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.

 

In U.S., 46% Hold Creationist View of Human Origins

page: 28
30
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs
Yes we do know. I posted the link for you way back earlier in this thread. They fused and there is clear evidence of it. Go back a re read the link I posted. As for your question of Neanderthal and Denosivan chromosomes they had 46, same as humans. And yes, the breed with Neanderthals IS CONCRETE. We've mapped the whole genome of several specimens.


Oh we do know do we? I Just posted on the particular subject in this thread. No matching evolutionary breakpoints between Humans and chimps.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...




posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 


source...mohamedghilan.com...

The closest anyone has come to giving direct proof of Evolution, which is not even close to being called close, is Richard Lenski with his work on E. coli that started in 1988, where he grew it for 50,000 generations. It takes this bacterium 20 minutes to double by the way; so do not let the impressive 50,000 generations number impress you too much. His continuing “long-term” study has gotten E. coli to utilize citric acid in addition to taking up some other “evolutionary adaptations”. While this study is typically pushed as having shown the bacteria becoming more fit in the culture’s environment they were grown in, those who speak of it usually marginalize the fact that these “more fit” bacteria became more sensitive to other types of stress and were actually less able to survive for a longer period in stationary phase.

In fact, other experiments where normal wild type bacteria were put under a pressure that promoted the growth of particular resistant “more fit” strains, have shown that these bacteria reverted back to their wild type nature once the pressure was taken away. This is not Evolution as much as it is gene fluctuations that depend upon environmental pressures but may not necessarily result in speciation and forward progression.

Those who claim that we have direct observations of Evolution are making the same mistake the public makes when they speak about theory. Evolution is supposedly a process of progress from simple to complex, as well as a survival for the most properly adapted for an environment. It is a proposed process where new species arise from old ones, and diversity, we are assured, comes about after multiple mutations. It takes a very long time for this to take place – in the scales of hundreds of thousands and millions of years, which we can never observe in our lifespans. Any “evidence” or “observation” that is pushed as “support” for Evolution is circumstantial at best. The validity of Evolutionary theory rests on indirect inferences that were linked together to come up with its mechanism. If this is not faith, I do not know what is.



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lionhearte

It seems tragically human because you're thinking about it in the wrong sense; in, well, a human manner. Nothing wrong with that, really, but sometimes you need to think outside the box. If God/the Maker/the Creator could be understood in our tiny 3lb brain, he wouldn't be very big, and certainly wouldn't be worth worshiping.


Think how small an atom is. Now imagine all the power it holds.

The human brain is the most complex known structure in the universe, so you seriously underestimate the power of the human brain.



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by squiz
No matching evolutionary breakpoints between Humans and chimps.

That's not what the abstract said. It said that the ITSs are not located at the exact evolutionary breakpoints of the inversions between human and chimpanzee and between human and rhesus macaque chromosomes.



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by d3ink
I believe what the Founding Fathers of the United States of America believed, that there is a Universal Creator but it does not interfere with human life, and that Reason and Logic rule the Universe.

I was raised for many years by completely scientific minded parents who whole heartedly believe that we have come about through evolution, though there is as little -hard evidence- for this, as Christian Creationist beliefs, without taking the same leaps of faith.

I put my trust in the some of the greatest thinkers of our time. Get off your high horses.


The Founding Fathers also believed in owning slaves and the existence of Vampires.
edit on 7-6-2012 by Furbs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Tbrooks76
 


From the same source:




The second issue that seems to never go away when it comes to this business with Evolution is the fallacious use of authority. Just because Dr. John Doe is some big hotshot scientist who says Evolution is fact, it does not make it so. Moreover, Dr. John Doe’s being a believing religious man, does not all of a sudden give him any more authority than he had before so as to make Evolution a fact. It is foolishness to believe something simply because the scientific man in the white lab coat, or for that matter the religious man in the white robe, said it is true. The content of what is being said has to be examined, and the soundness of it must be tested before it can be accepted.


