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 says

page: 3
3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 12:19 AM
link   
reply to post by TheMythLives
 


I do understand that evolution only deals with what is already there.
Not with creation. Or the beginnings of life forms. What most everybody needs to realise is what this thread is really about and it is n't about evolution despite the title.

I realise it's a very sloooow process oooooof chaaaaaange.

In fact I think it would take an infinite amount of time just to get started.


[edit on 19-7-2010 by randyvs]




posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 12:41 AM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


Well if it helps, our origins are from stars. nearly everything really, including Human origins, we are nothing more than star dust. Which is quite poetic and interesting at the same time. No one disputes this, because it is true. Hydrogen composes around 70% of our bodies and this person actually explained it in the most simplest of terms that I have seen in a long time:


Billions of years ago there were no elements, just protons and electrons - they grouped together to form hydrogen (one of each particle). Then through weak gravitational interactions they began to form into clouds, massive clouds. Which eventually become denser and denser and their gravity becomes stronger and stronger until they crunch down to form a star, which is essentially a massive ball of hydrogen whose gravitational force causes the hydrogen within to fuse together releasing massive amounts of nuclear energy (like an atom bomb) and converting the hydrogen into partly heat and light radiation and partly other elements. Hydrogen + hydrogen = helium, hydrogen + helium = something else and so on and so forth until eventually you get everything from gold to plutonium. This is how the matter which makes up our body (which is still about 70% hydrogen since the universe is 90% unconverted hydrogen) formed, so yes, we did come from stardust.


Awesome Answer


Makes one ponder the words of a great man:



Not only are we In the Universe, but the Universe is in us.
-Neil Degrasse Tyson



And if you are wondering what he evolved from; our genes basically give the answer to that: Viruses. Our DNA is mostly composed of Viruses. Basically viruses are jumping genes (genes that jump and hook onto other genes or cells and combining with it). We see this today with the HIV virus and how it jumps onto the DNA of our cells and messes it up. We are essentially, at the core of our DNA, a makeup of dead viruses from long ago. Which is truly fascinating. And sex actually arose because of parasites (viruses). In order to combat the parasite we had to find away as a species to destroy the parasites. And that was through sex. Sex purges the genome to protect itself from mutations that threaten the life of the species. A complex process, but a useful tool indeed. And you can find almost anywhere. For instance, with animals that basically clone themselves through the use of A-sexual reproduction, which is just cloning itself. This process is not very useful if the animal catches a parasite. Cloning brings an end to scientific diversity. Cloning becomes more susceptible to the parasites and eventually dies off completely, because the DNA can no longer code itself properly or the parasite morphs itself into a new animal. Again scary, but highly intriguing...

[edit on Jul 19th 2010 by TheMythLives]



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 12:55 AM
link   
There is another thread here which answers all questions pertaining to evolution and the origins of life:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 19-7-2010 by Leonardo01]



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 12:59 AM
link   
reply to post by TheMythLives
 




Well if it helps, our origins are from stars. nearly everything really, including Human origins, we

Wow Myth I only notice the things that are so obvious to me.
You say star dust that's ok nobody will accuse you of believing "it was magic what did it" If the Bible says dust of the earth and I repeat that.
They will come out from under man hole covers with tire irons to beat back anything the Bible says. You say tomato.

edit the Y in Myth's name apologies
edit again because my eyes are beginning to cross

What kind of evidence has actually been shown.
Sorry I just don't see how it is up to your own standards as scientists.

I have something else to add here. Obviously I'm not a man of any education. I knew what I was looking at when I was young. I knew I would never go to college and would have to work hard all my life.
No pencils and petri dishes for me. If I can give you guys this much of run for your money. You better be glad I never went to college.

[edit on 19-7-2010 by randyvs]



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 01:20 AM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 




it's in Genesis I believe.


Than you believe in magic. If you take Genesis literally God, via supernatural means SPOKE things into existence, the very definition of an incantation or MAGIC words. Perhaps you'd prefer to call it Supernatural or Divine rather than magic but to me they are all synonymous.

