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: 8
2
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by deesw
If we supposedly evolved from apes, then why are there still apes?

A common misconception of evolution. We did not evolve from apes, we had a common ancestor.


Originally posted by deesw
I believe a creature can adapt to it's surroundings to an extent, but not evolve into something completely different.

Mutations happen, and when the mutations are beneficial they get passed on to the next generation. Why couldn't benefical mutations in a changing enviroment lead to bigger changes?


Originally posted by deesw
How did a fish just suddenly decide to grow legs and lungs and walk up onto land? .


It didn't decide anything. The enviroment changed, and when there was a benficial mutation it got passed on. How is that so far fetched?




posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 07:17 AM
link   
or did evolution use to teach that we came from apes?

Another 'misconception' is that origins is part of evolution.
Is it really, or was origins part of the evolution teaching at one time?

It seems to me that the text books of old had those two things in them. Dont know about now days, but Im fairly certain of the other.



posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by jake1997
or did evolution use to teach that we came from apes?

I don't think so. It has become apparent here that no matter how many times people are told "No.. we share a common ancestor.".. the same people will still read it as "Ape.". I suspect this ignorance/miscommunication has always been the case. People just had/have trouble absorbing the fact that humans and monkeys are related and that is the thing that sticks in their minds most. It may also be true that text books etc. only had one or two fossil examples to go by back then- they only knew a fraction of what they know now about how ancestory.


[edit on 7-8-2005 by riley]



posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 10:29 PM
link   


It didn't decide anything. The enviroment changed, and when there was a benficial mutation it got passed on. How is that so far fetched?


How is it so far fetched that God Almighty created all things?



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 02:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by deesw

How is it so far fetched that God Almighty created all things?

Because it has no way to be scientificly backed up. Also he didn't create me, I'm quite sure that my parents and a bottle of tequila had a lot to do with that one



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 04:54 AM
link   
and you think random mutation (as if random was a force) is scientific?



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 01:04 PM
link   
What I don't get is the same people who want smart people killed agree with the THEORY of GRAVITY but kill people over the Theory of Evolution.

I keep telling them but they don't listen, if all theories are wrong prove it, jump off the Empire State Building. They never do though, pity, if all the creationists did the world IQ would jump 20 points on average.



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by jake1997
and you think random mutation (as if random was a force) is scientific?


Mutations are observed. Random doesn't mean force, nor does it imply some type of force. Random just means that it doesn't occur in any set pattern.



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 03:53 PM
link   
No they were not observed.
From the supposed first single cell, to everything we have today...it was not observed. All of the gaps are still gaps. The links are still missing.
Time and random chance are the magic spirit of evolution.
Dont know how its possible to get from N to O? Just add time and chance.

Sorta like, 'God dunnit"



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 05:55 PM
link   
Thank you Jake. Could not have put it any better.



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 03:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by jake1997
No they were not observed.


Well lets start with This. A general list of types of mutations.
We have sickle cell anemia.
Some sources. here

some more here showing the advantage of the mutation
If sickle cell anemia is so deadly, why are so many people heterozygous carriers of the disease? Moreover, why does the disease afflict predominantly one racial group? Surpisingly, the answer has to do with malaria. Heterozygote sickle cell carriers are much more resistant to malaria than those with just normal hemoglobin

Here's more on Sickle cell from PBS
here's some on genetic mutations in jewish populations
here

Here's a really recent one on parkinson's disease. From the little I read it seems that the mutation discovered shows signs that the disease progressed at a slower pace and the symptoms are not as strong.


Parkinson's disease study from Indiana University
“Our results suggest that the mutation we have studied is the most common cause of Parkinson’s disease identified to date,” said Dr. Foroud. “While a great deal of work remains to be done, it is clear that any future genetic testing for Parkinson’s disease must include studies of the LRRK2 gene.”

The patients in the Indiana University study who had the mutation had longer disease duration but less severe symptoms when they were participating in the trial. That suggests that the mutation may be associated with slower disease progression, said Dr. Foroud.

I could go on but I make my point that they are observed.



All of the gaps are still gaps. The links are still missing.
Time and random chance are the magic spirit of evolution.

