Creationists New Tactics to promote Anti-Evolutionary Teachings, page 2

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 23 times

reply posted on 4-3-2011 @ 04:36 PM by Kailassa

Originally posted by banned62
reply to post by exdog5

is not gravity just a theory? i dont agree with the darwinism but just because its a theory doenst mean its not right

There's no such thing as Darwinism.
Perhaps you mean evolution, the process by which influenza germs change every year and staph infections become resistant to antibiotics.
Or perhaps you mean evolution, the process by which wolves evolved into many species of dog.
Or perhaps you mean evolution, the process by which the earliest life-forms differentiated and took different paths, resulting in the great variety of living organisms our Earth has played host to.

Would you call quantum mechanics Einsteinism just because Einstein was a major player in laying the groundwork for that area of science?
Ever heard of Galileoism? - Nor have I.

reply posted on 5-3-2011 @ 12:05 PM by flyingfish

Long story short.
I had a friend who was on the brink of suicide,drugs alcohol,and depression.
I had this brilliant idea.You need God get to church.
Now two years later he is married into the church and has this out of control ego.This in it self is not the real problem,the problem now is he thinks the earth is just six thousand years old! and is constantly trying to preach to me about it and other nonsense.
Just to put things into perspective.I'm twice his age have been through the church,and have come out the other side.I now see the hypocrisy of religious dogma and the wedge it drives through the heart of society.
Don Exodus Has some great videos on how to approach this ever growing ignorance.

YouTube Link

reply posted on 5-3-2011 @ 06:54 PM by SimonPeter

reply to post by BadBoYeed

At what point did lightning , water ect produce a living cell complete with DNA? My point is that the science of Darwinism does not only imply all species evolving but that we came from one single cell event . The creation of life has not been duplicated even in the most advanced labs or in nature .

reply posted on 5-3-2011 @ 07:43 PM by iterationzero

Originally posted by SimonPeter
At what point did lightning , water ect produce a living cell complete with DNA?

It didn't, but it's been shown to be capable of creating the base molecules required to start the process.

My point is that the science of Darwinism does not only imply all species evolving but that we came from one single cell event .

No, it shows that ultimately we all have a common ancestor of some type. It doesn't really speak to how many different cells may have formed. Through horizontal gene transfer, there could have been an abundance of early cells that shared genetic material. And, again, there's no such thing as Darwinism except in the minds of the bigoted. Or do you call people Newtonists, Einsteinists, and Galileists as well?

The creation of life has not been duplicated even in the most advanced labs or in nature .

It doesn't have to be duplicated to be correct. We know that fusion reactions occur in stars, but we can't recreate them yet.

reply posted on 5-3-2011 @ 09:35 PM by flyingfish

reply to post by SimonPeter

This may help you understand more about the origins life.
I'm not here trying to educate anyone here,I just think this video series explains the origins of life beautifully.

YouTube Link

reply posted on 6-3-2011 @ 02:28 AM by Maslo

Originally posted by SimonPeter
reply to post by BadBoYeed

At what point did lightning , water ect produce a living cell complete with DNA? My point is that the science of Darwinism does not only imply all species evolving but that we came from one single cell event . The creation of life has not been duplicated even in the most advanced labs or in nature .

Evolution began only after there was first reproducing cell. How this first cell appeared is unknown, but this is abiogenesis, not evolution. Evolution would be valid even if god himself created this first cell.

reply posted on 6-3-2011 @ 11:12 AM by BadBoYeed

reply to post by SimonPeter

When you have a billion years of all that organic material floating around the planet, it is bound to arrange itself in every combination possible.

If ONE combination out of a google of combination's happens to be simple RNA, trapped in a coacervate, well then there you go. Is that possible, yes it is. Is that exactly the way it happened...we will never know.

On the ocean floor, there are vents, and lava flows etc. If you look at the rock with a microscope there are tiny grooves that match up with what our DNA looks like. It was hypothesized that is how DNA was originally ordered.

