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.

 

Question for Evolutionist's

page: 17
13
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by spyder550
 


I actually believe that the earth is 6000 years old based on my interpretation of the bible. But I am not God and others feel differently about the meaning in Genesis. i do not judge what they believe because i am instructed not to by my belief. My faith is strong enough to accept that my interpretation could be wrong. Until I read or see something that forces me to change I will stick with my current belief. To date I have not found that evidence and i have read much.




posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Youji69
reply to post by RevelationGeneration
 


this is a good question. i hope an expert can answer your query, because i doubt most people on ATS can show you anything other than a chart or textbook passage to prove evolution between different genus forms.

but here is something on horse evolution and the transitional forms between older and newer genus types.

evolution.berkeley.edu...

i guess that the biggest problem with proving evolution is that it supposedly happens very very slowly, so we wouldn't actively be able to test it using the scientific method, unless we start now and then compare notes again in about a thousand years or so.

the only evidence that we have are fossils, but apparently fossils will not satisfy you

edit on 14-9-2011 by Youji69 because: added text


OP, if you don't like that one, maybe this one will fit into your belief system a little better.

For the record, I held the same beliefs years ago, until I started reading more (and some things you just can't unlearn)



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 03:04 PM
link   
As usual with this type of thread the cycle is now set.

Continuous derailment by purposeful misuse of the term theory. Fact. If those that choose to take a stand against evolution cannot be asked to learn even this then why do you think they will be prepared to accept any of the evidence you point them too?

A fail of epic proportions is, and this is both sides. To bring god into the picture. Evolution does not and cannot answer how did life start.

Why dont trees develop legs? Tell me first why they need to. There are many carniverous plants that catch flies that are to fast for me.

Why if fish evolved into land animals why are there still fish. Because the enviroment that fish thrive in still exists.

If animals evolve where are the transistional animals. The answer is simple there are some but in the main the change takes place over time. Traits that give an individual a better chance to pass on this benificial trait by breeding with the herd/group. Those without this trait will then naturally die out as they cannot compete.

The thing to me that evolution has over any other science is I can see it in action any time I care to look. Those that deny it choose not to look.

Is evolution 100% correct. is anything and also I do hope not. Evolution should never be called case closed as parts can always be tweaked but overal evolution is undeniable and helps us understand how fantastic life really is.

What many I see do not like is that mankind is one of many equals. Not better or worse than any other animal but most assuradly one of them, an animal.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 03:05 PM
link   
Where is the evidence that a caterpillar becomes a butterfly?

Just a dried up cocoon shell and if you didn't see it crawl out of the cocoon yourself

Would you believe it?



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Dashdragon
 


I know that my post could irritate others. But I believe what I have read and the evidence against many other religions based on the contradictions in them. I also believe that the God i believe in does not condemn anyone who does not believe as i do. In my opinion the bible clearly states that believers will be judged differently from non believers. It is perfectly acceptable to me that people of all faiths can be saved by god and go to heaven. It is only those who know and have the word of God and disobey that are condemned. but even those can be saved if they repent for their misdeeds. so what i say is controversial i know but i have not been provided with any evidence that i am incorrect. I have read much as this has been a burning topic for me for most of my life. And only recently did i decide the only truth was found in the bible.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by RevelationGeneration
 


Evolution is not always a process that takes millions of years. The Italian wall lizard is proof of it. After it's change of environment, it needed to adapt quickly to survive. That is a major role player in evolution.

news.nationalgeographic.com...



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by sacgamer25
 


You have just summed it all up - You have a belief and a belief is all it is.
You cannot have anything else but that belief. You accept that it is not proof, it is just your belief and without that belief you would be totally lost..
That is fine, but there are believers like you who want to ram that belief down our throats as being the gospel truth and nothing but the truth.
That is upsetting those of us who don't believe what is written in the bible and who don't ram that down the throats of believers.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by sacgamer25
reply to post by seabhac-rua
 


The bible is the only book of all religions that has yet to be proven false. Even if we prove that the earth is more than 6000 years old, which we have not and cannot through science faith, This would not be proof that the bible is incorrect as the bible clearly states a day to god may not be the same as it is to us. Science also theorizes that time may not be a constant throughout history and the universe. So the same science that may one day prove an old earth may also prove time may not be a constant. Most if not all of the other books actually disprove themselves by conflicting passages, or math that is inaccurate.


I think you are wrong twice, because:

There are many "bibles" around. The Christian bible is not even the first by a mile. Do we need to disprove them all?

Christianity, Founded: 30 CE, Book: The Bible
Islam, Founded: 622 CE, Book: Al Qur’an & Hadith
Hinduism, Founded: 1500 BCE, Books: with truly ancient roots Bhagavad-Gita,
Upanishads, & Rig Veda
Chinese folk religion: Founded: 270 BCE, books:None
Buddhism Founded: 523 BCE, Book:The Tripitaka
Tribal Religions, Shamanism, Animism Prehistory Oral tradition
Sikhish, Founded: 1500 CE, Book/sacred text:Guru Granth Sahib
Judaism, Founded: 40AD, Torah, Tanach, & Talmud Spiritism
Confucianism , Founded: 520 BCE, book/sacred text: Lun Yu
Jainism, Founded: 570 BCE, Books/sacred text: Siddhanta, Pakrit
Zoroastrianism, Founded: 600 to 6000 BCE book/sacred text: Avesta
Taoism, Founded: Founded: 550 BCE, book:Tao-te-Ching 2
Wicca, Founded: 800 BCE

The age of the earth, proven to be:
Rock minerals naturally contain certain elements and not others. By the process of radioactive decay of radioactive isotopes occurring in a rock, exotic elements can be introduced over time. By measuring the concentration of the stable end product of the decay, coupled with knowledge of the half life and initial concentration of the decaying element, the age of the rock can be calculated. Typical radioactive end products are argon from potassium-40 and lead from uranium and thorium decay. If the rock becomes molten, as happens in Earth's mantle, such nonradioactive end products typically escape or are redistributed. Thus the age of the oldest terrestrial rock gives a minimum for the age of Earth assuming that a rock cannot have been in existence for longer than Earth itself.
An age of 4.55 ± 1.5% billion years, very close to today's accepted age, was determined by C.C. Patterson using uranium-lead isotope dating (specifically lead-lead dating) on several meteorites including the Canyon Diablo meteorite and published in 1956.

