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 could be considered Intelligent Design?

page: 2
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 19 2010 @ 06:06 PM
link   
How about this before you believe in Evolution, prove that this guy is wrong
vvvvvvvvvvv

Lee Strobel - The Case for a Creator

Lee Strobel is very Credible and is the Author of the book, and Created a DVD, and you can watch the DVD for free on youtube

Until you prove this guy wrong, Evolution is a hoax.




posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zerbst
Can you be certain these things have always been? Can you prove this wasn't caused? How do we know these things couldn't have been avoided? What if these things could have been useful had we chosen a different path?


That's exactly the point. From a design standpoint, this stuff is crap. Seriously, if you were designing a human male, would YOU have his testes not only start in the abdomen, bit also LOOP AROUND THE KIDNEYS on their way down to the scrotum?

If you were designing a giraffe, would you make the nerve that controls their larynx muscles travel up to fifteen feet down their neck and into their chest to loop around the aorta and then come back to reconnect to the spinal cord in the neck... Or would you just plug it into the spinal cord a few inches away near the base of the skull?

If you were designing an eyeball, would you make it so that it receives images as they really are? Because our eyeball turns images upside down. The Retina then conveys them to the optical nerve as backwards images. Our brain then has to make sense of it and make us perceive things as right side up and facing the right way.

These are grotesque design flaws. even Microsoft would send this stuff back to R&D.

The simple conclusion is either that the designer is an idiot, or that there is no designer. Given hat the addition of a designer - genius or idiot - violates the principles of Occam's razor, the simplest solution is that these changes happened naturally through mutations, with the only "guiding hand" being whether the mutant genes were successfully transferred to the next generation or not.



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 11:33 AM
link   
If you could uncreate yourself, then create yourself again, then create life in general, all from nothing...we could discuss this further, lol



posted on Jan, 24 2010 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by 100Grand
 


Easy. He's not a biologist. He has qualifications in journalism and law.

He's full of crap.



posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 11:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
violates the principles of Occam's razor


So explain miracles, can these be explained by the principles of Occam's razor?
The simplest explanation I can think for miracles, is God. Is that too simple for you? What do you think the reason for your eyeball to see images upside down? Is there a simple explanation for that? Look at an eyeball, it is round. If it was flat, it wouldn't need to view an image upside down. However, if our eyeballs were flat, we'd have HORRIBLE sight. The light comes into our eye from many angles. Lets look at light coming down into our eye from a 45 degree angle, its not going to hit our eye, and then magically go back up at a 45 degree angle in order for it to be the right way up. That would defy the laws of physics. I think its an ingenious design.



posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 05:38 AM
link   
I think it's fair to say that certain core principles of evolution can be proven (such as speciation) but there are numerous apsects of evolution that we only have a partial understanding of with the main issue being a massive understimation of the timescales involved.

A prime example of this is the evolution of man.
According to mainstream science, Pangea seperated leaving a land mass (now known as Africa) and then over millions of years mammals evolved into something that can be termed as a common ancestor of man.

The problem with this theory is that Monkeys (who share a common ancestor with man and primates) also exist in the fossil record on other present day continents such as South America which has a sea distance of a minimum of 500 miles ( with a very very geneorus amount of tectonic shift allowed for) at the time when mammalian monkeys first appeared in Africa.

A recent paper www.sciencedaily.com... has shown that the current modern view of monkeys rafting across oceans to populate new continets is unlikely..

According to this info, I'd state that Man's first common mammalian ancestor first evolved on Pangea, pushing our mammalian timeline back an extra 100 Million years.

Accordingly, I wouldnt be surprised if man evolved alot earlier than current estimates and we probably have been around in a similar form for over 65 million years ( possibly in reltively small numbers..)



posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Jukiodone
 


I wouldn't be surprised if you believed a scientist if in the future he says, well by my estimates, the approximate age of the Earth is now over 1 trillion years old. It keeps changing, and the amount of uncertainty keeps going up along with it.

[edit on 26-1-2010 by 100Grand]

[edit on 27-1-2010 by 100Grand]



posted on Jan, 27 2010 @ 01:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Jukiodone
 

The paper argues that the distributions of the major primate groups are correlated with Mesozoic tectonic features and that their respective ranges are congruent with each evolving locally from a widespread ancestor on the supercontinent of Pangea about 185 million years ago.
New Theory on the Origin of Primates

Thanks. It makes interesting reading and we'll have to wait for the peer-review conclusions. One thing about this possible correction of the origin of primates theory...it still binds to theories of evolution, speciation etc.



posted on Jan, 27 2010 @ 08:23 AM
link   
reply to post by 100Grand
 


There is no evidence any miracle has ever occurred, so that's a moot point.

As for the eyeball, it's the way it is because that works, and has evolved that way. Are you arguing "irreducible complexity"?



posted on Jan, 27 2010 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by davesidious
reply to post by 100Grand
 


There is no evidence any miracle has ever occurred, so that's a moot point.

As for the eyeball, it's the way it is because that works, and has evolved that way. Are you arguing "irreducible complexity"?


Yea, there is tons of evidence of miracles.
As for the eye ball thing, if you read what the first post on eyeballs was, it makes perfect sense, and not to mention, pretty much any animal with an eyeball, it works the same.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join