It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Creation/Intelligent Design vs Evolution/Science Your thoughts?

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 9 2004 @ 10:35 PM
Uh, Astrocreep, when have I used name calling? What names have I called? Sorry, I went through my posts and no name calling. There wa s threat to beat people who believe the Darwin said he was wrong myth but I took it out.

BTW, Evolution does not have chance! It does not involve chance! It isn't chance that a animal survived out the other, it is the fact that it is better able to survive, not chance. That is another thing Gish kept saying. "If it is all chance, you think I will believe it? That it could happen?" But it doesn't involve chance. Evolution is the farthest from chance than anything for it involves survival of the fittest. If you are fit, you will survive, if not, you die. That is not chance.

Now, you have very impressive credentials, I am impressed. But still, scientists with those credentials previously taught earth was flat.(not those exact credentials, but what in that time equaled those credentials) I still admit you are impressive, and I am glad to hear your opinions. You are exactly the person I look for when having a discussion. You have learned more than most normal people, you understand more than most normal people, and your opinions and thoughts have merit due to the fact you have been more educated. Alright, so you have given us your opinions on evolution, what about that vs creation? Should either one be taught as a scientific theory in school? Does the Grand Canyon prove creation like Dwayne Gish has taught in schools he has won? Is the Earth 6,000 years old? With the thermodynamics, could you explain this more? I have heard of this before but never fully understood it. Is it a theory or is it proven fact like round earth and not center of the universe?

[edit on 9-7-2004 by James the Lesser]

posted on Jul, 10 2004 @ 03:33 AM
Do you know that the entropy only has to rise in a closed system? Do you that the earth is an open system? I thought this was basic knowledge for someone with a science degree. Even if the entropy in the entire universe rises, there can be places where it is actually lowered, like the Earth.

The first assumption is not part of evolution, but of abiogenesis. Evolution postulates that there was simply a first organism, it doesn't care how the organism got there. Evolution only works when life is already there.

Can you explain the second assumption? I don't understand why you tihnk evolution assumes this. It took billions of years before the first organisms were there.

The third assumption is not an assumption, but has a lot of evidence supporting it. All organisms (except viruses, which can't really be called organisms) have DNA and a lot of this DNA is the same. There are about 300 genes which every organisms has, because otherwise it cannot live. These include the famous cytochromes and polymerases.

The fourth assumption is also not an assumption. There are intermediary cases where protozoa-like cells live in colonies working together, like yeasts. Furthermore, DNA evidence supports this link and morphological evidence also seems that this has happened. The link between Zygomycota, Chitridiomycota and Chlorobionts is obvious. Chlorobionts can be flagellated unicellular protozoa with cellulose that use photosynthesis. Chitridiomycota can have flagellated gametes, but live in colonies and have chitin instead of cellulose. But there is also a group within the Chitridiomycota that has cellulose. The link between the Chitridiomycota fungi and the more complex Zygomycota, Ascomycota, Basidiomycota and Mycomycota is obvious.

The fifth, sixth and seventh assumptions are also also not an assumptions. Transistional fossils seems to show this and the DNA does as well. I really urge you to look at Talk.Origins before you write another uninformed comment. There is plenty of evidence for evolution. Microevolution is even accepted by creationists and macroevolution has been observed (search of speciation at Talk.Origins).

I'll be on vacation for a week tommorrow, so I doubt I can reply to your comments on this post. I think James the Lesser can probably handle the comments. BlackJackal will be back soon as well, so you'll get some support attacking evolution.

posted on Jul, 10 2004 @ 12:49 PM
Look, I've presented my opinions and their basis just about as well as I can or have time to without an extensive search and discover trip. To answer James' opinion, I don't think either creationalism nor evolution should be taught in schools as a fact cast in concrete. I think evolution should be taught as a workable theory but in no way should we close the case. All I ask for is continued research into the questions neither of you seem to want answered but the mind of a scientist is quite different than one of a politician. All you want is a cause and once you've chosen it, whoa to those who might question it. You cannot pick and choose which evidence you want to accept and which is to be ignore much like our global warming crowd. I don't discount either theory by the way just wish to leave room for further study. If each of you believe in your conviction as strongly as you say then surely, it can stand further research, can it not?

