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.

 

Creation/Intelligent Design vs Evolution/Science Your thoughts?

page: 7
2
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by BeefotronX

Originally posted by LuDaCrIs
How is adapting better to a certain environment a decay from an originally perfect state?...If it was in a perfect state, why would it need to change in the first place? let alone into something less.


Mutation happens. Most mutations are detrimental. Natural selection is not potent enough to stop all degeneration. Slight reductions in efficiency are not enough to guarantee death before reproduction, and since this happens more often than improvements in efficiency, the trend is toward reduced efficiency.


Maybe because i am burnt out and hungover that i dont understand. But can u please explain this more clearly to me. I am sorry..i jsut dont see what you're trying to say here...




posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 12:01 PM
link   
the way I see it neather side has proven anything beyond a shadow of a doubt I however place my bets on science since it employs a system of logic
where the creationalists only go by written he said/she said stuff.

and even if the creationalists do turn out to be right(wich I doubt) it wont be proven by them but by the scientists ironicly enough because even if a scientist subscibes to a theory they tend to keep seeking new information weather it proves or disproves their subscribed theorys

unlike the crationalists that havent outgrown he said/she said (which the bible amounts to) long after high school



posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 01:10 PM
link   


and even if the creationalists do turn out to be right(wich I doubt) it wont be proven by them but by the scientists ironicly enough because even if a scientist subscibes to a theory they tend to keep seeking new information weather it proves or disproves their subscribed theorys


Sounds like you worship science. Pity



posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by LuDaCrIs

Originally posted by BeefotronX

Originally posted by LuDaCrIs
How is adapting better to a certain environment a decay from an originally perfect state?...If it was in a perfect state, why would it need to change in the first place? let alone into something less.


Mutation happens. Most mutations are detrimental. Natural selection is not potent enough to stop all degeneration. Slight reductions in efficiency are not enough to guarantee death before reproduction, and since this happens more often than improvements in efficiency, the trend is toward reduced efficiency.


Maybe because i am burnt out and hungover that i dont understand. But can u please explain this more clearly to me. I am sorry..i jsut dont see what you're trying to say here...


I could be wrong, but what I think this person is trying to say is that genetic information is in a constant state of degradation. Mutations ARE occuring all the time. Most of these are not lethal mutations, but mutations that result in a less efficient organism overall. Evidence of such genetic degradation would include things like increasing cancer occurance, increasing genetic disorders, both small and large scale like increasing visual difficulties to an increase in disorders such as MS, or huntington's.



posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 05:42 PM
link   
Like 1000 years ago there was no MS or Lou Gherigs or need for glasses?(I think IDK, maybe they did but back then was called demons) Well, every year they come up with a new disorder/disease, this could be a sign of degredation, or a sign of other things evolving and becoming more powerful then they once were.(Mad Cow anyone?)



posted on Feb, 3 2005 @ 02:09 AM
link   
I have been reading all or at least most of your guys posts and they present very interesting arguements for both sides. I dont know too much about all this scientific stuff but i have one question that has been bothering me. The laws of thermodynamics clearly states that energy is neither created nor destroyed and that it is conserved and can change form. If the universe needed energy to form itself then where did all the energy come from. In my opinion, there is no way energy could have created itself or just happen to be there in order for the universe to exist. Now this is the reason I do believe in God and that he "intelligently" created it. Just maybe God was the energy to supply the universe because that energy was always there. For according to the bible , God has always existed and that there is no beginning or end. Now of course our minds will believe thats impossible because, to us there has to be a beginning and a end. But maybe our mind do not have the capacity to reason beyond what our brains allows us too. And remember we use only 10 % of our brain. Perhaps if we were able to use that other 90% of our brain we able to comprehend further of the comlpex theories and concepts that our mind so long eluded us.So that is why I believe in intelligent design because energy is neither created nor destroyed for God was this energy for he had always existed. Of course i have no evidence to support this claim of mine but i thought i should spoken my mind. SO if any1 has any answers pertaining to the laws of thermodynamics please reply.


And no more damn sarcasm. Its gets really annoying.



posted on Feb, 3 2005 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fingon
And remember we use only 10 % of our brain. Perhaps if we were able to use that other 90% of our brain

This is a myth, not true. We use all of our brains, just not all at once.


SO if any1 has any answers pertaining to the laws of thermodynamics please reply.

I really only know about the 2nd law, and pretty much only with respect to abiogenesis.



posted on Feb, 3 2005 @ 01:54 PM
link   
We don't use 100% of it at once, probably explode if we did. Anyways, I don't know about the thermodynamics.



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 12:36 AM
link   
What are thermodynamics? Also, mutations happen all the time, some bad, some good.

The good survive, the bad die. Like all those frogs growing legs out there back or no eyes. While others, like the mutation of opposable thumbs is a good thing, makes it easier to masturbate.(For men anyways, women only needed 1-2 fingers but no thumbs)



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 12:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by James the Lesser
Like 1000 years ago there was no MS or Lou Gherigs or need for glasses?(I think IDK, maybe they did but back then was called demons) Well, every year they come up with a new disorder/disease, this could be a sign of degredation, or a sign of other things evolving and becoming more powerful then they once were.(Mad Cow anyone?)


