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.

 

a question for evolutionists

page: 8
5
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 07:07 AM
link   
reply to post by IrnBruFiend
 



Seems to be theory first, evidence second.


I think you have a slight misunderstanding there. It's the observation of evolution that lead to the theory of how it works. In other words, evidence then theory. There are a few competing theories on how evolutionary changes occur, but we can't deny the observed fact of new species arising. Either it is evolution or there is some unseen force at play that just pops out a new species undetected every once in awhile. Personally, I agree with physics, chemistry and biology here rather than blindly believe in this unseen entity.




posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 08:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by IrnBruFiend
 



Seems to be theory first, evidence second.


I think you have a slight misunderstanding there. It's the observation of evolution that lead to the theory of how it works. In other words, evidence then theory. There are a few competing theories on how evolutionary changes occur, but we can't deny the observed fact of new species arising. Either it is evolution or there is some unseen force at play that just pops out a new species undetected every once in awhile. Personally, I agree with physics, chemistry and biology here rather than blindly believe in this unseen entity.



Thanks for the response. I love being wrong it means I'm still learning! Perhaps I've made the assumption in that statement the evidence won't align with the theory of evolution. So that's my fault. I still find it an interesting topic. If anybody has compelling evidence to support evolution I would like to read it. I just suspect there's a good chance it might not be the true answer to explain the true origins of all species on the earth. Open to every angle of speculation even if it leads me back to believe evolution is a correct theory. But at the moment I'm making no confirmations.
Cheers



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by IrnBruFiend
 



Thanks for the response. I love being wrong it means I'm still learning! Perhaps I've made the assumption in that statement the evidence won't align with the theory of evolution. So that's my fault. I still find it an interesting topic. If anybody has compelling evidence to support evolution I would like to read it. I just suspect there's a good chance it might not be the true answer to explain the true origins of all species on the earth. Open to every angle of speculation even if it leads me back to believe evolution is a correct theory. But at the moment I'm making no confirmations.
Cheers


I honestly don't get that type of response. We see new species arising in nature even today. Do a quick google search and read some of the news articles related to that. If your questioning the different theories on how a species arises, then I see no real issue there except that in order to respond properly we would need more information on which aspect of the theories your having problems believing.



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 08:18 PM
link   
I mean there's articles about new types of spider, gecko and frog being found. And I agree that could support the theory of evolution. It will remain ambiguous - to me -however as new could either mean:

- Not yet been officially documented
- Definitely a new type of species

So In conclusion to this I have to think it's either:

- Always existed and is now inducted officially into the scientific community
- A clear example or species evolving

Just to me - could be from a lack of understanding - that doesn't cut it. It is too ambiguous to say it's either or. However, I'm more inclined to think it's just a species the scientific community have stumbled upon that hasn't been documented before. I think there's a good chance we're going to continue finding these 'new' little creatures and I'm not convinced at the moment it has anything to do with the theory of evolution.



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 10:03 AM
link   
reply to post by IrnBruFiend
 


How would this explanation challenge research studies showing evolutionary changes as predicted by the theory of evolution as they should occur? I'm just curious, you raise a good point there, but the predicted aspects of the theory have been observed in controlled studies.



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 11:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by IrnBruFiend
 


How would this explanation challenge research studies showing evolutionary changes as predicted by the theory of evolution as they should occur? I'm just curious, you raise a good point there, but the predicted aspects of the theory have been observed in controlled studies.


I would be interested to read the studies if you can point me in the right direction.
It's just Darwin's theory of evolution doesn't stand as a scientific fact and I'm not going to jump in head first to embrace the theory no matter how attractive it may seem. Otherwise, I'll have to remain in no man's land for the time being and explore other routes with a completely neutral mindset.
Is there scientific evidence of evolution taking place within us and larger animals?
I find these quotes interesting as well:

“…I am quite conscious that my speculations run beyond the bounds of true science….It is a mere rag of an hypothesis with as many flaw[s] & holes as sound parts.” Charles Darwin to Asa Gray, cited by Adrian Desmond and James Moore, Darwin, (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1991) pp. 456, 475.

“I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science.” Søren Løvtrup, Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth (New York: Croom Helm, 1987), p. 422.

Darwin's theory of evolution still has the potential to be the greatest scientific disaster of the century.

There are other routes that document evidence that could shed some light on our existence but I don't know enough about them just yet to make a comment.



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by IrnBruFiend
 



I would be interested to read the studies if you can point me in the right direction.


There are many news articles around the internet discussing it, I'll only post one.

LINK


It's just Darwin's theory of evolution doesn't stand as a scientific fact and I'm not going to jump in head first to embrace the theory no matter how attractive it may seem.


