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.

 

That old evolution argument again

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 11:11 AM
link   
Right. I have a friend who breeds dogs. We had a very interesting conversation about his breeding techniques and his mum helped create a new breed of sheep dog by selective breeding. Basically by speeding up the process that naturally occures in nature.

So again, I come back to a previous thread that I created. Why can't evolution be a devine process? Creationists think that evolution does not exist and that evolution is some kind of Satanic Agenda.

So, whats the argument about dogs? Dogs have been selectively breed over hundreds of years to create different breeds of dog from small to large, but all dogs share the same genes which are nearly the same as wolves. Research states that Dogs are just wolves that have been domestized over a period of time

So if a dog breeder can push evolution in a certain direction through cross breeding. Why would that not happen in nature?

This is something that is happening now and you can almost see it in action. So again, if evolution did not exist, then cross breeding could not exist. But it does. So evolution again is proven unless I'm mistaken?

This is no anti-religious rant by the way. I don't see why evolution is something that still can't be classed as a process of god.




posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 11:21 AM
link   
I am not a creationist, but this is what i understand from many Creationists.

Dog breeding has been brought up many times, and the bottom line seems to be that no matter what genetic differences there may be, dogs are still dogs, thus Creationists can accept their mutations.

Creationists argument seems to be that they feel evolution is stating that a fish evolved into a dog (very generalized example); meaning cross species differences. This, they refuse to accept.


Why? I only have my opinion, and that being that Creationists deliberately refuse to acknowledge that no where in evolution does it prove that species to different species occurred within a couple of generations.


Creationists ask for proof of "middle" species, and when faced with fossils of dinosaurs with feathers, or whales with legs- they cry hoax, and begin their arguments again.


Bottom line for ME:
For Creationists to publicly accept Evolution means their foundation has cracks. Why would they want to examine those cracks?


[edit on 11-1-2010 by cjcord]



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 11:21 AM
link   
Ofcourse Evolution is a fact I have no idea why you people still discuss this. The only thing I'm not certain of is that we evolved from apes. It seems that a skipt happened somewhere near the last found remnants and the modern man.

But yes evolution is not wrong so pls people stop discussing it.



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by colloredbrothers
 


Incorrect. evolution shows homo sapiens evolved through the primate family, of which apes are part of. I seriously challenge anyone to show evidence of an evolutionist stating that humans came directly from apes.



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by kilas
 


Evolution and Creationism are not mutually exclusive unless you're a fundamental creationist or an Atheist.

The sticking point is that evolution is a scientific process that can be observed and tested, whereas creationism can not be scientifically shown. I have no problem with people believing in divinity's hand in creation, but I do have a problem with people trying to push creationism or ID as a valid scientific alternative when it doesn't fit into the field of science. As of now, it is strictly a matter of philosophy and religion, and nothing else.



posted on Feb, 22 2010 @ 01:04 PM
link   
Evolution doesn't need someone to guide it, that's what natural selection is for. There are already systems in place that work without any deities getting involved, so the chance that evolution is hand-guided is a bit illogical.



posted on Feb, 22 2010 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by kilas
 


So, whats the argument about dogs? Dogs have been selectively breed over hundreds of years to create different breeds of dog from small to large, but all dogs share the same genes which are nearly the same as wolves. Research states that Dogs are just wolves that have been domestized over a period of time

So if a dog breeder can push evolution in a certain direction through cross breeding. Why would that not happen in nature?

This is something that is happening now and you can almost see it in action. So again, if evolution did not exist, then cross breeding could not exist. But it does. So evolution again is proven unless I'm mistaken?

This is no anti-religious rant by the way. I don't see why evolution is something that still can't be classed as a process of god.


Right, dogs have been selectively bread for many years, no to mention horses, both of the race and work varieties. If you read as I do, and delve into these rabbit holes that take us to the top of the cream, so to speak, you will have come across information that says human beings were bred too, to be miners, basically. We were bred by the Annunnaki to mine for the metals they prize so much. I have heard many times that our human DNA has been altered over the years, some 18 times over a 300 year period, so it stands to intelligent reason that human being have evolved, way beyond what our original creators ever foresaw. What they were then, we are now, in most respects. In my humble opinion.



posted on Feb, 22 2010 @ 01:29 PM
link   
I agree that evolution does not disprove god, but maybe it disproves the bible if you take it literally. I believe in evolution, without a doubt, but i also believe that this universe (not just earth, im talking all that is), had to come from somewhere, i mean who knows how old and how large the universe is, perhaps its endless and has always been there, but i can say this...humans are a young species that is still evolving, and as long as the beutiful people keep reproducing with each other and the smart people keep reproducing people, and the fat with one another and the dumb with one another (you get the idea), i think that in millions of years (if we are still around), new races with develop and we are gonna have super beautiful people and super smart people and so on...Obviosuly dumb ugly people occasionaly have children with hot smart people, but on a whole, like attracts like and slowly we will keep evolving, cause we never stopped.



posted on Feb, 22 2010 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by kilas
 


Because by the creationist's explanations, if dogs just breed dogs, then you can have a st. benard popping out cocker spaniels.
Gentetics dictatest that the ST. Benard has to pop out something st. benard, and whatever daddy is made up of.

Thing is, genetics is proof of evolution. Or people would be showing up with random characteristics isntead of looking like their parents.



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join