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.

 

If evolution is wrong then what's the alternative?

page: 2
2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 01:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by sgreco

Originally posted by chr0naut

Originally posted by sgreco

a universe where WHO didn't wind the clock and walk away? Which God are you referring to? Which religion's God?


The true creator and supreme God. The one with bits described by all religions, but who is not fully described or defined by any.

The "I AM" God who is the source for everything. God defines all things but is outside of the definition by all things.

The being who is singular, but had to redefine itself as several complete entities to appreciate his own magnificent existence (if you were all that exists, how else could you know who you are?).

That one.


edit on 17/8/2011 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)


Ah so creationism is an Agnostic view?


Only in the sense that we don't fully know God.

But not in the sense of what is revealed to us.




posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 01:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by chr0naut

Originally posted by sgreco

Originally posted by chr0naut

Originally posted by sgreco

a universe where WHO didn't wind the clock and walk away? Which God are you referring to? Which religion's God?


The true creator and supreme God. The one with bits described by all religions, but who is not fully described or defined by any.

The "I AM" God who is the source for everything. God defines all things but is outside of the definition by all things.

The being who is singular, but had to redefine itself as several complete entities to appreciate his own magnificent existence (if you were all that exists, how else could you know who you are?).

That one.


edit on 17/8/2011 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)


Ah so creationism is an Agnostic view?


Only in the sense that we don't fully know God.

But not in the sense of what is revealed to us.


what does that mean?



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 01:32 AM
link   
reply to post by sgreco
 


The Creationists cannot fully know God and therefore they are, by some accounting, agnostic (translation: without knowledge).

But the Creationists can also point to scriptures which are God's revealing of Himself to us, so they do have knowledge and so they are not fully agnostic.

By the way, getting back on topic, I believe that the Evolutionists, Intelligent Designists and the Creationists all have threads of truth and are neither fully right or fully wrong.

They are after all, all just istISTs held together by their common ISTism.
edit on 17/8/2011 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 02:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by chr0naut
reply to post by sgreco
 


The Creationists cannot fully know God and therefore they are, by some accounting, agnostic (translation: without knowledge).

But the Creationists can also point to scriptures which are God's revealing of Himself to us, so they do have knowledge and so they are not fully agnostic.


It would seem in nearly every case, they point specifically to christian scriptures. Yet so far no one has offered any evidence to support this particular religion's holy book over any other's.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 07:44 AM
link   
reply to post by sgreco
 


If you feel science is wrong about evolution why do you believe in it?
If you don't believe in creation why ask a creationist what the alternative to evolution is?
Maybe you could ask yourself what you believe in, and form your own opinion about what you believe.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by irgust
reply to post by sgreco
 


If you feel science is wrong about evolution why do you believe in it?
If you don't believe in creation why ask a creationist what the alternative to evolution is?
Maybe you could ask yourself what you believe in, and form your own opinion about what you believe.


I know precisely what I believe in. I am examining the arguments put forth by creationists. I see the proposition that science is wrong and they proffer countless pieces of counter-evidence to substantiate this. I then see the proposition that creation must therefore be the result of some unseen intelligence. I then see 90% of them tie that intelligence directly to one religion, this time with no evidence at all. So my question, once again for those who cannot understand my simple query -upon what does a creationist base the leap from unseen intelligence to Christianity? Why not Hinduism, Islam or one of the many religions on earth?



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 02:43 PM
link   
The Theory of Evolution is the only plausible explanation we have for the biodiversity present on earth. Nothing else works. Without evolutionary theory, we're left with magic.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by myselfaswell

As always I find it disappointing that people are willing to utterly cast aside science in it's entirety for essentially religion.


Here's the irony: no one (unless you're from an as yet uncontacted tribe) actually does this. All those that deny the scientific method in fact use the results of the scientific method every minute of their waking lives.

To attack evolution it to attack the scientific method. The very method that vacinated them as children. The method that gives them electricity, telephones, TV, computers, internet, cars, microwave ovens, CAT scans, GPS etc. Most of those that attack science wouldn't actually be alive to do so without science.

It's unbelievable what comes out of these people's mouth - the hypocrisy is astounding.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by WhatAliens

To attack evolution it to attack the scientific method. The very method that vacinated them as children. The method that gives them electricity, telephones, TV, computers, internet, cars, microwave ovens, CAT scans, GPS etc. Most of those that attack science wouldn't actually be alive to do so without science.

It's unbelievable what comes out of these people's mouth - the hypocrisy is astounding.


