Alternate THEORIES of evolution:

page: 3
13
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iason321
reply to post by rhinoceros
 


What was that something?

Something like this



And in that case, were males first, or females? Or did both evolve simultaneously?

Sex is a very old evolutionary "invention" and has evolved multiple times independently. First there were asexual genderless organisms.



And how did those isolated primitive beings survive there infancy?

Why do you call them primitive? They survived their infancy like all infants do, e.g. through the contribution of their parents.
edit on 19-4-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Where did that infants parents come from though?

Did they have parents?

If so, where did there parents come from?

Did they have parents?

If so, where did there parents come from?

Did they have parents?

Is there an infinite supply of parents for a finite supply of ape species?

Did the parents come to life first and then care for the newly evolving species?



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iason321
reply to post by rhinoceros
 


But those isolated peoples are around to care for there young.

How did there parents, parents, parents, parents, parents, etc, survive?

Or did the infants that evolved just survive on there own? That's a pretty damn incredible feat if it's what happened......

Why bother feeding infants and nursing them if this whole time, they don't really need all that nonsense! Let's just throw a suit and tie on kids once they hit 1, and send them out into the world.......


You seem to be under the (wrong) impression that evolution works like this:

1) Ancestor species has sex.
2) Ancestor species gives birth.
3) Baby is an entirely new species.

That's NOT what the theory of evolution says. If that's what you believe, then you don't understand the theory and should reread the Wiki article (at least).

It's a GRADUAL change that doesn't happen from one birth to the next!!



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iason321
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Where did that infants parents come from though?

Did they have parents?

If so, where did there parents come from?

Did they have parents?

If so, where did there parents come from?

Did they have parents?

Is there an infinite supply of parents for a finite supply of ape species?

Did the parents come to life first and then care for the newly evolving species?


What do you mean??? Evolution is a GRADUAL change!! Of course as you go back in time parents gave birth to children who gave birth to more children, who then gave birth to children...and so forth. But it's a GRADUAL change. It's NOT as if a new species pops out of the belly of an ancestor...which seems to be what you believe the theory of evolution states.

Here's the basic article explaining it, you should really (!!) read it before posting: LINK



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


I'm understanding more and more.

But still having trouble imagining it happening with nothing directing it.....

The mathematical odds of such things occuring on there own are astronomical....I just don't think it's possible....

Can you link me to more article of primite life forms? This is interesting stuff......



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 



Think a minute before you quote wikipedia...

Long term prediction is impossible due to rounding errors...meaning today's computing cannot accurately compute the so called Chaos mathematics.

Quantum computing or Biocomputing will

Do you seriously think God uses digital? Come on...if the answer is 42 you will never solve it without developing Quantum, or as I like to think about it DNA computing or biomolecular computing.

Since you like to quote Wikipedia read ahead and catch up with some more modern mathematics tools…

en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 19-4-2012 by abeverage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Iason321
 


*laughs* you poor, sad, little Christian.

Someone points out your mistake, all you can do is troll them, when someone points out your wrong, all you can come up with is personal attacks.

And you still can't admit that you don't understand the difference between the hypothesis and a theory, after several people have pointed it out to you.

BTW, my response is three lines, or do they not teach you how to count in bible school?

This response is the typical response of the uninformed and the desperate.



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


MrXYZ, I am ready and willing to admit, you are much more well studied and versed in the field of Evolutionary Biology than myself....

I just came across this website that proposes some interesting arguments though, I would like you to check it out while I check out links you give me....

www.newgeology.us...

I am not even debating you right now, I am just bouncing ideas off you and trying to educate myself, I hope you see it that way and don't see me a close minded creationist!

Peace be with you!
edit on 4/19/2012 by Iason321 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox
 


My theory of creative evolution cannot be proven with a curretn scientific hypotheses, however your theory of darwins evolution can be. There, are you happy now?

It still doesn't render my belief in Theistic evolution null, it still doesn't disprove a creator, and it still doesn't answer all questions in the fields of Origin and evolution simultaneously....

I am open and willing to learn and educate myself, I have an open (and skeptical) mind. I was an atheist through-and-through the first 19 years of my life, and an agnostic atheist until I was 21, I am 23 now.......