I mean really, man in white lab coat proves something trough experiments and we should not accept that as fact, where we should accept the books, in case of Islam, written 13 centuries ago for a fact and believe into it, and follow it? (just using Islam as example as his text starts with 'Bismillah')

Question to those following this religion, is it acceptable to have 'slave' and what Qur'an, as instruction book on how to live tells regarding slavery??

Does bold text apply to religions as well???

edit on 7-6-2012 by SuperFrog because: Forgot to bold bottom of quote



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by squiz

Originally posted by Barcs
Yes we do know. I posted the link for you way back earlier in this thread. They fused and there is clear evidence of it. Go back a re read the link I posted. As for your question of Neanderthal and Denosivan chromosomes they had 46, same as humans. And yes, the breed with Neanderthals IS CONCRETE. We've mapped the whole genome of several specimens.


Oh we do know do we? I Just posted on the particular subject in this thread. No matching evolutionary breakpoints between Humans and chimps.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...


Which part of that mentions the fusion and compares the exact fused chromosomes to the non fused chimp ones? I don't see how that's relevant at all.

www.evolutionpages.com...

I had a more detailed site as well that I can't seem to find, but there is clear evidence of fusion of chromosomes.



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tbrooks76
reply to post by Barcs
 


source...mohamedghilan.com...

The closest anyone has come to giving direct proof of Evolution, which is not even close to being called close, is Richard Lenski with his work on E. coli that started in 1988, where he grew it for 50,000 generations. It takes this bacterium 20 minutes to double by the way; so do not let the impressive 50,000 generations number impress you too much. His continuing “long-term” study has gotten E. coli to utilize citric acid in addition to taking up some other “evolutionary adaptations”. While this study is typically pushed as having shown the bacteria becoming more fit in the culture’s environment they were grown in, those who speak of it usually marginalize the fact that these “more fit” bacteria became more sensitive to other types of stress and were actually less able to survive for a longer period in stationary phase.

In fact, other experiments where normal wild type bacteria were put under a pressure that promoted the growth of particular resistant “more fit” strains, have shown that these bacteria reverted back to their wild type nature once the pressure was taken away. This is not Evolution as much as it is gene fluctuations that depend upon environmental pressures but may not necessarily result in speciation and forward progression.

Those who claim that we have direct observations of Evolution are making the same mistake the public makes when they speak about theory. Evolution is supposedly a process of progress from simple to complex, as well as a survival for the most properly adapted for an environment. It is a proposed process where new species arise from old ones, and diversity, we are assured, comes about after multiple mutations. It takes a very long time for this to take place – in the scales of hundreds of thousands and millions of years, which we can never observe in our lifespans. Any “evidence” or “observation” that is pushed as “support” for Evolution is circumstantial at best. The validity of Evolutionary theory rests on indirect inferences that were linked together to come up with its mechanism. If this is not faith, I do not know what is.


For some reason that website is blocked, but you are incorrect. Evolution as a process is proven 100%. The THEORY of evolution is not, but we know evolution happens and there is still much work to be done. Denying makes no sense, however. You are referencing one experiment out of many.

news.bbc.co.uk... - another speciation event

www.wired.com... - organisms go from single cell to multicellur in a lab

www.evolutionfaq.com... - basic facts, simple and to the point, not that detailed.

www.sciencenews.org... - references experiment on human mutation rates (aka evolution)

curiosity.discovery.com... - 10 examples of natural selection.

www.talkorigins.org... - 29 + individual evidences for evolution

Now if you want to talk science, please go through these sources and show me exactly where they are wrong.


lol.....Evolution was not seen in a lab, come on.

Yeah, come on, those links I just posted prove nothing lol.



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tbrooks76

Originally posted by Furbs


Are you of the opinion that a religious belief and a scientific theory should hold the same amount of credence?


That depends on the theory, the word Theory is thrown around so losely today. If anybody actually followed the scientific method this days haft our theorys would be hypothesis, including Evolution.