An "attack" on Evolution is NOT an attack on scientific method.

They call it the Theory of Evolution, not the Law of Evolution.

Science is in constant flux. As new data comes to light, new theories are proposed and old ones are set aside.

A summary of classical "Scientific Method" is this (check it out on Wikipedia if you doubt me):

1. Gather information and resources (observe).
2. Form an explanatory hypothesis.
3. Perform an experiment and collect data, testing the hypothesis.
4. Interpret the data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis.

In most Evolutionary Theory, the ability to perform experiments to test hypotheses is not possible, so these components of Evolutionary Theory are, by definition, unscientific.

To hold that these theories are laws of science above other competitive theories, is itself an article of faith, not science.

I am not denying the validity of Evolutionary Theory. It is equally valid as are Creationist or Intelligent Design sponsored alternate theories.

We must all be careful of being hypocritical!

edit on 17/8/2011 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by chr0naut
 


In most Evolutionary Theory, the ability to perform experiments to test hypotheses is not possible, so these components of Evolutionary Theory are, by definition, unscientific.

Which components would those be?



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by chr0naut
 


In most Evolutionary Theory, the ability to perform experiments to test hypotheses is not possible, so these components of Evolutionary Theory are, by definition, unscientific.

Which components would those be?


Speciation through genetic drift (as opposed to non-germ-line mutation).



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by chr0naut


They call it the Theory of Evolution, not the Law of Evolution.



Why does that matter?

Science is based on observation. Evolution is observed.

Evolution is a fact. Perhaps the explanation is flawed. Fine. But evolution isn't flawed. It simply is.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by WhatAliens

Originally posted by chr0naut


They call it the Theory of Evolution, not the Law of Evolution.



Why does that matter?

Science is based on observation. Evolution is observed.

Evolution is a fact. Perhaps the explanation is flawed. Fine. But evolution isn't flawed. It simply is.


The results assumed to be from Evolution are observed.

As the process of Evolution takes more than a human life span, it has not been observed.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 09:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by WhatAliens

Originally posted by chr0naut


They call it the Theory of Evolution, not the Law of Evolution.



Why does that matter?

Science is based on observation. Evolution is observed.

Evolution is a fact. Perhaps the explanation is flawed. Fine. But evolution isn't flawed. It simply is.


This is STILL not the focus of this thread nor does any creationist seem willing (or able) to answer the actual question. I find this fascinating.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 10:53 PM
link   
reply to post by sgreco
 



I'm open to the notion that science is utterly wrong. They just missed the mark. Bad methodology, bias, and unrealistic leaps of logic has conspired to create this erroneous view of creation.


I'm afraid not. You see, Evolution is actually one of the strongest theories IN science because of the sheer WEIGHT of all of the evidence that has been compiled over the decades that completely supports evolution.

To disagree with the Theory of evolution, is to be ignorant OF the Theory of Evolution.


Creationists have made their arguments in, surprisingly, scientific fashion. They provide counter-evidence to science's evidence. bravo!


No, they have not.

The *ONLY* evidence that creationists provide for their views *IS* scripture.

Period.


Is science and religion the only options available?


No, this is a false dichotomy.

Science derives from the root Latin word "Scientia" meaning "Knowledge"

en.wikipedia.org...

Religion is about Faith in the absence of knowledge.

And lacking knowledge means to be Ignorant about the subject.


First off, I think a brief Primer on Evolution is in order, as there seems to be a bit of ignorance in this thread as to what Evolution actually *IS*

When an organism reproduces, Especially when that organism reproduces sexually, the offspring are not identical to both the mother and father, and their Genetic makeup is not the exact same as any possible mixing of the two.

This is caused by mutations that occur in the Genetic material (a small portion of the overall genetic material) that *MAY* produce physiological changes within that organism.

Through the addition of successive "Mutations" over the course of many generations, the organism possesses physiological differences from their distant ancestors that become more and more noticeable, and greater and greater in appearance, or biological function.

This is basically something like the Rumour effect, where one person whispers something into another's ear, and they whisper that to a third, and the third to a fourth, and the fourth to a fifth, and the fifth to a sixth, so on and so forth.

What was whispered changes slightly each time it is communicated, until eventually, in the 300th incarnation, it is recalled as a completely different sentence that bears cursory similarity with the phonetic pronunciation of the original.

We have actually compared the genetic material found in the remains of long dead animals, and have compared them to currently living organisms, and have found that the currently living organisms are actually the EVOLVED descendants of the long dead animals.

