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.

 

Evolution - defies accepted science

page: 17
23
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by EvilSadamClone
 




people just don't understand that there really is a lot of science behind evolution and there really is a lot of answers, you just have to find them, and ignore the creationists. They are always very dishonest and misleading in this topic


Ya they are !





posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 08:29 PM
link   
reply to post by milkyway12
 


Your arguement only proves evolution is real and worth learning. Your arguement does not prove or disprove the existance of God. The only real answer to your debate is to find God himself, and ask him the answer.

The creation story is religion, which we decided should not be taught in school. Teach your religion at home if that is your desire.

Science does not directly oppose the idea of creation in the long run, but it does denounce the specifics put forth in the bible. It is important to teach your children to question, and think for themselves as science does. To teach otherwise is to encourage fascist behavior.

God is neither fascist nor stupid. The first thing you will do in this life is learn to breath. The last thing you will do in this world is learn to die. God obviously considers learning to be an important part of life.



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 08:40 PM
link   
reply to post by milkyway12
 


The idea of a "God molecule" landing on a planet and seeding life sounds more logical by accepted scientific standard than the idea that someone created everything. Notice I can use the word seed, because it happens so often in nature that we have a name to describe a smaller piece of matter that grows into a much larger one by using the existing environment around it. Usually it changes that environment in a way that allows more life to use what it leaves behind. Kind of like a blossoming planet! There's another one of those words, blossoming. See how many words that already describe nature can be used to describe my creation story?

Whether the whole thing was created by God, or God something else is beyond me. I have faith in God, but I do not have faith in the feeble minds of men telling me that stuff just started happening one day. It really doesn't fit with anything else in the universe. You may find a few circumstantial arguements to support your idea, but overall it doesn't hold water. That is why science isn't using it already. It doesn't stnd up to scrutiny.



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 08:59 PM
link   
reply to post by AnarchysAngel
 


why is does your opinion hold more water?



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 08:59 PM
link   
reply to post by AnarchysAngel
 


why is does your opinion hold more water?



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 09:06 PM
link   
reply to post by racer451
 


The creation story as put forth in the bible is most logicly interpreted as an early atempt at science. Anyone that has observed a family tree growing, knows that many people come from a couple or pair. Then logicly we can deduce that we all originally came from only two. They wrote that idea down in the form of a story, and called it faith. It was a fairly scientific realization for the time. Perhaps the very first question that science attempted to answer. Nowadays we know a bit more and are looking beyond our own species for the answer. Now we have more modern scientific observations and theories.

The story of Adam and Eve or something like it was probably considered universal truth for a very long time.



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 09:08 PM
link   
reply to post by milkyway12
 


NO A god DEFIES logic, seeing as this supposed almighty god was supposed to have created the universe why could he not get his message to all the races in the world at once, if man is created in his image as the book of fairy tales claims why do men from different areas of the world look different?

Who told you about god a MAN , who wrote the word of god MANY men, did god create man NO did MAN create god YES and lots of them.

In every part of the world man has different stories for the creation of man, the Earth and the universe THEY are believed by the people who started them, but they cant all be right BUT they can ALL BE WRONG.

Here is a link to just some of the god(s) man has created!!!

Names of gods

Gods were created by primitive man to explain thing they could not fully understand hence we have sun,moon,thunder gods etc.

Religion is the oldest racket in existence a jobs for the boys club nothing more and nothing less!!!!



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 09:15 PM
link   
The Both/AND Hypothesis
 


bump for reconsideration in the midst of great ignorance on either side of the "debate"..



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 09:32 PM
link   
Evolution threads always get a lot of replies
It is such a controversial subject. You think people would get tired of them and evolve to something else.