Unfortunately, you can't just go by what Darwin himself said as an end all argument against evolutionary theory. New discoveries has changed the initial formation of the theory and we now have a better understanding of a lot of the processes involved in evolutionary changes.

It's like we should argue against gravity because the ancient Greeks got it all wrong. They developed their own version of gravity and for them it seemed to work with what they observed, but with new discoveries we have a better model of gravity. Just because the first iteration of the theory on how something works isn't complete or fully right doesn't mean you should throw out the new discoveries made in the field of study.


Darwin's theory of evolution still has the potential to be the greatest scientific disaster of the century.


I disagree as most if not all of the predictions of his initial theory have already been observed and over time we've learned that evolutionary changes involve much more than just simple natural selections.



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 12:52 AM
link   
reply to post by IrnBruFiend
 


Interesting that you have to specify, Darwin's theory of evolution. As Darwin penned it, it does have a few holes. There's a good reason for this.

Darwin didn't know about genes or DNA, microscopic life was poorly understood, and modern geology was just starting to take off. The theory of evolution has been refined and polished and tested and re-refined and filled and fleshed out by scientists on all six inhabited continents, and eve na few from the uninhabited one.

So really, saying "there are holes in Darwin's theory of evolution" is kind of like saying "there are a few gaps in newton's theory of gravity" - both statements, while technically true in and of themselves, are used misleadingly - gravitational theory and evolutionary theory have progressed quite a bit since the first works on them were published.

[edit on 13-11-2009 by TheWalkingFox]



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 09:57 AM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 



Darwin didn't know about genes or DNA, microscopic life was poorly understood, and modern geology was just starting to take off.


Precisely. Darwin wasn't aware of genes or DNA and microscopic life was poorly understood I agree. His theory at the time was indeed revolutionary as it provided a very feasible explanation in contrast to the Bible.

Now we have a better understanding of genes and DNA and can look at this a little closer. Let's consider the bands of DNA, chromosomes. It's curious how all primates have 24 pairs (2N = 48) except humans who have 23 pairs (2N = 46).

This is interesting, as humans appear to be missing one chromosome. This chromosome is infact fused together. Evolutionists justify this mutation as a natural occurrence over the course of evolution. However, this is actually impossible and this fusing can only be reconstructed deliberately in science labs. This is a fact.

Interestingly, this is precisely the point where Darwin's theory of evolution fails. This is where mainstream scientists continue to put theory first and evidence second. This is why you will never have any solid evidence to convince somebody that humans have evolved on earth. It did not happen.


The theory of evolution has been refined and polished and tested and re-refined and filled and fleshed out by scientists on all six inhabited continents, and eve na few from the uninhabited one.


They are indeed trying desperately hard to tweak and refine their beloved theory to corroborate with the illusive evidence.

Also, don't be fooled by the fact we have evolutionary biologists flooded on all seven continents. Universities are merit goods subsidised by the Government and it certainly operates within the spectrum of the status quo. In other words you won't find yourself sitting in a lecture learning about the Annunaki and alien gene splicing!


So really, saying "there are holes in Darwin's theory of evolution" is kind of like saying "there are a few gaps in newton's theory of gravity"


This is an irrelevant comparison. Gravity is a totally different topic. However, Darwin's theory doesn't have holes, it is a scientific non-starter.

Newton's theory of gravity corroborates with the immediate physical world and managed to help man land on the moon.

Einstein managed to extend this foundation to form his theory of general relativity where as Darwin's theory doesn't have a leg to stand on - thanks to DNA evidence, ironically.




[edit on 16-11-2009 by IrnBruFiend]



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 11:14 AM
link   
reply to post by IrnBruFiend
 



Interestingly, this is precisely the point where Darwin's theory of evolution fails. This is where mainstream scientists continue to put theory first and evidence second. This is why you will never have any solid evidence to convince somebody that humans have evolved on earth. It did not happen.


Of course Darwin's theory of evolution fails at the genetic level; He wasn't aware of DNA at the time he developed the theory and thus never took DNA into account for his model.

Again, arguing against evolution using Darwin's initial theory is like arguing against gravity because the ancient Greeks theory of gravity was wrong.

There is plenty of other species on our planet that show chromosomal fusion, we're not the only species that exhibits this genetic trait; It does occur in nature. I did a quick search on google and found many references to such a trait in a variety of species.


Also, don't be fooled by the fact we have evolutionary biologists flooded on all seven continents. Universities are merit goods subsidised by the Government and it certainly operates within the spectrum of the status quo. In other words you won't find yourself sitting in a lecture learning about the Annunaki and alien gene splicing!


