people. (Gen. 6:6; Jonah 3:10; Sam. 2:30-31; II Kings 20:1-6; Num. 16:20-35)


Are we punished for our parent's sins?
Ex. 20:5 For I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generations. (Ex. 34:7)
Ezek. 18:20 The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father.

Is God good or evil?
Psa. 145:9. The Lord is good to all. (Deut. 32:4; James 1:13)
Is. 45:7 I make peace and create evil. I the Lord do all these things. (Lam 3:38; Jer. 18:11; Ezek. 20:25)

Is God Peaceable?
John 14:27 Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you. (Luke 2:14; Acts 10:36)
Matt. 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth, I came not to send peace, but a sword. (Matt. 10:35-37; Luke 22:36)

Was Jesus trustworthy?
John 8:14 Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true.
John 5:31 If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.

Shall we call people names?
Matt. 5:22 Whosoever shall say Thou fool, shall be in danger of hellfire.
Matt. 23:17 (Jesus said) Ye fools and blind.

Has anyone seen God?
John 1:18 No man hath seen God at anytime. (Ex 33:20; Tim. 6:16; John 6:46; I John 4:12)
Gen. 32:30 For I have seen god face to face. (Ex. 33:11, 23; Is. 6:1; Job 42:5)

How many gods are there?
Deut. 6:4 The Lord or God is one Lord.
Gen. 1:26 And God said, let us make man in our image.(Gen. 3:22; I John 5:7)

Are we all sinners?
Rom. 3:23 For all have sinned. (Rom. 3:10; Psa.14;3)
Job 1:1 There was a man... whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright. (Gen. 7:1; Luke 1:5-6)

When was Jesus crucified?
Mark 15:22 and it was the third hour, and they crucified him.
John 19:14-15 And about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King! But they cried out...crucify him!"



posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 01:27 AM
link   
Don't forget it is also completely wrong on many things.

No World Flood, not enough water for it.

No Jew Slaves, so no Exodus, or Moses.

No Giants so no David vs Goliath.

No Talking snakes so no Adam or Eden.

No Heaven in the sky so Babylon Tower thingy bye bye.

No people with wings so no angels.

No Hell in the ground so no Satan or anything like that.

It is just sad.



posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 09:17 PM
link   
Agreed James (btw, your rabbit-pancake is pretty cool). Sure, the Bible is a very old document(s) and deserves study along with other and even older inscriptions such as the Epic of Gilgamesh. And of course, there are biblical passages that are inspirational and so forth. However, after considerable study of the Bible, it is overwhelmingly clear to me that biblical sayings are best in short sections (i.e. "sound bytes"). That way, the manifold contradictions are not a problem, as I encountered from youth through adulthood. Even as a deacon at a First Presyterian Church, the contradictory miasma could not be ameliorated, other than by cognitive dissonance.

There is precious little scientific data in the Bible, save for vague descriptions of the general localities of a few mineral deposits. Importantly, it is anathema to attempt to derive science from it, for its lessons stress the non-material, non-physical, but spiritual realm of life. Moreover, faith is also highlighted and not knowledge with respect to such realms. Of course, faith or belief is what occurs in the absence of proof. Actual evidence is physical or substantial in nature, the antithesis of faith.



posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 01:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aeon10101110
Pointing out apparent flaws or gaps in an explanation DOES NOT PROVE another hypothesis by default. If you want to assert creationism, prove it, period.


You're right. Neither does evolution disprove creation. Yet, I will continue to spout it. Sadly, I have found myself to be a creationist. Why? I have no more evidence that Creation is true than when I started looking into it. I've come to believe evolution has many, many flaws, but that still doesn't prove creation, as you said. No, unfortunately I've found myself in the creationist came purely based on conversations I've had about it here on ATS and at home. The insults, personal attacks, etc. have put my back up against the proverbial wall, and in that position, I fight. It's amazing how accurate Christ was. Deliver the message with love. Let's face it, you can't argue and insult people into the Kingdom of Heaven, and you can't argue and insult people enough to force them to believe in evolution. At least this individual can't be convinced by such means.

I started out playing devil's advocate. I didn't know what to believe, I had stumbled upon an article one day that shattered my staunch belief in evolution. Suddenly a question arose, yet still all the evidence was pointing towards macroevolution. Later, I joined ATS, had some fun, and stumbled across an evolution vs. creationism thread. Reading through it, the evolutionists were all quoting facts and figures, and the creationists were quoting scripture. So what, if you don't believe in it? So I started to argue for creationism, though my lot was still cast with the evolutionists' theory of creation. Now, over a year later, I have been called every synonymof stupid you can find as a result. Does it bother me? Nah, I didn't think it did, I'm too prideful for someone to attack my greatest strength and have that attack be effective. Yet, apparentlyit did; Just tonight I realized I'm a creationist, and I realized why. It's sad, intellectually dishonest, and the truth.

I was not cinvinced by disproving current theories. I was not convinced by scripture. I was not convinced by well stated points. I was convinced through insult. How sad that I let so few manipulate my opinion, though in the opposite direction they intended. And how much sadder is it that I recognize why I believe what I do, yet continue to believe.



