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.

 

Charles Darwin film 'too controversial for religious America'

page: 30
29
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 08:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


See Stylez's post for your answer. www.abovetopsecret.com...
Hint: Look for DNA repair and the quote concerning it.

In a nutshell, mutations are rarely passed on, the DNA has a repair mechanism and too many mutations would be required for speciation. The odds against the evolution of one species are staggering, and there are thousands of species, requiring hundreds of billions of mutations suitable for speciation and transitions to higher forms. It doesn't happen now, nor has it ever happened.



[edit on 22/9/09 by John Matrix]




posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 09:13 AM
link   
reply to post by John Matrix
 

Actually the best education I got about animals wasn't in the classroom, it was in the natural history museum. I spent hours looking at all the skeletons on display of many different mammals. The mammals look completely different on the outside. But the skeletons have amazing similarities that strongly suggested to me they were all related.
www.occc.edu...
I see related bones in most mammals related to our upper arm, forearm, leg bones including kneecaps. Even hooved animals have remarkable similarities above the hooves to wrist bones in humans. I also see similarities in the ribcage, spine, pelvis, and even skulls to some degree.
While this is no proof of evolution, it was some of the most convincing evidence to me personally to do more research to see why the skeletons of all mammals have such amazing similarities. Evolution explains these similarities pretty well. Some of the differences between mammal species seem way less dramatic when you look at skeletons, I highly recommend it, and it's fun comparing your skeleton the the skeletons of other mammals.

That is, unless you're one of those people who is offended by the suggestion that you might have anything in common at all with even other primates (in spite of the fact we share so much of our DNA with other primates).



[edit on 22-9-2009 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 09:25 AM
link   
Anyone seen the Film yet? A touching piece, quite sad but with a couple of good performances.



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by John Matrix
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


See Stylez's post for your answer. www.abovetopsecret.com...
Hint: Look for DNA repair and the quote concerning it.

In a nutshell, mutations are rarely passed on, the DNA has a repair mechanism and too many mutations would be required for speciation.


Yes I read that. Well all it takes is for mutations to be rarely passed on, and the DNA repair mechanism doesn't repair all mutations. What we can hardly comprehend is how many generations and additional tries life has been given over and over and over for extremely rare events to occur. Maybe mutations don't propagate too often but they do propagate.

We can try to think back a few thousand years but even that seems like a long time. but a lot can happen in hundreds and thousands or millions of years, in fact unlikely events are certain to happen over such a time scale. For example, an event that is so rare it will only happen once in a thousand years, will happen 1000 times in a million year time period.



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 09:39 AM
link   
Abiogenesis is not microevolution, why do you think it is? Evolution happens after basic cell functions, a.k.a. life, are available. You only disproved completely random abiogenesis. Whether first simple life appeared through random abiogenesis (very improbable), gods creation (i dont think so), or gradual abiogenesis guided by natural laws (i think this is it, but noone has any proof yet), IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH EVOLUTION.



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by John Matrix
 

Actually the best education I got about animals wasn't in the classroom, it was in the natural history museum. I spent hours looking at all the skeletons on display of many different mammals. The mammals look completely different on the outside. But the skeletons have amazing similarities that strongly suggested to me they were all related.
www.occc.edu...
I see related bones in most mammals related to our upper arm, forearm, leg bones including kneecaps. Even hooved animals have remarkable similarities above the hooves to wrist bones in humans. I also see similarities in the ribcage, spine, pelvis, and even skulls to some degree.
While this is no proof of evolution, it was some of the most convincing evidence to me personally to do more research to see why the skeletons all mammals have such amazing similarities. Evolution explains these similarities pretty well. Some of the differences between mammal species seem way less dramatic when you look at skeletons, I highly recommend it, and it's fun comparing your skeleton the the skeletons of other mammals.

That is, unless you're one of those people who is offended by the suggestion that you might have anything in common at all with even other primates (in spite of the fact we share so much of our DNA with other primates).


You visited a government funded natural history museum for your education.....No wonder you side with evolution!! It's everywhere and hard to escape the teachings that lead to this delusion. If you can, try to open your mind and see what we are trying to reveal to you.

What you see are common design features. Not evidence for evolution.
All life has DNA. This common design feature is not offensive. What is offensive is willful ignorance and hatred of the Truth.

[edit on 22/9/09 by John Matrix]



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
Abiogenesis is not microevolution, why do you think it is? Evolution happens after basic cell functions, a.k.a. life, are available. You only disproved completely random abiogenesis. Whether first simple life appeared through random abiogenesis (very improbable), gods creation (i dont think so), or gradual abiogenesis guided by natural laws (i think this is it, but noone has any proof yet), IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH EVOLUTION.


Thanks for bringing that to my attention.

Abiogenesis: the theory that living organisms come about from non-living matter. Abiogenesis does not happen. Never has, never will.

I see all these theories of Abiogenesis. micro and macroevolution as being all part of the same delusionary thinking.

Even when the distinctions are made between the three groups, all of it is still absurd:
www.isthebibletrue.net...