How can we learn about an alien race creating humans with genetic engineering when no such evidence exists? This is why we don't learn about creation myths as facts and absolute truths. We do learn about the Anunnaki in some ways, we just don't learn that they created us as there are thousands of other creation myths with different God's.


This is an irrelevant comparison. Gravity is a totally different topic. However, Darwin's theory doesn't have holes, it is a scientific non-starter.

Newton's theory of gravity corroborates with the immediate physical world and managed to help man land on the moon.

Einstein managed to extend this foundation to form his theory of general relativity where as Darwin's theory doesn't have a leg to stand on - thanks to DNA evidence, ironically.


Amazingly, the gravity comparison is very relevant as the same basic style of argument against can be applied. Because Darwin was unaware of DNA that disproves evolution. Because the Greeks were unaware of certain aspects of gravity, their idea of gravity was equally wrong. Yet in both cases we still see gravity is very much real and that evolution still occurs despite new discoveries made in their respective fields of science. DNA has never proved evolution wrong and in fact helps further the case for evolution by giving a precise mechanism for the process to take effect in.



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by IrnBruFiend
 


You know, saying "this is impossible, this is fact" doesn't actually mean it is. I'd be interested to see where you're getting that from. For some reason, a man sitting on a lakeshore and holding a banana comes to mind.

Next up, genetic evidence is the strongest evidence of evolution we have. It does not counter the theory of evolution, it bolsters it far beyond anything Darwin could have dreamed. If we could timetravel the dude to the modern day and show him what we know now, he would die in the throes of a joygasm.



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


.... you can't believe in God ,

but you have NO problem deifying satan .. ?


.... evolution is a crock . God rules . science sucks .[and blows]




posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by radarloveguy
 


Cool story, bro.

Got a newsletter so I can keep updated on further installments?



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by radarloveguy
 



.... you can't believe in God ,


I certainly could believe in a God, any God really, should any evidence ever be produce for such an entity. As since no evidence has been brought forth for any deity, I find it hard to blindly believe in one out of thousands.


but you have NO problem deifying satan .. ?


I have no problem defending Satan from a fictional literary stance.


.... evolution is a crock .


Maybe, but it's an observed crock.


God rules .


He seems to have a very piss poor track record of ruling.


science sucks .[and blows]


Awesome! A fan of meteorology!



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 04:06 PM
link   
Prenote: I am a Christian, I am also an Evolutionist Creationist.

Sounds weird huh? Those two things in the same sentence together appearing to work in harmony.

I notice many of you said Science and God are separate. If I remember correctly, I'm pretty sure God wrote the rule book. He created Science, so therefore scientific discoveries are of a Godly nature (they are nature).

Creationists beleive that everything was created intelligently and at an instant.

Evolutionists beleive we started from a soup of genetic material and then evolved into what we are today.

Evolutionists Creationists beleive that God created the universe and set the wheels in motion therefore intelligently creating the path of life. He created the potential of the soup therefore springing into life our beautiful world. The soup is not below us, it is part of the plan.

To a being without time, 10 billion years can equal 7 days.

If we where to discover that we where not alone in the universe and that life exists elsewhere on a different time line than us would that mean there is no god? No. It wouldn't. It would just add to the glory that is "him".

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

With that said here is one of my arguments for evolution.

A lot of people think that we can't see evolution taking place in real time because it takes too long. Well this is actually incorrect.

Lets talk about the transition from this



to this



Ok, so how did we make wolves turn into English bulldogs? The answer of course is selective breeding. We chose animals with specific traits and bred them over animals without these particular traits. Eventually entire breeds came about with certain specific traits. Although dogs may look different they all come from wolves. Just so happens their common ancestor is still alive today!

Basically by choosing animals with certain traits to carry on the line we literally induced natural selection. We took out most of that trial and error stuff and massively accelerated evolution. We turned a wolf into a pug.. no easy feat.

The domestic dog is evolution that you can literally see with your own eyes. We can go back and look at the process that took place because we made it happen.

[edit on 16-11-2009 by DaMod]



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by DaMod
 



Evolutionists Creationists beleive that God created the universe and set the wheels in motion therefore intelligently creating the path of life. We beleive that the evolutionists are mostly correct but God still plays the lead role. This gives life freedom of endless possibilities and to become whatever is best suited to their environment.


Which God is that? Is it the biblical God, or some new monotheistic concept born during the time evolutionary theory sprang up?



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by DaMod
 



Evolutionists Creationists beleive that God created the universe and set the wheels in motion therefore intelligently creating the path of life. We beleive that the evolutionists are mostly correct but God still plays the lead role. This gives life freedom of endless possibilities and to become whatever is best suited to their environment.


