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.

 

Alternate THEORIES of evolution:

page: 6
13
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by nfflhome

Originally posted by Noncompatible
reply to post by randomname
 


I will save others the trouble by telling you to go away and gain at least a minimal understanding of Evolutionary Theory and Natural Selection.
It is quite obvious from your post that you have zero understanding of either.



I actually believe in alot of the Evolution thought.
But one question I can not answer for my very Christian wife is; Where are all the creatures that are 1/2 way into the evolutionary process? There should be thousands of creatures that are 1/2 fish and 1/2 something else with legs and fins and gills and feathers. Where are they ? I do not see any. They should be everywhere.


No offense, but you need to take biology 101, because there is no such things as what you describe. The Island of Dr. Moreau was made up by HG Wells. It isn't reality. .

Nowhere does Darwin, or anyone else, state that's what happens, because it doesn't. Saying that it does shows that you have zero understanding of the theory of evolution.




posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by stanguilles7
Nothing about his theory of evolution, which is merely that more complex life forms evolve from less complex ones, states that God is not involved in the process.

More complex life evolved from less complex life, but that's not the point of the theory, not now, and not in Darwin's time.


What do you mean?

That was EXACTLY the point of Darwins theory.

edit on 20-4-2012 by stanguilles7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by nfflhome
reply to post by stanguilles7
 


Dont think you actually grasp the concept. Do you agree that life started in the oceans? And then that life eventually evolved on to land. Somewhere along the way legs and arms formed. There should be examples of this happening now unless the evolution process is complete.


Again, you dont understand the issue or topic.

Fish dont just grow legs and walk out of the ocean.

Thats a cartoon.

Ive previously provided you with numerous examples of genetic variations within a species, which is what you asked for.

You wanting to find a fish wearing nikes only displays your lack of knowledge on the subject.

PROTIP: actually READ On the Origin of Species if you are gong to try and debunk it.



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 02:08 PM
link   


Fish dont just grow legs and walk out of the ocean.


Mudskipper. End of argument.

Truth is, there are a plethora of creatures both living and extinct that have adapted to living amphibiously. The Mudskipper is just a single instance of an amphibious fish, they live both in the water and on land.
edit on 4/20/2012 by amnislupus because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iason321
Hello, good morning to all.

This will be a quick post, I just want to present to everyone here something to take an unbiased look at:

What if a literal interpretation of the Bible, especially Genesis, is wrong, but Genesis is true yet allegorical in its explanation of creation/origin?

What if Darwinian evolution is absolutely correct, but was not a godlessly driven natural occurance, but rather an intelligently directed and divinely guided form of Creationism?

I present to you two alternate theories of evolution:

A) first we have Theistic Evolution, the idea that Darwinian evolution happened, as presented by modern science, but was infact divinely guided, supporting links: www.biologos.org... and www.solhaam.org... and www.theistic-evolution.com... amongst others, just do a quick google search of "Theistic evolution genesis" or "theistic evolution bible"

B) next up we have Creative Evolution, another theory that is similar to Darwins, but more realistic (IMO) www.icr.org... and www.icr.org...

Well, now you all have it.

Proof that Bible believing creationists do not ALL believe the earth to be 6,000 years old and a literal Adam and Eve.....

The hebrew names Adam and Eve simply mean "mankind and womankind", they do not mean "a man named adam and a woman named eve", though they can be interpreted either way.....

This is the second thread I've made regarding this issue, hopefully this one will stick around and reach some thinking minds.....

God bless you all
Adam actually means man or ground. Eve means living. They aren't just random names.

Theistic evolution isn't viable, because if Genesis is just allegorical then Jesus and Paul would literally confused or lying.


Matthew 19
4And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

5And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?


Matthew 19
8He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
In those two passages jesus is speaking of Adam and Eve. If Genesis is Allegorical then Jesus is either confused or lying. I say he was neither confused nor lying. People want to make as much of the Bible allegorical as possible so they don't have to adhere to the teachings in it.



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by amnislupus


Fish dont just grow legs and walk out of the ocean.


Mudskipper. End of argument.

Truth is, there are a plethora of creatures both living and extinct that have adapted to living amphibiously. The Mudskipper is just a single instance of an amphibious fish, they live both in the water and on land.
edit on 4/20/2012 by amnislupus because: (no reason given)


But that evolution did not happen overnight, as the person I was responding to implies.