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 10:30 AM
link   
Micro-evolution: is nothing more than adaptive responses and variation of species.

In that sense, where no speciation occurs, micro-evolution is observable.

But proof of micro-evolution should not be translated into proof of macro-evolution or abiogenesis.

In fact, I believe the use of the term Micro-evolution by evolutionists is improper considering the Darwinian roots and the fact that evolutionists have fraudulently convinced the masses that "evolution" means "speciation". Using the term Micro-evolution to discribe nothing more than observable variations in species, and adaptive response is therefore deliberately misleading:


There are two “sleights of hand” used to convince the public that the theory of evolution is a better description of physical reality than creation: #1 Use of the word “evolution” to describe micro-evolution, macro-evolution, and abiogenesis, even though these phenomena/ideas are not interchangeable: Micro-evolution has been observed, abiogenesis and macro-evolution have not been observed. There are many instances of micro-evolution that have been observed. The word “evolution” simply means “change”, and animals have been observed to change in order to adapt to their environments. Does micro-evolution, in itself, prove macro-evolution and abiogenesis? No.

Abiogenesis describes the theory that over billions of years, pools of nonliving matter formed living things. The theory of macro-evolution assumes that these things then changed drastically to form altogether new species, until eventually, humans were formed. Read a few articles defending evolution and watch the magic unfold. You will probably see something like the following:

“Technically, evolution is described as only a theory, even though there are numerous instances in which it has been observed to occur.” Well, yes and no. Micro-evolution has been observed, that is absolutely true, but macro-evolution and abiogenesis have not been observed, they are only assumed to have occurred. The use of the one word “evolution” to describe these very disparate concepts is confusing indeed. It can easily mislead the public to believe that scientists have observed non-living substances form themselves into living organisms, or that they have observed species evolving into different species. This is simply not true. It is intellectually dishonest, or, at the very least, sloppy science.

Explain this problem to someone who advocates for abiogenesis and macro-evolution, and you are likely to uncover another twist of language (and logic), which is sleight of hand #2: Use of the words “science” or “scientific” to mean “reasonable” or “logical”, although these terms are not interchangeable.

Read a few more of those articles defending abiogenesis and macro-evolution, and you are likely to see something like this: “Creationism is simply not science.” The impression that you are likely to take away from that statement is that creationism is not logical or reasonable, or that it is contradictory to the evidence. That’s not what that statement means.

The word “science” refers to physical phenomena in the physical universe, that can either be observed directly or that leave behind some type of physical evidence. Creationism, by definition, says that something outside of the physical universe was the cause of the physical universe. It doesn’t mean that creationism isn’t logical or reasonable, it means that it’s not confined to the physical universe, and is therefore outside the realm of strictly physical phenomena (“science”).

Well, why don’t the writers just say that? They could easily say that it simply falls outside of the parameters of the strictly physical universe, instead of implying that it’s a dumb idea.

Here is where the biases and faulty logic of the Abiogenecists and Macro- evolutionists come in: It is their OPINION and PERSONAL BELIEF that there is nothing outside of the physical universe, even though it is impossible to DISPROVE a supernatural realm.

In The Grand Miracle , C.S. Lewis makes the point that it is not possible to rule out a “spiritual” or “supernatural” realm or plane. If there is something outside of the physical realm, beyond the natural, (hence “supernatural”, and being not contained within or defined by the physical plane) physical laws would not necessarily apply to this plane. Lewis, C.S., The Grand Miracle (Ballantine, New York, 1970) pp. 48-49.

Well, on the other hand, we can understand why scientists might be biased against considering a supernatural plane, and why they might let their personal opinions impact their outlook on this subject. After all, we cannot necessarily observe things outside of the physical realm, but we can observe the physical universe, so it makes sense to lean on the side of the physical universe. One we know exists, and the other may or may not exist…

But here’s the problem: there is some evidence of something beyond the physical realm. This evidence is called the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The Second Law of Thermodynamics (Entropy) states that energy always naturally goes from a more organized state to a less organized state. Here’s an example of how it works: “For modern physics, as you have heard before, the universe is “running down”. Disorganization and chance is continually increasing. There will come a time, not infinitely remote, when it will be wholly run down or wholly disorganized, and science knows of no possible return from that state. There must have been a time, not infinitely remote, in the past when it was wound up, though science knows of no winding up process.” [emphasis added] (Lewis, C.S., The Grand Miracle, 1970) p.9.

Source: www.isthebibletrue.net...



[edit on 22/9/09 by John Matrix]



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 10:54 AM
link   
Glad to hear we agree at least on definitions. The link you provided was correct about it. As for your opinion on abiogenesis, you cannot prove it, neither can i. There was interesting little offtopic part in that link about entropy, which disproves stable eternal universe mentioned earlier. Basicaly the universe has less useful energy than in the beginning (entropy increase).



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 10:54 AM
link   
Double post sorry, i am writing from a mobile...

[edit on 22-9-2009 by Maslo]



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by John Matrix
You visited a government funded natural history museum for your education.....No wonder you side with evolution!! It's everywhere and hard to escape the teachings that lead to this delusion. If you can, try to open your mind and see what we are trying to reveal to you.