Although I believe in parts of evolution I don't believe in the whole package. To say that life evolved here without allowing for DNA to have been delivered here from somewhere else is too limiting. Everything here could have evolved from DNA that came from somewhere in space, the earliest forms or even mans DNA could have arrived on a space rock, finding raw materials to build on. Nothing I find in evolution addresses the possibility that life could have gotten here from another planet possibly far far away. On top of that this whole reality doesn't have to be real. Our perception could be so far off that the evidence could be severely flawed. If the energy that holds us together were to fail, our bodies would fall apart. The only thing holding us together are bonds of energy, bonds that are reliant on certain frequencies so that we stay the shape we are. Change the frequency by a considerable amount and our shape will morph into something else. This could happen within one lifetime of a person or long lived animal or plant. Does the theory of evolution address this concept? I don't think so.

So in wrapping this up I have to say that the theory of evolution, as is, has too many flaws for me to accept. The flaws are there because of the limited intellect of humanity, the part that says this is the way things are and you have to accept it. I cannot agree to limiting the options, that would not be true science. I can accept some of the evidence as the best guess of the time but will not say it is right.



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 09:42 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


The difference is the Piltdown man was a hoax perpetrated on science, and science made an honest mistake and was not trying to be purposefully dishonest. It was not a hoax perpetrated by science. When it was found to be a hoax, science did correct itself. In fact some people think it was perpetrated by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, but nobody really knows for sure who did it. At least as far as I know.

You see, that's the big difference between science and religion. Science will change if you can show it with evidence that it is wrong or that there is a better explanation that will be supported by evidence.

The only way religion actually changes is if a group of people decide they don't want to worship their deity in the way their major group demands they do, so they leave the group to form their own. Religion hates change of any sort and will often not accept it.

You see, this is also one the poor reasoning by people who don't understand science. they think that once something has been established it must not be changed under any circumstances or it is all wrong. And that is just not the way science really works.

Now, is science perfect? No, it does make mistakes and there are some arrogant scientists out there, but overall, it is a good system.

I have no more to say on this. I loathe talking about this subject because people are so emotionally invested in their beliefs that they can never accept anything else other than what they want to believe, and so nothing is going to get accomplished.



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by milkyway12
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 


Evolution sure isn't within those parameters either. They ignore the things they cannot figure out.

Micro-Evolution is ADAPTATION.
C
The species which has the best genes in action from the Genetic Shuffle will have more opportunity to mate, natural selection. However, you do not create new species, you simply survive as your current species with the traits you already posses.
edit on 12-10-2012 by milkyway12 because: (no reason given)


Evolution is a variable process. When ever there is Climate Change or a Natural Disaster...which ever specific Members of a Species survive and are able to breed...this is NATURAL SELECTION or SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST. Thus over long periods of time an Animal such as the Giraffe was able to grow a longer and longer neck as a one time Jungle turned into a Savanna. The trees were few and tall and the Giraffe's with the Genetic Disposition to have a long neck...survived and bred. This was also the reason why our ancient ancestors left the trees and became Bi-Pedal. Being able to walk or run on two legs allowed Human Ancestors to be able to see both Prey and Predators from a greater distance because of their height. Continued...S.I.



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 09:46 PM
link   
reply to post by rickymouse
 



Although I believe in parts of evolution I don't believe in the whole package. To say that life evolved here without allowing for DNA to have been delivered here from somewhere else is too limiting. Everything here could have evolved from DNA that came from somewhere in space, the earliest forms or even mans DNA could have arrived on a space rock, finding raw materials to build on. Nothing I find in evolution addresses the possibility that life could have gotten here from another planet possibly far far away.


That's because the modern evolutionary synthesis isn't a theory about how life/DNA/etc first emerged on Earth. It only seeks to explain the diversity of life we see on this planet. The origin of life is a field that's still up for debate. The leading hypothesis is abiogenesis but panspermia (what you described in your post) has its fair share of supporters.



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 09:52 PM
link   
reply to post by milkyway12
 
Continued...
Also...New Species are just various forms of OLDER SPECIES which have adapted and changed over Millions of Years.

There is on occasion Genetic Mutation which can create a very different form of a Species as the Young of a Species that has under gone Radiation Bombardment of various forms...may have young or as in Plant Life...have a very different offspring than the species existed in but one generation.

