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.

 

Let's Even The Playing Field in This Hot Debate

page: 4
2
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 14 2010 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Wertdagf
 


Well, I don't know you or your background, but it sounds to me like you have been burned by religion at some point in your life.

My older brother is just like that. He is vehemently against religion. I personally think something happened to him when he was younger.

I am not saying that is your case, BUT I think sometimes someones disbelief in God and religion has more to do with personal issues, anamosity, and biases rather then any scientific positions. If the debate wasn't personal people wouldn't talk about it so much...

Just my thoughts.




posted on May, 14 2010 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


I am going to go ahead and list some things. First, I kind of think it won't matter, because no one can believe in God by mere intellect. But here go to this website watch the video.
www.arkdiscovery.com...

It says some pretty convincing things. I think you should watch unbiasedly and tell me what you think.



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 09:48 PM
link   
reply to post by trueperspective
 


I did watch the video. I'm not a fan of video since most have 100 words that I could read in seconds and the words are spread across 5 minutes of video. This was fortunately a bit better than most videos.

It is interesting that most of the images are not labeled. The images with the tablets show mountains with parallel fractures that do not look like the images seen in the moving pictures. I would recommend that real images are used whenever possible.

It is interesting that most of the images are not labeled. The images with the tablets show mountains with parallel fractures that do not look like the images seen in the moving pictures.

Gives a date of Exodus as 3500 years ago. Do you agree with that date?

Split Rock of Horeb. I didn't see signs of erosion. When it says there are clear signs of water erosion what are they talking about? Then the claims of an altar and the rest of the human constructions are not shown to be of any particular time period. Why is that? Why are they assigned to the time of the Exodus?

The blackened peak of Mt Sinai appears to be just a different rock type. It does not look burned and blackened in the videos. The dark rock shown in the hand is not shown to be typical of the rocks in the area. There is a scene where the viewer is told this is the view from the mountain top of the camp. Notice that none of the rocks in the foreground are blackened. Why is that?

The white pillar pieces appear to be concrete. Can't tell. Were these part of an older fence to keep people away from the petroglyphs?

The petroglyphs are interesting, but the meaning of the petroglyphs is given without any backing. In other words, it seems as if the video makers are making up dialogue as they go along.

OK video. Not really sure about the content. I would have thought that things would have been a bit tighter if you know what I mean.



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 12:20 AM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


Creation and evolution are not mutually exclusive. I believe the idea is called "Directed Evolution".


[edit on 15-5-2010 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 07:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 


But having directed evolution is not the same as Creationism. You end up with the result not matching the Bible. The goal of Creationism seems to me is to match the world we see with the bible.



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


Evolution is not a fact, it's theoretical. A fact in science is a law, a theory is data and experiments that tries to explain something. That's why its called the THEORY of evolution. And if you look into it, you'll realize there's a lot of holes.



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by marsvoltafan74
reply to post by stereologist
 


Evolution is not a fact, it's theoretical. A fact in science is a law, a theory is data and experiments that tries to explain something. That's why its called the THEORY of evolution. And if you look into it, you'll realize there's a lot of holes.


You obviously don't understand what you're talking about.

Evolution - The change in the gene pool of a population. This is a process that occurs, and has been proven to occur countless times.

The Theory of Evolution is a Scientific Theory. A Scientific Theory is an explanation as to how and why an observable phenomena occurs. Therefore, the Theory of Evolution explains how and why evolution occurs.

The Theory of Evolution and evolution are two separate things.

Also, Facts are not Laws.


[edit on 15-5-2010 by PieKeeper]



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 06:13 PM
link   
I have seen no evidence of creationism in this thread, it hardely evens the playing field, considering one has evidence, and the other has nothing to do but try to pick apart the evidence and then put on a ridiculous tag of ignorance that because we don't know exactly how it happened, God must have done it.



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by marsvoltafan74
reply to post by stereologist
 


Evolution is not a fact, it's theoretical. A fact in science is a law, a theory is data and experiments that tries to explain something. That's why its called the THEORY of evolution. And if you look into it, you'll realize there's a lot of holes.

And I'm sure the holes you claim are age old creationist claims that the eye couldn't evolve, giraffes necks, etc, which are all just arguing in ignorance of how evolution works.



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by trueperspective
 


Good thread OP.

