Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

No Such Thing As Evolution

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 31 2004 @ 09:57 PM
link   
Well, I think I am the missing link!
But that is besides the point. If you knew how the universe started then we would know the answers!!! or you can believe in something either way.

In any event, there is no way to say, 'there is not a God', as a god will always exist while humans believe in that concept.




posted on Oct, 31 2004 @ 10:05 PM
link   
You got it! Humans are waaayyy to afraid to realise that there may be NOTHING when you die. Nothing, zero, zilch, thatsssss it its over!

Humans cannot grasp the concept of NOTHING so you have to belive in SOMETHING.



posted on Oct, 31 2004 @ 11:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by just_a_pilot
Impossible to create something from nothing?????

Come now, surely you jest.

( He did not really say that right? )

I am going to use that from now on. Something from nothing.

You got it! Plastic was ALWAYS here we just figured out how to mix the molecules to make Reynolds plastic wrap!

It was ALWAYS here, we just figured it out the manipulation involed to make it the way you use it.

Oh, rubber was always 'here', but Goodyear figured out how to vulcanize it to fit your tire!

New Paradigm. Earth plus plastic! Enjoy!
`

I doubt your equating plastic to nothing bears any relevance here. The issue is; if God created the universe from nothing, then from what did God originate, so that he might create something from nothing. It is not a mind boggling question by any means for creationists, at least it shouldn't be., since in order to believe in God's existence he/she/it/whatever, had to have been formed from nothingness. The problem is that creationists look to God as having been there just because. No explanation as to why, how or whence. He just was, is the finite answer to their question if you will. Yet, that still begs the question as to what caused his/her/its creation.

Therefore, while it mght be all well and satisfactory to define closure for creationists, that theory in itself when properly expounded by reason, is no more convincing than evolution, for it too is never ending.

So rather than respond with disbelief nestled within confoundedness, a reasoned explanation as to why you believe otherwise would be more appropriate.

[edit on 10/31/04 by SomewhereinBetween]



posted on Nov, 1 2004 @ 12:11 AM
link   
I belive I already posted how evolution works. When I post something like that it is in jest.

Post Number: 914581



posted on Nov, 1 2004 @ 01:38 AM
link   
..primordial soup..anyone? www.accessexcellence.org...



posted on Nov, 1 2004 @ 02:52 AM
link   
I havent really bothered to read through the thread, but here;
There have been computer simulations to test the evolution of the eye. (Source, Discworld,p336, 'Nilsson and Pelger' say the eye can evolve over 8000 'grandfathers', where 1 grandfather = 50 years.).
And a computer simulation that gave some cells photosensitive capability and evolved the eye in 450 generations..

Also, Richard Dawkins in The Blind Watchmaker shows how the eye may have evolved



posted on Nov, 1 2004 @ 03:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
The problem is that creationists look to God as having been there just because. No explanation as to why, how or whence. He just was, is the finite answer to their question if you will. Yet, that still begs the question as to what caused his/her/its creation.

Therefore, while it mght be all well and satisfactory to define closure for creationists, that theory in itself when properly expounded by reason, is no more convincing than evolution, for it too is never ending.


Comes to my mind (about flaws of creation) 3 lines from my fav tune (A Perfect Circle: Judith) - with emphasis on the last one:

...Still you pray, you never stray
...Never taste of the fruit
...You never thought to question why

Misfit

[Edit = reiteration - flaws of creation]

[edit on 1-11-2004 by Misfit]



posted on Nov, 1 2004 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Misfit
Evolution: A continuing process of change from one state or condition to another or from one form to another.

Not exist?

Can you say:
tadpole & catepiller
to
frog & butterfly?

Evolution.