The assumptions I listed are assumptions. In my opinion, evolution is based on faith just as much if not more than any theory out there. When we begin to look at the laws of probability for everything to be created exactly as it needed to be, the odds are astronomical. When we look at the fossil record, I believe we are seeing entropy in action. We see animals going extinct all around us, then why are there no new developing species. I do believe that certain adaptations and mutations to the environment occur over thousands of years but very minute changes at that.

posted on Jul, 10 2004 @ 01:37 PM
Alright Astrocreep, don't teach either as stone cold facts. But what parts? As said by me, others, MicroEvolution is even accepted by creationists.

Now if you are looking for the first being that evrything came from, well, I don't know, aliens? Actually, that is what the Raelians say, and they believe in creation. But there is also a third theory, that god created some things, but then allowed evolution to create the rest.

Now, yes things go extinct around us all the time. Most famous are the animals like the Dodo Bird and Tasmanian Tiger. Tasmanian Tiger was lost due to humans, same with the Dodo Bird. But what about new creations? Why aren't new species popping up everywhere? Well, how long did it take for the first mouse to come around? First bear? It took thousands if not millions of years for those species to evolve. Hell, if the dinosaurs hadn't died off they wouldn't be around period. There is a great case of, hmmm, what to call it? Dinosaurs around, mammals are mostly small rodents. Dinosaurs die off and mammals explode onto the scene. Why is that? Could that explain why there are so few new species? Before, when the dinosaurs were the king os the world, all other animals were few and far between. They died off and mammals come to rise and become the king. With humans we are king, and just as when the dinosaurs were king, other species are kept down. So maybe when we die off we will see a explosion of some new animals.

Anyways, I do agree with you Astrocreep on the teaching in school for while even the creationists agree that MicroEvolution exists, MacroEvolution is still disputed and until proven one way or the other should be taught in the scientific theory ways that it is.

posted on Jul, 10 2004 @ 08:40 PM
Well, I've done some research on entropy and whatnot and that is one of the reasons that I belive there has to be a controlling factor in the evolution of everything.

It is easily seen that in all cases now days (things could've been different back then though) low entropy systems do not arise from high entropy systems. Chaos does not become order without outside intervention. Being that it is generally hypothesized that the early days of the earth existed as a high entropy system it seems unlikely that a low entropy system would arise from it. Low entropy systems however can degenerate into high entropy more easily than vice versa.

The nitrogen cycle is a good example. Animals eat plants that get minerals from the ground. The animals die and the plant's minerals all return to the ground. Things like this are vital to the effective operation of the world. If everything was all crazy in the beginning of the evolution of the world then systems like the nitrogen cycle did not exist and so it would have been near impossible for even the simplest plants and animals to have conditions that would allow them to even begin to survive.

[edit on 10-7-2004 by lockheed]

posted on Jul, 10 2004 @ 08:43 PM
I'm sure someone has already said it, but just to reiterate...Maybe evolution is intelligent design. Creationism expressed in religion is a simple way to put it, not everyone in the time it was made could have understood all the concepts of evolution.

posted on Jul, 11 2004 @ 12:36 AM
Guys, guys there is no reason to argue this anymore. Creationism and evolution can exist alongside each other as they hold hands and frolick through green pastures under a clear blue sky. (...) Read this:

Or for a more scientific approach and a more clearer understanding I recommend reading Ervin Laszlo's book "The Connectivity Hypothesis".

I was going to summarize it but I don't think I can do it justice. It really is something you must read if you haven't been keeping up with quantum physics and other fields. This is of course just theories but it should make both sides of the argument happy and it makes a ton of sense (at least to me).

What really came as a shocker to me, in Ervin Laszlo's book (might be in the article above also), is that the universe itself is on a evolutionary pattern. The big bang has happened not once but a number of times. Humans exist each time in the evolutionary journey of the universe and supposedly each time they appear sooner and advance further as do all other concious entities in the universe. But don't worry creationists there is purpose behind it.

As for the purpose of the evolution of the universe I have my ideas but I don't feel like writing a book, so I leave that to discover for yourselves.

EDIT* I was just reading over that link I provided again. Looking objectively at that article I would say it probably appeals more to the creationists. Ervin Laszlo's book would probably be more suited to the mind of an evolutionist, though they both speak of the same thing. But if you have an open mind then there should be no problems.

