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.

 

Scientist: Evolution debate will soon be history

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 27 2012 @ 10:55 PM
link   
To solve global problems we have to work together. What happens in one corner of the planet will impact the rest of the planet, so it cannot be ignored. If a nation pollutes, we must address it. If a nation harbors terrorists, we must hold them accountable. If a nation aggressively attacks another, we must retaliate to prevent them from carrying over their actions to other nations. Nations on this planet are like people in a community, and just as people need community rules, so do nations. There has to be a force of law that puts everyone under a single roof. If different nations can follow different rules then it's just like a house divided against itself. Nothing can be accomplished until the separate nations can create community rules to ensure fairness and justice are followed.

Ultimately, to work together we have to blend our differences and focus on our similarities and remember that we're a family with much in common. While each of us is different, just like family members can be, the fact that we love each other because of companionship and have things in common is the bond that ensures we'll work together to solve problems.
edit on 27-5-2012 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 29 2012 @ 07:59 AM
link   
There has not been scientific debate about evolution for at least half a century because overwhelming evidence points to evolution being real. There's literally zero scienctifically-backed evidence to the contrary.
edit on 29-5-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 08:01 AM
link   
reply to post by GD21D
 


I am a kinda hard-core atheist, but I science just can't explain why life has appeared. So I also believe in intelligent design, that is, that something intelligent (a new neuron-like mathematical equation, perhaps?) created life.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 08:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by swan001
reply to post by GD21D
 


I am a kinda hard-core atheist, but I science just can't explain why life has appeared. So I also believe in intelligent design, that is, that something intelligent (a new neuron-like mathematical equation, perhaps?) created life.

Science doesn't care about "why". Also, how does postulating a magical being address 'why life appeared'?



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 09:21 AM
link   
What everyone is missing is that there are currently two species of humans on Earth. One set of people evolved here naturally. The other set came from the stars and settled here. The natural humans are cavemen. They are still cavemen, but they have been swept up in modern civilization. Thy do not understand how things work, but reap the benefits. This includes nearly all people of color everywhere in the world. The star people were brought here by God. They were running from their own creations and God made them a safe haven and "people" just naturally evolved due to the planet being made for humans to live on. When the star people arrived they brought cities and technology and culture. Natural humans figured out fire and sharp sticks with rocks on the end. The star people brought everything else.

All of our modern technology is a result of these star people in our midst. They have interbred with the naturals and so there are hybrids that are just as intelligent as star people. A great indicator of your origins is blue eyes. No natural human who is 100% natural has blue eyes. Blue eyes come from the star people alone. The star people brought animals with them too. Dogs and such. Any animals with blue eyes is descended from stock brought from "Kobol" (for lack of a better name for it).

Once you look at it right, this is all completely obvious.

Either that or aliens came down, changed what was already here and then left for some reason. Too complicated and too convoluted for me.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Helious
I'm sorry but frankly speaking...... Evolution is just as absurd as religion and both are broken theory's as it pertains to our sorted past.


this is A LOT of nonsense in one sentence.

Evolution might have its flaws and holes, but it's still the most logical way to make sense of things. Science HAS NO AGENDA, science (usually) is open if it needs to be revised....science also does not claim that theories can be free of flaws or holes. Religion *per se* goes to examine something on the background of a belief, not on observable facts.

You simply fell for the trap creationists want to spread for years already, to see "creationism" and evolution on about the same level, as if both could be interchanged and both theories would have their merits.

The fact that evolution has holes and is not perfect does NOT make it as absurd as creationism.

If you say that it's absurd....you're welcome to postulate a better one


edit on 29-5-2012 by flexy123 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 09:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Ookie
 

Too bad for you that absolutely nothing supports this (dare I say racist) fantasy. In fact, all scientific evidence is on the contrary. Ever heard of genetics?



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by blueorder
 


That's why we white folks are, well, white, we adapted to our environment.

One example of remarkable human evolution - Tibetans have been found to carry special genes that allow them to survive in altitudes the rest of us would find extremely inhospitable. Rather than being a problem for evolution this actually supports it.



You are trying to prove evolution by showing examples of adaptation and you even have the presence of mind to recognize it an call it adapting . Using adaptation as an example or proof of evolution is disingenuous since you know the "theory of evolution" relies on one species changing into another.