Your point actually affirms mine.



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by amnislupus


Fish dont just grow legs and walk out of the ocean.


Mudskipper. End of argument.

Truth is, there are a plethora of creatures both living and extinct that have adapted to living amphibiously. The Mudskipper is just a single instance of an amphibious fish, they live both in the water and on land.
edit on 4/20/2012 by amnislupus because: (no reason given)


But it doesn't walk on legs--they use their fins. I believe that was the whole point.



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 02:16 PM
link   
The complete lack of even the most basic understanding of what 'evolution' actually entails as displayed in this thread is astounding.



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by addygrace
Adam actually means man or ground. Eve means living. They aren't just random names.

Theistic evolution isn't viable, because if Genesis is just allegorical then Jesus and Paul would literally confused or lying.


Matthew 19
4And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

5And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?


Matthew 19
8He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
In those two passages jesus is speaking of Adam and Eve. If Genesis is Allegorical then Jesus is either confused or lying. I say he was neither confused nor lying. People want to make as much of the Bible allegorical as possible so they don't have to adhere to the teachings in it.


What does that have to do with Theistic Evolution?
Wasn't Jesus explaining to the Pharisees of Judea that divorce and adultery were sins in the eyes of God?

Seems pretty literal to me. No allegory here, nothing to see, move along.



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by stanguilles7
But that evolution did not happen overnight, as the person I was responding to implies.

Your point actually affirms mine.


That was my intention.



Originally posted by HappyBunny
But it doesn't walk on legs--they use their fins. I believe that was the whole point.


It is an example of a "half-way" creature. It is a fish and yet it may survive on land. It is a fish and it exhibits the characteristics of an amphibian. It is a fish, for all intents and purposes and yet it is something that is more than a fish. That is the whole point.

The key here is that the Mudskipper, at some point in it's evolution, developed the ability to stay on land and not drown. In order to return to the water, which they must do eventually, they had to adapt and become ambulatory.
edit on 4/20/2012 by amnislupus because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by stanguilles7
The complete lack of even the most basic understanding of what 'evolution' actually entails as displayed in this thread is astounding.


You should visit the Can You Prove Evolution Wrong? thread. I couldn't take it anymore.



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by addygrace
 


Matthew 19:4, 5 and 8 can all be translated a little more accurately like this:

Now He, answering, said, "Did you not read that the Maker from the beginning makes them male and female,

and He said, "On this account a human man shall be leaving their father and mother and shall be joined to his wife, and the two shall be one flesh?


Besides, those two verses taken in context are simply Jesus talking to pharisees about divorce, it has nothing to do with origins or the Genesis account.....

Matthew 19:8 "Jesus said to them, that "Moses, in view of your hardheartedness, permits you to dismiss your wives. Yet from the beginning it has not come to be thus"

The Koine Greek word used for beginning is arche, which can be best translated as "beginning" or "original", I interpret this to be speaking of since the beginning of civilization, not literaly since the "first day and first man"....

I hope this answers the questions you raised......



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by amnislupus

Originally posted by stanguilles7
But that evolution did not happen overnight, as the person I was responding to implies.

Your point actually affirms mine.


That was my intention.



Originally posted by HappyBunny
But it doesn't walk on legs--they use their fins. I believe that was the whole point.


It is an example of a "half-way" creature. It is a fish and yet it may survive on land. It is a fish and it exhibits the characteristics of an amphibian. It is a fish, for all intents and purposes and yet it is something that is more than a fish. That is the whole point.


Not quite. They can only breathe on land when they're wet. It's called cutaneous air breathing. If they're not wet, they will die. In order for them to evolve into true amphibians, they need lungs, and amphibians are homologous to other tetrapods.



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by HappyBunny
Not quite. They can only breathe on land when they're wet. It's called cutaneous air breathing. If they're not wet, they will die. In order for them to evolve into true amphibians, they need lungs, and amphibians are homologous to other tetrapods.


Not quite what? What exactly are you arguing here?

I never said they were amphibians nor did I claim that they would ever evolve to such status.

And your statement is not entirely true, the majority of salamander species also breathe cutaneously.
There are also species of frog that respire in the same way.

Also, tadpoles have gills and then later develop lungs. An evolutionary process that happens every day... just another example of a "half-way" creature.



