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: 48
13
<< 45  46  47    49 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 09:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tony4211
reply to post by mf_luder
 


There is absolutely no observable evidence for creationism. That is not a speculation, either. haha No one ever produces evidence for Creationism. They spend most of their time trying to "disprove" Evolution rather than actually building up their beliefs. That is why it is a belief and not a scientific theory.
edit on 2-10-2011 by Tony4211 because: (no reason given)


Put on a TV preacher and make him pop out a monkey out of some clay. Until then, all we have is evolution. Will the theory be adapted? Of course. The creationists can not even agree on what they believe because of all the discrepancies in the Bible.




posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 09:41 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 


So would a person of say Japanese origin `Not` possess a genetic marker/s for facial difference when compared with European.? ...strong facial features are hereditary.

A beak is simply a prominence of bone, is this a worthy measure of species break.? could the 6 or 7 types of finch breed with each other when the gap between beak type was at its greatest.? ...it appears that they could.

Was Darwin really seeing hybrids form from a restricted gene pool.? ...not a pathway to a new species as he thought

I found this article, the conclusion of the study seems to point to an uncertain result.

rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org...

Granted, there are many varieties appearing in the gene pool of a species, some of these adaptations when viewed together could lead one to conclude that the gradual development of a new species was taking place, as reached by Darwin himself...an easy mistake to make when your mind is focused on finding a process to drive the machine.

thanks.



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 12:03 PM
link   
^Evolution is far advanced beyond Darwin and his finches. If you want to argue against evolution, argue against the science as it stands today, not about one of the first studies ever conducted in the field. Homo sapiens are only 200,000 years separated. If we did not become civilized, and they had been left in those environments for millions of years, they would have eventually split off into a different type of homo species just as their ancestors did.



That's what we know so far, but fossilization is rare, so it is far from complete. Homo sapiens are still n00bs in the grand scheme of homo genus.

Regardless of the birds, and how far 'separated' they are, the theory is still solid and I have yet to see a valid argument against it, that isn't a blatant lie, misunderstanding of the theory, or broad generalization. Macro evolution is nothing more than micro evolution on massive time scale. Millions of small changes eventually becomes big change.
edit on 6-10-2011 by Barcs because: switched to better picture



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 02:42 PM
link   
Some more questions for evolutionists (if you're willing to think for yourself):

1. How many DNA pairs are in the human genome?
2. How many of those human DNA pairs differ from those of a chimp?
3. How long would it take for a human to evolve from a chimp, assuming the necessary DNA mutations take place in exactly the right sequence, without any mistakes, and at the rate that is survivable.

Some hints:

1. More than you can count on both hands and feet.
2. It is said that we are 98% monkey.
3. A maximum of four mutations per generation, recognizing that most of those are unsuccessful (e.g., result in death).

So how many generations does it take for a chimp to evolve into a human?



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by TexasEngineer
 


There are 3 billion base pairs in the human genome. Your claims about number of mutations in a generation and the amount of them that are deleterious are just plain wrong though. There are about 175 mutations per genome per generation. Of these 175, about 3 are deleterious. I suggest you read this paper which specifically covers total number of mutations and number of deleterious mutations and what exactly it means for evolution.

Estimate of the mutation rate per nucleotide in humans.



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by TexasEngineer
 




3. A maximum of four mutations per generation, recognizing that most of those are unsuccessful (e.g., result in death).


Citation needed.



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by TexasEngineer
 





How many of those human DNA pairs differ from those of a chimp?


What? Really?




How long would it take for a human to evolve from a chimp, assuming the necessary DNA


That is irrelevant. We did not evolve from a chimpanzee.




without any mistakes


Who said there were no mistakes? There were many species that led to extinction before Homo Sapiens evolved.



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by TexasEngineer
Some more questions for evolutionists (if you're willing to think for yourself):

1. How many DNA pairs are in the human genome?
2. How many of those human DNA pairs differ from those of a chimp?
3. How long would it take for a human to evolve from a chimp, assuming the necessary DNA mutations take place in exactly the right sequence, without any mistakes, and at the rate that is survivable.

Some hints:

1. More than you can count on both hands and feet.
2. It is said that we are 98% monkey.
3. A maximum of four mutations per generation, recognizing that most of those are unsuccessful (e.g., result in death).

So how many generations does it take for a chimp to evolve into a human?




