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: 5
5
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kailassa

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?

I don't believe i gave never i have said anything about god creating anything and it is pretty obvious that they are created by natural forces. Im not sure how "complex" they are because they are only "complex" on a superficial level, they are all still basically frozen water.




posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kayzar

Originally posted by Kailassa

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?

I don't believe i gave never i have said anything about god creating anything and it is pretty obvious that they are created by natural forces. Im not sure how "complex" they are because they are only "complex" on a superficial level, they are all still basically frozen water.

And stars are still basically hot, dense hidrogen. And any astronomy text book about the sun will show you they are pretty complex, while still being a big freaking ball of gas...


But the MAIN thing here is: EVOLUTION DOESN'T GIVE A **** ABOUT HOW LIFE STARTED!!!!! It's the study of the mechanisms of SUSTAINED CHANGE. (genetically-wise).

So, trying to confront the concept of Evolution (which seems an awfully irrelevant thing to do) with several explanations for the ORIGIN OF LIFE ON EARTH it's exactly like comparing apples to oranges.

In a more modern, youthful way: It Makes No Sense.

Drakus

To add:
- Intelligent Design is about how life STARTED (although i never fully got it, someone created life that then evolved? or they say that all species have always been like this? wtf?)

- Creationism is about how life STARTED, ie, was "created"... (off course, it was "created" as an apple is "created", a star is "created", etc, etc... they (creationistststs) just seem to need someone to be actually creating stuff, for some reason...)

How does ANYTHING of the above have ANYTHING to do with evolution is far far far beyond my punny grasp...



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 12:01 AM
link   
reply to post by drakus
 


Evolutionary Theory disputes the claim that life on earth was created in it's present form (a common claim of creationists) because we can demonstrate through genetics and the fossil record that life as it exists has not always existed in its present forms. Through explaining the natural diversity of life on Earth, we find that the "modern creation event" never occurred.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 02:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Kayzar
 


Astyanax: Can you explain, please, in your own words, why the Cambrian 'explosion' calls evolutionary theory into question? Then, if you like, we can debate that.


Kayzar: It is pretty simple. "Without Gradualness we are back to miracle"

Bleh. Thank goodness for TheWalkingFox's lucid explanation, or I'd never have understood what you lot were getting at.

So... God miraculously brought into being a plethora of lifeforms over 500 million years ago, they've been evolving ever since, and this somehow disproves evolution? Well done.

Or has God been creating more lifeforms from time to time and withdrawing the earlier ones? Genesis comes round again every so often, does it, just like Christmas? Sounds reasonable to me.

Did you know that Darwin himself first brought the Cambrian problem up, in On the Origin of Species no less? Are your lot so bereft of ideas they actually have to go to their arch-enemy for some?

And Acts Wossit wonders why we think creationists aren't very bright.... :shk:




edit on 13/1/11 by Astyanax because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 02:16 AM
link   
Okay, Blue Jay, I'll bite.


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?


First off, understand that "theory" is a scientific term. It does not mean "guess" or "hunch" or "what if." A scientific theory is built out of all collected data on a subject. Even the step below theory, a hypothesis, relies on assembled facts more than throwing out random guesses.

In other words, you would need to have evidence that points towards the existence of an external intelligence "seeding" the earth with life in the Precambrian, before you could actually postulate even a hypothesis about it. If you collected LOTS of data that all pointed towards the idea of an external intelligence seeding the earth with life, then you could formulate a theory.

Do you have any such evidence? Bear in mind that the existence of life is no such evidence, since that just leads you to a circular argument.


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


Just because the video makes these assertions does not make those claims valid. It just means that whoever made the video is unable or unwilling to understand what the evidence is telling us. There is no evidence of any "something smarter" doing anything. There is evidence that there was no such "Cambrian explosion." And arguing that evolution happened "too fast" is frankly moronic when coming from someone who denies evolution in total anyway.


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.


Trouble is, it's speculative fiction, not science. Again, if you, or the producer of that video have any evidence for an external intelligence, please present it. Up to now, the argument "for" intelligent design consists entirely og people who don't understand science trying to claim science is wrong, rather than trying to back up their own position.


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)


You realize that you're not asking anyone to step away from their "preconceived ideas", but rather to just blindly follow yours, right?



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 02:44 AM
link   
Why do the evolutionists keep bringing up God more than any creationist?



