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.

 

evolution: The greatest conspiracy

page: 21
16
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


Did you ever read up on the Scopes Monkey trial in Dayton, Tn? They made it into a movie as well - which was the first time I had ever heard of it.

But reading up on the net about it says that the ACLU were behind it - it was a test case for them.

I think the ACLU is alot responsible for the continual 'evolution' theory.




posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 02:45 PM
link   
i'd just like to apologize for anything less than kind i might have said. i gotta learn to avoid these kinds of topics. they always end up the same way: 100s of posts and insults later, no one has changed their minds and everyone's aggravated, angry or exhausted from the effort. i can't imagine how anything productive could've resulted. in fact, it does look like one big train wreck, punctuated by people trying feverishly to communicate with each other over a wall, several miles thick.

anyway, i'm sorry for my part in it, and i do apologize. remind me if you see me debating this topic again, that i need to go do dishes or something



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by xelamental
 



Actually im not a weak theist, I am a strong believer in God. I have a degree in physics, and the more i investigate, the more the signs point towards his existence. Thanks for your rather incorrect input though.



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by dbates
 


Time and from what position we observe is also a very important factor within studying evolution.

We always have to keep in mind that we Observe from a position far far away from the beginning "Zero". And that we never ever will be able to see the beginning.
That's why we say that energy is infinite. We cant see the beginning because there is no connection between something and nothingness. 0 can never become 1 and 1 can never become 0. We will never find a decimal number that is large enough to be connected to Zero. That also makes energy infinite.

I like to say that we observe from position 1. And from that position we try to see the beginning Zero. From position 1 we also try to see into the future to position 2. But there is no connection between position 1 and 2 either. Because it hasn't happened yet.

Only a Observer from position zero can make changes in a space of absolutely nothing. And the observers from position 1 can only make changes from position 1.

Why do i say that a Observer from position 0 is the only one who can make changes in that space of nothingness? Well because 0 cant evolve into something on its own unless there is a external source like "The Observer".
And we cant ever change our positions from 1 to 0. We have to fallow time to our future position 2.

Our creations and ideas are only as intelligent and perfect as the the Observer/s creating it. And we are far behind the Observer who started at the beginning. We are bound by the boundaries the first Observer created. And there is no way we can ever change it.

And its quite logical that the Observer from the beginning can observe his creation. Just like we can observe the things we do and create.

Why is the Observer just a observer. Well the observer gave his creation free will to evolve as it self chooses to do.

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 05:08 PM
link   
What a thread. Mostly decent arguments from both sides. Every time I read a debate like this however, I am presented with better arguments from the christian side. I could go both ways because of the fact that what I know about both sides havent been forced on me or adopted as a daily routine. verything I know has been researched because of my interest in both sides. Ive read the Bible as well as Darwin's "Origin of Species".

As crazy as the bible may seem, I think evolution sounds much more far fetched. Its been proven, animals do adapt and over several years this may result in a slight change, but animals do not just shape shift. Say you have a lighter in your hand, and this lighter must start opening bottles to survive. Starting fire has gotten too difficult. But it must do one or the other to live. There will have to be a point in time when it can either do both at the same time, or suddenly change overnight. There was never a time when a bat's front legs were strong enough to run from predators or chase down food and also fly. There are several examples of this nature.

What I think, is that we will live and die without ever knowing for sure why or how we are here. I feel like the reason we as humans constantly question all of this is simply boredom. Every other animal and even humans just a few centuries ago never had the luxury of questioning their existence. We were still able to be occupied with the basic human triggers of euphoria. Getting full stomachs, finding a mate, construction, etc. Now, we are surrounded by abundances of food, sex, and time saving technology. We dont REALLY have anything to worry about in this country. So you lose your job and your house burns down. Well you just apply for Section 8 and welfare and youre basic human needs are satisfied. Intelligent minds are now forced with figuring out why we are here. And after many sleepless nights and hours of prayer, I have decided that the sooner I figure out who I am, the sooner I will figure out why I am.