I have a hard time believing in things I haven't seen or learned myself, sorry for my hard headedness...... I am a skeptic at heart.

EDIT: I didn't start picking up a Bible until I was 19, I never got further than Genesis 2 before I threw down the Bible and dispelled it as Bronze Age mythological crap, it wasn't until I had personal experiences of the Divine and took years of theological study and studying on Biblical archaeology and reading other Biblical scholars and Christian apologists work that I've come to my current worldview
edit on 4/19/2012 by Iason321 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iason321
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


I'm understanding more and more.

But still having trouble imagining it happening with nothing directing it.....

The mathematical odds of such things occuring on there own are astronomical....I just don't think it's possible....

Can you link me to more article of primite life forms? This is interesting stuff......


It's not about odds, it's about evidence...and the evidence we have fully supports the theory of evolution. There's zero objective evidence of a creator though.

I think this is a misunderstanding...you seemed to have misunderstood the theory. Like I said it's not as if parents give birth to an entirely new species, the change happens from generation to generation...sometimes it takes millions of years (croc is a good example of that).

Here's a good playlist of a guy who summed up what science knows about how humans came to be, he mentions all the facts and how scientists prove it: LINK

Yes, it's about as long as a nature show on TV, but well worth to watch...might clear a few things up and be interesting for you.



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 12:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Iason321
 

I can address that.



What evolutionists do not want you to know is that there are strict limits to variation that are never crossed, something every breeder of animals or plants is aware of. Whenever variation is pushed to extremes by selective breeding (to get the most milk from cows, sugar from beets, bristles on fruit flies, or any other characteristic), the line becomes sterile and dies out. And as one characteristic increases, others diminish. But evolutionists want you to believe that changes continue, merging gradually into new kinds of creatures. This is where the imaginary part of the theory of evolution comes in.

Selective breeding does not push variation to the extreme. On the contrary, it limits variation to the minimum, i.e. it's the result of incest over generations and generations. So you see, it's nothing like what goes on in nature. And that was in the first paragraph. I can tell you, the site is BS.
edit on 19-4-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Iason321
 


Regarding your article...here are a few things that are wrong with it:




It says that new information is added to the gene pool by mutation and natural selection to create frogs from fish, reptiles from frogs, and mammals from reptiles, to name a few.




What do they consider "information"? If it's how complex our DNA is, then they're wrong, because we have less base pairs than chimps...and about 20 times less base pairs than ferns.




Do these big changes (macroevolution) really happen? Evolutionists tell us we cannot see evolution taking place because it happens too slowly. A human generation takes about 20 years from birth to parenthood. They say it took tens of thousands of generations to form man from a common ancestor with the ape, from populations of only hundreds or thousands. We do not have these problems with bacteria. A new generation of bacteria grows in as short as 12 minutes or up to 24 hours or more, depending on the type of bacteria and the environment, but typically 20 minutes to a few hours. There are more bacteria in the world than there are grains of sand on all of the beaches of the world (and many grains of sand are covered with bacteria). They exist in just about any environment: hot, cold, dry, wet, high pressure, low pressure, small groups, large colonies, isolated, much food, little food, much oxygen, no oxygen, in toxic chemicals, etc. There is much variation in bacteria. There are many mutations (in fact, evolutionists say that smaller organisms have a faster mutation rate than larger ones16). But they never turn into anything new. They always remain bacteria.


And why would they turn into something else (like a giraffe) if their environment doesn't require that adaption. They also don't specify what "variation" is.




But they never turn into anything new. They always remain fruit flies.


That's simply not correct. LINK




Thus all the right mutations (and none of the destructive ones) must happen at the same time by pure chance.


Scientists aren't saying it's because of chance. And even if some mutations were happening because of chance, successfully mutated descendants would still procreate more...therefore expanding their gene pool, while unsuccessful mutations result in fewer reproduction and even death.

I could go on, but I had that article linked a few times and if you read it carefully you notice that they only source stuff that's factual....and then make a ton of claims that just aren't wrong. If you watch the Youtube series I linked, you will understand how wrong that article is.