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iason321
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
The Bible can't be totally taken as allegorical, or it falls apart. You can pick which worldview you want, but I can't understand the value in believing Jesus and Paul lied in the Bible.



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by Iason321
 


Actually he is right. Your getting mad at them for pointing out your inaccuracy. Which is why creationists usually FAIL in the evolution debate, because most don't understand the basic terminology of science.
edit on 19-4-2012 by nixie_nox because: (no reason given)


Amen and then when you do pull them up on this they cry foul. I dont know what the true history of evolution is but id be more inclined to believe science with actual evidence then a book written by man. The only species on earth proven to lie, twist and manipulate facts when it suits thier agenda.



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by stanguilles7

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by stanguilles7
Nothing about his theory of evolution, which is merely that more complex life forms evolve from less complex ones, states that God is not involved in the process.

More complex life evolved from less complex life, but that's not the point of the theory, not now, and not in Darwin's time.


What do you mean?

That was EXACTLY the point of Darwins theory.

edit on 20-4-2012 by stanguilles7 because: (no reason given)

No it is not. Here. First sentence of wikipedia article on evolution:



Evolution is any change across successive generations in the heritable characteristics of biological populations.


That's the point of the theory of evolution.


Or summary of Darwin's theory:



Darwin's theory of evolution is based on key facts and the inferences drawn from them, which biologist Ernst Mayr summarised as follows:

1. Every species is fertile enough that if all offspring survived to reproduce the population would grow (fact).
2. Despite periodic fluctuations, populations remain roughly the same size (fact).
3. Resources such as food are limited and are relatively stable over time (fact).
4. A struggle for survival ensues (inference).
5. Individuals in a population vary significantly from one another (fact).
6. Much of this variation is inheritable (fact).
7. Individuals less suited to the environment are less likely to survive and less likely to reproduce; individuals more suited to the environment are more likely to survive and more likely to reproduce and leave their inheritable traits to future generations, which produces the process of natural selection (inference).
8. This slowly effected process results in populations changing to adapt to their environments, and ultimately, these variations accumulate over time to form new species (inference).


More complex life from less complex life is what happened, but that was never the point of the theory. It's just that evolution 'took this course' with eukaryotes..
edit on 20-4-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by amnislupus

Originally posted by HappyBunny
Not quite. They can only breathe on land when they're wet. It's called cutaneous air breathing. If they're not wet, they will die. In order for them to evolve into true amphibians, they need lungs, and amphibians are homologous to other tetrapods.


Not quite what? What exactly are you arguing here?


They are NOT an in-between or intermediary species. That's what I'm saying.


I never said they were amphibians nor did I claim that they would ever evolve to such status.

And your statement is not entirely true, the majority of salamander species also breathe cutaneously.
There are also species of frog that respire in the same way.


Those would be tetrapods, yes.


Also, tadpoles have gills and then later develop lungs. An evolutionary process that happens every day... just another example of a "half-way" creature.


No, that's called metamorphosis, a biological process by which an organism physically develops AFTER birth (or hatching) and involves cell differentiation and cell growth. And it's not restricted to amphibians. Molluscs, crustaceans, echinoderms, tunicates, and Cnidarians all undergo metamorphosis. How do butterflies start out? Are you saying they too are a halfway creature?



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Iason321
 





I am asking you politely to stop trolling my threads and posts if you can't think of anything worth saying or intelligent, You're showing your immaturity and lack of ability to objectively observe by continually making crude, smart alec remarks to my posts,


Why is it those who start threads pertaining to faith or religion seem to always call anyone who does not agree with their "facts" that lack any proof beyond the Good Book a troll. The Bible is not a history book, it is a collection of allegorical stories, moral truths to live by.

Your desperate need to justify your beliefs by "modifying" scientific fact with them tells me that your faith may be weak. On of the biggest weaknesses I see in the Christian church is caused by the teaching of creationism, and the teaching that the bible is absolutely literally true. When it dawns on people who actually do a little research that this is not possible, their faith is shaken to it's very core. The problem lies not with Biblical teachings, but the spin that modern organized religion places on the Bible.



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 02:49 PM
link   
I had a funny conversation with two Baptist coworkers on this subject about a year ago.

The nonsense they learned in Church about what Darwin believed and what his theories entailed were hilarious and pathetic at the same time.

I mean, at least FACT CHECK what you have been told to be true. Darwin was not anti-god.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join