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 07:38 PM
link   
This is the last post i am putting on this thread as I do not want any more warnings. I spent quite a bit of time responding respectively to these people, answering every question they presented. I think that's evident in the first 2/3 of this thread. Then some trolls popped in and began getting especially rude with me. For the time being, I'm exercising a temporary moratorium on criticism of invisible wizards until ATS gets more adults involved in the discussion. I can only hope that one day we stop living in fear of invisible wizards that compel us to invade middle eastern countries.

[edit on 5-10-2009 by andrewh7]



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by doctorvannostren
As crazy as the bible may seem, I think evolution sounds much more far fetched. Its been proven, animals do adapt and over several years this may result in a slight change, but animals do not just shape shift. Say you have a lighter in your hand, and this lighter must start opening bottles to survive. Starting fire has gotten too difficult. But it must do one or the other to live. There will have to be a point in time when it can either do both at the same time, or suddenly change overnight. There was never a time when a bat's front legs were strong enough to run from predators or chase down food and also fly. There are several examples of this nature.


I lied - one last time. That is not what evolution is - please stop watching video made by Kirk Cameron. Evolution does not involve any animal changing in any way whatsoever during the course of its life. There is no shapeshifting.

If an animal is born with a slight advantage, say height, and this advantage makes him more successful than his counterparts with regard to survival and reproduction, then that trait will be pass on to the next generation. If an animal is born with a disadvantage, then that animal is less likely to reproduce and pass on its disfavorable genes.

Please research what Evolution is before making such comments that are completely wrong.

A precursor to a bat, which is a mammal, most likely did have stronger legs. However, the importance of legs diminished with the development of flight as a primary means of locomotion.

Once again - there are zero changes during a single animal's life span. Rather it is genes that they are born with that give them the advantage. We are talking about changes in the species over hundreds of thousands of years. Not a single animal suddenly growing wings so it could fly.

With regard to your rant about lighters, it made absolutely no sense to me whatsoever. So, no comment on that one.

[edit on 5-10-2009 by andrewh7]



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by andrewh7

Originally posted by doctorvannostren
As crazy as the bible may seem, I think evolution sounds much more far fetched. Its been proven, animals do adapt and over several years this may result in a slight change, but animals do not just shape shift. Say you have a lighter in your hand, and this lighter must start opening bottles to survive. Starting fire has gotten too difficult. But it must do one or the other to live. There will have to be a point in time when it can either do both at the same time, or suddenly change overnight. There was never a time when a bat's front legs were strong enough to run from predators or chase down food and also fly. There are several examples of this nature.


I lied - one last time. That is not what evolution is - please stop watching video made by Kirk Cameron. Evolution does not involve any animal changing in any way whatsoever during the course of its life. There is no shapeshifting.

If an animal is born with a slight advantage, say height, and this advantage makes him more successful than his counterparts with regard to survival and reproduction, then that trait will be pass on to the next generation. If an animal is born with a disadvantage, then that animal is less likely to reproduce and pass on its disfavorable genes.

Please research what Evolution is before making such comments that are completely wrong.

A precursor to a bat, which is a mammal, most likely did have stronger legs. However, the importance of legs diminished with the development of flight as a primary means of locomotion.

Once again - there are zero changes during a single animal's life span. Rather it is genes that they are born with that give them the advantage. We are talking about changes in the species over hundreds of thousands of years. Not a single animal suddenly growing wings so it could fly.

With regard to your rant about lighters, it made absolutely no sense to me whatsoever. So, no comment on that one.

[edit on 5-10-2009 by andrewh7]


Seriously? So for THOUSANDS of years this bat-rat rodent thing could fly and walk? Yeah it makes more sense when you stretch the process out over hundreds of generations. Come on guy youre missing the point! Youre suggesting the legs disappeared following the appearance of wings! So it at one point had SIX legs!? HELLO MCFLY!