The Biblical Creation account has no science in support of it, there is no evidence that suggests the Genesis account is viable or accurate in any way (it isn't even entirely original as it borrows from Sumerian myth) and all the evidence we have found points toward natural causes, Big Bang, abiogenesis, evolution.

What does the fact that the Bible gets an aspect of agriculture right have to do with Evolution?

Also, the creation account is primitive, its borrowed from earlier Sumerian accounts and has a God creating the entire Universe in 6 days and placing a firmament over the Earth to keep the waters separate (they believed outer space contained water and was actually an ocean back then). It doesn't get much more primitive than the firmament... oh wait, yes it does... TALKING SNAKES.

Back on topic though, the Bible has no answer other than its pathetically lacking creation accounting detailing how an invisible being (or BEINGS as Genesis seems to suggest) created the Universe via supernatural/magical means. That furthers our understanding how? And how does that line up to the observation that the Universe is 14 billion years old and is moving expanding (Red Shift)? The Bible doesn't line up with observable reality on the origins of the Universe, the origins of life, or how life became so diverse (evolution). So tell me, why are you so keen to deny observable reality? Why deny what is evidently true in order to cling to myth? Even if God exists, even if Yahweh himself exists, Evolution would still be an observed part of reality and the Bible would still be wrong.

[edit on 19-7-2010 by Titen-Sxull]



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 01:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Titen-Sxull
 


(red shift) off the top of my head moving away creates red in color. I have shown you where the canon describes this very thing and you blew it off as a matter of interpretation, Where God stretches out the heavens.
"There was the word and the word was God". Not the word was magic.



[edit on 19-7-2010 by randyvs]



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 01:57 AM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


Because it is a matter of interpretation, the fact is that the people that wrote the Bible couldn't have seen Red Shift, they didn't have the technology for it. Saying God "stretched out the heavens" is due to the fact they believed the stars went to and fro on the Firmament, some cultures also believed the night sky was draped across the firmament like a curtain.

We can argue word use but for me there is no difference between saying it was divinely summoned into existence and saying it was MAGICALLY summoned into existence - both are supernatural and neither has any evidence to back up the claim.

The Bible, I'm sure, served as a satisfactory answer book for those who lived when it was relevant. Given the limits of available knowledge it makes sense their myths aren't scientifically accurate. Saying that God did it without first making an investigation into things doesn't help us though.

Is there a God? Maybe. But even if there is our observations still hold true, evolution is still part of our world. You can choose to believe that God had something to do with that evolution, guiding it or at least setting it in motion - but denying evolution outright simply because it doesn't fit with some borrowed Creation account in an ancient tome is just denying reality.

To put it this way:

The study of the Bible is the study of what men once believed.

Science is the study of what is evidently true regardless of what men believe.

Regardless of it there's a God or not Evolution is real and it happens, it happened, and it is happening.

Judging by your statement though you might be one of those people who confuses the Bible for God himself. God, if he/she/it even exists, is not an ancient book of myth.



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 02:35 AM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 




Posts like this are like some one dragging their nails across a chalk board.


Perhaps you should try adjusting your vitamin intake.




a biologist who knows evolution is fact and understands the Theory of Evolution as the best explanation for for that fact.


I'm supposed to make sense of that?


I don't understand your complaint here. Are you having difficulty spotting and filtering out the typographical mistake ("for for" should be "for") or are you having a problem reading English today? Is English your second language?

Oh, maybe you still can't see the difference between the terms 'evolution' and 'Theory of Evolution'. Can't be bothered explaining the same thing about the difference of "observed facts" and the "explanation of those facts" for the umpteenth time, so you'll just have to do a little study on your own.



Oh and can you please point out where, I said I was afraid of something anything?


No, of course you didn't say it explicitly, because you obviously don't recognize your fear at the conscious level. Your every diatribe against science oozes with your fear and loathing of the idea that you might somehow be burdened with some knowledge of the universe you believe God has created for you.



To all...
If someone dosn't speak to this "double wide standard" adaquetly.I will be spoon feeding it all over this site till some one does and that is not a threat cause I don't make threats.


