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.

 

Debunk evolution once and for all

page: 37
13
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by stormson
since methuselah wants to enforce the 10 commandments, i say why stop there? why not the entire 613 laws created by "god" to include not wearing clothing made of two different materials? however, on the brightside adultery would disappear, as more than one wife was ok! polygamy, now thats what i call "traditional marriage"! but wait, i just remembered something. is having concubines considered adultery? cause king whats-his-name (david?) had 300+ wives and 700+ concubines.

enough with the god talk. there is more evidence for the theory of evolution than there is for magnatism. we see magnatism work everyday, yet we still dont know exactly how it works. now if you read the "tao of physics" by fritjof chopri you will see how the asian religions were much more on the mark when it comes to quantum physics than the judaic (jew, christian, muslim) religions could ever be.

now, to quote the catholic church, "there is but one truth, and if science says that evolution is true, then obviously god used evolution, because god is the one truth behind all things." finally a religion that puts science in its place, this world, and god in his, the next.


Still waiting for all of this "Evidence" you claim is out there... i just noticed we got waaaay off topic... this is about Evolution and you defending it, later it will be my turn to defend the Bible... but for now lets get this Evolution theory out of the way. shall we?




posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Methuselah
Still waiting for all of this "Evidence" you claim is out there... i just noticed we got waaaay off topic... this is about Evolution and you defending it, later it will be my turn to defend the Bible... but for now lets get this Evolution theory out of the way. shall we?


I have provided evidence, Mr. XYZ has provided evidence, and many others have provided evidence in this thread and others. Your rebuttals consist of responses analogous to clamping your hands over your ears, closing your eyes, shaking head, and saying, "Nope, nope, nope... God did it... nope, nope, nope... God did it..." over and over again. What's the point in posting even more for you to ignore?



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 


Here is my major problem with the "god" concept as expressed by major religions. It has a very low celing for mental "growth" and understanding. In other words it stunts intellectual and creative thought processes because there is no further need to "search" for "truths".

So lets say god does exist....what now? Uhh....ZZzzzz

Anyway the acknowledgement that all creation simply came from one source and thats that really puts the mental processes in "neutral". Why would anyone question anything anymore? Its all in gods hands, trust god believe in god have faith, in other words become a sleep,sh**, eat, worship zombie....no thanks.




edit on 20-9-2010 by Sly1one because: stuff



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 04:43 PM
link   
The problem is in discussing God or a god, is that everyone has a different idea what God is or should be.

But what actually is the “ROOT” of All...

My personal understanding is that the Root is "Awareness" for without "Awareness", Nothing at all would be known to exist.

Without “Awareness” there would be NO natural selection. As I accept "Natural Selection" so “Awareness” would have to exist first, otherwise NO selection would knowingly take place!

But most seem to want a “god”, which is after their own human ideas, i.e. what a “god” should be which is established on their particular principals simply to find some sort of inner peace.

But by belief alone, is fruitless as blind belief in something changes nothing at all and certainly won’t make reality conform to any belief contrary to Truth.

"Blind Belief"is only "Self Deception" which is the Greatest Deception of All.

Perhaps the human Species should define first WHAT the “Root of All is, then try to prove or disprove this definition.

Perhaps then and only then some answers may be found.

As I have said it is Not a question whether Evolution exists or Not but rather WHAT is "Evolving"…

Is it the Cause or the Manifestation which is Evolving ???

Without "Cause" there is No Action.



edit on 20-9-2010 by The Matrix Traveller because: word missed out



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 11:55 AM
link   
If by God you mean a force that has managed to take the natural occuring mannerisms of the universe and manipulate them to create lifeforms that can continually adapt to their surroundings with internal mechinisms that can cause them to adapt to the changing forces brought about by their enviroments. Im with you. Just a minute that sounds like evolution. I meant to say a magical entity that can will the changes on any organism. oh wait what organisms. I mean he can will organisms out of the ether and continually change them to Oh wait. I mean he doesnt change them, he creates them once and they stay like that forever. Oh I got a head ache.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 05:02 PM
link   
I think my computer is pregnant. What should I do?
Second line for daddy!