Youre over analyzing and I fear your brain might be hurting. Which is probably why you failed to understand my somewhat simple analogy. There is a common theme among atheists, scientists, etc. and that common theme is frustration. Shouldnt what you believe to be the truth make you happy and encourage you to not "post one last time" I stated as a precursor that I was simply speculating. What I gather from your response is youre an uneducated, easily influenced frown face who is only repeating what he has been told or watched on youtube.

I have no idea who kirk cameron is, and what YOU are referring to is known as natural selection which yes obviously happens. You or me being attracted to good looking women is an example of that. Im speaking of EVOLUTION.



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by John Matrix
In support of the OP of this thread I present the following and encourage everyone to read the entire article:


"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless," says Professor Louis Bouroune, former President of the Biological Society of Strasbourg and Director of the Strasbourg Zoological Museum, later Director of Research at the French National Centre of Scientific Research, as quoted in The Advocate, March 8, 1984.

"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact." (Dr. T.N. Tahmisian. Atomic Energy Commission, The Fresno Bee, August 20, 1959.

Source: www.chick.com...




www.talkorigins.org...

Old, Out of Context Quotations from French Scientists


The beginning of the quotation, "Evolution is a fairy tale for adults" is not from Bounoure but from Jean Rostand, a much more famous French biologist (he was a member of the Academy of Sciences of the French Academy). The precise quotation is as follows: "Transformism is a fairy tale for adults." (Age Nouveau, [a French periodical] February 1959, p. 12). But Rostand has also written that "Transformism may be considered as accepted, and no scientist, no philosopher, no longer discusses [questions - ED.] the fact of evolution." (L'Evolution des Especes [i.e., The Evolution of the Species], Hachette, p. 190). Jean Rostand was ... an atheist



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 11:34 PM
link   
In video 26 or 27 of "The Arrivals" from the video library on here, Roger Morneau (in an interview) says that Satan personally trained Charles Darwin on the theory of evolution. Because supposedly all of our political leaders and people on top have sold their souls to lucifer for material wishes, and they worship and summon lucifer and his demons in these secret societies. The Theory of Evolution was supposedly meant to "burn the bible without actually burning it". It is a crazy interview man it got me thinking about a lot of things and suddenly it makes a lot more sense. Star and Flag.



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 11:55 PM
link   
Well, humans were once giants, now the majority of the human race range from 5ft to 6ft. If you search around you will find that giant human skeletons have been unearthed.



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 12:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by doctorvannostren

Seriously? So for THOUSANDS of years this bat-rat rodent thing could fly and walk? Yeah it makes more sense when you stretch the process out over hundreds of generations. Come on guy youre missing the point! Youre suggesting the legs disappeared following the appearance of wings! So it at one point had SIX legs!? HELLO MCFLY!


No. I think you are being mischievously obtuse here. Over time the forelimbs evolved into wings. Probably started with skin flaps that allowed them to glide, and gradually onto full blown wings, a little step at a time.

There are many non-bird animals with gliding capability, mammals, fish, and snakes.



from Wikipedia article "Flying and Gliding Animals"

Flying squirrels are known to glide up to 200 m, but have measured glide ratio of about 2. Flying fish have been observed to glide for hundreds of metres on the drafts on the edge of waves with only their initial leap from the water to provide height, but maybe obtaining additional lift from wave motion.
...
Paradise tree snakes, Chinese gliding frogs, and gliding ants have all been observed as having considerable capacity to turn in the air. Many other gliding animals may also be able to turn, but which is the most maneuverable is difficult to assess.




Youre over analyzing and I fear your brain might be hurting. Which is probably why you failed to understand my somewhat simple analogy. There is a common theme among atheists, scientists, etc. and that common theme is frustration.


He didn't understand you analogy because it made no sense what-so-ever.