All of this is irrelevant. We did not evolve from chimpanzees, we only share a common ancestor. That's why our DNA is similar.



posted on Oct, 16 2011 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Sailor Sam
 

Why is it that most people want the creationists to prove their theology? Creationism is theology with some science thrown in but for the most part it is a well established fact that creationists do not pretend to know every science that exists. In fact no one avenue of science will know the others expertise. Archeology is actually a never ending life time of study and so is anthropology but one is not an expert in the other’s field. Why then, demand the same from a creationist? It is not fair nor is it reasonable.

Einstein would be embarrassed to live today and find out that the speed of light particles is not 186,282 miles per second. Yet he based almost all of his theories on that premise. This year, of 2011, the Cern project has measured particles beyond these 186,282 miles per second and when the final proof is accepted this will blow science out the window. It will change the scientific field to such an extent that it will be called false science just the same as the flat earth science is now called false science. In fact this will spill over into all fields of our so called science.

My point is simply this – The Hebrew bible stated that the earth was round when the science of Italy and Spain declared the earth to be a flat floating disc. There we had creationist theology verses science and guess who was wrong. Now that doesn’t mean that our televisions do not work or our computers will suddenly die. It simply means that perhaps the distance of stars will have to be rethought or perhaps the age of the earth or universe will have to be recalibrated. Who really knows the ramifications of our changing science? But one thing is certain and that is that the word science is way overblown in many ways.
seede



posted on Oct, 16 2011 @ 07:32 PM
link   


My point is simply this – The Hebrew bible stated that the earth was round when the science of Italy and Spain declared the earth to be a flat floating disc. There we had creationist theology verses science and guess who was wrong.
reply to post by Seede
 

The passage saying the earth is round is Isaiah 40:22:

He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

Now this passage may reasonably be interpreted as referring to a flat circular earth with the heavens forming a dome above it. The Egyptians knew of the earth's spherical size and shape around 2550 B.C.E. (more than a thousand years before Moses). Also the Greek philosopher Pythagoras new the shape of the earth, If this information was known by educated Greeks and Egyptians during biblical times, its use by Isaiah is nothing special.



posted on Oct, 17 2011 @ 09:21 AM
link   


Why is it that most people want the creationists to prove their theology? Creationism is theology with some science thrown in but for the most part it is a well established fact that creationists do not pretend to know every science that exists. In fact no one avenue of science will know the others expertise. Archaeology is actually a never ending life time of study and so is anthropology but one is not an expert in the other’s field. Why then, demand the same from a creationist? It is not fair nor is it reasonable.

That's because creationists hold science to a much higher scrutiny than their own beliefs, and claim it's a religion, which is downright hypocritical. Creationists also use the bible and their religion as evidence to discount something scientifically proven. Not all creationists do it, but the more extreme ones quite often create nonsense threads like this one, who are generally ignorant of the theory of evolution and the science behind it, yet try discredit it with dishonest creationist websites and broad generalizations about the theory. The problem is that creationists don't do the research, which is apparent not only in their world view, but also in their lack of understanding of the scientific process. If you want to come in and do some science experiments or try to ask questions about evolution that's fine. The problem is they are never honest questions, they are questions asked with a pre determined conclusion IE "You think you came from a rock!??" or "We've never seen a half man have monkey! What gives?" That is a slap in the face to people who have dedicated their lives to studying and gathering data about the evolutionary process. Talk about over simplifying a complex process. The knowledge is out there, and that's the reason why people ask for evidence of their theory. Religion isn't a field of study, it's a faith based belief system based on nothing but old stories. Science is based on experiments, data and research. I honestly don't care what people believe, but don't try to discount science and act like your religion is the only way to live life and anything that goes against it is automatically wrong. Religion is a guess. Science is a method of study. As long as you don't mix the 2, nobody will ever ask for proof of your religion.


Einstein would be embarrassed to live today and find out that the speed of light particles is not 186,282 miles per second. Yet he based almost all of his theories on that premise. This year, of 2011, the Cern project has measured particles beyond these 186,282 miles per second and when the final proof is accepted this will blow science out the window. It will change the scientific field to such an extent that it will be called false science just the same as the flat earth science is now called false science. In fact this will spill over into all fields of our so called science.

First, that hasn't been verified, repeated or proven yet. It could have been a calculation error or many different things. Second, a particle was measured traveling FASTER than light, it doesn't change the speed of light. This is the great thing about science. It is willing to change and update when new information is discovered. Religion is not. Even if things can travel faster than the speed of light, it doesn't make Einstein wrong. Obviously some things will need to be modified, but his studies on gravity and relatively will still be accurate, as well as measurements and other things. It will UPDATE his theory IF that is proven. It won't mean everything he ever studied is wrong, or that it's false science, LOL.