Evolution makes perfect sense when you realize that children are not perfect clones of their parents.

Every Generation is different, in VERY subtle ways, that only become noticeable when successive generations worth of differences are compared to their distant ancestors.

So, to answer your question, "If evolution is wrong, then what's the alternative"

And the *ONLY* way to answer that, is:

If evolution is WRONG, then the only alternative would be a theory that is almost identical to evolution, that still explains the OBSERVATIONS OF REALITY that evolution explains.

Unless of course we are living in the matrix.... then any-thing's possible
Since we wouldn't really be OBSERVING reality, but a simulation of reality.

reply to post by chr0naut
 



Why do things CONSISTENTLY evolve new survival strategies at faster rates than evolution and genetic drift mandate?


Would you care to provide examples of what you mean?


reply to post by VictorVonDoom
 



Further, when you consider the rate at which species on Earth become extinct


Actually, that's a funny story.

If you had a species of bird on a tropical island, and over the course of one thousand years, that species evolved into a NEW species, then the ancestor species would be considered "Extinct" even if their descendants are still alive.

Extinction does not necessarily mean that an entire breeding population was wiped out, it just means that the *SPECIES* that existed at that time, no longer exists *AS* that species.

For example.... Birds *ARE* the descendants of some species of Dinosaurs.

The species they Descended from are extinct.... because their descendants have become a new species.

So, when they say that "Most species that have ever lived are extinct" now you know the proper context to place that statement in.

reply to post by chr0naut
 



They call it the Theory of Evolution, not the Law of Evolution.


This is because "theory" does not mean what you think it means.




In most Evolutionary Theory, the ability to perform experiments to test hypotheses is not possible


And this is not true either.

We can actually take genetic samples of creatures that have been dead for a long time, actually.

And, Having their genetic material, we can preform experiments comparing their genetic material to the genetic material of currently living creatures to observe consistencies between the structure of both.


To hold that these theories are laws of science above other competitive theories, is itself an article of faith, not science.


There are no competing theories to Evolution.

Creationism is not a theory.


I am not denying the validity of Evolutionary Theory. It is equally valid as are Creationist or Intelligent Design sponsored alternate theories.


You see, this is the problem, by claiming that Creationism is a Theory, you are actually stating two things that implicitly demonstrate your ignorance on the matter of evolution.

1. You are stating that Creationism is a Theory, despite there being no observable evidence FOR creationism to HAVE a theory.

Remember, a Theory exists to explain a set of observations.

2. You are claiming that Speculation based on ancient texts is the same thing as actually studying the world.

And this is wrong.


We must all be careful of being hypocritical!


Indeed.

reply to post by chr0naut
 



Speciation through genetic drift (as opposed to non-germ-line mutation).


Yes, this has actually been observed.

en.wikipedia.org...

Also, Non-Germ-line mutations would not contribute to evolution anyways, as only cells that contribute to reproduction would effect one's offspring.



The results assumed to be from Evolution are observed.

As the process of Evolution takes more than a human life span, it has not been observed.


And how do we know that dinosaurs existed? Since they existed before any of us were alive?

I guess you think they never existed eh?

Do you also presume that it is impossible to prove the existence of your great-great-grandparents? since they were alive before you were born?

Your logical faculties are somewhat lacking for the purposes of this thread.
edit on 17-8-2011 by ErtaiNaGia because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 11:24 PM
link   
reply to post by sgreco
 


the alternative is something that you don't want to hear and accept.

now, let me share this truth to you,

if you believe God (you name it whatever whom) can create something out of nothing by just "saying", then why so hard for you to believe human was created by just "saying"?



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 12:05 AM
link   
reply to post by chr0naut
 


Perhaps this "divine meddler" is actually creative and enjoys "meddling".

How do you square a model of continuous creation with causality and free will? If God keeps changing the rules of the game for species and individuals, can He any longer be called good?


The universe/s are, after all, Gods toy.

Does a God needs toys to play with? What need has a perfect Being for diversions and amusements? Does He have no ethical responsibility towards His toys?

Your argument seems to suit a pantheistic concept of God better than a monotheistic one. It amounts to a divine motive force immanent and acting in all objects. Thus God is the proximate and not merely the First Cause of all movement, including evolutionary change. Liebniz had a view of the universe similar to this, for although he was not a pantheist (he located divinity in metaphysical, not material space), his concept of monads can, I suspect, be used to support a model of continuous divine intervention in the universe.