Then you mention creationism but i think this is a bias or crutch being used. Do you honestly believe that just because there is a concept of creation that a percentage of people will not buy evolution? I sure dont.
edit on 29-5-2012 by Malcher because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 


If you think that science doesn't care about "why", then obviously you never studied science or physics.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Malcher
Using adaptation as an example or proof of evolution is disingenuous since you know evolution relies on one species changing into another.

Please explain this further. According to you and your knowledge of modern synthesis, how does speciation happen?



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 10:02 AM
link   
We're still coming back to the same situation. There a definitely some holes in our understanding of the human timeline.It is believed that the great Sphinx was constructed somewhere around 2,500 B.C. It is also believed that the last significant span of rainfall in the Nile Vally ended approx 4,000 B.C. So how do we explain the water erosion on the Great Sphinx? Just look at it, it's clearly water erosion.It's an example of science forcing a square peg in a round hole to make the story fit. So why maintain the same ideas if the science doesn't work? It appears as if they're committed to the idea regardless of the facts. I'm definitely more of a scientific mind than a religious one. There is nothing I want more than for science to prove religion wrong, as I feel religion has caused much hurt in the human race. But don't tell me one thing when clear evidence is saying another, it goes against the logic behind science. Just look at the erosion, that is definitely not wind and sand erosion.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by swan001
reply to post by rhinoceros
 


If you think that science doesn't care about "why", then obviously you never studied science or physics.


1. You can't separate physics from science. Physics is but one field of science.
2. Why is a question related to politics, philosophy, religion, etc. It's not subject to verification by observation and experiment. It's not a question for science. Science cares about "what", "how", etc.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by GD21D
We're still coming back to the same situation. There a definitely some holes in our understanding of the human timeline.It is believed that the great Sphinx was constructed somewhere around 2,500 B.C. It is also believed that the last significant span of rainfall in the Nile Vally ended approx 4,000 B.C. So how do we explain the water erosion on the Great Sphinx? Just look at it, it's clearly water erosion.It's an example of science forcing a square peg in a round hole to make the story fit. So why maintain the same ideas if the science doesn't work? It appears as if they're committed to the idea regardless of the facts. I'm definitely more of a scientific mind than a religious one. There is nothing I want more than for science to prove religion wrong, as I feel religion has caused much hurt in the human race. But don't tell me one thing when clear evidence is saying another, it goes against the logic behind science. Just look at the erosion, that is definitely not wind and sand erosion.

I have seen the Great Sphinx in person. It looked old. That's about it. Who says the great Sphinx was constructed around 2,500 BC? Who says that the last significant span of rainfall in that region ended around 4,000 BC? When I was in Cairo, it rained two days in a row. Who says there are water erosion marks on the Great Sphinx? Who says there's somekind of problem? How does any of this affect the theory of evolution?



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 10:15 AM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 


I understand what you are trying to say. But Physics is VERY interested by the "why", believe me. A lot of important questions are still not answered, and that bothers ALOT scientists. The Anthropic Principle is something that perplexes every physicist. The reason why life seems to be the only thing that escaped entropy also stays a mystery, and scientists are still searching for the LAST truth, the real truth. Science, religion, Illuminati, EVERYBODY is trying to figure out the big question: Why?
Why are we here? Why is our universe so fine-tuned? etc.

Peace, mate.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by Malcher
Using adaptation as an example or proof of evolution is disingenuous since you know evolution relies on one species changing into another.

Please explain this further. According to you and your knowledge of modern synthesis, how does speciation happen?


My statement was accurate. I even think adaptations within a species is more like a glitch. I have not even studied the one mentioned to verify if it is factual.

I am curious to know where extinction fits into all of this, but i dont consider the fact that species go extinct as a proof just an obstacle that should be adressed if you believe in evolution. Many extinctions are slow processes and that would show a need to evolve. If you think about all the different forms of life on this planet that indicates a hell of a lot of evolving, so the next question one should ask is why? Why would one species change into another? Can you answer that?