I wasn't really aware that there was a "double wide standard". I pretty much thought that if you wanted a double wide you had to get both trailers from the same manufacturer that built each half to go together. That's very interesting. With such a standard, I bet you could get some pretty interesting effects by combining sections from different designers/manufacturers. Do you have any photos of examples?

And if you can't tell the difference between "observed fact" (evolution) and the "explanation for observed facts" (Theory of Evolution or more correctly the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis) adequately then please stop questioning the integrity of people who do.

And while you are at it, if you are going to feign confusion over a straightforward English sentence with an obvious typographical error, you should at least show the courtesy of installing a spell checker in your browser and using it.



[edit on 19/7/2010 by rnaa]



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 03:58 AM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 





And while you are at it, if you are going to feign confusion over a straightforward English sentence with an obvious typographical error, you should at least show the courtesy of installing a spell checker in your browser and using it.


Well I guess you sure told me. Dosn't every browser have a spell checker.
Just start typing the word and it will straighten you out if you're wrong.
I didn't expect anyone to turn spell cop on me but that's usually when it occurs.
As for you mouthing off about fear. That's all you're do'in is mouthing off.
Do you really think I would be challenging, some of the over educated minds that I do? Right here in front of God and evrybody? With a quiver in my heart?
Please call a spade a spade, stupid might suffice, ill advised might be more appropriate. I think fear is one of the mechanisms (evolution can't begin to explain) I seem to be lacking most of all. When you look a little closer that is.

I over done it, in the way I let you know I didn't understand the
sentence, but I only asked you if english was you're second language because
usually that ends up being the case. Freekon sorry! I just didn't know is all.

Myth
Jumping Genes
Can I use that? I swear Myth ,Jumping, not benes but
genes?
Is this a set-up for an inside pitch or what? Cmon. You got me.
You got me good. Jump'in genes what's next?: On my back lmao.
That's to funny.
Myth hey Myth lil tip here for ya, k? Don't ever say that during a serious
conversation ok. I mean jump'in genes myth please don't do that.


So I guess I will have to admit I'm wrong. For sure on this one.



Billions of years ago there were no elements, just protons and electrons - they grouped together to form hydrogen (one of each particle). Then through weak gravitational interactions they began to form into clouds, massive clouds. Which eventually become denser and denser and their gravity becomes stronger and stronger until they crunch down to form a star, which is essentially a massive ball of hydrogen whose gravitational force causes the hydrogen within to fuse together releasing massive amounts of nuclear energy (like an atom bomb) and converting the hydrogen into partly heat and light radiation and partly other elements. Hydrogen + hydrogen = helium, hydrogen + helium = something else and so on and so forth until eventually you get everything from gold to plutonium. This is how the matter which makes up our body (which is still about 70% hydrogen since the universe is 90% unconverted hydrogen) formed, so yes, we did come from stardust.

Because this dosn't sound like magic at all

does it!
ah! ahhhhh!
Kinison


Consider just the first three words of the above italicised post.
Stop for a second and think, how ridiculous it sounds for someone to pretend they knew the first little thing about billions of years ago.
I'm reminded of a line Don Adams (Get Smart ha ha) used frequently.

"I understood everything, except the part after, billions of years ".
I am going to tell you flat out, you or anybody in human form, knows not one thing, about what was going on, BILLIONS of years ago..

It's more perposterous than Zeus the magic sky man, eating speghetti of a jackwagon, thinking spider monkeys, goo to yoo via the zoo, or anything I could ever imagine. Question the subject matter you recieve. Challenge the things that sound more wacky than the God you belittle everyday of your lives.
The General pop may swallow. Don't try to include me as part of it.
I declare that when all of science( not just you Titen or you Myth or Rhaa)
gets in to these absurd numbers, they cross that fine line. The one boundary between intelligence and complete insanity.

The big proplem it seems to me, nobody will challenge these wacky azz
"billions of just get out of here " type of oddities. When someone comes
off, with absurd amounts of time . They have magically spoken the very laws of all science right out of existence. IMO. Now how about that?