[edit on 11-7-2004 by dusran]

posted on Jul, 11 2004 @ 10:17 AM
James, you are correct evolution doesn't happen by chance...If we were the result of chance we wouldn't be able to explain anything...
There is an order and design to nature and the universe...Now as to whether that design is the work of intelligence; thats another discussion...
One of the unanswered questions of evolution is WHY does it happen (typical of science to leave this question out). Sure, they can explain HOW it happens but they don't explain WHY. In other words, what is the purpose of it?...Do they expect one to believe that atoms have minds of there own and they say hey lets get together and form a molecule...Personally, It makes much more sense to say there is a purpose behind it all...To me, evolution is not the result of some mere coincedence...
Lower level forms are going to higher level forms...WHY?...I don't know...However, it seems almost like lifeforms are gradually building themselves up to a certain structure...A certain WHOLE & COMPLETE structure. Its part of the cosmic cycle...Tear down, build up, tear down, build up...
Okay, One question i'd like to know the answer to: Why didn't the first life form just continually duplicate itself instead of variations (that is the simplest thing that could have happened)

posted on Jul, 11 2004 @ 01:47 PM
By no means am I an expert on the subject, but I would like to point out that there are over twenty five thousand Names places and events mentioned in the Bible which have been verified by Archyologist. More are found evry day.

The most recent was the crash landing of Paul's vessel off the coast of Malta. For nearly two thousand years tradition (economically driven no doubt,) said it was in a certain bay of Malta; But Scientist Using the Bible as there guide which included drift and seasonal information created a computer program which concluded that it happened in a different bay of Malta. So with this new information the scientist set out for this bay where the Bible records Pauls ship going down and them loosing two lead Anchors. Guess What they found? You 'Got it- the two lead anchors exactly where the Bible describes it was sunk.

I got this information directly from the Author on a Janet Parcel program this week; the book should be out now. Sorry I don't have the title.

posted on Jul, 11 2004 @ 10:22 PM
Totally agree Graystar, I don't think anyone should doubt the historical fact of the bible. As for the theological truth within, that is for each person to make a personal decision about.

posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 06:07 AM

Originally posted by Amadeus

My question to you UnDomiel is: how on earth can you ever condone such material as being inspired by any god that purports to have any relevance in the 21st century for the general masses of earth's population i.e. the 99.999% who are not "Chosen"?

Because I believe inevitably that the other 99.9% will be chosen as well (which is a time puzzle that only seems relevant to us as we need to have things happen sequentially in order to make sense of them). I think that was Jesus' mission on earth, and I believe that the end result will be the same for everyone...eventually (there's that time thing again).

posted on Aug, 10 2004 @ 01:20 PM
Sorry, been gone on vacation and just going through and found this post again. Astro, you thermo theory, someone says that happens in a closed system, but the Earth is an open system, care to explain this?

posted on Aug, 11 2004 @ 12:30 AM
There has been some talk in this thread about laws of probability and chaos not producing order without outside intervention.

I would just like to comment on these little things without getting into the "creation vs evolution" debate. (I believe intellegent design can co-exist with science)

Given an arbitrarily large number of monkeys, each with a typewriter and an endless spool of paper, probability tells us that there is an extremely high probability (as x -> infinity, y -> 100%) that at least one of those monkeys will produce the complete works of Shakespeare without error.

This is the nature of probability and randomness in an arbitrarily large system. Order from Chaos.

posted on Aug, 11 2004 @ 11:57 AM
Monkeys typing out works of a old dead english man? But chance and evolution is not the same. Evolutionis about survival of the fittest, not chance.

The reason a apple tree is able to live in colder weather than the apple tree of say, 1500 is due to evolution. The reason it survives nowadays in cold tempatures is due to the changes that allowed to survive, not chance.

posted on Aug, 11 2004 @ 12:05 PM

Originally posted by James the Lesser
Sorry, been gone on vacation and just going through and found this post again. Astro, you thermo theory, someone says that happens in a closed system, but the Earth is an open system, care to explain this?

Nope, you have my opinion on it. Thats about all I have to offer. To be clear my opinion isn't asserting creationalism over evolution. My only point and opinion is that we should recognize that further research and progress in research may one day prove both wrong or right. When it comes to something as broad as this topic, I only suggest we don't carve it in stone just yet. The funny thing about humanity is that we all think we're living in the time where we know it all when we've only just begun to shed our ignorance.

posted on Aug, 11 2004 @ 04:04 PM
Alright, but still, Earth is an open system, could that make you thermo theory wrong? Or is it just a new thing to study. And it isn't set in stone, yet.

posted on Aug, 11 2004 @ 05:45 PM

Originally posted by James the Lesser
Monkeys typing out works of a old dead english man? But chance and evolution is not the same. Evolutionis about survival of the fittest, not chance.

