Can you prove evolution wrong?*

page: 5
31
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Studenofhistory
You'll find the answer in The Source Field Investigations by David Wilcock. Basically, DNA can be changed by genetic information contained within coherent light and there is considerable evidence that waves of coherent energy is being radiated out from the center of our galaxy every 62 million years, which corresponds to the sudden disappearance of old and replacement by new, species in the fossil records


Very interesting. In John 1, the Word is associated with the world LOGOS. Jesus is the Son of God and the Word that spoke creation into existence. The Father is always associated with Light. The Holy Spirit is associated with consciousness and upgrades to consciousness based on holiness. We know that light is both a particle and a wave. The WORD is a wave that created existence. All particles have an associated wave. God is three persons, yet one person. We are one person, yet we have particle and wave (body) and we have consciousness. As indicated in Genesis 1:27, we are created inside an image and we are the image of God. It is stated two ways. Right now, I am in the image of ATS representing myself in binary code which is translated by the reality it represents.

God is AMAZING!
edit on 21-9-2011 by SuperiorEd because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 09:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 


Your assumptions are based on the implications of evolution. Consciousness is pre-existent. All that we are arises form consciousness. Science proves this more and more each day. In the Bible, God calls unbelief blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is consciousness. In other words, blasphemy is saying that matter was first. Idol worship is representing God as matter and not the other way around. The true idol is self making pride the same as saying God does not exist. Evolution always includes bias against a creator. You will never find one apart from the other. Creationism presupposes consciousness as predating matter. Science proves consciousness comes first.


edit on 21-9-2011 by SuperiorEd because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 09:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Studenofhistory
You'll find the answer in The Source Field Investigations by David Wilcock. Basically, DNA can be changed by genetic information contained within coherent light and there is considerable evidence that waves of coherent energy is being radiated out from the center of our galaxy every 62 million years, which corresponds to the sudden disappearance of old and replacement by new, species in the fossil records


How does every 62 million years correlate to speciation in the fossil record? Not saying a large amount of expelled radiation wouldn't lead to genetic mutations or even a mass extinction, but the fossil record is merely a tool to look at changes in morphology over time. A single fossilized specimen is merely a snapshot of several upon several generations that have adapted to various stresses iover time. Its not like you have a Neanderthal giving birth to a chimpanzee because of light bursts.



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 09:57 PM
link   
Can I take a center of the road approach?

If we assume evolution is true, it merely describes how relatively simple bits of carbon like DNA fragments and amino acids coalesced into highly complex pieces of carbon like amoebas, trees, fish, and people. At the end of the day, all evolution can prove is that you are a complex piece of carbon. It does not prove or even come close to answering some of life's important questions like who we are, why we are here, how we should act, and so on.

Creationism does a very lousy job in providing the "technical" details of how people arrived. All creationism tells us is that God set let it be, and things were.

Creationism does do a great job in describing who we are, why we are here, how we should act, and so on. Creationism tells us there is a power in this universe much greater than any lump of carbon could ever be. That creator elevated each and every one of us from a mere lump of carbon to a human being by sharing a small piece of his greatness with us. That power endowed us with rights and responsibilities. That creator made it our life's duty to live up to those responsibilities and respect the rights of others.



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 10:02 PM
link   
It would be very interesting to see it unfold but you'd need rational debate and explination which is where it would fall apart because sadly the God squad aren't rational when it comes to debate nor are they patient enough to present any logical stable grounds for their arguements. Thier idea of "fact" is what is written in the bible and they're selective in the information they take on board when they do actually research something.



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 10:16 PM
link   
reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint
 


This really does sum up the heart of the matter. Evolution is a scientific explanation using scientific methods to understand how biology/botany changes over time. More specifically, the the change from one species to the next.

Creationism is theological in nature; therefore, it does not nor does it have to live up to the standards of scientific investigation. Which is where the problem comes into play.

Where the conspiracy lies in the creationism vs evolution is really the whole fight between the extreme conservatives and then the atheist left. In one hand you have a group the wants to have a completely neutral system devoid of all religious representation. They target issues such as the pledge of allegiance or the wording on the dollar bill. On the other you have a demographic that feels the values they were raised by are being eroded away. Their target is set on the teaching of evolution in schools. That would provide a win for keeping religion/christian beliefs in the upbringing of American youth.