Which God is that? Is it the biblical God, or some new monotheistic concept born during the time evolutionary theory sprang up?


Well the great thing about having a belief system is the right not to have to explain yourself if you don't' want to.

I'm not sure what exactly I said to insight an attack... I'm sure this line of questioning only has one purpose. To provide you with ammunition that unfortunately I will not give to you on that premise alone.

Perhaps if you had asked nicely or maybe with an air of less arrogance I would have responded differently.

Besides you seem to think you know everything, why don't you answer your own questions.

I owe you no explanations or defenses to my personal belief system. Thank you and try to have a nice day please.

GOD BLESS!!


[edit on 16-11-2009 by DaMod]



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by DaMod
 



Well the great thing about having a belief system is the right not to have to explain yourself if you don't' want to.


Ah OK, I can claim the truth but I don't have to prove it... Got it.


I'm not sure what exactly I said to insight an attack... I'm sure this line of questioning only has one purpose. To provide you with ammunition that unfortunately I will not give to you on that premise alone.


Well, technically it was originally a genuine inquiry and from my point of view didn't appear to seem as an attack of any sort. I was genuinely curious if your concept of deity was of the biblical God or some new concept that arose when evolutionary theory came about. Since you won't explain your concept of God, then I suppose those of us here wondering will be left in the dark.


Perhaps if you had asked nicely or maybe with an air of less arrogance I would have responded differently.


I'm sorry if you misinterpreted the inquiry of your belief in deity and how it arose.


Besides you seem to think you know everything, why don't you answer your own questions.


I don't nor have ever claimed to know everything. I actually doubt most everything to be honest, especially when it concerns where the universe came from or how it came to be. I also find it particularly difficult to answer the question on your behalf as only you would have that answer, any answer I conceive on my own would be pure speculation and possibly wrong.


I owe you no explanations or defenses to my personal belief system. Thank you and try to have a nice day please.


No, you don't owe me an explanation and nor did I ever say you did. I wish I knew how my line of inquiry set you off or why you seem to think my question of your concept of God is posted in the same mannerism as this drivel.



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 06:03 PM
link   
DaMod, THAT is NOT an example of Evolution.
Manipulation of genetic traits is NOT evolution.
They are still canids.
They are still cross fertile.

If all the dog breed existing today were turned loose and cross bred with each other, the ultimate result would be something similar to but not exactly the same of that Wolf.
The question of whether or not the Wolf is really the Ancestor of our domestic dogs remains Open.



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Well the great thing about having a belief system is the right not to have to explain yourself if you don't' want to.

Ah OK, I can claim the truth but I don't have to prove it... Got it.



Well, I don't have to prove anything really. I will say that my opinion is that the beginnings of life on earth are the result of an action from a deity. It is my opinion that god created the universe and evolution is really what you could call intelligent design at a distance. Stereotypically a "God" is a being to which time does not exist. Therefore a few billion years is nothing to such an entity. Also a "God" would be defined as omnipotent and infinite. Such concepts are far more than we can understand therefore it is plausable that every religion in existence is flawed, but that doesn't mean god does not exist.


I'm not sure what exactly I said to insight an attack... I'm sure this line of questioning only has one purpose. To provide you with ammunition that unfortunately I will not give to you on that premise alone.

Well, technically it was originally a genuine inquiry and from my point of view didn't appear to seem as an attack of any sort. I was genuinely curious if your concept of deity was of the biblical God or some new concept that arose when evolutionary theory came about. Since you won't explain your concept of God, then I suppose those of us here wondering will be left in the dark.


Having read previous posts of yours I will of course be weary of you. Not because you are right or because I can't defend myself from anything you say, rather because I don't want to be bombarded in rudeness, which is usually your general overtone. I mean no offense of course, I'm just making an observation.

I decided to give you the benefit of the doubt so I'll respond.

Lets define god. A being which can only be described as an infinite, omnipotent, creator of all things.

Lets define human. Very intelligent yet severely fallible animals.

Chances are that if God exists (which I think he does) we are no where close to being right in most (any) aspects of the godly reality.


Perhaps if you had asked nicely or maybe with an air of less arrogance I would have responded differently.

I'm sorry if you misinterpreted the inquiry of your belief in deity and how it arose.


I'm sorry that I have a biased view towards you and therefore took your response as pure sarcasm. I will try not to let it happen again.



Besides you seem to think you know everything, why don't you answer your own questions.


I just said this to be a jerk.. Sorry...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, here is my theory in a nutshell.

God created the universe.

The Evolution of Life was a result.

There you go.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Neither side can prove anything. In the end we are all stuck in a giant circle jerk of conjecture.

[edit on 16-11-2009 by DaMod]




top topics



 
5
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join