The reason a apple tree is able to live in colder weather than the apple tree of say, 1500 is due to evolution. The reason it survives nowadays in cold tempatures is due to the changes that allowed to survive, not chance.

Unfortunately, intelligent design and science is not all about evolution. Before something could evolve, there had to be order from chaos.

You say an apple tree is able to live in colder weather than the apple tree of say 1500. My question for you is how many apple trees did not survive because some random alteration in their make-up did not allow them to survive colder weather?

Evolution involves slight mutations. Mutations are a product of probability. Thus they are a product of chance.

posted on Aug, 13 2004 @ 08:23 AM
While belief in the theory of evolution does not absolutely demand that one abandon his or her belief in the religious doctrines or spritiuality, this seems to be the general effect of the theory upon those who ascribe to it.

Belief in the theory of evolution is good for capitalist societies. People who only believe in the here and now are much more likely to devote the bulk of their time, energy, and resources to the creation and acquisition of material goods and comforts. Also, the fear of death is greatly increased amongst those who do not believe in the spiritual world or the afterlife. This fear provides governments with a more efficient and effective means of manipulating their populaces by threatening them with physical harm (either from themselves or others) or by promising them protection from said harm. By removing God from the equation as much as possible through various forms of indoctrination, ruling elites are then able to convince their citizens that only the brute force at their disposal can provide them with the safety and security they desire. The media is an effective tool of propaganda in this regard. True education is only provided to a limited few, while most are simply taught enough knowledge and skills to make them useful members of society while keeping them as ignorant as possible about everything that really matters. For most of the populace, critical thinking is not promoted in the areas of history, politics, or science. Religion and philosophy are humored only so long as they do not interfere excessively or unreasonably with the operation of society and the agenda of the ruling class. Religions, philosophies, scientific theories, and interpretations of history which pose an immediate danger to the control which elites exercise over the populace are, corrupted or discredited as much as possible (such as the conspiratorial view of history). Seminaries, churches, public schools, universities and all centers of cultural and intellectual training are infiltrated and controlled by the powers that be.
Furthermore, citizens are encouraged to work as much as possible in order to afford all the material goods which advertising agencies delude them into believing are essential to their happiness and well-being. Entertainment, chemical stimulants, and all manner of distractions and diversions are then created in order to consume the remainder of their time, so that the great majority of the human cattle never learn or gain the ability to question the reality which has been manufactured for them. The pleasures and comforts themselves became so easily acquired and readily available that they practically become necessities. Domesticated humans are now willing to trade freedom, not only for the illusion of safety and security, but merely for the maintenance of their comfortable and pleasure-seeking lifestyle.

Also, without the development of the theory of evolution, Christian cultural mores and taboos would never have been relaxed to such a degree that witchcraft, homosexuality, and child sacrifice (abortion) would become accepted as part of standard 'alternative lifestyles' in western society. This was not an accident. It did not happen by random chance, statistical probability, or as a result of cultural evolution. It happened by design.

I have many problems with evolution, but I won't go into them at this time. However, here is one argument for intelligent desgin:

Everything organic is similar in structure because one supernatural being designed and created it all. Only in a universe designed by multiple beings should one logically expect fundamentally different designs to exist. If I decide to build my world from Legos, I won't then decide half-way through to start using Tinker Toys, as the two won't fit together properly.

[edit on 13-8-2004 by Ischyros]

posted on Aug, 13 2004 @ 09:29 AM
ill trough a bit of info into the fray . And Im very bold so ill tell you to read more science . Because Science is one half step away from creating life from basice protiens in the labe now. They have got to the point to were the protiens divide and multplie creating new protiens . Sound alot like what a cell does humm? The point to this is life can start from inert umm soup for lack of better word. And science is on the verge of proving it as well. So here we are provien micro evolution and as far as im conserned proven macro evolution as well .(After all what is a poodel but a Wolf evolved Or a chicken that was a bird that could FLY and has been changed so much that is now flytless.
Also take a look at the whales skellition and you will see the animal has TOE bones . A land animal oringaly but went back to the ocean.
there are hundreds of animals that CLEARLY show there evloutional history in there bodies. Hay how come some few humans are born with tails?
How come a fetis (babby goes through the whole evoluatinary cycle?
FROM ONE count um One cell in first trimester HAS GILLS at one point and a tail (the gills and tail and even Scales are reabsurbed in the second trymester.
So you can start with a strial planet and get life and after that its just a matter of time. Personly I think science has proven behond dought the hows and were we came from .And I think people only hold on to religion because it scares the daylights out of them .
Because if you accept that we evolved then it calls into question your mortailty your soul you indivality Humans oo just another animal .
well if it makes you feal better science has also showen that a life force (lack of better term excists as well and doesent know much more about it then that yet . Enstine him self said Matter or energy CANNOT be destroyed only converted . Meining the energy in your body HAS to still excist after your body dies. So the only other question is the energy still you or does is it just asurbed and added into the general energy in the air.
Do you want to live forever? think of what forever real means.

posted on Aug, 13 2004 @ 11:16 AM

Originally posted by Simcity4Rushour
Hay how come some few humans are born with tails?

