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.

 

that Childish theory of Evolution

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 05:14 PM
link   
Someone has to agree with me here...

I see evolution as a training tool for the children and to give them a better sense of their surrounding but why are evolutionist so bent on making it "truth" when it can not even be proven by experiment (the scientific method I just keep getting this image of a kid standing in front of one of the evolutionist effigies down at the museum and in school and thinking in the back of their mind wtf!

I still didn't get to see an actual experiment proving evolution in the "Prove It" thread so I have ask again, do evolutionist (who have not even got to a certain point in their personal philosophy) expect everyone to take their "truth" on faith ?




posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 05:18 PM
link   
How many (bleeping) threads are you going to make? I know the mods don't care if you make a hundred in an hour or so but GOODNESS, you should at least space these very similar threads or just make one thread and stop hogging up the "New Topics" page.



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact
 



Two seperate threads in 5 minutes about the same topic?

Like I said in your other thread, please define your concept of evolution to begin with, then we will go from there.



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 05:24 PM
link   
- start at 1:00, this is part 1.


- Here is some embryological evidence for evolution, a bit left-brained.


- And here is a fun, quick video, that you can even share with your kids.

Some videos that might help you on your journey towards understanding evolution.
edit on 14-12-2010 by ThinkingCap because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by ThinkingCap
 


these videos will not do, please try to find another... this is all philosophy and speculation not actual "fact" that we can lay our hands on least we had a billion years.



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 05:39 PM
link   
Yes... I am asking you to prove God in essence, if you are a non-believer ?

I would like to see evolution in a petri dish if you don't mind, since this is science and not a religion right ?



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 05:48 PM
link   
I'm guessing you believe in creationism?



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact
 


You seem to be making an awful lot of assumptions about the philosophies of "evolutionists."

Are you sure you're not getting confused with atheism?

And while I recognise that specific aspects of religious beliefs have been belittled in this forum (although you should know that typically, I view a creationist as someone who believes in literal interpretations of religious texts rather than a context-based assessment of such), I do wish to impart to you some advice that my father passed on to me:

"Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience"

If you really do believe "evolutionists" to be childish/foolish/idiotic, why engage with them? Why not just smile, and nod, and wait for us to reach a "certain point in [our] personal philosophy"?
edit on 14/12/2010 by TheWill because: quotation incorrect


EDIT:

I would like to see evolution in a petri dish if you don't mind

Do you not recall my post on the other thread concerning the lovely Escherichia coli? You replied to it as though you had read it.

Seeing as you don't seem to want to hear it from me, if you're so interested, try contacting Professor Sockett of The University of Nottingham - she's a microbiologist specialising in Bdellevibrio, but also a very assured christian. You can easily find her e-mail address by going here and searching for her under staff.

She's usually very balanced in her responses.
edit on 14/12/2010 by TheWill because: Added comment

edit on 14/12/2010 by TheWill because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 05:51 PM
link   
I said it in your other thread and I will say it in this thread that is the same with a different title. To have a debate you must provide debatable evidence either for or against your claim.



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 05:56 PM
link   
I think it should be an ATS requirement that any Evolution Debate thread include this as part of the OP:




posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 05:56 PM
link   
If you want an alternate theory, look at David Wilcock's studies, I don't know how creditable people on this forum think he is but he does bring interesting food for thought that seems to match the fossil records. Don't bash me if you think he's a nut, not saying I believe him but he does make some sense that seems to fit with both sides. His teachings are along the thought of quantum physics and what we understand about harmonial vibrations and how they react with geomatry and life.



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
reply to post by ThinkingCap
 


these videos will not do, please try to find another... this is all philosophy and speculation not actual "fact" that we can lay our hands on least we had a billion years.


You didn't watch the videos, why are you pretending you did?



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
Yes... I am asking you to prove God in essence, if you are a non-believer ?

I would like to see evolution in a petri dish if you don't mind, since this is science and not a religion right ?


I would start here then- myxo.css.msu.edu...



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 06:07 PM
link   
You don't have to "believe" in evolution, just like you don't have to "believe" in gravity. It does not change the facts around a natural process. There are NUMEROUS peer-reviewed papers that have been published in numerous scientific journals with plenty of evidence supporting evolution. But you don't really want any evidence, do you? Your mind is made up. You have come up with your own conclusion, and will only accept "evidence" that would support your narrow outlook. Do you believe in DNA? What about genetics in general? Are children complete carbon copies of their parents? All of these things are "evolution". Evolution is the change in genetic composition of a population, over time, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals. There is NO difference between micro evolution, and macro evolution, except for the length of time passed. This is getting ridiculous. There is NO controversy among scientists. Living things change. You can observe it. Children will have genetic traits from their parents, they will also have unique genetic traits not inherited from the parents. If those traits help the individual survive, and pass on their genes, those unique genetic traits will appear in successive generations, and so on. There are small changes over a short period of time, but if you add up A TON of small changes over a long period of time, you get a largely more noticeable change.



