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.

 

The Cambrian Explosion Questions Evolutionary Theory !

page: 4
5
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


I think you meant throw... not meaning to be a grammar Nazi, but it took me two re-reads before I finally got it.

While a massive explosion in form could be an alien life-form seeding the planet, they'd be

a) redundant, since single celled pre-cambrian life-forms abound, not to mention a number of blastulated metazoa and even, unless I'm mistaken about the origins of comb-jellies, gastrulated ones, which meant that we get most of the way to the bilateralia (all the single-plane symmetrical animals) even without the cambrian explosion (which was largely of the Bilateralia, I think...).

b) very patient. It might have been quick, but only in the sense that Greenland moving a couple of metres a year is quick. A million years is a long time to spend seeding.

(Not rejecting it outright - that's against company policy - but alternative evidence holds greater weight, so I am saying it seems unlikely. Starred, though, for branching out from "God did it" to "Aliens could have done it.")
edit on 12/1/2011 by TheWill because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





But there's no evidence or proof of such an intelligence!


Really?

That argument cuts both ways.
The astounding complexity of the universe gives me evidence of an intelligence, it is all a matter of perspective that formulates our personal reality.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





But there's no evidence or proof of such an intelligence!


Really?

That argument cuts both ways.
The astounding complexity of the universe gives me evidence of an intelligence, it is all a matter of perspective that formulates our personal reality.


Which makes you the prime example of someone who substitutes a lack in knowledge with magic. You are filling a gap in knowledge with god, which of course is the obvious god of the gaps argument


Thousands of years ago, cavemen attributed fire to god because they thought it was complex and they couldn't explain it. You're essentially doing the same thing...in the 21st century! Quite sad imo



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 




Thousands of years ago, cavemen attributed fire to god because they thought it was complex and they couldn't explain it. You're essentially doing the same thing...in the 21st century! Quite sad imo


Really? who is making crap up now?



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kayzar
reply to post by MrXYZ
 




Thousands of years ago, cavemen attributed fire to god because they thought it was complex and they couldn't explain it. You're essentially doing the same thing...in the 21st century! Quite sad imo


Really? who is making crap up now?


Only 2000 years ago people attributed a comet to god


So to answer your question: YOU!



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Which makes you the prime example of someone who substitutes a lack in knowledge with magic.


Now that is just a crazy statement, there is nothing magical about DNA/RNA, proteins, and amino acids and the biological complexity of the cell, as the video discusses.
What you call a lack of knowledge, actually isn't, I have been researching this for decades, I have just come to a different conclusion than you.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


But implying some intelligent being aided in it all without providing the slightest amount of evidence is using the god of the gaps argument. By implying there's some super-intelligence, without providing any kind of scientific support, you are filling a gap in knowledge with a mythical being. No other way to twist it



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by Kayzar
reply to post by MrXYZ
 




Thousands of years ago, cavemen attributed fire to god because they thought it was complex and they couldn't explain it. You're essentially doing the same thing...in the 21st century! Quite sad imo


Really? who is making crap up now?


Only 2000 years ago people attributed a comet to god


So to answer your question: YOU!

Wrong again, Aristotle (BC era) and Seneca the Younger both had valid opinions of what comets were none of which included god. Well sime people may have thought it was god im sure there are just as many today that think god has something to do with it.
And for 120,000 years man as controlled fire. That still does not do anything to back up your claim of "cavemen" attributing fire to a god.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Kayzar
 


You do know the world was full of sun worshippers, and to some extent still is, right?


And I'm sure you heard about the 3 wise men being led by a comet which was a sign of god to lead them to Jesus, right?

We had TONS of civilization that worshipped (and still worship) animals as either gods or messengers of god, without having the slightest bit of evidence!!



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Kayzar
 





Wrong again, Aristotle (BC era) and Seneca the Younger both had valid opinions of what comets were none of which included god. Well sime people may have thought it was god im sure there are just as many today that think god has something to do with it.