What? Since when? Dragon Ball is not real, it's only a story. And besides Goku was an alien (a Sayan).

Originally posted by Simcity4RushourHow come a fetis (babby goes through the whole evoluatinary cycle?
FROM ONE count um One cell in first trimester HAS GILLS at one point and a tail (the gills and tail and even Scales are reabsurbed in the second trymester.

They don't. That's not true. It doesn't happen. Humans are human from the moment of conception. Period.

Originally posted by Simcity4Rushour
Do you want to live forever? think of what forever real means.

No, I don't want to live forever in my present imperfect form. But I will do want to exist forever. There is not point in living at all if at some point I cease to have consciousness. My God promises me that I will exist forever, but not in this body. Upon my resurrection, I will have a supernatural body that will no longer be confined to linear time and nor limited to three spatial dimensions.

Problems with Evolution:

The theory of evolution is a pseudo-science. It is a religion of nothingness and despair deceptively cloaked in the guise of science and reason.

Microevolution is simply the ability of species to adapt to their environments based on the wide range of possibilities contained within their genetic code. Creatures do not need to develop beneficial mutations, the adaptability is built-in.

Evolution should be a constant and on-going process. Why are transitional forms non-existent at this time?

Much of science is based on the assumption that conditions on earth have always been the same or similar to the conditions we find today. Massive catastrophes could drastically alter the geological and fossil record.

Incomplete (large gaps in the) fossil record. Lack of transitional forms/species. Throughout the process of macroevolution, species must remain well-adapted to their environments.

Highly touted evidence for evolution: a few scattered bone fragments here and there. A couple of skeletons that may or not be ape, hominid, human, alien, or anything in-between. Most of the people who actively seek out fossils on a regular basis are scientists who are usually trying to prove evolution. These scientists interpret the data they find according to the confines of the paradigm which has been created for them and in which they choose to operate. However, before evolution became standard scientific doctrine and disagreeing with it become tantamount to heresy, there were several anamolous finds in the archaelogical and fossil records. See the book Forbidden Knowledge by Michael Cremo and Richard L. Thompson for example. Unfortunately, all data and evidence that does not fit within the standard evolutionary paradigm is either discredited, destroyed, covered-up, hidden, or simply ignored.

The following is a quote from a article concerning a recent expedition to Tunguska which is interesting in light of this:

"They are not undertaking a scientific expedition, that is, an unbiased investigation to see what happened," Plait said Thursday via e-mail. "They are going to try to prove their preconceived ideas. That's not science, that's religion. And it almost certainly means that they are more willing to ignore or play down any evidence that it was a comet or rock impact [substitute intelligent design], while playing up anything they find consistent with their hypothesis [human evolution in apes in the case of our argument]."

Punctuated equilibrium - Sciencespeak for Miracle.

Personifying blind, natural forces. How often have I read or heard the words "Nature will find a way" in evolutionary literature. There is a word for this. It's called Animism and it's not very scientific.

Evolution of all life on earth from single-celled organisms represents a statistical improbability

Time - The wonderful thing about evolution is that no natural human being or organism that we know of will ever be able to live long enough to prove or disprove the possibility of evolution over periods of millions of years.

Linguistics - Language (not communication, I mean language) is the key dividing point between humans and animals. Through language we share our individual consciousness with others. The only commonaiity shared by all languages is that they have grammar and syntax. Many human languages are so drastically different from one another that they could not have had a common ancestor. Some languages, such as the non-Indo-European Basque, are surrrounded by other languages which are of an entirely different family. Also, the languages of primitive societies are no less complex than those of advanced ones.

I'll leave you with the following:

Question: What hope does humanity have if there is no existence beyond this world?

Answer: If physical death is the end, then humans ultimately have no hope. At its core, the theory of evolution is a philosophy of despair. Evolutionism is materialistic nihilism.

[edit on 20-8-2004 by Ischyros]

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in