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Sorry for the late reply. But no, it's not wrong. All inbreeding does is limit the gene pool. if the genes are perfectly normal, no harm will come of it.

And no, quite the opposite - the continent of Africa has the most genetic diversity among our species.



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 06:28 AM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 

Regarding the effects of long-term inbreeding, incest was a way of life for the Egyptian Pharoahs and for rulers in New guinea. It's only when there are recessive genes which cause disorders that incest leads to problems.

Apparently this is happening with Pakistanis in England. Some groups have been intermarrying between cousins over many generations, and their congenital abnormality rate is rising.

I spent 8 years in a small, isolated town, almost a tribe, in which "inbreeding" was the norm. The girls were commonly pregnant to an immediate relative by 14, and would be married off to a more distant one. - as in a cousin.

There was apparently a recessive gene for hole in the heart in the town. The locals were also very short and verging on intellectually handicapped.

It all depends on the "breeding stock." The larger the breeding stock in an inbred group, up to a point, the more likely it is that genetic disorders will result. Once you pass that point the inbreeding becomes rare enough to not affect the group.

edit on 7/12/10 by Kailassa because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 07:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Kailassa
 


I've read articles about inbreeding in some cultures, especially Muslim.

Dicey to talk about, politically charged and all....in a "PC" era....but could explain a LOT, especially the propensity for suicide extremism???

Just one recent article I found:

Muslim Inbreeding: Impacts on intelligence, sanity, health and society.

Given this sort of examination....where is there room for "tolerance"? How to balance that??



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


That's taking quite a meander from the thread topic, WW.
Comes across a bit like "catapulting the propaganda" in a thread that's not about hating Muslims.



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 11:02 AM
link   
Dont dogs prove evolution?

They have gone from predators(wolves) to parasites(dogs) in the time humans have been around, havnt they?



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 11:09 AM
link   
reply to post by ThePeopleParty
 


Dogs are more symbiotic than parasitic. At this time they give companionship, before they used to also provide security (some still do).

Of course, this didn't occur naturally, it occurred artificially, through human selective breeding.



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Actually it seems that there were "dogs" before there were "domesticated dogs." Apparently there were wolves that used humans as a food source - scavenging their kills and refuse - and wolves that fled at the sight / smell / whatever of humans.

By the time humans pointed at some random canine gnawing on a carcass nearby and said "Oog! me take fuzzy thing for to hunt meat!" that critter was already most of the way to being "dog" rather than "wolf" - it was unafraid of humans, saw them as a means of procuring food, and was probably already somewhat tame (since aggressive carcass-wolves probably would have become capes and loincloths).

It was when humans started breeding for desirable traits that the dog was truly "domesticated."

However as Darwin noted, all natural selection is, is nature saying "this is a desirable trait" - it's not as fast as humans doing the same because nature doesn't isolate the "desirable" away from the "undesirable"



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Matrix Traveller
The problem is in discussing God or a god, is that everyone has a different idea what God is or should be.

But what actually is the “ROOT” of All...

My personal understanding is that the Root is "Awareness" for without "Awareness", Nothing at all would be known to exist.

Without “Awareness” there would be NO natural selection. As I accept "Natural Selection" so “Awareness” would have to exist first, otherwise NO selection would knowingly take place!

But most seem to want a “god”, which is after their own human ideas, i.e. what a “god” should be which is established on their particular principals simply to find some sort of inner peace.

But by belief alone, is fruitless as blind belief in something changes nothing at all and certainly won’t make reality conform to any belief contrary to Truth.

"Blind Belief"is only "Self Deception" which is the Greatest Deception of All.

Perhaps the human Species should define first WHAT the “Root of All is, then try to prove or disprove this definition.

Perhaps then and only then some answers may be found.

As I have said it is Not a question whether Evolution exists or Not but rather WHAT is "Evolving"…

Is it the Cause or the Manifestation which is Evolving ???

Without "Cause" there is No Action.



