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: 7
3
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 5 2004 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackJackal
The problem is scientists cannot prove that Woodpeckers or flightless birds gained there abilities through evolution. You cannot prove that they were not created that way.


The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory—is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation—both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof.


My point is that if evolutionist say that about there own theory how solid can it be?

[Edited on 5-5-2004 by BlackJackal]


Well put. Until the day we get a time machine, no one is going to truly know the exact origin of the species.




posted on May, 5 2004 @ 03:25 PM
link   
BTW why is this post in Conspiracies in Religion it should be in Science & Technology



posted on May, 5 2004 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackJackal
BTW why is this post in Conspiracies in Religion it should be in Science & Technology


Because this thread started out as Creationism vs. Evolution. It has mutated and should adapt to a new section.



posted on May, 5 2004 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by flyby
Of all
known radioactive elements, only C14 does not dilute with water.
[/url]


Isn't C-14 the element used in carbon dating?? I may be wrong but this looks like religious propaganda to me. I'll believe animals adapted over millions of years to their surroundings before I believe some superior being created everything as it is.



posted on May, 5 2004 @ 03:37 PM
link   
Yeah it is, that's why you can only carbon-date organic things



posted on May, 5 2004 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Facefirst
Because this thread started out as Creationism vs. Evolution. It has mutated and should adapt to a new section.


That is the best line I have heard in a long time.

Well Done



posted on May, 5 2004 @ 03:47 PM
link   
haha I get it now
sweet good joke



posted on May, 5 2004 @ 03:59 PM
link   
I suppose I'm kind of late to comment, but oh well. Even if the theory of evolution has a bunch of holes in it, that doesn't mean that creationism is automatically the logical replacement. After all it's the THEORY of evolution not the Law of Evolution.
No one really knows how life developed, but most sane people don't believe it was created by a magical man in the sky in 6 days.



posted on May, 5 2004 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flinx
I suppose I'm kind of late to comment, but oh well. Even if the theory of evolution has a bunch of holes in it, that doesn't mean that creationism is automatically the logical replacement. After all it's the THEORY of evolution not the Law of Evolution.
No one really knows how life developed, but most sane people don't believe it was created by a magical man in the sky in 6 days.


I have done nothing in this thread to push my personal beliefs onto anyone else. All I have done is show that evolution is basically a religion itself and debunk the idea that evolution is fact.



posted on May, 5 2004 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flinx
I suppose I'm kind of late to comment, but oh well. Even if the theory of evolution has a bunch of holes in it, that doesn't mean that creationism is automatically the logical replacement. After all it's the THEORY of evolution not the Law of Evolution.
No one really knows how life developed, but most sane people don't believe it was created by a magical man in the sky in 6 days.


Hmm...I'm going to have to ask you to define sane. If 4.3 billion people follow a religion, most of which have a creation theory, would that make 4.3 billion of earth's population insane?



posted on May, 5 2004 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackJackal
I have done nothing in this thread to push my personal beliefs onto anyone else. All I have done is show that evolution is basically a religion itself and debunk the idea that evolution is fact.


I'm agree with the idea that evolution has become a religion in itself. As for the latter statement, I don't know. I'm quite sure the current theories are imperfect, but we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater. (man, I love that saying!)

The question I have about evolution is this: why are there no transitory fossils? In other words if Homo Erectus evolved directly into Homo Sapiens, shouldn't there be fossils that slowly show the change from one species to the next? Shouldn't there be 1/4 HS and 3/4 HE then 1/2 HS and 1/2 HE, and so on. This goes for any species, I'm just using the species I know as an example.

Maybe jumps to another species are sudden and take very little time because of some unknown process. Who knows? These are the things we need to work out to advance the evolutionary theory. As is, scientists tend to attack any new theory and dismiss it. Though I suppose this has been true throughout human history... The Earth orbits the sun? HAHAHA! An object can go faster than sound? You're nuts!


[Edited on 5/5/2004 by Flinx]



posted on May, 5 2004 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake


Hmm...I'm going to have to ask you to define sane. If 4.3 billion people follow a religion, most of which have a creation theory, would that make 4.3 billion of earth's population insane?

Most of the world's population also once believed the world was flat.
Didn't mean they were right.



posted on May, 5 2004 @ 04:16 PM
link   
You guys just re-stated the question that I already put forth.