The biggest mistake they make? They talk about abiogenesis (a hypothesis) in an article where they try to debunk evolution (theory).

That's like trying to tell a brain surgeon he's wrong because scientists haven't figured out what was before the big bang


Anyway, hope you enjoy the Youtube series.



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


MrXYZ, I just want to add one more thing -

I think we are deadlocked in a permanent debate, lol.

Creationist will never convince scientist/atheist that we were created by a deity,

And scientist will never convince creationist that we were NOT created by a deity,

In the end, it all boils down to personal experience,personal belief, faith and worldview, I suppose we could all agree on that......

I am also willing to admit this - the empirical evidence and evidence science has unearthed answers to many questions we used to solve with literal interpreations of the Bible or manmade myths of deities,

but it in NO way, shape, or form explains how it ALL came to be, or why.....

Let me also add, science and evolution seems to destroy a literal interpreation of Genesis - however, science and evolution does NOT disprove an allegorical interpretation of Genesis, nor does it disprove all the prophecies that came to pass written in the Bible, nor does it disprove Jesus Christs existence, or the facts of how Christianity spread and the billions of personal testimonies to the reality of God/Jesus,

When I was new in my faith, I got very shaken by the idea of earth being 4.54 billion years old and a literal Genesis not truly being reality.....but since I have furthered my studies and cannot deny personal experience, I am 100% confident in the authenticity of the Holy Bible and the Being of Jesus Christ



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox
 





*laughs* you poor, sad, little Christian.


He's now reading the information I posted, which should clear up a lot of things...which means he's making an EFFORT. I will give him props for that, at least if he really goes through the material. Many others (like NotYourTypical and EnochIsRight) aren't willing to do that, so at least he's willing to learn as opposed to those clowns.

I won't ever attack anyone for not knowing something...only once he sees objective evidence and then simply ignores it. From his posts it seems he simply misunderstood how evolution works, so give him a chance to read up before you mock him


Yes, this might be weird coming from me, I realize that
But I am really only using my
once a person is shown to be so ignorant that he refuses to accept facts.



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


I've said it before to YEC's and I'll say it again here -

To deny evolution and the earths age / age of the universe, is to discredit every single field of science, Biology, evolutionary biology, psychology, geology, cosmology, oceanography, palentology, archaeology, etc....

I cannot comfortably live with myself knowing that I do not believe in any of the 21st century proven concepts, if I'm going to do that I might as well also go back to believing in a flat earth and the earth being the center of the universe....

I like to think of myself as an enlightened, open minded, intellectual individual, not a close minded stubborn person who's unwilling or unable to learn.....

I want to reiterate once again though, that current scientific models and Darwins theory of evolution, are NOT contradictory to Biblical theology, or Biblical accuracy, nor do they disprove the Being of God or the person of Jesus the Christ......

Amen then



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Iason321
 


And that's why religion needs to stay out of the science classroom...just like science should be in church.

It's one of the reason I post a lot in this forum section. It annoys me to no end to see certain religious institutions trying to legislate science. It's not as if science demands Catholics for example should stop believing...by LAW. Yet a lot of creationist institutions are trying to actively go against proven scientific concepts. How else do you explain that in some US states biology teachers are now not required to teach evolution in the first place? They are now legally allowed to say "yeah, there's this alternative theory of evolution, but it's wrong..god did it!".

That just makes me SOOOOOOO angry because it teaches people ignorance.

Neil DeGrasse Tyson said it best:



Speaking about Tyson, there's a great video of him floating around where he explains where base elements come from...it's pretty mind blowing:



If that doesn't blow your mind, I don't know...and it's based on OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE. That's why I believe science is beautiful.



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


I am in agreement, though I believe the Bible shouldn't be discriminated against, just so long as whoever's presenting it doesn't present it in a literal manner as literal truth....I wouldn't want my kids believing the earth is only 6k years old either, I want my children to be smart and up to speed with current scientific theory....though I am against God discrimination in school....this is a pretty icky political matter, probably best left discussed in another time and place....