1000 years ago you can't find any documentation on the common cold because as you said they thought it was demons or evil spirits. It wasn't until the 1860's when Louis Pasteur did his research in fermentation that the germ theory began to be studied.

Also MS isn't a disease caused by a virus or bacteria it is a neuroligical disorder first reported in 1380 in a Dutch nun. Currently there is no known cause or cure. Same thing goes with Lou Gehrig's disease it is neurological not cause by any evolving creature. Also mad cow disease is the result of prions which are essentially ill formed proteins which infect the cows neural system.

This may be a sign of degredation but not a sign of anything getting stronger.



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 12:38 AM
link   
A horse is a horse of course of course, unless of course it evolves into a fish.

Come on people a human is a human, we have always been human, and will always be human. If we supposedly evolved from apes, then why are there still apes? I believe a creature can adapt to it's surroundings to an extent, but not evolve into something completely different. It does not make sense. How did a fish just suddenly decide to grow legs and lungs and walk up onto land? Doesn't hold water.



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 01:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by deesw
Come on people a human is a human, we have always been human, and will always be human. If we supposedly evolved from apes, then why are there still apes?

www.abovetopsecret.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow"> www.abovetopsecret.com...

How did a fish just suddenly decide to grow legs and lungs and walk up onto land? Doesn't hold water.

You might find this interesting:


The Mexican axolotl (Ambystoma mexicanum) is a classic example of paedomorphosis: the axolotl is an aquatic salamander, and it reproduces in what was ancestrally a juvenile form

www.blackwellpublishing.com...



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 08:08 AM
link   
Dude, this proves nothing. Did anyone stay with these creatures for hundreds of years and actually videotape these creatures morphing into a completely different species? What came first the chicken or the egg? The chicken of course. A fully grown chicken at that, then it laid eggs that hatched out another chicken, identicle to it's parent completely as far as genetic makeup goes.



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by deesw
Dude, this proves nothing.

Well for starters it proved you wrong. I gave you an example of a fish just suddenly deciding to grow legs and lungs and walking up onto land. Axilotls are the transitional species to salamandas.



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 06:13 PM
link   
I cannot believe that you are trying to say that because there are amphibians, it is proof that fish learned to walk on land.


Hey, because there are spiders, we know that the octopus evolved too ehh?

I cannot believe you played that. If you stick with it, I am going to fish for that cealocanth (sp?). You guys love that one.

Salamanders, eels, frogs, etc are not proof of evolution. They are proof that there are billions of missing fossils in the missing link group



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by jake1997
I cannot believe that you are trying to say that because there are amphibians, it is proof that fish learned to walk on land.

Contragulations for actually looking it up.
If they did not have legs.. they might be classified as fish. A fish with legs would be classified as an amphibian.. pretty simple really.. I can't believe you can't understand this.
They may've been fish 50 thousand years ago.. and my main [ignored of course] point is that they are the transitional subspecies to salamadas.. which live on LAND not in water.

[edit on 5-8-2005 by riley]



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 10:43 AM
link   
But riley that makes sense! They can't do that they might learn something. I swear someone yelling in tongues while rolling on the floor is proof of religon but science/facts/evidence is "EVIL! EAT BABIES!"

I can't stand the ignorance of people, so sad they need Father McGrady who just got done committing several sins with an Alter Boy to tell them what is right and wrong.



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by riley

Originally posted by jake1997
I cannot believe that you are trying to say that because there are amphibians, it is proof that fish learned to walk on land.

Contragulations for actually looking it up.
If they did not have legs.. they might be classified as fish.

LOLOL
You said that as a joke right!!?



A fish with legs would be classified as an amphibian.. pretty simple really.. I can't believe you can't understand this.

Not.
I think we should just take a time out while you read up on this subject some more. Here is a good place to start



They may've been fish 50 thousand years ago.. and my main [ignored of course] point is that they are the transitional subspecies to salamadas.. which live on LAND not in water.

[edit on 5-8-2005 by riley]

I think you meant lizards...reptiles. Either way your wrong. You are making a statement that you cannot prove. Its equal to "God dunnit".



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 08:40 PM
link   
From your link:

Amphibians, the most primitive of the terrestrial vertebrates, are intermediate in evolutionary position between the fish and the reptiles.

Just an idea.. but perhaps, to save yourself from looking stupid.. you should actually read your own links before posting them.


[edit on 6-8-2005 by riley]



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 08:51 PM
link   


A fish with legs would be classified as an amphibian.. pretty simple really.. I can't believe you can't understand this.


We agree then that this is refuted?
Good.

As for the line you quoted ....it is no different then your own version of that same statement. It is an unprovable fantasy based on someone elses idea.
The missing links are still missing.

Hey...
In consideration of this whole non-living stuff coming together and forming life...
Why didnt any non living stuff come together and form any non living stuff like a steel serated knife, a steel hammer, a penny, etc..

I mean...if there was enough time for non living matter to come to life and form all these complex things like people, dogs, bacteria.....then why couldnt it do those?

To you... this may seem 'out there'. But to me...it is less 'out there' then life from non life. Has this ever been considered?



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join