However, as we have seen, such ideas do not fit well with Abrahamic/Neoplatonic visions of a separate, unchanging, perfect Deity Who brings about the world as a consequence of His perfection without Himself being changed by it. As a musician you will be aware that no artist remains unchanged by his work, and that both he and the work take their character from their mutual struggle. This cannot be the case with an omnipotent Creator, so the analogy with a human artist, while pleasant and attractive, is fallacious.

In any case, our knowledge of the physics and chemistry of matter obviate the need for any immaterial, metaphysical Mover external to the universe. We do not perceive that the laws of nature require the finger of God to make them work; they operates smoothly enough of their own accord. The idea of God constantly, magically instituting every event in the universe is about as necessary as phlogiston, and may as comfortably be disregarded.

Finally – and by this time it is almost a trivial point – there is no physical support for any model of continuous creation. The universe is not observed to be gaining mass or energy.


edit on 18/8/11 by Astyanax because: of chaleur.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 01:17 AM
link   
reply to post by ErtaiNaGia
 


You asked for an example of where apparent evolutionary change happened faster than Evolutionary Theory accounts for:

The European Speckled Moth, the classic example in nearly every text book of Evolutionary Theory, in a period of only 200 years, went from a light grey colour that matched the bark on Silver Birch trees, to a darker colour that matched the carbon blackened trees during the industrial revolution, and then back again to to a lighter colour after pollution laws and better technology limited sooting. Knowing the size of its genome, the mutation rate to be expected and the rate that genetic drift predicts, it changed four times faster than it should (and while it proves natural selection and genetic drift, it says nothing about Evolution and I think, should not be used as an example of it in text books).

That's just one example.

Or how about, speciation during the Cambrian Explosion, which would probably be several, perhaps hundreds of millions more examples but I'm not going to bother because it is likely that you won't want to look at the fossil record too closely if your own "articles of faith" contradict themselves.

Lets look at the even bigger picture: In the approximately 4.5 billion (= 4,500 million) years that the Earth has existed, can you explain the phenomenal number (estimated to be 100 million living now) of species that currently exist by Evolutionary Theory? (Even ignoring the likelihood that the species that are alive now are only estimated to be possibly small fraction (say 1%) of all that have ever lived, and the fact that the Earth was uninhabitable for some of that time). You know, actually doing some "back of the envelope" maths and seeing if any of this is remotely possible. My rough estimate is that we'd have been seeing the evolution of a new species on average at least every 45 years. That's not just a successful mutation, but a totally new species.

Well, come on, Biological Taxonomy and Evolutionary Theory have been around for more than 45 years. Where are the new species?

Tell me their name and some details.

Put up, or shut up!

PS, I know that genetic drift has been observed, but I wanted to know when speciation (i.e: new species) through genetic drift has been observed.


edit on 18/8/2011 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 01:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


I starred your post. Well reasoned and clear.

Although the Abrahamic God is often seen as a single unified instance of person, the Christian view is that God is triune, a perfect society in Himself and as such he has nothing that he needs from us. Nor are we capable of giving Him anything.

To be in existence and surrounded by nothing, because you are the all-in-all of existence, is an empty and pointless existence. It is only logical that such a supreme and singular being would feel a desire to create and play (This implies choice and chance to my limited mind).

How would such a God define himself if not through action of creation?

A God locked in an inevitable, invariable existence for eternity does not sound rational as a concept or particularly God-like to me.

The God I see reflected in the universe around me is playful, humorous and gentle.

He has given us incredible power & choice along with consequences, so we can reflect Himself back at Him and He can know Himself through each of us.

... and you are not fully correct about the absence of continuous creation.

There is always more matter in the universe all the time (the Bussard Ramjet requires matter to come into being in the empty spaces of space, to operate) and also Stephen Hawking has proposed a method whereby black holes can create matter and energy (Hawking Radiation). It is inherent in the symmetry breaking nature of reality that more matter will come into being.

There is also the fact that matter itself appears to be illusory and founded on a substrate of information, which by its own nature, increases.
edit on 18/8/2011 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 02:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by requireduser
reply to post by sgreco
 


the alternative is something that you don't want to hear and accept.

now, let me share this truth to you,

if you believe God (you name it whatever whom) can create something out of nothing by just "saying", then why so hard for you to believe human was created by just "saying"?



it is neither hard nor easy for me to accept any explanation.

my question remains unanswered. If we accept that evolution is wrong, why must we accept that the alternative is the christian story of creation rather than any other religion's? Am i not being clear enough?



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join