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.

 

What would it take for you to accept Darwin's Theory Of Evolution ?

page: 2
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 08:22 PM
link   
Hey, I hate to rain on your parade but heres some more interesting tid bits you might want to contemplate today...

“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology, the evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.”

Stephen Jay Gould was an American paleontologist, evolutionary biologist and historian of science. He was also one of the most influential and widely read writers of popular science of his generation. Gould spent most of his career teaching at Harvard University and working at the American Museum of Natural History in New York. In the latter years of his life, Gould also taught biology and evolution at New York University near his home in SoHo.

Yet another man of science who is honest about the absolute lack of evidence supporting evolution....

Please dont be upset at me here just trying to show that there are indeed educated, respected, and objective sceientists who arent religious and still have doubts about evolution due to lack of evidence.




posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ghost in the Machine



This question is for people who do not believe in evolution. It is simple, what would it take to get you to accept evolution and common descent is fact ?


An actual logical explanation of why our universe works perfectly considering that it was formed by coincidence.

So, it just so happens that when nothing exploded and formed the universe everything was placed exactly where it was? Even though if a planet were a degree out of place or a gas was a degree to hot or cold it would effect the entire solar system.



Your argument is the "fine-tuned Universe" made famous by jackass william lane craig. If there are infinite number of other universes there is no surprise there is life in some and we should not be surprised there is life in ours. (gambler's fallacy)

Obviously this is not observable so cannot be proven, but this is still not evidence for a designer.

And what does all this have to do with evolution ? Even if there was a Designer, a fine-tuner .. this still does not disprove evolution.

Even if we were 100% sure there is a creator it does not change the fact the evolution is happens and common descent is real.



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 08:34 PM
link   
reply to post by nophun
 


Hey there, just wondering are you going to call my examples "jack asses"?

Just curious...



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 08:34 PM
link   
The theory of evolution was being taught by the ancient sumerians, babylonians, egyptians and greeks in the mystery schools, along with other creation myths. Erasmus Darwin wrote the book "Zoonamia" in 1749 which basically outlined the theory of evolution. I might add that Erasmus Darwin was a Freemason( Initiated at the Cannongate Kilwinning Lodge of Scottland in 1788), the teachings of the Masons include the teachings of the ancient mystery schools. Remember that 500 years ago the earth was flat and the scientists had all of the evidence in their minds to prove that this was so... When you have a preconcieved notion about a subject before you review the evidence, its more than likely that you are going to superimpose your religious beliefs on the case at hand.. ie Erasmus Darwins Freemasonry.. on a side note: John Baptiste Lamarck was a member of the Masonic organization "Amis De La Verite" founded in 1790. he released "Philosophie Zoologique" in 1809, the theories proposed basically mirrored Darwins..

www.youtube.com...



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by nophun
 


Quick question, if I gave you a box of legos to build a house with and i simply poured out a box of legos next to you all over the floor, which set of legos would end up a "house" first? Your set your building with or the set i simply scattered out on the floor?

Will the scattered set ever form a house on its own by chance? If so how long will that take? Millions of years, billions?

They simply would never form a house because they cant do that on their own...

How then can such complexity in the universe form on its own, if you cant believe that a simple "House" of legos cant form on their own.

Easy question to understand....by the way look up those other refferences i listed above.



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockstrongo37
reply to post by nophun
 


Hey there, just wondering are you going to call my examples "jack asses"?

Just curious...


I am trying to figure out who these people are that you are posting

Give me a minute


Paul Davies I KNOW has a theistic agenda.
www.edge.org...

How about he give the sources you are copying all these from

Save me some time



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 08:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockstrongo37
 


First off, evolution does not discuss how life started. For that you are looking for the theories of abiogenesis or panspermia. Evolution merely discusses how things change after life already exists. Also, you may want to look into Gould more since he was one of the most ardent supporters of evolution and creator of the theory of punctuated equilibrium which it seems like he is talking about in that quote.



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 08:48 PM
link   
reply to post by nophun
 


Not sure of your laughter there, but feel free to google and choose what ever source you like they arent top secret.

And remember a good debate usually doesnt have the side that is grasping at point simply writing off other educated sources that may show their opinons as lacking by saying they have theistic motives, as if someone's belief in intelligent desing some how disqualifies them and their points of view.

You will find that the quotes I have provided to be well known by anyone who is actually well versed in this topic.



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 08:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 


I never even seen the Gould post.
www.stephenjaygould.org...