And to all creationists who think the earth is only 6000 years old because the bible says so..Do watch the great movie suggested by seabhac-rua a few posts back..!

edit on 15-9-2011 by infinitecuriosity because: forgot to mention something very important.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by sacgamer25
Most if not all of the other books actually disprove themselves by conflicting passages, or math that is inaccurate.



1 Kings 7:23 "He made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about."


Don't you think saying pi = 3 is inaccurate? The actual line in the story had to be over 31 cubits (31.4159265..)
edit on 15-9-2011 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)


ad2004.com...

Here is a logical explanation for you.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by sacgamer25
Not much of a problem there mathematically speaking.


Mathematically speaking, claiming pi = 3 is a huge problem..



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 03:17 PM
link   
I already mentioned the caterpillar to butterfly

Let's also remember the tadpole to frog

Scientific, observable and repeatable evidence.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by ken10
reply to post by undo
 


But not all species of bees do this, have you heard of solitary bees ?

Some bees evolved to be social where it benefited them while others didn't.

Evolution is mutation, a mutation that has benefits will stay.



people who live in places where they exist off water based creatures like fish, should still have the ability to breath underwater without artificial devices. and people in mountainous regions or places with lots of trees, particularly tall trees, with food sources in them, should still be able to fly without artificial devices. everyone should still be able to completely regenerate lost limbs, and that includes all our "Ancestors" in the primate community (who should also be able to fly, as it is much easier than swinging from tree to tree).



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by infinitecuriosity

Originally posted by sacgamer25
reply to post by seabhac-rua
 




By measuring the concentration of the stable end product of the decay, coupled with knowledge of the half life and initial concentration of the decaying element, the age of the rock can be calculated. Typical radioactive end products are argon from potassium-40 and lead from uranium and thorium decay. If the rock becomes molten, as happens in Earth's mantle, such nonradioactive end products typically escape or are redistributed. Thus the age of the oldest terrestrial rock gives a minimum for the age of Earth assuming that a rock cannot have been in existence for longer than Earth itself.
An age of 4.55 ± 1.5% billion years, very close to today's accepted age, was determined by C.C. Patterson using uranium-lead isotope dating (specifically lead-lead dating) on several meteorites including the Canyon Diablo meteorite and published in 1956.


So you know the following as fact.
1. The initial concentration of the decaying element
2. The rock has not been in anyway contaminated in 4.5 billion years like you say

To me to belief in those 2 arguments as facts takes a lot more faith than believing in God.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Sailor Sam
 


Well said. I am only trying to help the OPs claim that science is indeed faith as is my belief faith.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 03:26 PM
link   
More faith to believe in evolution? Alright, Bill O'reilly. The leap of faith (believing in creationism) is believing in something without scientifically proven evidence.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 03:30 PM
link   
Faith
1.
confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2.
belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

Evolution has much proof to support it's claims. The only reason that creationists disregard it, is because it contradicts god. Not because it is not there. If they were open to accept new things rather than being closed in a box that was taped up by their parents, they would learn a thing or two.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 03:33 PM
link   
Who says the belief in God and evolution can not coexist?

I personally believe in both. I am more of a spiritual person than religious.

I don't follow any organized religion. But that does not mean I do not have faith in God.

And just because I have faith in God, that does not mean that I don't believe in science also.

When you stop asking questions and just accept what you been told as truth

Then you have just proven the existence of de-evolution

That applies to both religion and science



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration
reply to post by Youji69
 

I know its supposed to take "millions and millions of years" but if that's the case wouldn't we see animals even today evolving and becoming a knew kind?


Lol at this quote. CLEARLY your looking for a fight, asking for something that is basically impossible. If you don't believe the massive amounts of evidence that are already our there, then thats too bad for you. Just go on believing... whatever it is you believe. Im sure that you have lots of evidence for that.

If evolution is so false, and fossil records aren't enough for you, then i suppose you have some amazing, empirically grounded alternate explanation?

yeah, i didn't think so.

If you had any understanding of evolution at all, or if you had the reasoning skills of a kindergardener, you would realize that evolution is an ongoing process. You cant "observe" a transitional phase, because then you would have to see into the future.... every time you look at any creature in nature you are witnessing a transitional phase.

How dumb can a person be?
edit on 15-9-2011 by SPACEYstranger because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by disownedsky
Nope, that's not moving the goalposts - that's moving toward the goal.

Lol, believers act as if it's a bad thing to amend knowledge once new things have been discovered. Why would scientists keep teaching the same thing when they've discovered that prior knowledge may not have been accurate?



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by SPACEYstranger
 


It really depends on what your definition of god is. If god is all of nature, then yes, of course they can co-exist. However, the supernatural god and evolution does not co-exist. Unless you are alright with having a contradicting view of life, that is. De-evolution is absolutely not possible. You can not unravel evolution. Hopefully science will overcome your primitive superstitions.




top topics



 
13
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join