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.

 

Scientific Fact

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 06:45 AM
link   
I been kick'n this thread around in my head for awhile.
I guess it's time has come.
Any of the evolutionists want to give your thoughts on this Scientific fact.
It looks like the science you place so much faith in, is saying something completely
different from what you might have hoped. above top secretread it all
I don't mean any whinning about this being a Christen magazine either.
Like your going to hear this kind of truth any where else. come on!
This is all logic and all facts. What say ye!

[edit on 21-10-2009 by randyvs]




posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 06:55 AM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


that just seems to be an article rehashing the old "yeah, evolution explains the complexity of species, but what created life in the first place?" argument.

the standard answer is "we dunno, we're working on it, ask me again in six months".

and it's a waste of time argument, if scientists create life, fundamentalists will say "god made us in his image, of course we can create life", IDers will say "see, life was designed" and atheists will say "see, who needs god" and they'll still all be equally right.



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 07:00 AM
link   
reply to post by pieman
 


kind of a mute point then huh? But wouldn't something have to
put the language tobether?
Not even looking for an arguement just real discussion.

[edit on 21-10-2009 by randyvs]



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 07:19 AM
link   
The article misstates the theory of evolution. Darwin's original theory imagined that evolution was a very slow, gradual process. Tiny changes built upon one another, and over time became big changes. This is no longer how evolution is perceived to occur.

The current theory is called "punctuated equilibrium". Life remains essentially stable for long periods of time, very little evolution or genetic changes happening. Then some major upheaval causes massive changes in the environment. There are large species die-offs, many species going extinct, and some new species appearing suddenly.

As for the origins of life, evolution doesn't address this issue at all. The theory of evolution concerns itself with how life changes, not how it arose or might have arisen. Challenging the theory of evolution for not explaining how life arose, is similar to challenging Einstein's theory for not explaining how the Universe got here. The theory doesn't talk about that, because it's talking about something else.



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 07:25 AM
link   
hey, i ain't arguing, just predicting the outcome of the arguement if it ever is settled.

would something have to put the DNA together, i'm not sure.

one line of thought says that it is jut too co-incidental to be accidental, that it seems statistically impossible.

on the other hand, you could also argue that we know the universe is huge, we know there are an almost infinite number of suns and a lot of these suns have planets. we know that it has been here for billions of years.

it only takes it coming together just right once for it to exist. statistically, it had to happen eventually. seeing as we only know of it coming together once, it's possible that it happened by accident.

my belief is that where ever the possibility for life exists, life will come into being just because of the nature of the universe. the same way that a sun comes into existence because the elements to create a sun exist together.

god may or may not have created the universe this way and we will never know for sure. what's more, if god exists, that's the way he'ld want it.



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 07:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by chiron613
The current theory is called "punctuated equilibrium". Life remains essentially stable for long periods of time, very little evolution or genetic changes happening. Then some major upheaval causes massive changes in the environment. There are large species die-offs, many species going extinct, and some new species appearing suddenly.


yeah.....the evidence says this is true but natural selection can't explain it. rather than saying "natural selection was wrong", darwinists say "evolution now has nothing to do with natural selection the way we've been describing it".

scientists are babies.



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 08:00 AM
link   
reply to post by pieman
 





on the other hand, you could also argue that we know the universe is huge, we know there are an almost infinite number of suns and a lot of these suns have planets. we know that it has been here for billions of years.
Everything your saying does make sense, I couldn't argue any of this if I wanted to.



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 08:33 AM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


so what do you think? do you think it's co-incidence or do you think it looks like design?

they believe that there's evidence of life on mars and venus and that there might be life on the moons of the gas giants.



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by pieman
 


The fact that there is so much design in everything, speaks volumes to
me. For every design there is a designer. Just seems logical to me.



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


But why do you consider it designed?

If life created randomly, and repeatedly strived against other life to succeed, then you would have something very successful.

Keep in mind, life itself is wasteful in many regards, and what you may consider from your point of view as well designed, is sloppy from another direction.



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 02:25 PM
link   
So basically, you don't want to hear that your source is biased. Too bad. It is. And no where in that article does it do anything to prove god or debunk evolution.

Quite frankly, I don't know why I am even responding to this-it is quite obvious that you won't accept any non-christian point of view, so what's the point?



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


The way you mentioned science makes it sound like a religion, and like many people think you need to have faith in it. If a theory hasn't been proven not every scientist believes it and most will go out of their way trying to disprove it.

When someone makes a new discovery that can't be explained and even seems impossible I like to think that science will explain it eventually. But just because we can't at the moment doesn't mean that God is involved.

Now I know you didn't mention God in your opening post and it wasn't said at the start of the article, but I stopped reading as soon as I saw Stephen Meyers name. I knew where it was going.