I am not anti-evolution and if i was it would not be due to a religious belief. Aside from the questions i asked, i think people are not 100% convinced due to what they see as elements of design. Just look at the human eye or for that matter the whole human body and some people see complexity that nature alone does not show any indication that it has a reason for a living thing to see, breath, walk etc.

I am agnostic to this, just showing what you are up against.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 

* The traditional and probably still majority view is that the Great Sphinx was built at the same time as the nearby Pyramid of Khafre (Khaf-Ra, Chephren) in about 2540 B.C.E. The face of the Great Sphinx has been thought to be Khafre's, though recent evidence casts doubt on this notion (see below).
SOURCE Yes sir, around 2,500 B.C.

However there has been lively debate in recent years arguing that it may be anywhere from two to four times that old. John Anthony West first noticed weathering patterns on the Sphinx that were consistent with water erosion rather than erosion produced by wind and sand. These patterns were not found on other structures on the plateau. Geologist Robert Schock agreed that water erosion was in evidence.
A geologist asserts the fact that the water erosion was present. Are you sure you visited Egypt? The Nile Valley is still a dry climate, not sustaining enough rainfall to give the sphinx the type of erosion clearly evident. Spare me the credible scientist nonsense. You can find these facts simply by looking for them. Why does this have anything to to with the theory of evolution? It proves that science is not infallible and can be corrupted just like religion. If what John West asserts is true, than it throws our whole understanding of Egyptian society,and human history out of the window. I'm not going back and forth with you on this. Enjoy what you believe to be true, just as I will.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by swan001
reply to post by rhinoceros
 


I understand what you are trying to say. But Physics is VERY interested by the "why", believe me. A lot of important questions are still not answered, and that bothers ALOT scientists. The Anthropic Principle is something that perplexes every physicist. The reason why life seems to be the only thing that escaped entropy also stays a mystery, and scientists are still searching for the LAST truth, the real truth. Science, religion, Illuminati, EVERYBODY is trying to figure out the big question: Why?
Why are we here? Why is our universe so fine-tuned? etc.

Peace, mate.


1. Life is not escaping entropy.
2. The Universe is not fine-tuned for humans. The Universe is incredibly huge, yet the only place we know that supports human life is this tiny planet.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Malcher
Why would one species change into another? Can you answer that?

Species don't change into other species. Populations wander off and adapt to their new environments. Thus, over time, these populations may drift genetically so far from the original ones that they count as a new species. Species is a man made concept anyway. In the end, we are really talking about lineages of organisms.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 


Yes I know quite a bit about it actually. The genes needed to make a human are pretty much the same. If you're going to make one, that is the template you use. Doesn't mean that nearly identical sets of genes could not have existed elsewhere or that they do not now exist.

You seem more inclined to think that humans, pretty much the same ones we have now sat on their butts for 250,000 years and then all of a sudden about 15,000 years ago they figured out how to move enormous freaking rocks and stack them with precision. That for no reason at all, the exact same people we have today lived in caves and mud huts for 250,000 years and then for no reason started making computers and rocket ships.

That is silly.

Look at what we know. About 10-15 thousand years ago people started making cities for the first time. They did not start out simple, but these early cities had well planned streets and some even water and sewer systems. Those first people moved rocks we would struggle with today and stacked them like bricks. Then over time these techniques were lost and even though we now had civilization, it would be thousands of years before we could match those first works.

Doesn't that appear off to you? How about we had a few thousand survivors colonize this planet from a place more advanced than we are today? Those survivors brought with them memories of the life they left behind and tried to recreate it to some degree. They had small items that they brought with them from their home world to help them, but over time these items broke down or wore out.

That matches what we see. Thousands of years of stasis followed by really advanced skill followed by lesser and lesser skill until eventually everything had to be rediscovered. We have odd items that seem out of context for where they were found. This too would be a result of a group of a few people using things brought with them until they break or get lost.

There is just too much evidence for sudden awakening from something new. The white people with blue eyes were that something new. They came from elsewhere and created all we have today. Refute that. EVERY item of significance we have today was invented by white men, most of them with blue eyes. They are obviously more advanced than anyone else.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by GD21D
 

So either they misdated the Sphinx, or there was a rainy period, or this guy is just simply wrong. Wow. Incredible evidence against the theory of evolution!



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join