Any frustration you detect here is only because you ask questions and then refuse to listen to the answer, refuse to understand the answer, refuse to accept the answer. Then you, (or a colleague) asks the same question again, and then refuses to listen to the answer, refuse to understand the answer, refuse to accept the answer. Then you, (or a colleague) asks the same question again, and then refuses to listen to the answer, refuse to understand the answer, refuse to accept the answer. Then you, (or a colleague) asks the same question again, and then refuses to listen to the answer, refuse to understand the answer, refuse to accept the answer. Then you, (or a colleague) asks the same question again, and then refuses to listen to the answer, refuse to understand the answer, refuse to accept the answer. Then you, (or a colleague) asks the same question again, and then refuses to listen to the answer, refuse to understand the answer, refuse to accept the answer. Then you, (or a colleague) asks the same question again, and then refuses to listen to the answer, refuse to understand the answer, refuse to accept the answer. Then you, (or a colleague) asks the same question again, and then refuses to listen to the answer, refuse to understand the answer, refuse to accept the answer. Then you, (or a colleague) asks the same question again, and then refuses to listen to the answer, refuse to understand the answer, refuse to accept the answer. Then you, (or a colleague) asks the same question again, and then refuses to listen to the answer, refuse to understand the answer, refuse to accept the answer. Then you, (or a colleague) asks the same question again, and then refuses to listen to the answer, refuse to understand the answer, refuse to accept the answer. Then you, (or a colleague) asks the same question again, and then refuses to listen to the answer, refuse to understand the answer, refuse to accept the answer. Then you, (or a colleague) asks the same question again, and then refuses to listen to the answer, refuse to understand the answer, refuse to accept the answer. Then you, (or a colleague) asks the same question again, and then refuses to listen to the answer, refuse to understand the answer, refuse to accept the answer. Then you, (or a colleague) asks the same question again, and then refuses to listen to the answer, refuse to understand the answer, refuse to accept the answer. Then you, (or a colleague) asks the same question again, and then refuses to listen to the answer, refuse to understand the answer, refuse to accept the answer. Then you, (or a colleague) asks the same question again, and then refuses to listen to the answer, refuse to understand the answer, refuse to accept the answer. Then you, (or a colleague) asks the same question again, and then refuses to listen to the answer, refuse to understand the answer, refuse to accept the answer. Then you, (or a colleague) asks the same question again, and then refuses to listen to the answer, refuse to understand the answer, refuse to accept the answer. Then you, (or a colleague) asks the same question again, and then refuses to listen to the answer, refuse to understand the answer, refuse to accept the answer. Then you, (or a colleague) asks the same question again, and then refuses to listen to the answer, refuse to understand the answer, refuse to accept the answer. Then you, (or a colleague) asks the same question again, and then refuses to listen to the answer, refuse to understand the answer, refuse to accept the answer. Then you, (or a colleague) asks the same question again, and then refuses to listen to the answer, refuse to understand the answer, refuse to accept the answer. Then you, (or a colleague) asks the same question again, and then refuses to listen to the answer, refuse to understand the answer, refuse to accept the answer. Then you, (or a colleague) asks the same question again, and then refuses to listen to the answer, refuse to understand the answer, refuse to accept the answer. Then you, (or a colleague) asks the same question again, and then refuses to listen to the answer, refuse to understand the answer, refuse to accept the answer. Then you, (or a colleague) asks the same question again, and then refuses to listen to the answer, refuse to understand the answer, refuse to accept the answer. Then you, (or a colleague) asks the same question again, and then refuses to listen to the answer, refuse to understand the answer, refuse to accept the answer. Then you, (or a colleague) asks the same question again, and then refuses to listen to the answer, refuse to understand the answer, refuse to accept the answer. Then you, (or a colleague) asks the same question again, and then refuses to listen to the answer, refuse to understand the answer, refuse to accept the answer.



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 01:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by John Matrix
As I am sure most of know, abiogenesis is the idea that life can evolve from non life particles floating around in a chemical soup.

This was dealt with on another thread and the evolutionists got so beat up by the Mathematical evidence against the possibility of this ever happening through random natural processes that they abandoned the argument


This is not correct.

Your so-called mathematical 'evidence' depends on completely false assumptions. It boils down to this, if you buy one lottery ticket, the odds of you winning the big prize is vanishingly small. But nature doesn't buy one lottery ticket, it buys hundreds of quadrillions of lottery tickets, and that means that it will hit the jackpot many times over.



and claimed: "Ya but that isn't evolution....that's abiogenesis.....that's completely different".


