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.

 

One Less Argument For Creationists: Development Of New Species Observed

page: 3
6
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 16 2010 @ 12:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rren

Originally posted by PieKeeper

Originally posted by Rren
Huh? Got a citation?


Scientific thinking existed long before the Bible was created, and existed in absence of the bible for centuries after it was. The Mayan's had no knowledge of the bible, but were some of the most knowledgeable astronomers, comparable to our level of knowledge today.

The bible did not create science, scientific thinking is something humans do naturally.


Didn't say it did... was asking about the 'it started when the first tool was picked up' comment. I even quoted it. (i've made an edit for clarification)


That's not something you can really cite, it's more of an opinion. Although tool use and fabrication is scientifically oriented, it isn't formal like the scientific method and such we have today. Modern science dates back a few hundred years, but somewhat formal methods date back to the beginning of civilization.

It really depends on how you look at it.




posted on May, 16 2010 @ 12:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by PieKeeper
That's not something you can really cite, it's more of an opinion. Although tool use and fabrication is scientifically oriented, it isn't formal like the scientific method and such we have today. Modern science dates back a few hundred years, but somewhat formal methods date back to the beginning of civilization.

It really depends on how you look at it.


I'm aware, was just busting balls (as it was obvious nonsense)... didn't expect a cite. I apologize for continuing the off-topic shenanigans.

So... who read the paper(s) cited in the OP article? I asked in my first post... what is the defintition of "species" being used here and which creationist argument(s) have been falsified? Figured it would turn the discussion on-topic.

Took the bait instead. I'm weak.

[edit on Sun May 16 2010 by Rren]



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 12:27 AM
link   
reply to post by thedeadtruth
 


Is this how you typically argue with people who disagree with you? You resort to petty character assassinations and begin pretending as if you are naturally imbued with intellectual superiority? Typically i do not like to call out other members like this on message boards and rag on them for there character. But you sir have given validity to the Arrogant atheist stereotype to many christians and other theists. How in the hell do you expect anyone to accept your theories or body of scientific evidence when upon the raising of an honest objection you tell then that they are idiots for questioning you? No reasonable theist or atheist should tolerate behavior such as yours.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 12:28 AM
link   
I personally am not convinced of the "big bang theory" It is as bad as any religion, which is always about having a "starting point". As only an omnipotent being could comprehend infinity so it is our natural intellectual default position to have a "beginning" of anything .

I do not think we will ever grasp the truth of our existence. And classifying it is a fools errand based purely on ego and our lack of intelligence ( in that area )



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 12:34 AM
link   
reply to post by thedeadtruth
 


What are you not convinced about in regards to the big bang theory? What alternative do you have for it? Do you believe that some magical being made the world magically poof into existence? Do you believe that a highly intelligent being was able to interact within and outside of our universe and create and change it in accordance to pre-existing natural laws? What is your explanation and why is it more valid than Creationism, intelligent design or the big bang theory?



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 12:38 AM
link   
reply to post by thedeadtruth
 



I personally am not convinced of the "big bang theory" It is as bad as any religion, which is always about having a "starting point". As only an omnipotent being could comprehend infinity so it is our natural intellectual default position to have a "beginning" of anything


This comes off as contradictory because you say religion is bad and has a need to find a "starting point." Then you say it's our natural intellect that drives us to find a "beginning." Which is it?

Speaking from my opinion, religion isn't bad, people are bad and are the cause of all the problems we have today. There are some good, some bad, but you can't use religion as a scapegoat to deny the inevitable fact that humans are the source of many of the issues we have to deal with.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 12:45 AM
link   
reply to post by DeathShield
 


I do not think you understand exactly how dangerous these people are.

They would stop almost all scientific exploration if they had it their way. Simple because they do not see a point to it, or do not "believe" in the premise. Do you understand we are discussing a topic they would have banned in schools ? I have traveled the world and seen the intellectual devastation religion causes.

Eg....... Name me one science that the Christian church has not opposed at some stage. They have killed scientists, cruelly for trying to further mankind. Without mindless supporters they would have had no power to act. Christians around the world can not disassociate themselves from these acts just because it does not sit well with them. If they deny history it will repeat itself.

Ignore them or give them respect at your own peril.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 12:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by thedeadtruth
You will never convince Creationists that Evolution is real. They believe in their simplistic superstitions "because" they lack the intellectual capacity to understand something as big as Evolution.



These creationists believe very much in evolution. In fact they may even use the papers published in the Journal cited in the OP's article to combat young earth creationist propaganda.

www.answersincreation.org...

www.godandscience.org...