That is the world was once populated, or had been populated on various occassions due to catastrophe, by a select basic genus of animal and plant life. And that over time successive generations allowed for variations within that genus set. Ie. a dog will always be a dog, a cat always a cat, etc. Although evolution accounts for a wide variation of the basic "dog" or "cat" there has been no proven, documented case of a fossil record showing the evolutionary steps between a dog to a cat etc. Nor is there a fossil record of a precurrsory animal that could have evolved seperatly into the dog and cat groups. Remember evolution can not happen in just one generation of offspring to result in such a huge difference in verifiable genus typing. You would need multiple (evolutionary staged) animals inbetween the precurrsor "parent" and the evolved offspring. There exists no such inbetween fossils. The closests we have to these is the Neanderthal evolution (supposed) from the ape-homanoid. Even with that there is suspect gaps in the fossil record that have yet to be found. As well as the "missing link" to make the jump to homo-sapien.

Therefore until some evidence is presented, the animal/ plant world must have originated from a select few primary "OEM" if you will genus types. And then from there factors like enviroment, predator rate, spawn rates, etc would have effected the minor (relative) variations that eventually would become major changes within one species.



posted on May, 5 2004 @ 04:19 PM
link   
I edited my previous post and added quite a bit. See above.

As for the sane thing, I was half-joking. I understand how easy it is to believe in something you were raised to believe in.



posted on May, 5 2004 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Facefirst

Most of the world's population also once believed the world was flat.
Didn't mean they were right.


Isaiah 40:22: It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

Proverbs 8:27 also eludes to the earth not being flat.

Apparently, they were just reading the wrong book...These were written over 3000 and 2600 years ago, respectivly.

Also of note, in a time where it was believed the Earth sat upon something, be it Atlas's shoulders or a turtle on 4 elephant's backs, the bible had this to say about what Earth sat upon:

Job 26:7: He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.



posted on May, 5 2004 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Facefirst
Most of the world's population also once believed the world was flat. Didn't mean they were right.


Sanity has very little with being right. Sanity is using some form of logic and reason to come to a rational and logical conclusion. At the time these people used the logic of their sight telling them that the world was flat to define their sanity. Of course we now now that their logic was baised on flawed perceptions/experiments, but through logical thinking they defined sane ideas.

Perhaps some day we will discover that our current reasoning and logic is based on a flawed perception of the facts and the future Us will laugh at the current Us as we laugh at those who have gone before Us.



[Edited on 5-5-2004 by Jonna]



posted on May, 5 2004 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackJackal
[And 10 years ago we thought that the tonsils served absolutely no purpose but now people are beginning to understand what purpose that they serve. Tonsils are strategically located near the entrance to the breathing passages where they can catch incoming infections. They sample bacteria and viruses. After sampling the germs they then help form antibodies to those germs as part of the body's immune system to resist and fight future infections.

I may be wrong and I will admit it after scientists remove the non-coding DNA and study the effects on the organism. If this proves to have no effect on the organism then I will admit that I am wrong but until then I say prove it.


The organisms do it themselves. There are bacteria that can remove the junk DNA from their genomes. That means that there are at least some sections that serve no real purpose. This, however, does not matter much for our discussion. We don't care if it has a function, we care if the junk DNA is morphologically related. This does not seem the case. A change in a broken copy of the hemoglobin gene never hurt anyone. If the genes are not related to the form of the organism we can use it for reliable comparison. You didn't even try to address the cytochrome or retrovirus DNA, because it simply works.





I have looked at the study and I don’t see what all the fuss is about. Creationist have never argued against adaptability in organisms. The E. Coli were put into a glucose-limitied median so if they did not learn to adapt they would die. The E Coli slowed their reproduction during the median generations as they learned to adapt. After they learned to adapt they started reproducing faster again. In the title and the conclusion it refers to parallel changes in gene expression, which is just a neutral change. The author does not prove that a beneficial mutation has occurred just that the organism adapted to the new environment via a parallel change.


This experiment proves a positive adaption to the environment. Now imagine two totally different environments. One with only glucose, one with only glycogen. Now let the E. Coli bacteria adapt there for, let's say, 100000 generations. Is it so difficult to understand that these two colonies can't mate anymore in the end. That they have adapted so much that they can no longer produce living offspring with a member of the other colony. Then we have two new species, macroevolution. Everyone who believes microevolution, believes macroevolution.