That is correct. The Theory of Evolution is totally silent on abiogenesis. It is no good arguing about it one way or the other as a weakness in Evolution. Its sorta like saying the runner can't advance from first base to second base (in baseball) because there was never a kick-off.



And they did the same with cosmology...which is a big ta-do about the evolution of the Universe, galaxies, stars, nebula, planets, etc.


Not sure what you are talking about here. Two different uses of the word "evolution" doesn't necessarily relate the topics.



Then they distanced themselves from micro-evolution....which we demonstrated was just another name for variations in species with no evidence to support speciation or transformation. In other words, micro-evolution, although observable to the extent that we have variations within species, does not prove macro-evolution which involves transformations or speciation.


So, There is no evidence for macro-evolution.....None, zilch, zero, nana.

If you think there is. Bring it on.


No one has 'distanced' themselves from micro-evolution and you haven't demonstrated any such thing. You are simply fighting over definitions, and refusing to accept the scientific evidence.

Ample evidence for macro-evolution is here: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution.

But I have shown you that link before (several times I suspect). You know it contains much information, both summarized and detailed, links to primary sources, and all the references you could ever want. But you refuse to read and understand it; instead you reject it out of hand because it doesn't meet your personal agenda.

And then you deny that anyone has ever, or could ever, give you that information. Which is simply, with no gloss, a complete and utter lie.

The simple fact is that you don't want to learn about or understand the magnificent world around you and are jealous of those who do. For someone who claims to believe in God, I find it extraordinary that you reject the wonder of his works so vehemently. According to the Bible, the first words God spoke to Adam were:



Genesis 1:28

"Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth and master it,
and have dominion over the fish of the sea and the flyer of the heaven,
and every live creature that creeps on the earth."


And God made clear that that meant that Man was meant to understand the universe, not merely because God said something was so, but because Man figured it out: He made Adam name the animals, signifying that the universe was there for Mankind to learn about:



Geniesis 2:20 KJV

And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field;...


So according to your own story of Creation, which you insist is the infallible word of the Creator of everything that exists, right at the very start of God's relationship with Man, God charges man to be master of the universe and gets him to invent the science of taxonomy to give him a start. As a self-proclaimed believer in the Creator God, where do you get the gall to reject this instruction?

How can you be so hypocritical that you can reject Science and insist that Genesis must be the end of questions about the universe without even understanding anything at all about either yet still claim belief in, and respect for God? It boggles the mind.



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 04:51 AM
link   
I'm sorry if someone has said this before (most likely multiple times) but i just read first page.

1. Alot of organisms especially the earlier kinds are without a skeleton and therefore they normally do not leave behind a fossil.

2. Fossils are extremely hard to form under natural conditions. The specimen would have to become completely burried by sediment which then need to harden into rock before the bones of the specimen rots. Then minerals would have to replace the organic material in order to form a fossil. Basically it is extremely rare for a fossil to form. This explains alot of the missing links between species.

Extract from Wikipedia



FoFossilization is an exceptionally rare occurrence, because most components of formerly-living things tend to decompose relatively quickly following death. In order for an organism to be fossilized, the remains normally need to be covered by sediment as soon as possible. However there are exceptions to this, such as if an organism becomes frozen, desiccated, or comes to rest in an anoxic (oxygen-free) environment. There are several different types of fossils and fossilization processes.

Due to the combined effect of taphonomic processes and simple mathematical chance, fossilization tends to favor organisms with hard body parts, those that were widespread, and those that existed for a long time before going extinct. On the other hand, it is very unusual to find fossils of small, soft bodied, geographically restricted and geologically ephemeral organisms, because of their relative rarity and low likelihood of preservation.

Larger specimens (macrofossils) are more often observed, dug up and displayed, although microscopic remains (microfossils) are actually far more common in the fossil record.