If you understood how evolution works you would know why all creatures look "designed" for their environment. Is it more likely that these creatures changed over millions of years or some invisible man with a pencil and paper drew them all?



posted on Oct, 22 2009 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by pieman
 


kind of a mute point then huh? But wouldn't something have to
put the language tobether?
Not even looking for an arguement just real discussion.

[edit on 21-10-2009 by randyvs]


Well, that's demanding that a physics based biochemical code *must* behave in the same fashion as a digitized representation of itself. Meaning, that because a digitized representation of itself can't arise by itself because physics, chemistry and biology just does not allow it as there is no mechanism for it, then the same must be true for DNA. Hopefully you can see the complete stupidity in such a line of thought. For starters, computer code does need to be designed by an intelligence simply because our universe doesn't contain a mechanism that allows non-organic molecules to combine together into a working functioning computer complete with a functioning operating system and a working renewable energy power source. On the other hand, physics does allow for non-organic molecules to combine together to form organic molecules that are capable of self-replication and eventual evolution leading to more complex forms and novel ways to utilize external energy sources that already exist such as light and heat.



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 04:03 PM
link   
In regards to the original post:

Evolution IS a Scientific Fact. We know it happens, it's been proven and observed dozens of times.



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by PieKeeper
 


Evolution a fact....?

why are there so many missing links ?

e.g there is a variety of woodpecker , that has a tongue

that exits the back of the throat , and , under the skin ,

goes over the top of the head , and enters into the mouth ,at the

back of the beak . this is so the bird can peck away furiously ,without

the tongue interferring with it's breathing . the tongue can then extend ,

to gather food . how could that evolve ?

...And , what about fish ? they just seem to have appeared

without ancestors . that fossil record should be easy to find....

... and the list goes on ,.... where did potatoes and corn come from ?

the only fact is........Darwin had a theory !



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by radarloveguy
 


There is no such thing as a missing link of any kind or sort, that is a common misconception argued by creationists. As for the fossil record, your demanding that every living thing, right down to bacterium should leave behind a fossil. Unfortunately for the creationist argument, this is physically impossible due to the very specific conditions required for fossilization to occur. I am not sure if your aware, but most of today's food has been selected for by human civilization and they don't exist in their current forms in the wild, except of course for the vegetation we do consume that does come from the wild, such as mushrooms. These foods are derived from their wild counterparts that do exist even today and are edible and in some cases more nutritious than our farmed stocks.

If anything, you've shown lack of understanding what your attempting to argue against, another fallacy of creationism. Why is it that because you can't bother to learn more about the processes involved or how to correctly define the theory that it must somehow be inherently wrong. You lack of knowledge or misunderstandings is not proof against. If you wish to argue against the theory, then by all means do so, but with an understanding and knowledge of the theory, if you wish to be taken seriously.



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


...you said it , in the first line ....

there are no missing links !


.....



woodpecker tongue evolution..... please explain




[edit on 23-10-2009 by radarloveguy]



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 





So basically, you don't want to hear that your source is biased. Too bad. It is. And no where in that article does it do anything to prove god or debunk evolution.

Duh! That was the whole point of what I didn't want to hear. How do you present evidence of anything without some bias. The magazine is bias,
get over it. Or if you like I could plagerize every word. Now speak to the facts of the article. Not one of you can argue to the forensics. Their is a gigantic language in DNA that can only be explained by the presence of a super intelligence who isn't anything remotely like any man, invisible or whatever.
That possibility is obviously so hard for some of you to even consider so don't even talk about the word bias, because you only make yourselves
seem maniacle (with the acception of pieman). Copy?
The 1932 movie described very well how invisibility would drive a mortal
out of his mind. That's a different bit of truth all together.

[edit on 23-10-2009 by randyvs]

[edit on 23-10-2009 by randyvs]



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 




There is no such thing as a missing link of any kind or sort, that is a common misconception argued by creationists

What the hell? I think you may need a nap or something. I'll just give you some time to retract this just out of fairness. I"m sure you know better.

runespider



But why do you consider it designed?

Rune! come back stud. The obvious answer is the answer of course man.
By example?

keeper



Evolution IS a Scientific Fact.

Just because you write down your meager little opinion here in this thread dosn't make it so.Where is your proof of these observations pal. please.

[edit on 23-10-2009 by randyvs]



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


I refuse to retract the statement, but I do appreciate the fairness given. The correct terminology is transitional fossil, not missing link. The terminology 'missing link' has gone out of disuse by Evolutionary Theory scientists due to discoveries made and new knowledge gained. At least from my understanding of the terms. From my experience, the terminology of 'missing link' has been argued by creationists in attempt to 'disprove' evolution as a fact rather than Evolutionary Theory as a process.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join