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 12:53 AM
link   
reply to post by novastrike81
 


Hate to break it to you, but Man created religion. Hundreds of them. To explain what they could not explain.

It is a condition unfortunately brought on by being aware and having an ego. The eldest guy in the village ( or wise man ) was never going to shrug his shoulders and say " I dont know" when questioned about something.

They had to come up with something. Depending on their limited imagination or observations. Hundreds of wise men being asked hundreds of questions = hundreds of religions.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 01:05 AM
link   
reply to post by thedeadtruth
 


You say this like I'm oblivious to the fact and like it's going to crush my spirit because you told me something you thought I didn't know.

I hate to break it to you, but it's still man's fault whether you still try to pin religion or not. Then again you see why Pride is a sin and why some people hold on to theirs too long. You seem to have a lot of this.

There is only 19 major religions in the world. Would it hurt you to say "I didn't know" how many religions were in the world instead of throwing out "hundreds" of religions in the world? Your pride must be strong within you.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 01:16 AM
link   
"This comes off as contradictory because you say religion is bad and has a need to find a "starting point." Then you say it's our natural intellect that drives us to find a "beginning." Which is it?"

No I am not being contradictory. I am just confusing you because I am not claiming to have all the answers.

I have personally come up against scientists and academics who behave like their particular area is a religion. And act aggressively if questioned. God help you when you actually prove them wrong.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 01:34 AM
link   
reply to post by novastrike81
 


I was clearly referring to Mans history. So yes hundreds would be more accurate than 19. Many have come and gone.

www.schoyencollection.com...

And those are only the ones solid evidence has been found. Minor religions throughout history may never be discovered. What did Early Man believe in ?

But I suppose your personal beliefs would stop you from acknowledging that even though it is a logical conclusion.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 03:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by thedeadtruth
You will never convince Creationists that Evolution is real. They believe in their simplistic superstitions "because" they lack the intellectual capacity to understand something as big as Evolution.

It is like trying to explain physics to a 3 year old.

The fact is their lack of intellectual development is actual proof of evolution, and that not all men are created equal.




What I find funny is that you say not all men are created equal...indeed?



There are two schools of thought ultimately...that everything is an chance anomaly, or that there is purpose. The possible purposes can be debated elsewhere, but at the moment, despite the religion of atheism, things seem to point towards a design. You can argue all day that the watch ain't perfect and that YOU could make a Rolex, but you can't and hey, the watch is ticking.



[edit on 16-5-2010 by SmokeandShadow]



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 03:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by thedeadtruth
reply to post by DeathShield
 


I do not think you understand exactly how dangerous these people are.




...You just hit the wrong note Liberace.

LOOK AT MY AVATAR BUDDY, THAT IS NOT A VERY PRO-CHURCH OR RELIGION AVATAR NOW IS IT? but guess what. I am an agnostic-theist. I have been kicked out of church more times than you have probably traveled the world and have spent more time in churches and observing and participating in religious groups of various faiths . I've been physically abused by members of the church who claimed that they were justified in there action because of some scriptures. I have seen first hand people use religion to manipulate others, in fact i am witnessing a close friend of mine RIGHT NOW get sucked into a christian cult. If anyone on this forum has a bone to pick with religous people and religion it is ME.

However i do not engage in petty fear mongering dismissing the whole base of religion as a dangerous philosophical endeavor because some megalomaniacs use it to justify there universally detestable actions. Is atheism dangerous because it was used by stalin and pol-pot? No! Is science dangerous because it gave us the Nuclear Bomb and Firearms? NO. The same holds true for religion and belief in god.



They would stop almost all scientific exploration if they had it their way. Simple because they do not see a point to it, or do not "believe" in the premise. Do you understand we are discussing a topic they would have banned in schools ?


Yes, i do know the scope of some of these groups motives. I used to be a militant young earth creationist. Like many other creationists i decided to abandon the movement because the current body of evidence does fully not support the claims being made by young earthers and evolution-skeptics. The thing to keep in mind here is that gods work is observable, therefore if we see evidence in favor of evolution or other scientific models then it would stand to reason that knowledge gained from the scientific method is knowledge on how god may have created things. Simply put science should be regarded as something that shows how god works.

Roughly 51.3% of Americans are Protestants, 23.9% are Catholics, and 1.7% are Mormons (the name commonly used to refer to members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), and 1.6% to various other Christian denominations. This results in christians making up roughly 76% of the population. With other religions combined 85 percent of the US population is religious.