Quote Einstein : “it is the theory that determines what we observe”


Notice I didn't say "theory" I said "scientific theory".

Which religious belief is more credible than which scientific theory?



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lionhearte

Originally posted by HumanCondition
46% of the US has a serious social mental illness.


Translation-


46% of the US is retarded, and I am more intelligent then those 143 million people.


To the rest of you- Evolution is a theory and has NOT been observed, never, ever, ever. It has never been proven, and it is not science.

Debate me, I challenge you. Any claim, any question, any attack- I accept all.


Actually I'd love to know your exact position on creation , do you think the universe is less than 10,000 years old ? Do you think the whole of creation took 7 days of our current 24 hour system ? Do you think Genesis 1 & 2 are the literal truth ?

Thanks
edit on 7-6-2012 by AliceBlackman because: spelling



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by SuperFrog
 


So then he's mapped the code of the neanderthal? No he hasn't, we still have no idea of there chromosome count. Thats what I'm still talking about here, the TED talks conference has no mention of this.



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by NoJoker13
reply to post by SuperFrog
 


So then he's mapped the code of the neanderthal? No he hasn't, we still have no idea of there chromosome count. Thats what I'm still talking about here, the TED talks conference has no mention of this.


Several teams have been working on mapping the genome.
en.wikipedia.org...
Here is an entry into that world. It is fascinating, but don't let your research end here.



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 01:15 PM
link   
Just a few of my thoughts regarding this thread...in picture form:














posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pardon?

At least the atheist or evolutionist is trying to find an answer rather than taking the pompous and frankly condescending view that "god did it, quod erat demonstrandum".
Again, what you are saying is that you believe in creationism since you don't believe the alternatives. Why believe in anything then? Why not keep an open mind as I do?



Look at all your unfounded assumptions.

I too am open minded and trying to examine all the evidence to determine the truth. A Creator God is the Most logical answer to account for the clear design and awesome power of the universe that we live in.

I believe in God for a number of reasons, not the least of which, because of all that Science has discovered. Science reinforces my belief and provides me with a solid foundation of evidence that my belief has merit.

Science is on my side, not yours. Science is the enemy of the Evolutionist... it produces a multitude of questions that are unanswerable in a world without a creator. Essentially Science turns the Evoluntionist into a blubbering fool, forcing him to make rediculous assumptions all in a desperate effort to deny that God exists.

Evolution is NOT a substitute for a belief in a Divine Being. it is insufficient in its theory or ultimate reach. Non the less, it is taught as if it is. Science is assumed to be the antithesis of God. These are false paradigms.

Science can explore what has been created without denying its creator. Why not?
In fact I'll put it to you this way.

How could the study of the Physical world, possibly rule out the existence of the Non physical world?? In other words, if there is another dimension unseen by the human eye and out of the reach of our examination, how can you possibly claim with certainty that it does not exist?

Science can never prove that God does not exist. It is limited to ascertaining the veracity of the mechanisms present in the physical world. Any other claim made from Science regarding matters that it cannot test are just assumptions and cannot be presented as fact.

Similarly evolution in a limited capacity can be observed and replicated to provide an explination for minor Biological changes due to changes in stimulus or environment. However, to Scale this up to the grand notion that Everything we see on this planet evolved out of a swirling cloud of cosmic gas over billions of years is rediculous and has no scientific foundation.

If you are truly interested in discovering the Truth of things, Faith is necessary. The Scientific method has its limitations, if you are going to limit yourself to believing only in what you can prove through science, you will NEVER develop a cohesive understanding of the Bigger questions posed by human consciousness.

In other words, Faith allows man to develop a cohesive world view. It allows man to achieve understanding beyond his physical limitations. When it comes to the contemplation of How and Why we exist and are even Self Aware of our existance, we all have faith in something. I have Faith in a Divine source of Power and Information which is manifested in the physical world through creation. If you want to deny a Divine Source that is your perrogative, you have Faith then in some other as yet unidentified origin source, hoping that you will not be held accountable to a creator. Good luck with that. It doesn't change the validity of my belief just because you say so. You have NO EVIDENCE OR PROOF THAT MY VIEW POINT IS NOT VALID.