Let's talk about the 800 pound gorilla in the room.

I've always wondered... where are all the half ape/half humans that should still be in the transition phase of evolving into a Homo sapiens?

We have living apes and we have living man but we have nothing living in between.



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by FearNoEvil
reply to post by trueperspective
 


Good thread OP.

Let's talk about the 800 pound gorilla in the room.

I've always wondered... where are all the half ape/half humans that should still be in the transition phase of evolving into a Homo sapiens?

We have living apes and we have living man but we have nothing living in between.


Humans ARE apes. All other species in the Homo genus have died out, and we are the only ones left. The other apes, gorillas for example, belong to a few different genus (geni?.) They wont evolve into humans, because we are already of a separate genus.



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by hippomchippo
 


To begin how about the argument of if in the beginning of the universe there was no life only elements then how did non-living substances produce living organisms? If such a thing was possible we could create life through chemistry. Or the question of what force drives evolution? The answer would be survival but if the species was not equipped with the tools necessary to survive then how would they survive? Or that if evolution was real then there should be millions of fossils all over the world that show the subtle changes of the species over a long period of time. The oldest fossils for any creature are already fully-formed and don’t change much over time (“stasis”). The “Cambrian Explosion” in the “primordial strata” documents the geologically rapid appearance of most major groups of complex animals. There is no evidence of evolution from simpler forms. Birds are said to have evolved from reptiles but no fossil has ever been found having a “half-scale/half-wing”. A reptile breathes using an “in and out” lung (like humans have), but a bird has a “flow-through” lung suitable for moving through the air. Can you even imagine how such a transition of the lung could have taken place? Given that evolution, according to Darwin, was in a continual state of motion . . . it followed logically that the fossil record should be rife with examples of transitional forms leading from the less to the more evolved. Also genes play the prime role of your genetic make up. There's no way two monkies could create a human unless mutation occured over a very, very long period of time. Science shows that almost always a mutation causes negitive features in the offspring in comparison to the parents instead of a positive. If evolution were true the number of positive mutations should be significantly higher. Or how did human conciousness form? Also as I am sure as you know there is no way energy can be created or destroyed so if everything came from nothingness, then what would have caused such an energy to be released to create an expanding universe? What substance do we know that has so much energy that it could keep an universe expanding for billions of years? And if there were a substance it would already be there so there had to be something already there. Also if everything is evolved from one simple organism why would it evolve? There is no survival reason, if there are no predators then there can be no prey, so what would the need of evolution be?



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 08:10 PM
link   
reply to post by PieKeeper
 


Originally posted by PieKeeper

Originally posted by FearNoEvil
reply to post by trueperspective
 


Good thread OP.

Let's talk about the 800 pound gorilla in the room.

I've always wondered... where are all the half ape/half humans that should still be in the transition phase of evolving into a Homo sapiens?

We have living apes and we have living man but we have nothing living in between.


Humans ARE apes. All other species in the Homo genus have died out, and we are the only ones left. The other apes, gorillas for example, belong to a few different genus (geni?.) They wont evolve into humans, because we are already of a separate genus.


OooooK.
Can you give links to photos of the skeletal fossils of "the missing link" between ape and human?



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 08:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by FearNoEvil
reply to post by PieKeeper
 


Originally posted by PieKeeper

Originally posted by FearNoEvil
reply to post by trueperspective
 


Good thread OP.

Let's talk about the 800 pound gorilla in the room.

I've always wondered... where are all the half ape/half humans that should still be in the transition phase of evolving into a Homo sapiens?

We have living apes and we have living man but we have nothing living in between.


Humans ARE apes. All other species in the Homo genus have died out, and we are the only ones left. The other apes, gorillas for example, belong to a few different genus (geni?.) They wont evolve into humans, because we are already of a separate genus.


OooooK.
Can you give links to photos of the skeletal fossils of "the missing link" between ape and human?


Humans ARE apes.



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by hippomchippo

Originally posted by marsvoltafan74
reply to post by stereologist
 


....which are all just arguing in ignorance of how evolution works.


Please alleviate my ignorance. I've never seen an explanation for the emergence of a system of interdependent parts/functions.

My understanding of the evolutionary process is: new parts/functions arise from a mutation in a gene. The mutation causes a variation in an existing feature. If the feature aids the organism's survival, the new feature is passed on and becomes a standard feature.