What you see are common design features. Not evidence for evolution.
All life has DNA. This common design feature is not offensive.


What exactly are you trying to imply? That because the museum may get government funding that the skeleton of a horse on display was not actually the skeleton of a horse?

The point of my post is that I WAS looking beyond classroom teachings, to the direct evidence in nature. I can understand your claiming bias in the classroom, but what exactly is the bias in a natural history museum showing mammal skeletons?

Just to be clear, the displays in the museum weren't pointing out the similar bone structures, I noticed that on my own. The display basically just showed the skeleton with a little sign in front describing what animal the skeleton was from. And there were many such displays of many different mammal skeletons. What difference does it make who funded that? If creationists had funded it instead, would the skeletons look different somehow?



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
The point of my post is that I WAS looking beyond classroom teachings, to the direct evidence in nature. I can understand your claiming bias in the classroom, but what exactly is the bias in a natural history museum showing mammal skeletons?

Down boy...down...LOL.
Any natural history museum I have visited has had evolution plastered all over the place in the little write ups and explanations for what people are looking at.



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


BTW, regardless of what horse skeleton you say, whether two feet tall or 8 feet tall.....it's still a horse. It's the same way with dogs and cats. They come in all sizes and varieties. Variations written into DNA by the I.D.'er are wonderful aren't they? It would be quite boring if we all looked the same.



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by John Matrix
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


BTW, regardless of what horse skeleton you say, whether two feet tall or 8 feet tall.....it's still a horse. It's the same way with dogs and cats. They come in all sizes and varieties. Variations written into DNA by the I.D.'er are wonderful aren't they? It would be quite boring if we all looked the same.


I finally understood what you think evolution is...

You think that their is a difference people "random" mutations leading to evolution and God chosen DNA changes...

I'm not trying to mess with you...I'm just trying to understand what exactly you don't agree with about evolution...



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 01:46 PM
link   
Hey are you guys gearing up for Nov19 2009 (150th anniversary of Origin of Species.) Kirk Cameron NEEDS YOU!






Is there only one script? Because that video is eerily similar to many posts in this thread.



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 
But wait, if you or I cannot "prove" it, then it is neither verifiable nor REPEATABLE, therefore it's NOT science.

My 2 cents.



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by John Matrix
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


BTW, regardless of what horse skeleton you say, whether two feet tall or 8 feet tall.....it's still a horse. It's the same way with dogs and cats. They come in all sizes and varieties. Variations written into DNA by the I.D.'er are wonderful aren't they? It would be quite boring if we all looked the same.


I finally understood what you think evolution is...

You think that their is a difference people "random" mutations leading to evolution and God chosen DNA changes...

I'm not trying to mess with you...I'm just trying to understand what exactly you don't agree with about evolution...


Not sure you do....your statement is a bit confusing.
Once again:www.isthebibletrue.net...

1. Micro-evolution: study of adaptive repsonses and variations within species, does not involve speciation. Variation and adaptive response is an observable fact, but it's not evolution (lower forms gradually becomming higher forms of life over millions of years through speciation). Therefore, the use of the term micro-evolution by evolutionists is misleading. People are led to believe that variations and adaptive responses in species proves macro-evolution, when in fact it does not. Nor does it prove abiogenesis.

2. Macro-evolution: says speciation happens through mutations. Speciation is the theory that one species can evolve and split into two new species.

3. Abiogenesis: says life can spontaneously generate from non living matter and through adaptive responses, lead an organism to speciation and higher forms of life.

So which evolution do you believe in? How do you define evolution?

[edit on 22/9/09 by John Matrix]



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Connector
 


That video is good news. Hopefully it will result in a shock wave of enlightenment for those who have been lullabied to sleep by the steady beat of the evolution conspiracy/fraud.



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by John Matrix
 


Something that I cannot not for the life of me understand is the creationist idea that micro evolution does not equal macro evolution.

The world is billions of years old I know I know your god told you otherwise but there is too much science to back up the billions of years claim to keep denying it.

Microevolution is small tiny changes to DNA or RNA over time. These changes can be small, say blue eyes versus green eyes etctera however they are still differences.

The idea is that over time these little changes build up between differing populations of the same species in different environmental areas and over time these groups will become more genetically distant.

Things like Genetic Drift, and other genetic devices cannot all stop this process of speciation because each species, depending heavily on its environment and its needs to reproduce, it will eventually give rise to new species...

I read a few pages before as well that you seem to think people just put this stuff in place to deceive and lie to you.


No one gives a crap what your feelings are about anything, especially the government, so why would they go out of their way to "try your faith"?

I don't care what you believe in man either way you aren't gonna listen to us on the other side.

And in which case this discussion should just die because honestly no one will convince you and you wont convince anyone either.



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChildOfUranus
reply to post by John Matrix
 


Something that I cannot not for the life of me understand is the creationist idea that micro evolution does not equal macro evolution.


Well, the term is defined by evolutionists, not creationists, and speciation is not a theory in micro-evolution.....evolutionists associate macro-evolution with the theory of speciation.



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join