It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Naturalism and Darwinism are also logically incompatible: Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism That accounts nicely for all the cognitive dissonance displayed by those who assert both.
Perhaps Paul very much likes the idea of being eaten, but when he sees a tiger, always runs off looking for a better prospect, because he thinks it unlikely the tiger he sees will eat him. This will get his body parts in the right place so far as survival is concerned, without involving much by way of true belief... Or perhaps he thinks the tiger is a large, friendly, cuddly pussycat and wants to pet it; but he also believes that the best way to pet it is to run away from it... Clearly there are any number of belief-cum-desire systems that equally fit a given bit of behaviour.
Originally posted by ELECTRICkoolaidZOMBIEtest
reply to post by susp3kt
NONE of your arguments are compelling in the least.
for example "humans beings evolving from apes"
humans ARE apes.
no one has observed speciation?
are you kidding me?
There is no uncertainty for God.
Originally posted by loner007
What a pile of crap u posted. Darwin wasnt wrong about evolution . Not to mention its the only scientific and most plausible than what intelligent deisgners would have us to believe. He may not have all the details correct when he 1st published his ideas over 100yrs ago. He may have made assumptions that may have been incorrect but the overall hypothesis is sound.
Yes there are still puzzles in the theory and some ideas like the evolution tree dosent seem to pan out as planned from his original idea.
This isnt to say EVOLUTION is not happening because it is.
And i prefer Darwinism to the intelligent design given by bible bashers as at least they have science to back it up wheres bible basheres just bash their bibles about and fail to use that grey matter that is inside their heads.
Originally posted by daggyz
Evolutionists have more faith than those that believe in a God. It takes more Faith to believe in something where there is no evidence, than in somesome bigger and greater than ourselves in another dimension of reality.
Faith is belief in something you can't see.
Therefore...... evolutionists have created their own religion!
I think thats the funny part.
Originally posted by Locoman8
reply to post by Maslo
That mountains of evidence has all been debunked also but you fail to believe in that. Even by those who don't believe in God have debunked much of the evolution fallacy. Stay blind my friend, stay blind.
I will tell you that intelligent design is a belief. My stance is that so is the darwinian evolution theory. Give me a while and I'll give you some evidence.
Prediction 4.2: DNA coding redundancy
Like protein sequence similarity, the DNA sequence similarity of two ubiquitous genes also implies common ancestry. Of course, comprehensive DNA sequence comparisons of conserved proteins such as cytochrome c also indirectly take into account amino acid sequences, since the DNA sequence specifies the protein sequence. However, with DNA sequences there is an extra level of redundancy. The genetic code itself is informationally redundant; on average there are three different codons (a codon is a triplet of DNA bases) that can specify the exact same amino acid (Voet and Voet 1995, p. 966). Thus, for cytochrome c there are approximately 3 (to the power of 104), or over 10 (to the power of 46), different DNA sequences (and, hence, 10 (to the power of 46) different possible genes) that can specify the exact same protein sequence.
Here we can be quite specific in our prediction. Any sequence differences between two functional cytochrome c genes are necessarily functionally neutral or nearly so. The background mutation rate in humans (and most other mammals) has been measured at ~1-5 x 10 (to the power of -8) base substitutions per site per generation (Mohrenweiser 1994, pp. 128-129), and an average primate generation is about 20 years. From the fossil record, we know that humans and chimpanzees diverged from a common ancestor less than 10 million years ago (a conservative estimate - most likely less than 6 million years ago) (Stewart and Disotell 1998). Thus, if chimps and humans are truly genealogically related, we predict that the difference between their respective cytochrome c gene DNA sequences should be less than 3% - probably even much less, due to the essential function of the cytochrome c gene.
As mentioned above, the cytochrome c proteins in chimps and humans are exactly identical. The clincher is that the two DNA sequences that code for cytochrome c in humans and chimps differ by only four nucleotides (a 1.2% difference), even though there are 10 (to the power of 49) different sequences that could code for this protein. The combined effects of DNA coding redundancy and protein sequence redundancy make DNA sequence comparisons doubly redundant; DNA sequences of ubiquitous proteins are completely uncorrelated with phenotypic differences between species, but they are strongly causally correlated with heredity. This is why DNA sequence phylogenies are considered so robust.
The most probable result is that the DNA sequences coding for these proteins should be radically different. This would be a resounding falsification of macroevolution, and it would be very strong evidence that chimpanzees and humans are not closely genealogically related. Of course, the potential falsifications for prediction 4.1 also apply to DNA sequences.
Originally posted by Maslo
Well, show me one example of such "debunked fallacy". We will see if its really valid, or debunked pseudoscience. Let the logic and facts speak, not personal beliefs and opinions.
I have no problem admitting that evolution theory is wrong, if I was shown ONE undeniable scientific evidence that rebutts it. All I have seen up to now turned out to be just another false pseudoscience example. And even if evolution was somehow proved wrong, you still have to prove ID, or you know nothing and cannot claim its true. So, who is blind?