But here is the crazy thing...

They are not having it there way. In a Pre-dominantly Christian (and by extension religious) society they have NOT had their way.
Do you have an understanding of the Legal history of the Evolution VS. Creationism debate within the United States?

The first Case you should look into is the Scopes Monkey trial and the Butler Act. Wikipedia has a very good article on the subject. But what is important here is that the scopes monkey trial was an actual successful attempt at banning the teaching of Evolution IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS. But what it did not do was prevent scientific research or the teaching of it in Private Schools. en.wikipedia.org...

The Tennessee Supreme Court's decision held in effect that the Butler Act was constitutional under the state Constitution's Religious Preference Clause, because the Act did not establish one religion as the "State religion."[30] As a result of the holding, the teaching of evolution remained illegal in Tennessee, and continued campaigning succeeded in removing evolution from school textbooks throughout the United States.


So here is where your fear was actually realized. But This did not result in a permanent ban. And it most certainly did not result in the impediment of scientific progress since the 1900's was a veritable golden age of Genetic and Evolutionary research. Here are other notable cases where Bans on the teaching of evolution were either Lifted or Attempted bans were rejected by state legislators and courts. These cases also show bans on teaching creationism. (Remember this took place in a predominantly christian nation). The descriptions are taken from en.wikipedia.org...



Epperson v. Arkansas: The Court held that the United States Constitution prohibits a state from requiring, in the words of the majority opinion, "that teaching and learning must be tailored to the principles or prohibitions of any religious sect or dogma." This Ruling was supported by The Little Rock Ministerial Association; a christian organization

The Organization claimed "to use the Bible to support an irrational and an archaic concept of static and undeveloping creation is not only to misunderstand the meaning of the Book of Genesis, but to do God and religion a disservice by making both enemies of scientific advancement and academic freedom."



Daniel v. Waters: a 1975 legal case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit struck down Tennessee's law regarding the teaching of "equal time" of evolution and creationism in public school science classes because it violated the Establishment clause of the US Constitution. Following this ruling, creationism was stripped of overt biblical references and renamed creation science, and several states passed legislative acts requiring that this be given equal time with the teaching of evolution. This did not result in a prohibition of teaching evolution.




McLean v. Arkansas: In 1982 another case in Arkansas ruled that the Arkansas "Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science Act" was unconstitutional because it violated the establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution. Much of the transcript of the case was lost, including evidence from Francisco Ayala.


There are other trials in both recent and past times That have attempted to either ban the teaching of Evolution or to enforce the teaching of creationism. While the teaching of creationism may have been permitted and legally required it did not overturn the legal permission to teach Evolution.

So here is my question. If Christians and other religious factions (who buy default believe in creation of some kind hence they can be called creationists) hold an 85% majority in the General population then why is it that Attempts at banning the teaching of Science such as evolution has ultimately failed? Even when the bans were successful they were eventually overturned; Why is that? If what you say is true then it would stand to reason that in a pre-dominantly religious nation all attempts at teaching and researching Evolution and other sciences should be legally prohibited. Since majority of the scientists would be religious as well then there should be minimal-if any- research going on in the fields of science. If this were true then Science should be Federally outlawed on various legal grounds tailored to promote the bans . But this is NOT the case. The most we have right now is a legal requirement for creationism to be taught alongside. If there were any serious attempts being made to outlaw scientific research and teaching then it should be achieved with relative ease.

So what does this mean? It means that the overwhelming majority of religious people do not seek to outlaw science of any form. There may be groups seeking to do such things but they clearly lack the needed support from either state or federal government and the general population.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 04:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by thedeadtruth
reply to post by DeathShield
 


Name me one science that the Christian church has not opposed at some stage.




Which christian church are you talking about? Are you talking about a small-town church in idaho? A mega-church in Missouri? Are you talking about the American,Roman, greek orthodox catholics? The Episcopalians, Lutherans or Baptists??

Christianities history with science is extremely Diverse. But typically when people discuss religion and science they Typically refer to the catholic church during the early middle ages, often calling it the dark ages. But a quick glimpse of history Shows us that church has openly supported science in one form or another. When the church hasn't supported it they would remain quiet on the matter because it had no relation to them. You have to understand the church was essentially a form of government back then. When the so called suppression of science occured it had not made any serious dents into the progress of science as a whole and rarely if ever stopped scientific pursuit.