Yeah, scientists and intelligence of that time probably had more realistic opinions about comets, and also shape of the Earth or fire. It was the laymen where those naive ideas were prevalent. Just like with creationism today..



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
Because this is ATS I am going to throw this out there, what about an alternative theory to the Cambrian explosion, that it wasn't God at all but, but an another intelligent life form in the universe seeding the planet with life?

The video's presented says nothing about an almighty Creator, it just says this is all too complicated and relatively quick not to have had something smarter help it along. It never said what that smarter source is, perhaps it is implied, of coarse we are pre-disposed to accept or reject what we think it is implying based on our personal worldview

But really once I thought about it, I realized that if you watch these videos without bias either way, theist or atheist, that other option has a level of legitimate interest, intelligence begets intelligent design, it is a basic fundamental truth in the non-biological world.

If we all step away from our preconceived idea's you can't help but wonder what is the source of the intelligence?
edit on 12-1-2011 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)


I dont understand?

Even if some tinkering alien or an infested rock from far far away kick started life how does this invalidate evolution?

I was under the impression that evolution does not describe how life started, just how it got from there to here and the processess/pressures that drive it.

So how do you expalin the diversity of life without evolution?



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 




In other words...magic




posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 04:12 PM
link   
I think the creationists will stop using the bible as a credible source when people stop using family guy,south park and george carlin as a source.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Kayzar
 


You could ignore that post as I did and answer my question which I asked nicely.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kayzar

Originally posted by Kailassa

Originally posted by Kayzar
reply to post by Byrd
 

I was saying this is inaccurate

Not this

I'm curious, Kayzar.
What's wrong with the reconstruction from the A.afarensis skeleton, and how do you belive it should look?


Re-read then re-post

Well that's pretty rude.

I asked you a polite question because I was interested in what you could tell me about how you believed the reconstruction should look. I'd already read the thread, and all you'd said was:

Not to mention the reconstruction of ancient homo fossils are done so carelessly with little reguard for facts. Many of the fossil reconstructions and renditions of what a species might have looked like is done so to support the ape to man theory.
.
It's easy to say, "that's wrong."
I wanted to know what's right.
So instead of imparting any actual ideas or information, you've succeeded in giving the impression you're just one more nay-sayer who doesn't know what he's talking about.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kayzar
I think the creationists will stop using the bible as a credible source when people stop using family guy,south park and george carlin as a source.

Would you like an explanation of the difference between a source and an illustration?
Or do you think you might be able to research that one for yourself?



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


But there's no evidence or proof of such an intelligence!

Really?
That argument cuts both ways.
The astounding complexity of the universe gives me evidence of an intelligence, it is all a matter of perspective that formulates our personal reality.

Ever looked at the complexity of snowflakes?
They are wonderfully intricate, and each one is different.
Do you believe god makes each one individually, or do you believe they are created by natural forces?



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by Kayzar
 


You could ignore that post as I did and answer my question which I asked nicely.

you were asking bluejay not me



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Kailassa
 



Well that's pretty rude.

I asked you a polite question because I was interested in what you could tell me about how you believed the reconstruction should look. I'd already read the thread, and all you'd said was:

How is that rude? You obviouslt misunderstood what i said so i told you to re-read and repost.


It's easy to say, "that's wrong."
I wanted to know what's right.

Nobody knows for sure what is right, the chimpification of the fossils only serves to further the idea of evolution. Putting hair to make these fossils look like human ape hybrids is as about as accurate as putting bibles in their hands. It is crap that has been made up.


So instead of imparting any actual ideas or information, you've succeeded in giving the impression you're just one more nay-sayer who doesn't know what he's talking about.

How is it i don't know what im talking about? Byrd stopped by and apparently works in the field and he agrees with me.
edit on 12-1-2011 by Kayzar because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kayzar

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by Kayzar
 


You could ignore that post as I did and answer my question which I asked nicely.

you were asking bluejay not me


Its a forum not a conversation, feel free to respond. I dont really care who answers my question



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join