My point is simply this – The Hebrew bible stated that the earth was round when the science of Italy and Spain declared the earth to be a flat floating disc. There we had creationist theology verses science and guess who was wrong. Now that doesn’t mean that our televisions do not work or our computers will suddenly die. It simply means that perhaps the distance of stars will have to be rethought or perhaps the age of the earth or universe will have to be recalibrated. Who really knows the ramifications of our changing science? But one thing is certain and that is that the word science is way overblown in many ways

Perhaps,, but everyone knows the reason scientists didn't argue that the earth was round was fear of persecution from the church, who made a habit of torturing or shunning people who didn't believe their world view to a T. Look what happened to Galelio when he proved the earth revolves around the sun, rather than the opposite. There was no middle age "science" that said the earth was flat. It was a purely religious view based on speculation. "Scientists" at the time accepted it because if they didn't they'd be quickly discredited or worse. The Sumerians knew the earth was round long before most religions were invented. Science constantly changes and updates.
edit on 17-10-2011 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2011 @ 07:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 


Firstly you are very defensive and seem angry and this leads me to believe that you are a evolutionist. Evolutionism is not a science by any means but is a sect of religion. I realize that it is funded by this government as a science but in all reality it has no foundation of science whatsoever. If it were to be funded in the private sector such as creationists are, it would not survive at all. All creationists are not of the same facets any more than all scientists are of the same facets and all scientists of any facet of science do not and never have agreed completely.

You chide creationism as being stupid and yet cannot answer the same basic questions with your evolutionary theology. I don’t use the half monkey bit because that is not in the creationist mind set. I simply ask you or any evolutionist to explain exactly where the material came from for your theology. A scientist cannot create but uses the material which is before them to demonstrate their theory and then that proven demonstration is used to develop a technology. A toaster and a hair dryer both use electricity but that science of electricity did not develop that technology which made either the toaster or the hair dryer. It is true that one could not be useful without the other but we have two distinct facets of development involved.

An evolutionist is faced with the same problems as a creationist in that neither one can prove the origin of the material in this universe. The creationist reasons with faith that his information comes from his creator but where does the evolutionist turn to find a beginning of his theology. Can the evolutionist give us, through science, the true date of this universe? Can the evolutionist give us the proof of the origin of any matter in this universe? I hardly believe this. Has any astronomer ever witnessed a star being created? The answer is No. Not one. We have witnessed many stars being destroyed but never one being created. Where did the matter come from in the universe and what is dark matter? You nor I can answer that question because we are both in the same boat, so to speak.

As far as Einstein and his speed of light theology is concerned, you are dead wrong in your assumption that the Hadron Collider experiment will not change the speed of light which is 186,282 MPS c. If proven correct it most certainly will change all measurements involving magnetic gravity as well as light. Astronomers will have to review almost all of their science of this universe as well as many other facets of science will have to correct hundreds of thesis in their own fields. You are correct that there were many cultures that knew the earth was a sphere while other cultures believed in the flat earth science but that was not my point. My point was that at the time some believed the earth was flat the Hebrew bible proclaimed it as being a circle. I did not mean to infer that all cultures believed in the flat earth science.



posted on Oct, 17 2011 @ 08:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Seede
 





Evolutionism is not a science by any means but is a sect of religion.


Religions go by beliefs and science does not. They conduct experiments and collect data and retest the data. They never just believe that an experiment will work.



your evolutionary theology


Theology implies there is a supernatural entity. Who or what is the supernatural entity in evolution?



posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 09:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Tony4211
 


You tell me the answer to your question as to whom or what is the supernatural entity in evolution. There is none. An evolutionist has no answer nor proposes an answer as to the origin of their matter that they use for their so called science. They have no beginning to evolve from or to evolve into. Theirs is a wonderment of “it just happened” theology and all of this that just happened evolved into what we see today. If you call that science then you have more of a problem than a creationist. A creationist is at least forthright in admitting their theology is as just that, theology.

Any person with an ounce of honesty will admit that the order of this universe did not just happen by accident. No right thinking person can believe (which is theory) that nothing produced something. Big bang or whatever you may believe had to have come from something. That something is believed, by creationists, to be above our understanding. Different cultures call this by different names in their own understanding. I call this God while an evolutionist calls this science. Now if it is a facet of science then it should be shown as a provable fact just as any scientist would be required to do. Instead the evolutionist gets a pass and continues their mindset game of calling names or insulting those who do not buy into nothing produced something theology.