How did that work for spiders that spin webs? The spider produces silk from proteins and expels it through spinnerets, constructing a web of a specific shape. A gland has to absorb proteins from the body and manufacture the silk. The silk is ejected through specialized openings in the body. All of these functions must be controlled through the neural system.

At the very least, the physical structure of the gland, the physical structure of the spinneret, the chemical process that changes protein to silk, and the neural signal would all have to be present for web production and expulsion.

If I understand correctly, all of these features resulted from random mutation. The spider could not spin a web unless all four of those were present. That's four simultaneous random mutations out of hundreds of possibilities.

If the development was sequential, it would have to be in a strict order. The spinneret opening would have to come first, then the gland structure, then the chemical process for changing protein, then the neural signal to control/initiate the chemical process, then the neural signal to expel the silk.

So: is the spiderweb a result of simultaneous mutations or sequential mutations?

Simultaneous mutations seem to be mathematically improbable.

Sequential mutations which 'interact' so specifically would also seem improbable. If sequential mutations occurred which produced this system, wouldn't there also be development of random features which serve no purpose?



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 09:07 PM
link   
reply to post by PieKeeper
 


Nice link. Try again.

[edit on 15-5-2010 by FearNoEvil]



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 09:22 PM
link   
reply to post by marsvoltafan74
 


Evolution is a fact. The diversity of life is a fact. The similarities between species is a fact. Even the Greeks commented on this. The THEORY of evolution is a particular explanation of the fact of evolution. The theories of evolution attempt to explain the mechanism that describes the fact of evolution. The THEORIES of evolution include Darwinism, Lyschenkoism, Lamarckism, and punctuated equilibrium.


A theory is a collection of statements that are used to explain a group of facts or phenomena. A theory is generally accepted because it is tested and tested and shown to work. Theories are used to make predictions.

There aren't many scientific laws. Laws are statements about the world that can be described mathematically. They are usually worked out through experimentation. They are believed to be widely applicable if not universally true.

A fact is something that we believe to be true, or it is a concept that can be proved.



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 09:38 PM
link   
A scientific method seeks to explain the events of nature in a reproducible way…

wikipedia

Science can’t draw a conclusion on the theory of evolution because evolution can't be reproduced.

The steps of the Scientific Method are:
Observation/Research
Hypothesis
Prediction
Experimentation
Conclusion



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 09:39 PM
link   
reply to post by marsvoltafan74
 


Lots of good questions there marsvoltafan74. I'll answer a few.

  1. Evolution does not concern itself with abiogenesis
  2. The different theories of evolution offer different driving forces.
  3. If a species can't survive it doesn't.
  4. You haven't looked at the tetrapod transition from reptile to mammal.
  5. The "Cambrian explosion" shows most major phylums. To claim that this is the beginning of complex animals is false. To claim that there was not evolution from simpler forms is false.
  6. Your claim of no fossil has ever been found having a “half-scale/half-wing” is false.
  7. The fossil record does not usually preserve soft tissues such as lungs.
  8. I can imagine how such a transition of the lung could have taken place.
  9. Your notion of more and less evolved is not how evolution works.
  10. Your monkey claim shows that you do not have even the basic understanding that a species evolves, not individuals.
  11. Your claims about mutations causing negative features in offspring is wrong.
  12. The origin of the universe is not a part of evolution.
  13. There was a survival advantage.
  14. Your assumption that there were no predators is probably wrong.



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 09:49 PM
link   
reply to post by quisoa
 


Your claim is that for a spider to spin a web then a number of events must come together to make that happen. In this case you state that

  1. physical structure of the gland
  2. chemical process to change proteins to silk
  3. physical structure f the spinneret
  4. neural signal


    This is a typical example of the confusion of evolution. Your assumption is that there is a goal to make a web. Evolution does not have goals. The fact that some spiders makes webs makes you wonder how they do it.

    Spiders have been around for almost 400 million years. The structure we see in spiders today is not the same as earlier spiders. In fact, the earliest spiders did not have spinnerets. They appear to have been able to make silk. The likely purpose of silk production was not related to traps to capture prey. It was used to protect eggs and provide a safe retreat.

    So your suggestion that these items appeared at once to make a spider a spider is not correct. The evolutionary process ends up with these structures, but things have been added and changed over time.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join