Some casual observers have been perplexed by the rarity of transitional species within the fossil record. The conventional explanation for this rarity was given by Darwin, who stated that "the extreme imperfection of the geological record," combined with the short duration and narrow geographical range of transitional species, made it unlikely that many such fossils would be found. Simply put, the conditions under which fossilization takes place are quite rare; and it is highly unlikely that any given organism will leave behind a fossil. Eldredge and Gould developed their theory of punctuated equilibrium in part to explain the pattern of stasis and sudden appearance in the fossil record. Furthermore, in the strictest sense, nearly all fossils are "transitional," due to the improbability that any given fossil represents the absolute termination of an evolutionary path.


Alot of things aren't explained by evolution and that's why it is called a "theory". However it is the most logical explanation as of today so unless you can come up with a better theory then Evolution is the explanation i will accept.



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 04:52 AM
link   
reply to post by sisgood
 


I find it very difficult to understand how you can stand by something so rigidly based only on the fact that it is common place among us. IE: If it is taught in schools, or written in history books, let us not forget that history is mearly a lie commonly agreed upon and in some cases deliberatley manipulated to decieve us. The very fact that evolution is taught to children in the first place is evidence enough to suggest its a deception! I do however understand your way of thinking, "how can evolution not be true if thats all i have ever been told is true?" but it is when you explore beyond WHAT YOU ARE TOLD and WHAT YOU ARE LED TO BELIEVE by the zionist global elite who want nothing other than our demise, do you discover that sometimes that the real truth can often be far more interesting than the fiction you were sold in the first place.

Thanks for your time, take care



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 06:41 AM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 


LOLocopter

It's like deja-vu all over again. I could be reading a thread from 2006.


The rise of Idiot America, though, is essentially a war on expertise. It's not so much antimodernism or the distrust of the intellectual elites that Richard Hofstader teased out of the national DNA, although both of these things are part of it. The rise of Idiot America today reflects — for profit, mainly, but also and more cynically, for political advantage and in the pursuit of power — the breakdown of the consensus that the pursuit of knowledge is a good. It also represents the ascendancy of the notion that the people we should trust the least are the people who know the best what they're talking about. In the new media age, everybody is a historian, or a scientist, or a preacher, or a sage. And if everyone is an expert, then nobody is, and the worst thing you can be in a society where everybody is an expert is, well, an actual expert.

This is how Idiot America engages itself. It decides, en masse, with a million keystrokes and clicks of the remote control, that because there are two sides to every question, they both must be right, or at least not wrong. And the words of an obscure biologist carry no more weight on the subject of biology than do the thunderations of some turkeyneck preacher out of Christ's Own Parking Structure in DeLand, Florida. Less weight, in fact, because our scientist is an "expert" and therefore, an "elitist." Nobody buys his books. Nobody puts him on cable. He's brilliant, surely, but no different from the rest of us, poor fool.

p. 8 Ze linky


[edit on 6-10-2009 by melatonin]



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by andrewh7

Originally posted by John Matrix
It's not a common misperception. In fact, misperception is not a proper word....not found in the dictionary.
[edit on 5/10/09 by John Matrix]


Misperception is a word according to four different dictionary websites

www.merriam-webster.com...

Pronunciation: \ˌmis-pər-ˈsep-shən\
Function: noun
: a false perception

Now if you can't take the time to actually look up a word with 1 second Google search, why should any of us take you seriously with regard to any other opinion you might have?


Sorry, you are correct. But my spellchecker which is in the Google toolbar does not recognize that word. I also felt that misconception would have been a better word.

Anyway, one error is not enough to discount my opinion which is based on sound science such as mathematics as well as my research materials....which I have linked to.

Ya don't throw the baby out with the bathwater because of one error.
I don't mind you pointing out my errors, but don't attack me and discredit my position for something as silly as that. It shows that you have no confidence in your own arguments....in fact, it shows you don't even have an argument of a logical reason for believing you evolved from slime and apes.

Stop knit picking. If you are going to correct someone, do it respectfully and gently, like all civilized humans do.