There will always be a "missing link" Because whenever you fill in what people consider a "missing link" you will always create two more "missing links". We actually have a nice fossil record that has several "gaps" filled. We observe the transitions in these fossils. We observe a transition from smilodectes (prosimian) eventually we get to australopithicenes, which we see a branching one going to the robust and the other to gracile. We see the gracile charateristics eventually leading up to anatamoically modern humans.



Dont know how its possible to get from N to O? Just add time and chance.

The process by which speciation occurs, is debateable. There could be and I would not be surprised if in the end there were several processes that all could lead to speciation. Genetic mutation being just one and it's well supported.



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 05:58 PM
link   


Genetic mutation being just one and it's well supported.


But who are those that support it? The very beings that believe in evolution. You have to admit that "SCIENCE" is very egotistical.
I've actually watched National Geographic Channel and seen a "Scientist" walking in the desert and he finds a skull and can somehow tell you how tall this person was, what color skin, what type of job, dog or cat person, Nike lover or Reebok and how many children he had. I've watched as it was explained by a "Scientist" exactly how hot a star light years away is.
I mean COME ON.



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 11:21 AM
link   
Deesw, im willing to bet that sceientists that devote their lives to studying something can tell you a great deal about their subject.

Just because you dont understand it doesnt make it impossible.



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by James the Lesser
Browha, is it a book? I am at the library even as we speak! Hell, sounds like a good read.

Jonna, it is taught in school, but I think only a few teach it as fact. Maybe .2% of all the schools do. But evolution is fact, they have proven it. What most people think about is Macroevolution. But isn't a apple tree large enough to count? It isn't a virus or bacteria, it is a plant.

Ok, I am going to try to explain theory as well as I can. Not to the ones who have posted so far, but to make sure there is no more confusion.

Scientific theory is not a guess. The Earth being round is called the Theroy of a round Earth. The fact that gravity exists is called the Theory of Gravity. In science theory does not mean guess, it does not mean we got bored, did acid, and came up with this while on a bad acid trip, it means facts/proofs/study. If it is not proven yet but can be studied, then it is a theory. One can study evolution, and proven it in labs with microevolution. Creation you can't study for the creationists say the bible is their proof and it can't be denounced. ICR and other creationists research labs try to disprove evolution, they don't try to prove creation for according to them creation has already been proven by the bible. We are here, the bible says how we are here, proof! But they don't look into anything to prove the bible is right. They don't worry about inbreeding, genetics, DNA, anything.

God is not a science. The bible is not a science. Creation is not a science, yet. Creation could become a science if someone were to study it and prove any part of it. Microevolution has been proven, fossil records prove evolution of cats, dogs, dolphins, fish, sharks, so forth. Evolution has facts and proofs, creation does not.


Okay James, you an' I're gonna lock horns!

You say Theories aren't guesses? The following is from Webster's II New Riverside Dictionary (The Office Edition)

THE-O-RY

1. A general principle formulated to accout for certain observable phenomena. A Hypothesis.

2. A body of principles governing the study or practice of an art or disipline.

3. Abstract reasoning.

4. AN ASSUMPTION. A GUESS.

Clear, concise, and complete enough?

Now on the subject of inbreeding, genetics, DNA, anything...all I can say is read Leviticus..yep, read the whole book. Therein is a list of sex laws, including inbreeding. Yep, even ancient Israelites knew better than to let "daddy sleep with his daughters" or "letting the boys get too friendly with their aunts. " (obviously, I'm paraphrasing).

Lastly, what exactly is wrong with Self-Evidence as proof of anything? In most courts of law, self-evidence is the only evidence acceptable. If it isn't something the Prosecutor can lay on the table, or something that someone can say they saw or heard firsthand, it isn't admissable. Clearly, Intelligent Design doesn't fit in this catagory...but neither does Evolution.

If what we're teaching is THEORIES, then both qualify.

P.S. I thought in order for something to be recognized as a Science, it had to be replicatable in a Lab. Does Evolution fit here?