Your position is not more logical, it is simply limited. Logic and reason do not preclude beliefs regarding the nature of things outside the observable material world. God is a concept that is beyond the limitations of your scientific method.

I notice that you shy away from trying to provide an alternative explination as an Origin Source. I'm not suprised, you are incapable of answering this question from science, this is the Domain of Faith. I'll continue to rest my Faith in God, while you rest on Nothing. Just don't expect me to agree with you that your Faith in Nothing somehow proves that God does not exist. You have NOTHING to back up your rhetoric.

I am not trying to prove the existence of the immaterial world via observations in the material world. It is rediculous to ask someone to do this, I would never demand that you do this. There can be material evidence that can be used in hypothesis.. but that is it. I know what my hypothesis is regarding our origins. I'd love to hear yours. If you can produce a cohesive world view without God using logic and reason as your foundation, I would be impressed and I'm all ears. You would be the Very First human to accomplish this. I've never heard even a vaguely cohesive world view from any God denier ever.

Soul



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by squiz

Originally posted by Barcs
Yes we do know. I posted the link for you way back earlier in this thread. They fused and there is clear evidence of it. Go back a re read the link I posted. As for your question of Neanderthal and Denosivan chromosomes they had 46, same as humans. And yes, the breed with Neanderthals IS CONCRETE. We've mapped the whole genome of several specimens.


Oh we do know do we? I Just posted on the particular subject in this thread. No matching evolutionary breakpoints between Humans and chimps.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...


Except...here's what the science article really says (if you read more than the abstract): LINK



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 


Your very 1st link is a fruit fly becoming a.....wait for it.....wait for it……a fruit fly!!!!
I suppose in your eyes if a child is born with a birth defect like missing an arm that is an evolutionary step.

this is a great example of HAVING A THEROY AND TRYING TO MAKE THE EVIDENCE FIT THE THEORY it’s no different the what a bible thumper does, you just try and make the belief system sound better hiding behind so call science. But it’s not real science if you can’t stay objective, not that being Christian is any better when it comes to objectively, I get that, but evolutionist are just as non-objective, but they don’t admit it. You can justify it any way that make you feel better, but it’s a fruit fly becoming a fruit fly. Show me a cat giving birth to a dog, and then I respect an evolutionist a little more.



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by SoulReaper
 


Funny, why would science have to prove that God does not exist, when religious people (or anyone else) can not prove that it does exist?!?!

Your belief it does not make it real.

As for your need for faith, there are other form of science that can teach you about that, and Maslow's hierarchy of needs (yet another scientific theory) explains well that need to belong to group.




If you are truly interested in discovering the Truth of things, Faith is necessary. The Scientific method has its limitations, if you are going to limit yourself to believing only in what you can prove through science, you will NEVER develop a cohesive understanding of the Bigger questions posed by human consciousness.


Really? Science covers everything, from beginning of world, to future state of world, birth and death of starts, life, medicine... everything you can think of, even scientific look at religion (I had religion as class in college) and human needs to belong and explain something that at the time was unexplainable.

For me, born and raised without religion, it is very easy to grasp religion as tool to control masses. I can see tool help humanity giving humans some basic laws how to behave, but also being a tool of destruction, which cost and is still costing many millions of humans lives. (I survived one of those religious wars) For someone like Christopher Hitchens it was much harder, but is possible to see world the way it is...

In my opinion, religion is dividing people, and it's misleading human beings since first polytheism religions, being used for control of masses.



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 01:57 PM
link   
To make it quicker I'll just point out the blatant lies and misunderstandings of science. If science is on the side of creationism, why can't anybody provide any sources or scientific evidence of it?