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by cypruswolf
 


It is intended to exchange meaningless comments? That is what I was saying.



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 10:33 PM
link   
I just wanted to throw a little tidbit in here for some people who fail to see how evolution -could- be possible: Myrmica rubra, the European fire ant, has been brought over to the east coast USA relatively recently. In Europe, they mate by taking flight and copulating hundreds of feet in the air. In America, they mate within the nest and new queens bud off with groups of workers to found new colonies.

This is an example of the first step in the process of evolution. A creature comes to a new home, whether by being transported here by man, continental drift, pieces of land mass breaking off, flying, swimming, floating, what-have-you. In the new environment, they have to change, to adapt in order to survive. In the new environment they have taken on new attributes to this end, from here, this can take on new shapes. They might continue on this way, changing and adapting slowly to cope with the new climate, new terrain, new soil elements. It may be a reaction because they somehow know they are few here and after population increases will continue on as they do in their native habitat.

In short, evolution is supposed to happen slowly, over time, in reaction to environmental changes and effects. An introduced species could effect a native species and force them to adapt, which will trigger further changes.

This can actually be seen with a species of Pheidole in the south. They have developed a previously unseen defensive behavior to protect themselves from the red imported fire ant, Solenopsis invicta. But that's another story for another time.

I believe in evolution, but don't consider it's current model to be absolute or even close to concrete. I do not, however, believe some intelligent essence, or being, waved its' "hand" and everything appeared.
edit on 21-9-2011 by Heehaw because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 10:33 PM
link   
To me your title was contradictory to what was posted in your thread, but I am not sure what in the world you are talking about so I could be wrong. There is no argument regarding evolution in the scientific community, since it is an accepted theory. BTW theory doesn't mean the same thing in science as it does outside the discipline. Scientifically speaking, theory basically means, for the sake of argument, correct...lol.

Most people don't truly know what evolution actually is. I would think your average person would say it means we came from monkeys, and I wholeheartedly blame the church for this. They did more than just ostracize Charles Darwin's works on the subject, and if it were pre-19th century and he had published his works, I could only imagine what they would have done to him.

Evolution turned into the one thing that Darwin and other top biologists at the time wished it wouldn't have, and that is a debate between religion and science. The fact still remains however that evolution is indisputable. For anyone who hasn't accepted it, you are just holding yourself back, as well as holding back those whom you convince with your arguments.

Evolution provides a refutation that all species were created independently at one single moment, as creationists believe. Evolution encompasses natural selection as well as sexual selection, which explain the differences between species as well as the differences between the sexes of any single species. This is all common knowledge, and I am not even sure where I should be going with this, since I didn't really get your thread.

You say evolution has been refuted yet in your post, to me at least, it seems as if you want the believers in evolution to stay on the sidelines...? Anyway, contrary to popular belief evolution does not conflict with creationism. That is if you are a thinker and not a Bible thumper. I am religious to an extent, but I don't feel like opening that can of worms in this post.



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 10:37 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 


OH you provocateur LOL!

(as it seems you've been labeled LOL!)

I'm of the opinion that BOTH must be happening simultaneously.

The "7000 year / 7 Day" crowd never can fight this one!

Petrified wood.

As a point of reference, lets say everything went "BAnGo!" and we had tree's and such.

6k years ago.

We have recorded history at sites where there is wood found. Egypt for instance.

Say, 3500 years old.

If (due to the petrified forests) wood should petrify at 6k, then it would be reasonable to have 3500 year old wood at least partially petrified....and its not.

Thats my two cents.

www.genesis-creation-proof.com...

These folks are eat up with the BS.

Oh well. They arent killing people so they cant be too bad



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 


I'm pro as well, but I have thought of this many times and am nowhere close to being an expert on the subject. One of things I had thought of was; what if changes accured in leaps and bounds. For example: An aligator lays her egg an a couple of them are, lets say, smaller. But once they hatched salamanders came out. It's not evolution but a whole new species due to, whatever, solar radiation through a depleted magnetosphere. A glitch in the DNA.