I would still like the source you are using



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 08:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 


As you will see I have also addressed the issue of evolution, as well as the origin debate. Dont skirt the issue here, thank you.



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 08:50 PM
link   
For me, it would take a miracle.



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 08:52 PM
link   
reply to post by nophun
 


Here are the sources for the quotes:

Paul Davies (Australian Centre for Astrobiology, Macquarie Univ.), Born Lucky, New Scientist, Vol. 179 (2403):32, July 12, 2003

Stephen J. Gould, Natural History, Vol. 86, pgs 22, 30

Trevor Palmer , Catastrophism & Evolution, Kluwer Academic, 1999, p. 264



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 08:52 PM
link   
reply to post by xSYLENTJAYx
 


Lamarque's and Erasmus' theories were fundamentally different from Darwin's. While Darwin was influenced by his grandfather's work it is also founded on a lifetime of empirical research and observation starting with his voyage on the Beagle. It is then further supported by over a century's worth of work from scientists of all nationalities and creeds.



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 09:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockstrongo37
 


If you want to base your entire argument on appeal to authority here are many more scientist and scholarly articles that support evolution. Also, I noticed you skirted around the issue of misrepresenting Gould and his theory of punctuated equilibrium as evidence that evolution doesn't exist.

Nature - Evolution
Science - Evolution



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 09:00 PM
link   
Only one of RS' quotes are pertinent to evolution - Steve Gould's. And as pointed out, he was an evolutionary biologist, lol.

A more complete quote is:


The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record:

"The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory."

Darwin's argument still persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution [directly]. In exposing its cultural and methodological roots, I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism (for all general views have similar roots). I only wish to point out that it is never "seen" in the rocks.

Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.

For several years, Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History and I have been advocating a resolution to this uncomfortable paradox. We believe that Huxley was right in his warning. The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record.

www.talkorigins.org...

[edit on 18-7-2010 by melatonin]



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 09:04 PM
link   
Rockstrongo37 I was typing out a reply to your Lego post, but you are just spewing out random # nonstop. The weird thing is I think you hit ever subject but the one in the OP.

Okay lets say (I really am trying to be nice) ..
God exists, all the people you listed dis-agree with evolution, Lego cannot build it self into a house, God created everything ... .. ..THIS STILL DOES NOT CHANGE THE FACT THAT WE KNOW EVOLUTION AND COMMON DESCENT IS FACT!!!


WTF is your point!?

[edit on 18-7-2010 by nophun]



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 09:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 


LOL I didnt missrepresent anything, I said that if a person believes in intelligent design that shouldnt remove their educated opinion in the debate... and again we cant take your word for it concerning all the overwhelming support from scientists that support evolution...there are many who do support evolution....but you can't write off the opinions of people such as these.

Sorry, but you cant.

Please provide examples of your claims and dont simply base your argument on your passions.



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by nophun
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 


I never even seen the Gould post.
www.stephenjaygould.org...

I would still like the source you are using



I fail to see what you are getting at with this thread, Are you looking for the missing link, You know there isn't one right? Where are the signs of evolution since Man was created? Can see some mutation through man made chemical Introduction to our environment though. Oh yah our Oposition leader over here in OZ looks a little bit like a monkey.

Kind regards, robbo.



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by nophun
This question is for people who do not believe in evolution. It is simple, what would it take to get you to accept evolution and common descent is fact ?

first - i assume you're talking about 'macro' evolution, or one species evolving into another, as opposed micro evolution which are small changes within a species.

for starters, i'd like to see evidence of of one species evolving into another.

if evolution were true, occuring over millions and millions of years, we'd have MANY MANY "inter-species" fossils showing a complete line of evolution from fish to land animals, from land to flyiing animals, etc.

instead there are none.


Originally posted by nophunI want to stress there is already piles and piles of evidence showing common decent and theory of evolution is correct.

if darwin were alive today .. he'd be FORCED into recanting his position.

in his day, darwin believed that the fossil record would 'prove' evolution to be true. instead, with over a half-million samples in the fossil record, we have not see the type of irrefutable proof necessary to substantiate a complete 'lineage'. if it exists .. I'D LOVE TO SEE IT.



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 09:07 PM
link   
reply to post by nophun
 


No actually I addressed your main point very well. Evolution simply doesnt work. If it does I challenge you to provide for us an example, be it experiment, or discovered evidence to prove to all of us that evolution is true....thats all Im asking for.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join