[edit on 6/10/09 by John Matrix]



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by rnaa

Originally posted by John Matrix
As I am sure most of know, abiogenesis is the idea that life can evolve from non life particles floating around in a chemical soup.

This was dealt with on another thread and the evolutionists got so beat up by the Mathematical evidence against the possibility of this ever happening through random natural processes that they abandoned the argument


This is not correct.
Your so-called mathematical 'evidence' depends on completely false assumptions. It boils down to this, if you buy one lottery ticket, the odds of you winning the big prize is vanishingly small. But nature doesn't buy one lottery ticket, it buys hundreds of quadrillions of lottery tickets, and that means that it will hit the jackpot many times over.



and claimed: "Ya but that isn't evolution....that's abiogenesis.....that's completely different".


That is correct. The Theory of Evolution is totally silent on abiogenesis. It is no good arguing about it one way or the other as a weakness in Evolution. Its sorta like saying the runner can't advance from first base to second base (in baseball) because there was never a kick-off.



And they did the same with cosmology...which is a big ta-do about the evolution of the Universe, galaxies, stars, nebula, planets, etc.


Not sure what you are talking about here. Two different uses of the word "evolution" doesn't necessarily relate the topics.



Then they distanced themselves from micro-evolution....which we demonstrated was just another name for variations in species with no evidence to support speciation or transformation. In other words, micro-evolution, although observable to the extent that we have variations within species, does not prove macro-evolution which involves transformations or speciation.

So, There is no evidence for macro-evolution.....None, zilch, zero, nana.

If you think there is. Bring it on.


No one has 'distanced' themselves from micro-evolution and you haven't demonstrated any such thing. You are simply fighting over definitions, and refusing to accept the scientific evidence.


1. It's not me that fights over these terms. On another thread, creationists were accused of inventing the term "micro-evolution."
I'm not making this up. I did the research and proved that creationists did not invent the term micro-evolution.....it's in fact a term that was used by evolutionists and according to some of the better proponents of evolution on ATS such as my respected friend "Welfard" that term is not used anymore. But apparently not all evolutionists have gotten that message.

2. The problem with your math (above) is that buying a lottery ticket is an act of human will and consciousness. The addition of acts involving human will and consciousness to make choices and decisions definitely changes the odds. The problem is, those elements do not come into play, since we are talking about the beginning of life from non life matter, without the possibility of human actions involving will, consciousness, choice, etc.

For life to come from non life particles floating around in a chemical soup in the absence of anyone making a conscious decision does in fact defy Mathematical odds even if that soup has all the perfect ingredients.



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 12:41 PM
link   
Evolution is true because God made the universe and he created the laws of physics. Evolution does not violate the laws of physics god created.

Let there be light, first the heavens was created, then the sun and earth, then animals, and lastly man. Or something to that effect.

Science states that:
big bang - 15 billion years ago
Earth and sun form - 4.5 billion years ago
Life - i dont know
Humans - about 2 million years ago in the quaternary period

Doesn't science say what religon has been saying all along. Get a clue people!!! I can create a maze for a mouse, or a fish tank for a fish, yet the fish will not know i engineered its environment. It will see the corners of the fishtank...and may see signs of it being engineered (glue...glass, this and that). We see signs that the universe was engineered. I have this in another thread. But if you want more information I can post it the signs of our universe being engineered by a higher power.



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 01:31 PM
link   
Evolution is about the oppositeof a conspiracy.

A conspiracy is a small number of people hiding information for a secret purpose. Evolution is advanced by pretty much ALL the scientists who air everything they know, including embarrassing arguments, out in public. In fact creationists and IDers try to use this openness against them (although it only ever proves their own ignorance).

And more to the point, creationists have to hide the fact that there is a lot of evidence against their point of view (such as a large number of transitional fossils and evidence of the usefulness of "incomplete" organs).

I have to suggest anyone truly interested in the subject read Jerry Coynes' Why Evolution is True. You don't have to be convinced by it, but you can't say you know what is wrong with evolution until you've read it.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join