The Church throughout history has commanded compliance with all its dogma for only one reason - control.


No, not the church, individuals. The church, or bride of Christ, is far greater than one denomination or sect. The Catholic church holds much clout with many, but they are not the true church. The true church includes all who have accepted Christ as Savior. You seem to be making an assumption of all Christians based on one denomination's leadership's decisions.



posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 07:25 AM
link   
HIV didn't need the antiviral drugs to exhibit its prodigious mutational properties. There is good evidence that SIV (the monkey virus that spawned HIV) and HIV existed in Africa for a long time in a benign form to which the natives were immune on the basis of slow, gradual immunity starting before birth and then aactive immunity after birth through small then larger exposures to the eating of monkey meat. BUT then a totally new factor was added in the late 1970s when non-immune Americans from San Francisco and NY were vacationing in Haiti engaged in intimate contact with native(s) and HIV got highly mutational because the natural immunity was now absent and a deadly form of HIV appeared. This is my theoretic model.



posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 07:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
You're right. Neither does evolution disprove creation.

Actually, it can disprove certain claims regarding creation. Like the earth being created 6000 years ago, that could only hold true if creationists assume that everything that appears older was "planted" by God.



posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 10:07 AM
link   
Except that the 6,000 year old claim is one of great contention in Christian circles where the people look into it. The number comes from counting generations from Adam and Eve and they make a guesstimate of how old each person was when they had kids. As I've said on many other threads, the Hebrew word used in Genesis is questionable, too. It can mean both day or age. There is a word in Hebrew that is specifically for day, but that was not used.

If, in fact, the earth is 6,000 years old, you're right -- they're mutually exclusive. However, not all creationists believe the earth is but 6,000 years old, and they are scripturally accurate as well. The Bible just isn't specific enough on the age of the earth for us to unequivocally say, "The Bible states the earth is 6,000 years old".



posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 02:49 PM
link   
Evolution, like any science, can't disprove creation. Creation is a religious idea, and science can't 'trump' religion. Faith is, basically, irrational (not being derogatory here), rational science can't 'disprove' it. And indeed, science doesn't 'prove' anything, it makes hypotheses, and then trys to refute those hypotheses.

However, given all those cautions and still using a 'normal' language, evolution does sort of disprove the idea that all the different kinds of organisms were 'created' at the same time and seperately, geology 'disproves' that there was a global flood, and critical observation tells you that snakes don't go around making up cunning arguments to nudists.



posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 04:23 PM
link   
at the risk of being redundant - the point of science is discovery and one of the most important premises of scientific theory is that it remains a viable theory until someone proves that it is wrong.

Many who attack the scientists who contribute work to the theory of evolution completely miss the point that scientists are the world's biggest doubters on the whole. They don't believe anything without data to back it up and then they are constantly searching for data that might disprove it.

I've said this before, too, but I'll repeat the short version to underline my point (and those of others) - any scientist that could successfully disprove the theory of evolution would instantly become one of the most famous and (probably) wealthiest scientist in the world.

Edited to add:
I just can't resist adding that what I said above is ample evidence to refute any argument that "evolution is a religion" - in what religion do you find the "high priests" constantly trying to prove that their beliefs are false?


[edit on 18-8-2005 by Al Davison]



posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 09:51 PM
link   
Pres. Bush is merely pandering to an electoral base of religionists. Yet the Presidential Science Advisor, Dr. John Marburger III, is engaging in damage control. On Aug. 2, The New York Times quoted a telephone interview with Marburger in which he said, "evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology" and "intelligent design is not a scientific concept."

An article today from Space.com clarifies the "apologetics" that were necessitated by advisors to Bush and advisory boards with excellent credentials:

Marburger also spoke with Dr. Marvin Cohen, President of the American Physical Society, and recipient of the National Medal of Science from President Bush in 2002. In an Aug. 4 release, Cohen explains that the APS is "…happy that the President’s recent comments on the theory of intelligent design have been clarified. As Presidential Science Advisor John Marburger has explained, President Bush does not regard intelligent design as science. If such things are to be taught in the public schools, they belong in a course on comparative religion, which is a particularly appropriate subject for our children given the present state of the world."

Furthermore, "President Bush, in advocating that the concept of ‘intelligent design’ be taught alongside the theory of evolution, puts America’s schoolchildren at risk," says Fred Spilhaus, Executive Director of the American Geophysical Union. "Americans will need basic understanding of science in order to participate effectively in the 21st century world. It is essential that students on every level learn what science is and how scientific knowledge progresses." (AGU, Aug. 2, 2005) AGU is a scientific society comprising 43,000 Earth and space scientists.

Likewise, the American Institute of Biological Sciences criticized the President: "Intelligent design is not a scientific theory and must not be taught in science classes," said AIBS president Dr. Marvalee Wake. "If we want our students to be able to compete in the global economy, if we want to attract the next generation into the sciences, we must make sure that we are teaching them science. We simply cannot begin to introduce non-scientific concepts into the science curriculum." (AIBS, Aug. 5, 2005) The American Institute of Biological Sciences was established as a national umbrella organization for the biological sciences in 1947 by 11 scientific societies as part of the National Academy of Sciences. An independent non-profit organization since 1954, it has grown to represent more than 80 professional societies and organizations with a combined membership exceeding 240,000 scientists and educators.