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by XLR8R
reply to post by colin42
 


I'm pro as well, but I have thought of this many times and am nowhere close to being an expert on the subject. One of things I had thought of was; what if changes accured in leaps and bounds. For example: An aligator lays her egg an a couple of them are, lets say, smaller. But once they hatched salamanders came out. It's not evolution but a whole new species due to, whatever, solar radiation through a depleted magnetosphere. A glitch in the DNA.


You're actually on the right track here. It's not so grand as you stated, but genetic mutations do play a role. Some of these mutations are a positive thing and enable the creature to survive and thrive even easier than it's predecessors. This can actually be viewed, by a single person, in real time, in a laboratory setting with bacterium. Being a Biology major, with a girlfriend who has her BS in Bio, I have witnessed it. You can culture the same bacterium over and over again hundreds of times, and at some point there will be a difference between one culture and the other caused by these mutations. Whether it's positive or negative, of course, affects their survival, and depends on their environment. Good post, though.

And I just thought of another example: Domesticated animals. What is your dog but a former wolf? Selective breeding forced evolution upon these animals, in a sense. One mutation caused the wolf pup to have blond hair instead of grey, boom, you have the potential for blond dogs.
edit on 21-9-2011 by Heehaw because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 10:47 PM
link   
For you evolutionists:

World population is said to be at nearly 7 billion (6.95 according to the U.S. census)
In the year 1000 there was said to be an estimated 200-300 million people.
According to science, humans are said to have lived on earth about 200,000 years ago.
To conclude all of that... It has taken only 1000 years for the worlds human population to go up by more than 6 billion. Now don't even give me the whole migrating crap or any of that B.S. People were said to have started migrating 160,000 years ago... So if it only took 1000 years to increase population by over 6 billion. Why did the population only increase in the millions over a 200,000 year period. Evolution as we're told is false, science is wrong, point blank. We have a creator, whether you wanna believe it's the God Christians follow or some other creator, even the whole alien conspiracy... Fact is what you evolutionists believe is something you should question very open-mindedly. The earth is not 4.5 billion years old, the fact that science even makes that assumption is funny to me. We didn't start out as small as an atom and become what we are now through evolution and billions of years of evolving. But believe as you please, when death knocks on our door, we will all somehow see the truth, or from a non-creator non-believers point of view, we wont see anything at all.



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 10:49 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 


Moecules, and atoms combined with the forces of gravity, heat, color, sound, and pressure.



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by FidelityMusic
For you evolutionists:

World population is said to be at nearly 7 billion (6.95 according to the U.S. census)
In the year 1000 there was said to be an estimated 200-300 million people.
According to science, humans are said to have lived on earth about 200,000 years ago.
To conclude all of that... It has taken only 1000 years for the worlds human population to go up by more than 6 billion. Now don't even give me the whole migrating crap or any of that B.S. People were said to have started migrating 160,000 years ago... So if it only took 1000 years to increase population by over 6 billion. Why did the population only increase in the millions over a 200,000 year period. Evolution as we're told is false, science is wrong, point blank. We have a creator, whether you wanna believe it's the God Christians follow or some other creator, even the whole alien conspiracy... Fact is what you evolutionists believe is something you should question very open-mindedly. The earth is not 4.5 billion years old, the fact that science even makes that assumption is funny to me. We didn't start out as small as an atom and become what we are now through evolution and billions of years of evolving. But believe as you please, when death knocks on our door, we will all somehow see the truth, or from a non-creator non-believers point of view, we wont see anything at all.


The old addage about tortoises and hares can actually be used here, but in a different sense. These two creatures have vastly different breeding styles. The former, very specific, very slow. The ladder, they breed like, well, rabbits. I think it is silly to compare an ancient lineage to a modern one, or two different species, or even peoples in different environments. China vs. USA. Enough said.



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by camaro68ss

Originally posted by jimbo999

Originally posted by camaro68ss
reply to post by jimbo999
 


so your telling me a big bang magically apeard to creat all things? sounds alot like god to me.


Nope - I''m NOT telling you that. Nor did I say anything along those lines. Trying to put words into other peoples mouths is a desperate act my friend. Do you have any rational explanation for life on this planet that does not involve evolution then?