?

reply posted on 6-3-2011 @ 11:12 AM by BadBoYeed

reply to post by SimonPeter

reply posted on 6-3-2011 @ 11:20 AM by MrXYZ

As always, Neil DeGrasse Tyson nails it

YouTube Link

reply posted on 6-3-2011 @ 05:50 PM by Lynda101

It took 2 million years just for our atmosphere to develop so how some churches can teach the earth is only X thousand years old is beyond common sense.

reply posted on 6-3-2011 @ 07:32 PM by SimonPeter

reply to post by Lynda101

Where did you get that totally vetted information .? Who could reliably extrapolate that time frame . Did they take into account the minus 250 degree cold of space ?

reply posted on 7-3-2011 @ 03:14 AM by addygrace

The problem I have with evolution theory is; If our minds evolved by random events, then our minds become untrustworthy. If our minds are untrustworthy, our beliefs are untrustworthy. If our beliefs are untrustworthy, our beliefs about how we came to be is untrustworthy. If our beliefs about how we came to be is untrustworthy, our belief in evolution is untrustworthy. So if you believe in evolution, you can't possibly trust your belief in evolution.

reply posted on 7-3-2011 @ 03:17 AM by addygrace

reply to post by Lynda101

It took 2 million years for our atmosphere to form? I only believe what I see on TV, so could you find a video for that?

reply posted on 7-3-2011 @ 03:42 AM by Maslo

reply to post by addygrace

Why untrustworthy? Untrustworthy minds would die out according to evolution, so our minds tend to be trustworthy. Evolution is not perfect tough, and indeed, there are many genetic mental illnesses and conditions.

reply posted on 7-3-2011 @ 04:23 AM by addygrace

reply to post by Maslo

Why would untrustworthy minds die out according to evolution? Actually as I stated before, the evolution model is untrustworthy, because we use randomness to explain the happenings in the model. This conundrum can't be worked out to satisfy my thirst for how my world came to be. It just doesn't make sense. It doesn't pass the smell test, so to speak.

reply posted on 7-3-2011 @ 04:28 AM by Maslo

Originally posted by addygrace
reply to post by Maslo

Why would untrustworthy minds die out according to evolution? Actually as I stated before, the evolution model is untrustworthy, because we use randomness to explain the happenings in the model. This conundrum can't be worked out to satisfy my thirst for how my world came to be. It just doesn't make sense. It doesn't pass the smell test, so to speak.

Because animals that cannot think clearly would be eaten by animals that can, or die due to their incompetence. Randomness is only the source of mutations. Natural selection is not so random.

reply posted on 7-3-2011 @ 05:13 AM by addygrace

reply to post by Maslo

- Natural Selection relies on random mutations. According to the evolution model, a dinosaur can't fly and become a bird without millions of random mutations. So, the evolution model is based on randomness. So, the cause of intelligence is randomness. (How is that possible, anyhow?)

- Nevermind that, what I'm asking here is; How can the effect of randomness be trustworthy when the very definition of randomness means not predictable, without aim, or without purpose? The answer is it can't be trustworthy. Therefore, if we believe the current model of evolution, then we can't believe our own minds.

- I believe my mind, so the evolution model needs to fix the theory of random, in order to be a true scientific theory. A scientific theory must be observable or create predictabilities. The only way that happens is if there is something to observe it truthfully or something to predict it truthfully. We can't do that with an untrustworthy mind.

reply posted on 7-3-2011 @ 10:40 AM by rhinoceros

Originally posted by addygrace
reply to post by Lynda101

It took 2 million years for our atmosphere to form? I only believe what I see on TV, so could you find a video for that?

It took far longer than that if we're talking about the oxidizing atmosphere our planet now has.

reply posted on 7-3-2011 @ 10:47 AM by rhinoceros

reply to post by addygrace

There are 2 components: 1. Random mutations and 2. Natural selection (complete opposite of random).

reply posted on 7-3-2011 @ 02:21 PM by addygrace

reply to post by rhinoceros

You can try to seperate the two, but random mutations cause natural selection to select what the random mutation gives it. On top of that, the conditions dictate what thrives and what dies, according to the evolution model. These conditions are random. For instance, if you rewind time and start the process over, it is so random nothing would be the same as it is today.

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >> ^^TOP^^