Science educators are equally dismayed. "The National Science Teachers Association (NSTA), the world’s largest organization of science educators, is stunned and disappointed that President Bush is endorsing the teaching of intelligent design – effectively opening the door for nonscientific ideas to be taught in the nation’s K-12 science classrooms. We stand with the nation’s leading scientific organizations and scientists, including Dr. John Marburger, the president’s top science advisor, in stating that intelligent design is not science. Intelligent design has no place in the science classroom, said Gerry Wheeler, NSTA Executive Director." (NSTA, Aug. 3, 2005) NSTA has 55,000 members who teach science in elementary, middle and high schools as well as college and universities.

The American Federation of Teachers, which represents 1.3 million pre-K through 12th grade teachers, was even harsher. "President Bush’s misinformed comments on ‘intelligent design’ signal a huge step backward for science education in the United States. The president’s endorsement of such a discredited, nonscientific view is akin to suggesting that students be taught the ‘alternative theory’ that the earth is flat or that the sun revolves around the earth. Intelligent design does not belong in the science classroom because it is not science." (AFT, Aug. 4, 2005)

There’s significant legal precedent from US Supreme Court that creationism - in any clothing - does not belong in the American classrooms. Teaching creationism is in violation of the separation of church and state, and has been ruled illegal by the US Supreme Court in several cases. It’s unfortunate that the President apparently does not understand that science is not equivalent to a belief system but is description of how the natural world works. Creationism, including intelligent design, is a religious point of view, not science.

At a time when industrial, academic, and business leaders are calling for more American students to train in engineering, mathematics, science and technology, we need to teach science in science classrooms. Let’s teach the scientific ideas that are supported by overwhelming evidence such as gravitation, relativity, quantum mechanics, and evolution. Creationist ideas/beliefs, such as intelligent design, don’t belong in science classrooms. In our haste to leave no child behind, let’s not leave science behind either.



posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 01:07 AM
link   
I may catch a lot of heat from some people for saying this, but I agree with you, AeonAE. intelligent design, as I understand it, is not yet science. It cannot be proven or disproven by current science, and therefor has no place in the science classroom. The only evidence Creationists put forth is refuting evolution, not giving scientific data supporting creation. Quite frankly, if the 6,000 model is correct, they never will be able to.

Naturally, I have to explain that. If the 6,000 year model is correct and God created Adam on the 6th day, He gave the impression of age. R.C. Sproul gave a great example of this that will have elements that will ring true to members here at ATS
If an alien were to have come to this planet on day 5, they would have seen a beautiful garden in Eden. Yet if they didn't come on day 5, but instead on day 6, they would have seen Adam walking through the garden. There would be nothing to indicate to them that, just a day before, Adam wasn't there. Everything would appear as though it had been around for ages, including this adult man naming animals throughout the garden. There would be no scientific evidence that Adam hadn't been there on day 5 because God created with a look of age.

Science, as it stands today in what it can measure, cannot prove or disprove intelligent design. As a result, it doesn't beling in the science room. However, I will qualify my statements. If intelligent design isn't to be taught in science, the evolution should be laid bare instead of the propagandalistic education on evolution that I recieved and I'm sure many others recieved. No flaws are touched on, only that this is the way it is, and there's evdence backing it up. I am, of course, talking about grade school and high school science classes. College classes, I'm assuming, go more into depth on the strengths and weaknesses of the theory of evolution for biology majors and the like. I hope. If they don't we have a very serious indoctrination problem in our schools.



posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 12:16 AM
link   
Rather than focusing on the exceptions, Jake, the classrooms should put more effort into presenting the actual evidence. And the relative abundance of evidence supporting evolution must be compared to that which supports any other theory. (But ID doesn't even qualify as a theory, it is speculation.)

Sure, statistical outliers have a place in science for challenging other observations, though it is dubious the most primary or secondary students are educated enough to understand that relationship.

However, anything that can be done to mitigate the manifold dumbing down of Americans is needed immediately. Otherwise, America won't need to be attacked physically, its former greatness will merely be outsourced.



posted on May, 14 2007 @ 11:25 AM
link   
Okay, listen up. Of course there is God. Where do you think the singularity came from? God "snapped his fingers" and caused the Big Bang. Everything in existence was designed by Him. He also caused the evolution of species that we see on Earth. However, he created men as men, and did not cause us to evolve from any other species, which is why there is no "missing link". You can believe the recount of creation that is told in the Bible. It's all good. Just remember that it was explained in terms that people of that time could understand. In other words, the explanation may seem simplistic but that doesn't mean it's not true. It fits together beautifully...



posted on May, 14 2007 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by utellem
You can believe the recount of creation that is told in the Bible. It's all good.


And your so sure of that because....?

[edit on 14-5-2007 by DarkSide]



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join