[edit on 10-8-2005 by Toelint]



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Toelint
You say Theories aren't guesses? The following is from Webster's II New Riverside Dictionary (The Office Edition)
THE-O-RY
1. A general principle formulated to accout for certain observable phenomena. A Hypothesis.
2. A body of principles governing the study or practice of an art or disipline.
3. Abstract reasoning.
4. AN ASSUMPTION. A GUESS.
If what we're teaching is THEORIES, then both qualify.

A theory is not just any guess. Dictionary.com:

A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

A hypothesis based on the evidence.



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 09:55 PM
link   
But it is a theory none the less. It takes just as much faith to believe in evolution as it does creationism. The only difference is that evolutionists refuse to have faith in anything they cannot physicly prove. That denies the principal of faith. Faith is the firm belief in something that you cannot see or touch smell or prove. Try and prove that love exists. You cannot see it or touch it or prove it.



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 03:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by deesw
But it is a theory none the less. It takes just as much faith to believe in evolution as it does creationism. The only difference is that evolutionists refuse to have faith in anything they cannot physicly prove. That denies the principal of faith. Faith is the firm belief in something that you cannot see or touch smell or prove. Try and prove that love exists. You cannot see it or touch it or prove it.


Creationism is blind faith. Evolution has evidence. We can prove that genetic mutations occur, we know these mutations have a direct effect on populations, We know gene flow and genetic drift occur. We know that hybridization occurs.We know that genetic material can be gained or lost.

What does love have to do with anything. It is not used in any science, it would be a sociology matter rather than a physical science.



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 11:30 PM
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?...


Oh come on, we are apes! The only reason religion attempts to seperate humans from animals is to justify killing them. Plants are given as food in Genesis, so all the carnivorous literalists are hallal. And Christianity additionally tries to set itself apart, so many times I've heard, "it's not a religion" in a vague gesture of uniqueness. How could that be to a thinking person? That is because it's really all a matter of conjecture, who really has the originals anyway? The oldest known (mostly complete) Bibles, the Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, contain deletions, scribal additions and verses not in any modern edition. Hmmm. Of course, myriad tomes of literature exist regarding early writings of the Common Era, as well as the background religiousity.

In my abundant experience with this religion, I find that it is always one group or another who wants to hold Jesus and the Bible as a hostage. And each sect has particular superstitions that are sacred to them. Moreover, their hostility to science is both unconscionable and inexplicable. Of course it may very well be that science is threatening to specific superstitious constructs. That would explain their hubris.

No science is off limits to fundamentalists' derision. In fact, even classical Newtonian physics is mindlessly derided, especially the Second Law of Thermodynamics. While I was serving as a deacon in a First Presbyterian Church, the minister made very specific points about that, despite him never having taken physics. I objected, though none there could understand what I was saying (in est, the language "tongues" of science).

At other places in Central Illinois and Indiana, I frequently heard the radio clergy assert verbal proofs, at least to their own satisfaction, that entropy is fantasy. Apparently, they think that would make their case for ID easier. But the logic escapes them, that if in a closed system entropy increases, then it would actually take an intelligent designer to impose the order we observe. Ergo, they would have at least one logical point favoring the ID "hypothesis." But of course, it's not science they're selling and they've already struck down the Second Law.

To maintain creationism then, is simply to argue against centuries of solid, logical evidence. Apparently, the religion is entirely invalidated by science and so that has become a target. It is much more comfortable with medieval ideologies. After the Age of Enlightenment is repudiated by the church, will it want to re-establish the feudal system?



posted on Aug, 12 2005 @ 12:48 AM
link   
We didn't evolve from apes deesw this is just more christian stupidity. How come you haven't jumped off the Empire State Building? Gravity is just a theory therefor you should be able to fly all you wanted. But guess what? You will drop like a sack of potatoes. But gravity is only a theory, so is the earth being round and having a solid core. Yet being a hypocrit/christian you accept the THEORY of gravity yet want people executed for being smart.



posted on Aug, 12 2005 @ 05:47 PM
link   
So now I'm stupid huh james? Well dude it's bout' ta get real up in here. You can talk bad bout' some things, but when ya attacks a man's faith,,,,,, it's on. I will be waiting for an apology or someone to intervene.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join