Again, we are talking about science here...NOT philosophy! I'm not saying what you write isn't interesting, because I think it is...but it's philosophy and NOT science. You can't prove/disprove evolution through what you wrote...so it's a bit off topic imo



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


You're right, I oversimplified it and left out a helluva lot of info. Also, I don't know too much about the evolution of dogs and was giving my best explanation because I didn't feel like doing any research.

Thanks for clearing it up.

Also, it's good to see TheWalkingFox in every thread, sort of missed that. O&C needed more Foxiness.



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Yes I would have to agree, it does involve "The Philosophy of Science".

And therefore very much on topic...



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Matrix Traveller
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Yes I would have to agree, it does involve "The Philosophy of Science".

And therefore very much on topic...


To quote Richard Feynman:



“Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds.”



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 11:50 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


www.angelfire.com...



Theories come in roughly two forms.

Contrary to what some might think, a theory in the scientific sense does not have
anything to do with whether or not it is supported by the evidence, contradicted
by the evidence, well liked among scientists, and so forth

It only has to do with its structure and the way it functions.
That is, just because a theory is a scientific theory does not mean that the scientific community currently accepts it.

There are many theories that, though technically scientific, have been rejected
because the scientific evidence is strongly against it.

Phenomenological theories are empirical generalizations of data.
They merely describe the recurring processes of nature and do not refer
to their causes or mechanisms.

Phenomenological theories are also called scientific laws, physical laws, and natural laws.

Newton’s third law is one example. It says that every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

Explanatory theories attempt to explain the observations rather than generalize them.
Whereas laws are descriptions of empirical regularities, explanatory theories
are conceptual constructions to explain why the data exist.
For example, atomic theory explains why we see certain observations.
The same could be said with DNA and relativity.

Explanatory theories are particularly helpful in such cases where the entities
(like atoms, DNA, and so forth) cannot be directly observed.


The philosophy of science has a lot to do with our direction and rate of development in yet unexplored areas.
edit on 8-12-2010 by The Matrix Traveller because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 02:15 AM
link   
reply to post by The Matrix Traveller
 


Of course that's your conclusion if your sources are:

Bauman, Michael. Man and Creation. Hillsdale, Mich.: Hillsdale, 1993

Bede “Christianity and the rise of modern science”

Brand, Leonard R. “Resolving the Conflict Between Science Religion” Liberty

Davidson, Aaron “Science as a Belief System.”

Dembski, William “Disbelieving Darwin—And Feeling No Shame!”

Helweg, Otto J. “SCIENTIFIC FACTS: Compatible with Christian Faith?” Vol. 125, USA Today Magazine

Milton, Richard “Alternative Science.”

Ratzsch, Del The Battle of Beginnings: Why Neither Side is Winning the Creation- Evolution Debate.

_______. “Recapitulations” Creation/Evolution, no. 5, Vol.18, Sep/Oct 1998; p. 34 (lol, actual magazine, no author)

Reines, Frederick “Who Needs Science?” Beam Line, Spring 1993

Schick, Theodore Jr. “The end of science?” The Skeptical Inquirer

Snow Eric V. “Christianity: A Cause of Modern Science?”

Vuletic, Mark I “Methodological Naturalism and the Supernatural.”

Wertheim, Margaret “Science & Religion: Blurring the Boundaries.”

Wipond, Rob “The World is Round and Other Mythologies of Modern Science). (Exploring the Foundations of Humanism).”

I'm gonna say it again: You're talking about philosophy...evolution is science. If you philosophise about science it's still philosophy, NOT science

edit on 9-12-2010 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


So now just because you use a "catch word" Science, that the interpretation by a Primate having a few letters attached to his name awarded by other "Primates" is flawless???


Ever watched "Planet of the apes"?


Reminds me of the human Primate.

I don't judge people based on their religion if they are religious.

No offence, but it appears your real agenda, is not on topic but rather to do with your own personal beliefs.


But I can understand where you are comming from....

Do you really believe our technology will still be the same say in 10,000 years?

Or do you think they (in 10,000 years) will look back and have a laugh about our so called science today.

Thank goodness Science does change through the ages, as we learn more about our immateral selves, as well as bio-mechanics/Robotics.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join