It is interesting to note that the Scopes trial of 1925 found Scopes guilty of teaching evolution in the public high school but the verdict was overturned only by a fifty dollar mistake by the judge. This allowed evolution theology to be taught in the public schools of Tennessee and the taxpayers are paying for it ever since. It was never shown to be an independent facet of the scientific world but was always called the theology of evolution. If evolution was treated the same as creationism is treated, in a private environment, it would not survive. How can we be certain of that? We can assume this because evolution has been taught in the public domain for well over 85 years at the taxpayer’s expense and has not gained the support such as creationists have.



posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Seede
 


Why is it that most people want the creationists to prove their theology?

I think it depends on the context of the conversation. If you're going to posit that the a literal interpretation of the Bible is the correct one, complete with creation myth, you should at least make some kind of attempt to discuss whether or not the evidence gathered to date supports or conflicts with that interpretation.


Creationism is theology with some science thrown in but for the most part it is a well established fact that creationists do not pretend to know every science that exists.

You should have stopped that sentence in the first three words. "Creation science" is an oxymoron. If creationists kept their faith as a matter of faith instead of trying to shoehorn "science" into it, there really wouldn't be any conflict between science and theology.

And you better tell the last part of this sentence to Kent Hovind, the Discovery Institute, Michael Behe, Answers in Genesis, Ken Hamm, Bill Dembski, etc.


In fact no one avenue of science will know the others expertise.

Agreed.


Archeology is actually a never ending life time of study and so is anthropology but one is not an expert in the other’s field.

Agreed. I'd argue that all sciences are a lifetime of study.


Why then, demand the same from a creationist? It is not fair nor is it reasonable.

It is when creationists claim that the Bible provides answers to scientific questions. If someone is going to make an assertion regarding the claims on the origin of species or the origin of the universe made by the Bible, they should be prepared to discuss those assertions in light of the evidence gathered to date, no?


Einstein would be embarrassed to live today and find out that the speed of light particles is not 186,282 miles per second. Yet he based almost all of his theories on that premise. This year, of 2011, the Cern project has measured particles beyond these 186,282 miles per second and when the final proof is accepted this will blow science out the window. It will change the scientific field to such an extent that it will be called false science just the same as the flat earth science is now called false science. In fact this will spill over into all fields of our so called science.

Might want to check on that. Those results have yet to be reproduced and, in fact, an alternate hypothesis has been presented as to the source of the apparent difference in velocity.


My point is simply this – The Hebrew bible stated that the earth was round when the science of Italy and Spain declared the earth to be a flat floating disc.

I actually looked into the translation of the Hebrew word used in the Bible for the shape of the Earth for another thread. The word translates as "round", "circle", or "ring"… not sphere. And the Greeks knew it was a sphere before the Italians and Spaniards pulled their heads out and reconfirmed it.


There we had creationist theology verses science and guess who was wrong.

So a very open to interpretation translation of a word in a book trumps a scientific experiment which confirmed that the Earth was a sphere? I don't think so.


Now that doesn’t mean that our televisions do not work or our computers will suddenly die. It simply means that perhaps the distance of stars will have to be rethought or perhaps the age of the earth or universe will have to be recalibrated. Who really knows the ramifications of our changing science? But one thing is certain and that is that the word science is way overblown in many ways.

Yes, science changes constantly to improve our understanding of the world around us and provide us with better tools to keep moving forward. Religious dogma doesn't.

I see more people from the anti-science theism crowd (please note that I'm differentiating from the pro-science or neutral stance theists and expressly not calling all theists anti-science) placing science up on a pedestal and trying to apply false or misleading attributes to it than any pro-science person around here. Granted, they're doing as sort of a strawman argument just to knock it down, but it's still funny.



posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Firstly you are very defensive and seem angry and this leads me to believe that you are a evolutionist.
Evolutionism is not a science by any means but is a sect of religion.

Please go re-read my post. There was no anger or intent thereof. I was trying to answer your post in a respectful and informative way. Evolutionist is not even a real word. It's a word made up by creationists to try to make it seem like evolution is a faith based belief system, but it clearly is not, it's a scientific field of study. There are no "evolutionists". Likewise there is no "evolutionism". It's evolutionary science. Surely you'd be able to provide evidence and quote some holy texts for me or life guidelines for this alleged religion, right? Science is based on experiementation, facts and data. Evolution is not even close to a religion. I'm not being defensive, I'm stating the obvious.


in all reality it has no foundation of science whatsoever. If it were to be funded in the private sector such as creationists are, it would not survive at all. All creationists are not of the same facets any more than all scientists are of the same facets and all scientists of any facet of science do not and never have agreed completely.