[edit on 19-7-2010 by randyvs]



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 10:31 AM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


I don't want to come across as insulting but do you believe that the earth is 3000 years old?

Just a clarification.



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Consider just the first three words of the above italicised post.
Stop for a second and think, how ridiculous it sounds for someone to pretend they knew the first little thing about billions of years ago.
I'm reminded of a line Don Adams (Get Smart ha ha) used frequently.

"I understood everything, except the part after, billions of years ".
I am going to tell you flat out, you or anybody in human form, knows not one thing, about what was going on, BILLIONS of years ago..

It's more perposterous than Zeus the magic sky man, eating speghetti of a jackwagon, thinking spider monkeys, goo to yoo via the zoo, or anything I could ever imagine. Question the subject matter you recieve. Challenge the things that sound more wacky than the God you belittle everyday of your lives.
The General pop may swallow. Don't try to include me as part of it.
I declare that when all of science( not just you Titen or you Myth or Rhaa)
gets in to these absurd numbers, they cross that fine line. The one boundary between intelligence and complete insanity.

The big proplem it seems to me, nobody will challenge these wacky azz
"billions of just get out of here " type of oddities. When someone comes
off, with absurd amounts of time . They have magically spoken the very laws of all science right out of existence. IMO. Now how about that?

[edit on 19-7-2010 by randyvs]


Honestly, if this is actually what you believe, then you have no sense even speaking about science let alone debating its supposed falsity; it just makes you look like you're trolling for reactions. In fact, I've read so many regurgitated threads by you, you must either 1) completely disregard any empirical evidence offered or 2) have terrible short term memory loss.

Answer me something: when astronomers are looking at a galaxy that is 5 billion light years away from us, are we looking at the galaxy's current conditions or its past condition?



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by MacDonagh
 





I don't want to come across as insulting but do you believe that the earth is 3000 years old?

Thank you for asking. This is a good question for me, even to ask myself.
To answer as truthfully as I can, at the risk of sounding like I'm avoiding the question. I believe it absolutly dosn't matter to me personally what the age of the earth is. I'm not at all saying there are not those who should be concerned with these unknown facts.
It's for men more qualified than I am to search until they prove God right.
That's the true purpose of science IMO.

Titen
No I don't believe evolution is even remotely compatible with the Bible.
The Indestructable Bible is a beautiful piece of ancient literature. A fact that you have refused to acknowledge time and again. I find this highly
bigoted on your part. Suggestive of a deeper hate than you will even come to terms with. They Bible isn't going away, so why don't you two
kiss and make up? End your harsh judgements. Give it a rest W/E.

[edit on 19-7-2010 by randyvs]



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by DisappearCompletely
 





Answer me something: when astronomers are looking at a galaxy that is 5 billion light years away from us, are we looking at the galaxy's current conditions or its past condition?

I believe to answer your question I first would need the answer to a different question. Is time lineal or circular? I lack that answer in my short term as well as long term pard. If you can supply that info please.




it just makes you look like you're trolling


How is calling attention to the obvious to be considered trolling?
Evolutionists constantly mocking good people with real moral values. Who believe in God instead of a bunch hyped up bigoted theories. Oh ya I'm trolling alright. Joke.


[edit on 19-7-2010 by randyvs]



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Dosn't every browser have a spell checker.


Yeah most have....yours doesn't?. (I hope you get my point...)
Reprimanding people on an internet forum for what are obviously typo's, while making one yourself in your post is, well... not making you look good.

Anyway...on the topic:

I've posted this before, and I'll do it again: an awesome analogy a friend of mine came up with regarding "creationism"

Creationism is not science because in science it is the evidence and observations that determine the conclusion.
Creationism is backwards. It has pre-determined the conclusion: God did it, absolutely, period.
Any evidence that contradicts the Genesis account is discarded or ignored if not interpreted to fit the conclusion.