While progress in Science was slow during this period in the West, the progress was steady and of a very high quality. The foundation was laid here for the wonderful blossoming of science that was to occur in the High Middle Ages to come. It can be safely said, that without the study of Science in the Early Middle Ages, we would be considerably behind in our scientific knowledge today.

Lets take genetics For example. Aristotle and Hippocrates were the first to produce theories of heredity which laid down the groundwork upon which genetics would be researched during the islamic golden age. Research was picked back up around the 19th century by Mendel. You need to remember, the ancient greeks had already laid down the foundations from which modern science grew from. The Greeks had already complex devices such as the Antikythera Mechanism and laid down the basis for technology such as the aeolipile. The aeolipile laid down the foundation for the Steam engine, but the greeks had no use for it. By the time christianity had came into power in the west and islam in the east there was an accepted foundation for which the middle ages would base their work off of.
Despite the churches political power literacy was high,elementary education was widespread (even in the countryside), middle education was available to many people, and higher education (as discussed above) was also widely accessible. In the Byzantine empire during this period we saw a massive outpouring of books – encyclopedias, lexicons, and anthologies. While they did not create a lot of new thinking, they solidified and protected for the future much of what was already known.

Thanks to the Islamic people in the East, the world received its first book on algebra. The Compendious Book on Calculation by Completion and Balancing was written by Al-Khwārizmī The Arabic title of the book gave us the word “algebra”. The word algorithm comes from al-Khwārizmī’s name. This book gave us the first systematic solution of linear and quadratic equations. Later translations of his books also gave us the decimal positional number system we use today. Al-Khwārizmī, along with Diophantas, is considered the Father of algebra.

The lack of progress during these times had nothing at all to do with religion, religion had no interest in science unless it was being used to challenge the church's power. For the most part many scientists were not trying to challenge the church.

But what about present day? How has religion affected modern science? The answer is that is has not affected actual scientific research. Modern science has not affected religion either. In 2004, a Theological Commission overseen by Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) issued this statement: “According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the ‘Big Bang’ and has been expanding and cooling ever since. [...] Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution.”

Catholic Schools all around the world (including the US) teach scientific evolution as part of their science curriculum.


If the church has been a major impedus to scientific development then why is it that in a world that is pre-dominantly christian ( Remember christianity accounts for 2+ BILLION people) we are advancing scientifically at a breakneck speed? They have the numbers needed in order to exert a global enforcement.

The fact is that despite religion or the church's opinion we are rapidly advancing. We have computer chips that are as powerful and energy efficient as the human brain, and one year after it has been developed there will already be a chip that is faster and contains a brand new architechture. This is just Computer Chips alone. We are making great advances in medicine, geology, biology, cosmology, chemistry and physics. Every year our knowledge doubles. Regardless of the church we advance beyond comprehension. That is the beauty of science. It is an unstoppable force in which we gain wisdom and insight to all things material and immaterial.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 06:05 AM
link   
Darwinists claim we evolved from the simplest form of bacterial life to ever more complex forms of life. The most basic bacteria had less than 500 genes; man has over 22 thousand. In order for bacteria to evolve into man, organisms would have to be able to add genes. But there is no genetic mechanism that adds a gene. (Mutations change an existing gene but never add a gene.) This means there is no mechanism for Darwinian Evolution and this is a fatal flaw in the Theory of Evolution.

The average single human gene is a piece of DNA comprised of 100,000 pairs of amino acids all of which are perfectly sequenced. It is impossible for a new gene to appear by chance or by "natural selection."

"What about mutations? Can't they create a new gene". The answer is "Absolutely not." Mutations can change only existing genes. But mutations have nothing whatever to do with creating an entirely new gene. We invite you to google or yahoo terms such as "add a gene" and you will be able to verify that there has never been a case where a species added a gene. But apes would have had to add many genes (and be created anew) in order to become human.

Darwinists tell us that all life on Earth evolved from a common ancestor. They claim that life on Earth first began about 4 billion years ago as the simplest form of single-cellular bacteria, called prokaryotes and the prokaryotes evolved into ever more complex organisms, such as multi-cellular bacteria, then crustaceans, and then fish followed by amphibians, some of which evolved into reptiles, and some reptiles branched out and became dinosaurs and birds, while some other reptiles evolved in another direction to become mammals, which include humans.

Scientists do not know how many genes the earliest prokaryotes had but the simplest bacteria of today have about 500 genes. Humans have about 22,410 genes. Because humans have about 22,000 more genes than prokaryotes, the only way prokaryotes could have evolved into humans would be by ADDING GENES to their genome. In fact, the only way any species could have evolved to become a more complex organism is to increase its Gene Count. (The Gene Count is the number of genes in a genome.)