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 02:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by Kayzar
 


Astyanax: Can you explain, please, in your own words, why the Cambrian 'explosion' calls evolutionary theory into question? Then, if you like, we can debate that.


Kayzar: It is pretty simple. "Without Gradualness we are back to miracle"

Bleh. Thank goodness for TheWalkingFox's lucid explanation, or I'd never have understood what you lot were getting at.

So... God miraculously brought into being a plethora of lifeforms over 500 million years ago, they've been evolving ever since, and this somehow disproves evolution? Well done.

Or has God been creating more lifeforms from time to time and withdrawing the earlier ones? Genesis comes round again every so often, does it, just like Christmas? Sounds reasonable to me.

Did you know that Darwin himself first brought the Cambrian problem up, in On the Origin of Species no less? Are your lot so bereft of ideas they actually have to go to their arch-enemy for some?

And Acts Wossit wonders why we think creationists aren't very bright.... :shk:




edit on 13/1/11 by Astyanax because: (no reason given)


First off i never mentioned god or miracle, you took my quote out of context, what i was saying was a direct quote from the video which you would have known if you took the time to press play.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 04:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Kayzar
 


First off i never mentioned god or miracle

I quoted your post directly.


what i was saying was a direct quote from the video which you would have known if you took the time to press play.

I have no time to watch idiot boxes, as I said in my earlier post. No-one asked you to reply to it; it was directed specifically at the OP. Anyway, I notice you have no answer to the points I made. And how could you? Creationism is a load of fantastical bollocks; people who try to defend it don't have a leg to stand on.


edit on 13/1/11 by Astyanax because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 04:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Kayzar
 


Why do the evolutionists keep bringing up God more than any creationist?

Citation needed, as they say on Wikipedia.

Or maybe it's because creationists are afraid to, because they know that 'God did it' as an alternative to rational explanation makes people fall about laughing.


edit on 13/1/11 by Astyanax because: 'sane' was unnecessary.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kayzar

Originally posted by Kailassa

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?


I don't believe i gave never i have said anything about god creating anything and it is pretty obvious that they are created by natural forces. Im not sure how "complex" they are because they are only "complex" on a superficial level, they are all still basically frozen water.


"I don't believe i gave never i have said anything"?
Were you drunk when you wrote this inanity in reply to a post that was not addressed to you?
And two posters (sockies or creationists?) starred this crap?

I believe you, btw, that you don't know how complex frozen water can get.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by Kayzar
 


First off i never mentioned god or miracle

I quoted your post directly.


what i was saying was a direct quote from the video which you would have known if you took the time to press play.

I have no time to watch idiot boxes, as I said in my earlier post. No-one asked you to reply to it; it was directed specifically at the OP. Anyway, I notice you have no answer to the points I made. And how could you? Creationism is a load of fantastical bollocks; people who try to defend it don't have a leg to stand on.


edit on 13/1/11 by Astyanax because: (no reason given)


I did not answer your questions because you keep using this stupid god strawman argument. I dont believe in that so i can't nor will i try to answer your questions. If you want to debate religion then go to the religion board.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kailassa

Originally posted by Kayzar

Originally posted by Kailassa

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?


I don't believe i gave never i have said anything about god creating anything and it is pretty obvious that they are created by natural forces. Im not sure how "complex" they are because they are only "complex" on a superficial level, they are all still basically frozen water.


"I don't believe i gave never i have said anything"?
Were you drunk when you wrote this inanity in reply to a post that was not addressed to you?
And two posters (sockies or creationists?) starred this crap?

I believe you, btw, that you don't know how complex frozen water can get.


In summation i made a typo,you think i have socks and snowflakes are really complex. Cool



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Kayzar
 


As Astyanax pointed out, this is because creationists know that saying "goddunnit!" will wreck any of the tenuous credibility they may have, and so try to cover their butts with all sorts of "alternative" terms. We "evolutionists" on hte other hand, know that no matter how htye try to phrase it, the creationists are talking about "God." Perhaps not the Hebrew god, but still, a supernatural all-knowing life-creating being that leaves no evidence of itself. So we just point out that they're talking about god, even if they're not using the word



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by Kayzar
 


As Astyanax pointed out, this is because creationists know that saying "goddunnit!" will wreck any of the tenuous credibility they may have, and so try to cover their butts with all sorts of "alternative" terms. We "evolutionists" on hte other hand, know that no matter how htye try to phrase it, the creationists are talking about "God." Perhaps not the Hebrew god, but still, a supernatural all-knowing life-creating being that leaves no evidence of itself. So we just point out that they're talking about god, even if they're not using the word


Read through this thread who keeps injecting god into this topic? I have never made any references to any supernatural or mystical forces. You arguments are retarded, they are just strawmen.
edit on 13-1-2011 by Kayzar because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Kayzar
 


Ever heard of an atheist creationist?