Robert May is a UK Chief Scientist. In New Scientist magazine (July 1, 2000) on page 5 he stated, “We share half our genes with the banana.” One can only guess (with a fertile imagination) what the common ancestor between people and bananas looked like In addition, there are fish that have 40% the same DNA as people, but hopefully no evolutionist would claim that the fish are 40% human – or people are half bananas.

How about them apples or should I say banna’s


So? They do have a common ancestor and common metabolic pathways. Glycolyse, citric acid cycle, etc. The cells are not too different either. In my opinion this proves evolution. Bananas and human have a common ancestor. It was just a tiny archeabacteria, but it was a common ancestor. The metabolism, which a lot of genes code for, hasn't changed much.


That idea is why I don’t even consider abiogenesis, it is way too far-fetched. And it has never been duplicated in the lab.


It is a problem that it has never been duplicated in the lab. My 100 million years was only a guess though, some calculations I provided in a link of an earlier post calculate that a self-replicating enzyme is formed every week. The problem is that there is no good alternative to abiogenesis. Inteligent Design is no scientific theory and it is not falsifiable. What if we show that abiogenesis can happen? It doesn't matter for Intelligent Design. Nothing can falsify Intelligent Design.



posted on May, 5 2004 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jonna

Originally posted by Facefirst
Most of the world's population also once believed the world was flat. Didn't mean they were right.


Sanity has very little with being right. Sanity is using some form of logic and reason to come to a rational and logical conclusion. At the time these people used the logic of their sight telling them that the world was flat to define their sanity. Of course we now now that their logic was baised on flawed perceptions/experiments, but through logical thinking they defined sane ideas.

Perhaps some day we will discover that our current reasoning and logic is based on a flawed perception of the facts and the future Us will laugh at the current Us as we laugh at those who have gone before Us.
[Edited on 5-5-2004 by Jonna]


I hold and support that view 100%. I was just being sarcastic in my post.

I am very sure that some of our current beliefs and ways of doing things will be fodder for laughter one day. Just as we chuckle at some of the things people believed and did in the past.



posted on May, 5 2004 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Now I understand your reasoning better.

Personally, i wouldn't really listen to some1 who doesn't know when some1 else is being sarcastic.....but that's just me.


You're inside an athmosphere. Not even an atomic explotion would have an impact on the orbital course of this planet.

ummm.....that was a comparison. u see, i was comparing the fact as to how hard it would be to prove creationism with the fact that moving the earth with one sneeze is also impossible.


Plus, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Zen Buddhism, all the old Mesopotamian religions, Ancient Egyptian and Sumerian for instance, most African Religions, Norse, the and probably the Maya, Azteks and the different Aborigine tribes, I know the North American tribes knew about the Creator too, every religion together with the rest of the religions, they all believe in a Creator. Infact the idea of a creator god who is above all and below all, who is everywhere, is one of the oldest pieces of written knowledge that exists. It's the whole idea of the Whole, the Universe, everything which is and Everyone, intellect, capacity, intelligence, humans can in theory end up conquering the whole galaxy, maybe the whole universe, our minds are quite powerful, and we are good mechanics and teachers too: "God Made All This! This Universe Was Once Like A Grain Of Sand In The Hands Of The Creator!!!" Well done. Now you're making me start writing like the Black Death too. Thank you!

so....those references to adam and eve. ur saying that they existed in zen buddhism, ancient egyptians, sumerians, etc.? that's pretty interesting. i never knew that every religion had two people named adam and eve who started the human race.


Yes, ok, so if I understand you correctly it is now ok for me to give you the blame for whatever man has done in the name of science, is that what you're saying?

ummmm.....how did u come up with this conclusion? and u still haven't answered my question. "isn't that what christianity is trying to do by sending missionaries all over the world?"



posted on May, 5 2004 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Facefirst

Originally posted by Camelopárdalis
Well to me God is actually outside and inside the All. He can sit from his office outside this universe and hook up to the cat beside you or even yourself. He can whenever he wants tap your mind at any time in life. He can change the coarse of time just by doing something simple as breathing or saying something. God is the one controlling creating reshaping guiding playing with Creation. He's my Hero!


That is an opinion. If that is what you believe, fine. More power to you.

I still have yet to see Darwin's theories shot down.

That being said, I know that theories are just theories until proven.



[Edited on 5-5-2004 by Facefirst]

EXACTLY! look at some of camel's previous posts! he claims that god used a clay and scanned it using some kind of machine!

WHERE DOES IT SAY THAT IN THE BOOK!?!?!?



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join