No, all i have are theorys just like evolution. your theory says the big bang just came to be. why wouldent life just come to be as well? How did the big bang just come to be? you still have not awnsered my question. How did matter come to be? how did energy come to be? remember energy cant be destroyed or created? how did it get here then if it cant be created? From the magical big bang that came from nothing?


The geometry of our cosmos is flat. What this means is that the total sum of energy (including the mass equivalent) is zero. So the whole universe is a very particular configuration of nothing.

To answer your question, the origin of the underlying quantum mechanisms from which a big bang can originate is, as of yet, unknown. Nobody in science knows. It will remain like that until we learn otherwise.

-rrr



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimbo999

Originally posted by hudsonhawk69

Originally posted by Celestica
reply to post by hudsonhawk69
 


Natural Selection is a part of Evolution. (en.wikipedia.org...)

Sorry to OP - from reading the thread it seems the godly-folk are barely getting a word in - or just not posting. I didn't think the title was misleading and thought the idea was good.


Yes natural selection is a part of evolution

BUT natural selection IS NOT evolution...


?? How can natural selection NOT be evolution? Natural selection is the basic tenet of Evolutionary theory.
Your statement makes no sense to me at all. Can you elucidate me?



If all the short haired dogs in alaska freeze to death because they are unable to wothstand the cold... That is natural selection. Survival of the fittest. But nothing has evolved here. No new dna was created, no redundant dna was destroyed. No evolution.

On the other hand... If a primate begins to walk on two feet and undergoes all the necessary phisical changes necessary to make his stature thaat of a man... Well that would be a prime example of evolution. Significant dna change would occur to allow that to happen.
edit on 21/9/2011 by hudsonhawk69 because: I got the quote wrong



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 10:58 PM
link   
People underestimate how long 4 billion years is. No need for some "poof" mechanism to resolve the variance in biological diversity. Mathematically the gradual change is explained pretty well, and has been since Fisher's famous lxbxdx equation in the 1920s. It even goes further back than that when, ironically, a reverend by the name of Thomas Malthus formulated a sort of population growth model. Organisms have a habit of reproducing at rate's higher than that which is necessary to sustain their numbers. However there are checks, other organisms trying to do the same thing, food shortages, droughts, floods, other natural disasters, and bad luck, that all contribute to growth rates that fluctuate modestly, and for a small subset of species, at a gradual increase.

Everything else is sorted out through differential reproduction and slight modifications to DNA, aka mutations.



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 11:01 PM
link   
This is an interesting discussion. Here is my perspective:
1. Evolution plays a role in how life on earth develops and this is well documented and supported by scientific evidence.
2. However the same scientific evidence that proofs the existence of evolution has inconsistencies and gaps. This is not just empty talk as many scientists including Darwin himself have documented this.
3. The high consistency in ancient texts from around the world provide a strong indication there is more to life than meets the scientific eye.

The recurring challenge between science and non-science supporters is the impossibility to provide scientific evidence for #3 because science accepts only things which can be observed, measured and repeated through testing. I believe we can only come closer to the truth if science opens their eyes and mind to what is still invisible and non-science appreciates the role science can play in uncovering the truth.



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

Originally posted by cypruswolf
reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint
 


This really does sum up the heart of the matter. Evolution is a scientific explanation using scientific methods to understand how biology/botany changes over time. More specifically, the the change from one species to the next.

Creationism is theological in nature; therefore, it does not nor does it have to live up to the standards of scientific investigation. Which is where the problem comes into play.

Where the conspiracy lies in the creationism vs evolution is really the whole fight between the extreme conservatives and then the atheist left. In one hand you have a group the wants to have a completely neutral system devoid of all religious representation. They target issues such as the pledge of allegiance or the wording on the dollar bill. On the other you have a demographic that feels the values they were raised by are being eroded away. Their target is set on the teaching of evolution in schools. That would provide a win for keeping religion/christian beliefs in the upbringing of American youth.


Excuse me but evolution is a belief system based on faith just like any religion. I'm no bible basher but Philosophically speaking evolution is based upon certain assumptions the are requied to be assumed to be true to make the theory work.





new topics
top topics
 
31
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join