I have another link for you to check out MrXYZ, I ask you to please keep and open mind and not shut out any ideas, and please don't proclaim there is with 100% certainty that there be NO God, because then I'd have to call you out on your claim of omniscience.... The best even the hardest atheist and skeptic can say is "I am 99.9% sure God does not exist, but the possibility of his existence cannot be proven nor disproven"

www.theisticevolution.org...

There is more to our world than meets the eyes.....

IMO, it's pretty ignorant to say every single person who's ever had a religous / spiritual experience, every single testimony of ET's, spirit's, celestial beings, and Creator / deity, every single last stinking one of them, is in fact grounded within our own human psyche, and there is absoutely nothing going on in our vast existence aside from creative human minds and fairy tale beings.......

I believe the ultimate truth lies in between both extremes, and the Bible is a testimony to the person of God and what It's characteristics are.....it is not the be all end all answer to every last thing in existence, though it can give a solid philosophical and spiritual approach to comprehending the world around us......



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Iason321
 

I've seen the website you linked to before and I love it because it gives me a chance to play a little game called “Stop Reading When You Hit the Third Demonstrably Wrong Statement.” Let’s play!


"Evolution" mixes two things together, one real, one imaginary.


I’ll give this one a pass because it’s a thesis statement that, hopefully, the author will back up at some point with evidence.


Variation (microevolution) is the real part. The types of bird beaks, the colors of moths, leg sizes, etc. are variation. Each type and length of beak a finch can have is already in the gene pool and adaptive mechanisms of finches.


Well, that’s the first one. Take, for example, cases where bacteria have mutated and gained the ability to utilize new food sources. My favorite case of this is where certain kinds of bacteria are now able to break down synthetic polyamides (aka Nylon), which have only existed for the last 80 years or so. This isn’t a trait that existed prior to the invention of Nylon and is now being expressed, this is a change in the genome of the bacteria.


Creationists have always agreed that there is variation within species.


Here’s number two. Creationists used to believe that there species were immutable. It was only after decades of being shown irrefutable evidence of evolution within a species that they finally admitted there could be “variation” (which is their weasel word used as a means of avoiding the dreaded “e” word) within a species.


What evolutionists do not want you to know is that there are strict limits to variation that are never crossed, something every breeder of animals or plants is aware of.


Which is just the weasel way of saying that “speciation (aka macroevolution) doesn’t happen”, which is also demonstrably wrong. Speciation has been observed countless times. And, just like with evolution below the species level, after decades of being presented with objective evidence of evolution at the species level, the creationists will eventually decide that “macroevolution” really does exist but will move the goalposts back to wanting to see evolution on the genus level. So that's number three.

You can't even get out of the first paragraph before finding three inaccurate statements. And "creation scientists" wonder why no one takes them seriously.



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Iason321
 



Exactly, as you have said 'what if'. How can a logical reply be made to this when it is based on Divine creation/intervention. I had to re-read your post a few times & a couple of your comments quoting religious text to realise myself that this is in context a religious post. I was kinda expecting it to lean more towards Evolution theories (not religion) by the title...very confusing??

edit on 19-4-2012 by Urbanshadow because:quoted text?!
edit on 19-4-2012 by Urbanshadow because: (no reason given)
extra DIV



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Iason321
 


you certainly have a right to espouse what you believe and what your opinions are. perhaps i'm misunderstanding you, but you seem to want a "god driven" or a "divine intervening" evolution. your own belief in god and the bible forces you to have presuppositions which cannot be compromised. the basis of belief requires no evidence. unfortunately, we do. if you can provide specific examples of errors in calculation of various eras of history... perhaps provable errors in radioisotope aging of organic compounds.
the difficulty of creationism are many, but the biggest is god's fiat; that is, "let it be so". because god said it. if you could prove by evidence, it would no longer be faith.
that being said, i wish you well in your journey here. your deep consideration of strong's concordance is abit woeful. you compare english notes from one english translation to another. a little knowledge can be dangerous. you can take courses to learn biblical hebrew, and decide for yourself what translation is the most literal, and the most accurate. deconstructionist theological seminaries in germany are renowned for their knowledge and understanding of the old testament in hewbrew. 18 month course spread over 2 yrs is a good start.





new topics
top topics
 
13
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join