There is also forced breeding or manipulation of a species such as with CORN. Corn is a Plant which is completely created by MAN over a Thousand Years. The Original Kernel came from a plant that was only 10 inches tall. This plant only had a few kernel per plant. The Ancient Mayans GRAFTED this plant with another tall red like plant and after a THOUSAND YEARS of selecting and cross pollination...we have the various CORN STALKS AND EARS OF CORN that exist today. Split Infinity



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


In science a theory is a body of facts, so you're right, it is a theory.

And that is just made up stuff and a great example of how dishonest creationists are.



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 10:07 PM
link   
Well I think people should stop using children as little pawns in their retarded atheist/Christian political power pull. Creationism should not be taught in school because their is nothing to teach, "someone created everything-end of lesson" there is nothing more to teach, there is no large amount of evidence or years of data backing creation. The closest creation science comes to science is they point out some problems with evolution. Were they go wrong is by saying "evolution does not explain _______, GOD DID IT!!!". While there are problems and issues with evolution that does not mean that creationism is right.
Kids don't even learn evolution in school really, they learn the concept of evolution and that is about it. They also learn about how the pilgrims landed on Plymouth rock, had thanksgiving with them and everyone was happy ever after.



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 10:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 


Life here could have been delivered at different intervals from different location in the universe. Maybe the energy encodes the DNA with different appearances with different frequencies. Maybe mans DNA is shared amongst many planets throughout the universe but it doesn't have to mean the others look like us. If they came here they may look like us within a short time but I think the modifications of the atmosphere and the chemistry of the lifeforms here would cause their death before they could blend in. I am open minded, not believing the limitations that are accepted as real by others. I do check out the evidence and the parameters the evidence was acquired with.



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 10:14 PM
link   
reply to post by EvilSadamClone
 





I have no more to say on this. I loathe talking about this subject because people are so emotionally invested in their beliefs that they can never accept anything else other than what they want to believe, and so nothing is going to get accomplished.


Alright but I want you to know that I had for knowledge of what you might say and i agree that science was a victim in this. Although I believe it definitely points to something more sinister than you make it out to be at the same time. I also agree it is a brilliant system that in itself can evolve in ways if it might need too. I love science but evolution I believe is prone to any number of oky dokes, fallacy and is a deterrent to the real truth.

That we were not meant to be here alone and we never have been alone. We've had keepers, ( Watchers ? ) the whole way, or no species would've lasted long enough in a primordial state. Not in a hostile environment like Earth once was. Again Evolution would need an infinite amount of time just to get started.
edit on 12-10-2012 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 

Have there ever been any skeletons of these ancient giraffes with the shorter necks? Surely there must be plenty of skeletons buried in various areas, as they would have starved to death.



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 10:49 PM
link   
Why are people so stubborn. Does it have to be Black or White? Creation or evolution.?
You cant have evolution without creation, something had to be created before it can evolve.
Having said that, I've seen creationists use a stupid analogy that evolution is wrong for the reason I used above.
But Humanity and all species on the planet have at different stages evolved, we are not the same beings we were 1,000,000 years ago, we would have many similarities but also distinct differences.
I cannot believe that creationists stick with the creation of Man 6000 years ago.
Ample evidence in the fossil record disproves this theory, don't start with the carbon dating being wrong crap, I just don't buy it.
Life was created somewhere, a very long time ago. Perhaps before the Earth even formed, microbes with dna could have travelled to Earth on a meteor, the process is billions of years in the making and our diversity is due to different climate, different needs, different environments and maybe some tinkering from some off-world intelligence.
Obviously God would have been an off-world intelligence, he certainly wasn't born on Earth so that makes him an Alien.
And unless he created himself, I think he may have had help of the womanly kind.
Yes I think God was an alien and that mankind was probably the introduction of human dna from possibly a dying world, Yes we were in a sense created, but we were created to evolve. So both theories have validity to a point.



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 10:55 PM
link   
reply to post by pacifier2012
 


Oh, there are fish that 'walk' on land and can even climb trees and stay out of the water for days.



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join