Me neither.

I think that TheWalkingFox's point is that if everything was created by a giant alien with an enormous labcoat, or a mystical force that suddenly zapped everything into being, or a giant kiwi that jumped off a cliff trying to learn how to fly and burst into a thousand pieces, it still comes down to "God".

A creation requires a creator.


EDIT: By the way, went back through the thread, and it turns out that the first person to mention a deity was MrXYZ, but it was just a couple of lines and didn't lead anywhere in the discussion, and then the second independent bringing up of a deity was ACTS, which was followed by a brief response concerning said deity by mr XYZ, then for a second time, all quiet on the god front, until Bluejay brought God up, not in reply to either of the earlier God posts, for a third time...

They're independent, and 2/3 are theist.
edit on 13/1/2011 by TheWill because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 03:42 PM
link   


Ever heard of an atheist creationist?

That would be The Raëlians

But anyways since this is just going to turn into strawman after strawman of with people debating god instead of the topic posted in the OP im out, it has been fun but im out.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kayzar
Read through this thread who keeps injecting god into this topic? I have never made any references to any supernatural or mystical forces.


I read back through the topic, and you're right, you never made any references to god or mystic forces. But then this could be because your engagement on this threat consists exclusively of sniping at others without ever once putting your own position out there. So you make it pretty clear you believe the theory of evolution by means of natural selection is wrong, but you have yet to tell anyone what alternative you hold to be correct.


You arguments are retarded, they are just strawmen.
edit on 13-1-2011 by Kayzar because: (no reason given)


And your contribution level remains unaltered.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Kayzar
 


Did you read my post? Did you?

An alien creator just changes the nature of "God", it does not change that it is a "God".

(EDIT: i.e., a Raëlian calling himself atheist is like a pescetarian calling himself vegetarian - his viewpoint may not be invalid, but his classification of himself is)

Also, as I tagged onto the bottom of my post, out of the first three independent mentions of a deity in this thread, two were by creationists. So, um... who changed the focus?

Did you read ACTS' post???

EDIT: If you are leaving this thread, it was interesting hearing your viewpoints while you were here, so thanks for the contributions.
edit on 13/1/2011 by TheWill because: removing long list of edits. They were all to add, remove, or umlautify.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 06:17 PM
link   
I think there should be a clear distinction between two concepts:

- Panspermia: in a very vague way: It's a theory that proposes mechanism that allow for organic (possibly genetic) material to travel space from a stellar system to another and then, if it reaches the right place (earth like planet) it will kick-start a chain reaction that could ultimately create a whole ecosystem.

which has NOTHING to do with:

- Intelligent Design: Here, external "forces" (presumably "intelligent"...) play a main role in the origin and/or development of life.

Panspermia is QUITE compatible with Evolution.


In fact any ORIGIN-explaining theory could be compatible with Evolution... If you understand what evolution MEANS.

Drakus



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 12:48 PM
link   

As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth?
Why is all nature not in confusion instead of being as we see them, well-defined species?
The explanation lies, however in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.


Origin of species Charles Darwin

Like Darwin said, innumerable transitional forms must have existed but here we are 152 years on, and the early transitional gaps remain the same.



The fossil record – in defiance of Darwins whole idea of gradual change – often makes great leaps from one form to the next.
Far from the display of intermediates to be expected from slow advance through natural selection many spieces appear without warning, persist in fixed form and disappear, leaving no descendants.
Geology assuredly does not reveal any finely graduated organic chain, and this is the most obvious and gravest objection, which can be urged against the theory of evolution.


Almost like a Whale Prof. Steve Jones p.252

Finding no transitional chains appears to be the strongest objection, against the theory of evolution.



…the Cambrian strata of rocks vintage about 600 millions years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they we just planted there, without any evolutionary history.


The Blind Watchmaker Richard Dawkins, p. 229

It was originally thought that no transitional species had been found because they were soft bodied and therefore might not possible form, but soft bodied creatures have been found fairly recently, although so far, no transitional species have been found.


- JC




top topics



 
5
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join