Originally posted by SoulReaper
A Creator God is the Most logical answer to account for the clear design and awesome power of the universe that we live in.
- a course in logic would do you well


Science is on my side, not yours. Science is the enemy of the Evolutionist...

post it?

it produces a multitude of questions that are unanswerable in a world without a creator. Essentially Science turns the Evoluntionist into a blubbering fool, forcing him to make rediculous assumptions all in a desperate effort to deny that God exists.

A creator has nothing to do with the theory of evolution, whether true or false.

Evolution is NOT a substitute for a belief in a Divine Being. it is insufficient in its theory or ultimate reach. Non the less, it is taught as if it is. Science is assumed to be the antithesis of God. These are false paradigms.
Evolution does not EVER mention god. It is not against a creator. For evolution to occur life must already be there.


Science can explore what has been created without denying its creator. Why not?

Science doesn't deny a creator. It just doesn't factor god into equations since there's no evidence of his existence.


How could the study of the Physical world, possibly rule out the existence of the Non physical world??

It doesn't.

In other words, if there is another dimension unseen by the human eye and out of the reach of our examination, how can you possibly claim with certainty that it does not exist?

Evolution does not say that anywhere within the theory.


Science can never prove that God does not exist.

Never say never.


It is limited to ascertaining the veracity of the mechanisms present in the physical world. Any other claim made from Science regarding matters that it cannot test are just assumptions and cannot be presented as fact.

No scientific theory talks about god not existing.


Similarly evolution in a limited capacity can be observed and replicated to provide an explination for minor Biological changes due to changes in stimulus or environment. However, to Scale this up to the grand notion that Everything we see on this planet evolved out of a swirling cloud of cosmic gas over billions of years is rediculous and has no scientific foundation.

Where does evolution say anything about a cloud of cosmic gas?

If yo are truly interested in discovering the Truth of things, Faith is necessary.
In other words, Faith allows man to develop a cohesive world view.
- self contradicting statements.


You have NO EVIDENCE OR PROOF THAT MY VIEW POINT IS NOT VALID.

No need to prove you wrong, we only need to prove evolution correct, and this has been done. The only people that think evolution goes against a creator are bible literalists.


Your position is not more logical, it is simply limited. Logic and reason do not preclude beliefs regarding the nature of things outside the observable material world.
Proof? Evidence?

The problem is that people THINK evolution is anti-creation. It's not. If god created the universe, then great, but evolution is still part of the creation.



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 01:59 PM
link   




Harsh, sure. But makes me laugh and not bang my head against my desk whenever someone types "if we come from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?".



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tbrooks76
reply to post by Barcs
 


Your very 1st link is a fruit fly becoming a.....wait for it.....wait for it……a fruit fly!!!!
I suppose in your eyes if a child is born with a birth defect like missing an arm that is an evolutionary step.

Birth defects - science and genetics do explain why those do happen. Today's medicine and technology helps those kids/adults in many way, and just 2 weeks ago we had women who is paralized being able to move robotic arm with her mind and drink water for first time since she was paralized.

How about religion. What religion said about birth defects? Should people believe it's God's will??


this is a great example of HAVING A THEROY AND TRYING TO MAKE THE EVIDENCE FIT THE THEORY it’s no different the what a bible thumper does, you just try and make the belief system sound better hiding behind so call science. But it’s not real science if you can’t stay objective, not that being Christian is any better when it comes to objectively, I get that, but evolutionist are just as non-objective, but they don’t admit it. You can justify it any way that make you feel better, but it’s a fruit fly becoming a fruit fly. Show me a cat giving birth to a dog, and then I respect an evolutionist a little more.

Very arrogant view - you ask us to show you something that in real life took millions of years to happen. Science is doing more every day, more and more proofs are found, theories are being proven correct, where religion did not move much, actually trough history was discouraging science (and still is - t-cell research debates anyone?) and if it was for religion, we would still think that earth is flat and that God is moving clouds and rain.



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join