Darwinian Evolution claims every species evolved from a predecessor species. An organism has to increase its Gene Count if it is going to evolve into a more advanced and more complex organism. In order for Darwinian Evolution to work, there has to be a genetic mechanism for an organism to add a gene. But there is no way to add a gene. Darwinian Evolution is fatally flawed.

If the Theory of Evolution were correct, the prokaryotes and their descendants would have had to increase their Gene Count tens of thousands of times to go from 500 genes to over 22 thousand genes in order to evolve into Homo sapiens.

The ability to add genes is a required part of the Theory of Evolution. Since increasing the Gene Count is absolutely necessary for Darwinian Evolution, how come evolution scientists NEVER talk about it? You have never read or heard any of them discuss this required part of Darwinian Evolution.

Darwinists have never given us an explanation for how they propose an organism could increase its Gene Count.

In fact, Darwinists avoid this subject more than they avoid going to Church.

The average ape gene has 100,000 base pairs (a base pair is essentially 2 amino acid molecules). How can 100,000 base pairs suddenly materialize inside of an ape's sperm? And even if 100,000 base pairs can materialize out of thin air, how could all the base pairs be perfectly sequenced so that they form a gene that actually helps the ape evolve into a man?

There is no evidence that it ever happens

Both common sense and logic tells us it is impossible to add a gene to a chromosome.

Mutations Do Not Add Genes
Darwinists claim they have tons of evidence mutations occur and this is genetic evidence that supports Darwinian Evolution.

There is a ton of evidence that mutations occur - but a mutation is a change to an existing gene and mutations never result in actually adding a gene.

I have explained that if Darwinian Evolution works, organisms have to have a way to add a gene, because an organism has to increase the number of genes in its genome in order to advance to a more complex organism. Mutating is not a way for any organism to add a gene. A single gene could mutate forever but it would never change the gene count.

What is the true origin of life? How did life actually begin? Darwinists have a theory but their theory makes no sense at all.

They claim life on Earth began accidentally about 4 billion years ago when a chance bolt of lightning struck a lake full of primordial soup!

For over fifty years, most evolution scientists believe that the first living organism on Earth was accidentally created when a chance bolt of lightning struck some water that contained all the building blocks of life, which they call the "primordial soup."

OK?!@?!? If we take off our logical hat and puff the magic dragon for a few hours, we can almost buy into the lightning stuff as a really remote possibility. But then what? How did the first living organism then add genes thousands of times in order to advance up the evolutionary ladder?

For example, how did the ape that we all supposedly descended from add the genes needed to make the transition to Homo sapiens?

Are the Darwin-lovers telling us that the ape was swinging from a tree in a lightning storm, got struck by a "fortuitous bolt of lightning," then fell into a primordial pond, and instead of having its testicles fried, they started to produce sperm with a miraculous new gene?

See how absurd Darwinism really is?



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Loken68

See how absurd Darwinism really is?



No. What is absurd is the evolution-deniers. As in your above post, evolution-deniers find an aspect of evolutionary theory which may be unexplained at this point and declare the entire theory invalid on that basis. Much like in the original post, a common argument of the evolution-deniers is now useless due to the observations of tenacious microbiologists. It's up to you whether you wish to keep moving the goalposts eternally in order to maintain your denial. I suspect you'll do so forever.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by novastrike81
I'm pretty sure the most scientific breakthroughs of our lifetime can be accompanied to those who believed in God and/or followed a religion. To name a few are:

- Galileo Galilei
- Sir Isaac Newton
- Robert Boyle
- Blaise Pascal

Must have been a pretty long lifetime.


...we believers in God and religion are clearly "lesser intelligent" people who don't deserve to be around individuals like you.

Yes, your post does give that impression.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 11:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


Oh someone who wants to be technical! Sorry of THEIR lifetime. You people sure do go through a lot of nitpicking to prove a point. Point is their discoveries are still being used in OUR lifetime.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 11:53 PM
link   
"There is no evidence that it ever happens"

There is more evidence to support evolution, even if we do not fully understand the mechanisms yet. I do not blindly follow what scientist tell me, I question them because they are fallible.

I have proven top academics wrong myself over long held beliefs.

You believe something that has ZERO evidence. You have to revert to "faith" to make yourself feel better about all the holes in religion.

The only "faith" I have is that we will eventually find the answers through the never ending search for knowledge. And it will not be found by people who think everything or anything happens by "magic".



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join