Please provide evidence that suggests evolution is a religion rather than field of science. You are mistaken, my friend. You're talking about a field of study backed by thousands upon thousands of fossils, genetic evidence and cellular biology. It can be observed in action TODAY. To deny evolution you have to deny the entire field of biology.


You chide creationism as being stupid and yet cannot answer the same basic questions with your evolutionary theology. I don’t use the half monkey bit because that is not in the creationist mind set. I simply ask you or any evolutionist to explain exactly where the material came from for your theology. A scientist cannot create but uses the material which is before them to demonstrate their theory and then that proven demonstration is used to develop a technology.
An evolutionist is faced with the same problems as a creationist in that neither one can prove the origin of the material in this universe. The creationist reasons with faith that his information comes from his creator but where does the evolutionist turn to find a beginning of his theology. Can the evolutionist give us, through science, the true date of this universe? etc etc..

I don't recall calling creationism stupid. I even said that I don't care what people believe. It's when you try to dishonestly discredit a scientific field of study, that I take issue. I've heard people bring up the "half man, half monkey" argument before, which is why I mentioned it. You are misunderstanding evolution in the same way, however, because evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. It is the study of how life went from a single celled organism to what you see on earth today (diversity of life, not origin). If you read this thread, you'd have surely read that. Evolution doesn't care how the first lifeforms got here, and its completely irrelevant in the discussion. Study abiogenesis if you'd like then find arguments against THAT. Evolution does not discredit the possibility of a creator. Your questions about the age of the universe and how the matter got here has absolutely nothing to do with evolution, and if you spent more than 10 minutes reading about it, you'd already know that. Obviously you haven't done an ounce of research regarding the side of the "argument" that you are so hastily attempting to discredit.


As far as Einstein and his speed of light theology is concerned, you are dead wrong in your assumption that the Hadron Collider experiment will not change the speed of light which is 186,282 MPS c. If proven correct it most certainly will change all measurements involving magnetic gravity as well as light. Astronomers will have to review almost all of their science of this universe as well as many other facets of science will have to correct hundreds of thesis in their own fields. You are correct that there were many cultures that knew the earth was a sphere while other cultures believed in the flat earth science but that was not my point. My point was that at the time some believed the earth was flat the Hebrew bible proclaimed it as being a circle. I did not mean to infer that all cultures believed in the flat earth science.


www.technologyreview.com...

It's been figured out. No changes to the speed of light or anything else is necessary. The bible also says that the earth is the center of the universe, which is why the church took that stance in the dark / middle ages. Calling the earth a circle is not the same as it being a globe. It could have been seen as a flat circle when referenced in that 1 Isiah scripture. Anyways, that's neither here nor there as far as evolution goes.



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 02:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Seede
 


I've read your posts. You have no clue whatsoever. You do not crasp even the most basic aspect of science yet you'll comment on it like it'sa ll clear and easy to understand for you. Do you realise that you've failed to grasp something that the average 4th grade child understands with ease?



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 07:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Seede
 


We have pictures of were stars are created and evidence to support it there is plenty of evidence to support evolution what proof do we have of a god (in lower case because that's what a fictitious entity deserves) the only proof you have are STORIES handed down by people who want to keep themselves in what ever job their religion has given them.

Now as for stories when I was younger I was told the story of a magical being who on one night could visit every child on earth and give them presents NO doubt you believed that until you got the facts so now think about your so called god


The truth is MAN creates god(s) not the other way! and we have evidence of that.

www.lowchensaustralia.com...

See!



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 09:39 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Whoa, that's a lot of gods! but there is only one true god.
Just ask any one of the creations, unless of course they have multiple gods.
edit on 19-10-2011 by flyingfish because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 02:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by flyingfish
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Whoa, that's a lot of gods! but there is only one true god.
Just ask any one of the creations, unless of course they have multiple gods.
edit on 19-10-2011 by flyingfish because: (no reason given)


Well according to the people who worshipped those god(s) that was the truth and lots of those were worshipped long before your so called god.

They all have creation stories of how man, the earth and the universe came to be they are all different stories so YOU cant all be right! BUT you can all be WRONG!!!

So if you hear a story it has be be true is that what you claim, does that mean if someone reads Harry Potter then part of the human population are REAL wizards and witches?

I mean the bible is a story book written over around a 1500 yr period by 40+ writers, if a story from today appears in 2 different newspapers tomorrow both accounts wont be the same and you think the bible is fact




top topics



 
13
<< 45  46  47    49 >>

log in

join