I liken the debate to a jigsaw puzzle that does not have its picture on the box.
Science is trying to put it together, while religious dogma is looking over his shoulder.
Dogma feels strongly that the resulting picture will be a unicorn, while Science has speculated a hypothesis based on viewing the individual pieces that the picture is of a bear.
The more Science puts it together, the more the puzzle begins to look like a bear.
Dogma begins to get more and more upset. "I don't know why you're bothering, it's obviously a unicorn!" he chortles.
Science shrugs, and continues assembling the pieces. The picture begins to look even more like a bear, until it's almost unmistakable.
Every once in a while, Science will have to correct an error and move a piece. Religion shrieks with glee at this. "See?! You put that piece in the wrong place! Your wishful thinking that it's a bear made you make a mistake! Since you're wrong, I am therefore right, and the picture is of a unicorn!"

"But what about all the other pieces I did get right? Can't you see by the rest of them it's obviously a bear?" replies Science.
"You just don't want to admit it's a unicorn! Your arrogance is getting in the way!" screams Dogma lividly.
Science just shrugs, and continues with the puzzle.







[edit on 19-7-2010 by XyZeR]



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs

It's for men more qualified than I am to search until they prove God right.
That's the true purpose of science IMO.


[edit on 19-7-2010 by randyvs]


So what are you going to do if God is proven right, or found? Are you just going to say hey God, and go on with your life? What is the point? What would finding God do for humanity? Would we be any better?

Do you believe God is a scientific being? Do you believe he is omnipotent? Where does he fit in with science? What dimension is he in?



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 12:48 PM
link   
I do not even go for the 'god did evolution' bit, but people ignoring Titen-Sxull's clip here... that's the only thing that has made sense...

Good clip, I think, Why is it ignored I wonder?




posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 01:07 PM
link   


Creationism is not science because in science it is the evidence and observations that determine the conclusion
reply to post by XyZeR
 


There are no conclusions or observations for billions of years in the past
just like there are none for billions of years in the future. That are worthy
of consideration unless they are Gods own.



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phlynx

Originally posted by randyvs

It's for men more qualified than I am to search until they prove God right.
That's the true purpose of science IMO.


[edit on 19-7-2010 by randyvs]


So what are you going to do if God is proven right, or found? Are you just going to say hey God, and go on with your life? What is the point? What would finding God do for humanity? Would we be any better?

Do you believe God is a scientific being? Do you believe he is omnipotent? Where does he fit in with science? What dimension is he in?




So you have no answers for me?



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs



Creationism is not science because in science it is the evidence and observations that determine the conclusion
reply to post by XyZeR
 


There are no conclusions or observations for billions of years in the past
just like there are none for billions of years in the future. That are worthy
of consideration unless they are Gods own.


Actually, we can look billions of years into the past...astronomers do it every time they scan the sky with telescopes


Given that "looking up" to the sky teaches science a lot about how the universe came to be, or how it continues to exist kinda proves that it's worthy of consideration. We can't see the future (so far), but the past is easy, and definitely worth checking out.

For the people still arguing with Randy...GIVE UP!! You'll never convince a person who puts belief before logic and rationality about anything he doesn't wanna believe in


[edit on 19-7-2010 by MrXYZ]



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 02:37 PM
link   
(Is the world only 3000 years old?)

oh, at least 6,000! ;-)

this sort of debate is essentially pointless, as it's about impossible for either side to convince the other. for example, one side says 'this is a million years old' and the other replies 'how do you know? some scientist says so? how does he know? carbon dating?' all depends on which experts you choose to believe.

I'm still hung up on the lack of transitional fossils. what came between the Indricothere and the Wooly Rhino? even allowing for a 1% genetic change (which is pretty drastic), this would have required 99 different variations--not generations, but viable populations for extended time periods; an animal 99% indricothere/1% Wooly Rhino, then 98/2, etc.
while we have multiple specimens of the Indrico and the Wooly, we have ZERO fossils, not even a fragment, of ANY of the transitional forms.

and EVERY animal is in the same. D-wolf to wolf? Mastodon to elephant? Castorium to beaver? without these transitionals there is no evidence of interspecial change, just interpretation of extant fossils.



[edit on 19-7-2010 by works4dhs]

[edit on 19-7-2010 by works4dhs]




top topics



 
3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join