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheFallOfRa
If you want an alternate theory, look at David Wilcock's studies, I don't know how creditable people on this forum think he is but he does bring interesting food for thought that seems to match the fossil records. Don't bash me if you think he's a nut, not saying I believe him but he does make some sense that seems to fit with both sides. His teachings are along the thought of quantum physics and what we understand about harmonial vibrations and how they react with geomatry and life.


a fossil is nothing more than a tangible, organic sculpture, a 3D picture. it can't tell you anything more about it's origin than a picture of a chair can tell you who sat on it.



edit on 14-12-2010 by randomname because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact
 


I was going to respond, but then I saw that you discarded genetic evidence of evolution on chromosome pair two as philosophical.

You clearly have no interest in factual, scientific accounts. We actually have undeniable facts that point to clear common ancestry with chimpanzees and the other great apes. We have hard evidence that you just dismiss for no reason other than 'it's speculation'.

You later asked for hard evidence. Here are observed instances of evolution. I'd post the whole thing in the thread, but it's nearly 11,000 words long, so I'd be doing a disservice. Here's just one example:


5.2.2 Maize (Zea mays)
Pasterniani (1969) produced almost complete reproductive isolation between two varieties of maize. The varieties were distinguishable by seed color, white versus yellow. Other genetic markers allowed him to identify hybrids. The two varieties were planted in a common field. Any plant's nearest neighbors were always plants of the other strain. Selection was applied against hybridization by using only those ears of corn that showed a low degree of hybridization as the source of the next years seed. Only parental type kernels from these ears were planted. The strength of selection was increased each year. In the first year, only ears with less than 30% intercrossed seed were used. In the fifth year, only ears with less than 1% intercrossed seed were used. After five years the average percentage of intercrossed matings dropped from 35.8% to 4.9% in the white strain and from 46.7% to 3.4% in the yellow strain.


And here's another set of observed instances of evolution.

We've observed evolution in the petri dish. Hell, we observe it in our stomachs. Every time someone takes antibiotics they create an instance of evolution. Their natural 'flora', the bacteria that naturally occur in the digestive tract, die off...except for those with antibiotic resistance, which eventually reproduce to previous levels, now with antibiotic resistance.



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact
 


I'm sure if the books leaned in this direction, you'd find evolution righteous, huh..?








The simple ones always find a way to spin it...



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact
 


The concept of god is too frightening for humanity. The idea of oneness, the theory of infinity.

It drives scientists insane and it makes the rest quiver in their boots.

So what do they do? Both sides make up stories to try and explain it to the best of their ability.

Evolution from apes is just as big of a fairy tale as the biblical tales of noah and his ark. The ape is our relative, not our ancestor, they are just as far along in the chain of growth as we are.

To know god, we must let go of our mathematics and our old legends and for that brief moment say to ourselves "Hey...you know what, its okay, this is bigger than me, I am going to ride this out"

The concept of understanding god is just as futile as swimming in a tropical storm in the middle of the ocean.

Except in this case, the ocean loves you.


Keep trying though. Its entertaining to watch you swim.


-G

edit on 14-12-2010 by Gradius Maximus because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 06:25 PM
link   
reply to post by randomname
 


Fossils are actually made of non-organic materials...that's how fossilization occurs. Of course, it can tell you all sorts of things. It can tell you morphology, it can tell you the dimorphism of a species, it can tell you where muscles were anchored, etc.

When combined with a whole host of other fossils, you can get a story of the lineage of life. Especially with the extensive fossil record we have today.



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 06:41 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


You are absolutely wasting your time & resources with these people. Evolution in a petri dish? C'mon.
This is what some people do when they've nothing else at all to do, start a controversial subject and then make absolutely no sense thereafter. They believe it's more likely to believe that everything was created at once out of magic and dirt than to accept the overwhelming evidence at hand.
From here on out, I believe I'm siding with Dawkins in his refusal to debate creationists - saying it's about as logical as debating flat-earthers. It makes absolutely no sense why they would believe what they do in light of the evidence.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join