Misfit


I can say "Metamorphosis" which is a genetic pre-programming. This is entirely different than trans-species evolution:

Main Entry: metamorphosis
Pronunciation: "me-t&-'mor-f&-s&s
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural metamorphoses /-"sEz/
Etymology: Latin, from Greek metamorphOsis, from metamorphoun to transform, from meta- + morphE form
1 a : change of physical form, structure, or substance especially by supernatural means b : a striking alteration in appearance, character, or circumstances
2 : a marked and more or less abrupt developmental change in the form or structure of an animal (as a butterfly or a frog) occurring subsequent to birth or hatching

Seriously folks, gotta bring in the Bible on this one? C'mon, why is it "Evolution or nothing!" in the science field? That makes no sense. Evolution can be debunked by biology itself without including creationism.



posted on Nov, 1 2004 @ 09:44 PM
link   
How does evolution account for humans only using 10 - 15% of their brains? Why evolve into having so much more if we are not using any of it? For instance, we dont see a bunch of evolved humans running around with an extra leg they do not need. Why have extra brain capacity that we dont use?



posted on Nov, 1 2004 @ 10:38 PM
link   
About the 10-15% of the brain....

First, I don't really buy that all that tissue is there and we don't use it at all. Couldn't it just be that we don't know about it's function yet? There are still a lot of things we don't have worked out up there. Maybe we just don't know that we use it.

But considering the scientists who told us we only use 10-15% of out brains are probably a heck of a lot smarter than me, here's my best guess at an explanation...

Things (organisms, organs, etc.) change and evolve over the course of a LONG evolutionary history. And the selective pressure causing these things to evolve also changes. The environment we live in now is not the same as the one our brains evolved in. Perhaps we used that extra tissue at some point, and we just don't use it anymore.

It's kind like why we still have wisdom teeth, appendixes, and why whales have hipbones (vestigial structures). We needed them, then.

Why haven't we evolved to get rid of the excess tissue? We probably are. If I remember correctly, homosapien brains are tending to get smaller, with more neural connections (essentially more efficient). But we're probably not in much of a hurry... after all, other than maybe some excess weight, it's not hurting us. Having some extra brain you're not using doesn't prevent you from having fertile children... it doesn't affect fitness significantly.



posted on Nov, 1 2004 @ 10:51 PM
link   
10% to 15% = not

Have some read

www.snopes.com...
www.csicop.org...
www.brainconnection.com.../brain-myth2

Misfit



posted on Nov, 2 2004 @ 11:43 PM
link   
Marc11 and others, before you label the theory of evolution as false, perhaps you should learn more about it. I suggest maybe first year science at uni. The theory is far too complex to be explained and understood on a website, no matter how extensive the forum may be. You must understand that it is not a simple idea, unlike the theory of creation, and that it is difficult to comprehend by jumping into the deep end, ie you need to know the basics of biology, chemistry and physics first.

One final thought to leave you with: Once, people thought the earth was flat...



posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 10:47 AM
link   
I think Carlin put it best when he said, "There was no big bang, just a big hand job."



posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by colourblind
Marc11 and others, before you label the theory of evolution as false, perhaps you should learn more about it. I suggest maybe first year science at uni. The theory is far too complex to be explained and understood on a website, no matter how extensive the forum may be. You must understand that it is not a simple idea, unlike the theory of creation, and that it is difficult to comprehend by jumping into the deep end, ie you need to know the basics of biology, chemistry and physics first.

One final thought to leave you with: Once, people thought the earth was flat...


Been there, done that as well as practical application. It doesn't add any factual or substantial evidence. I know some 8th graders who can make more powerful arguments for evolution than most professors I've had. I think if we stick to the facts, after all that is science, then we cannot be steered wrong. Now begs the question, where are the facts? Circumstantial explanations of skulls without genetic proof of relation or actual mechanism. Nice...



posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
Now begs the question, where are the facts?


That goes both ways............where are the facts of creation?

Misfit



posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 02:36 PM
link   
There is as little facts about creation as there are about evolution, but the difference is science is based on proofs and physical reality whereas the belief in God is on a large degree spiritual and faith dependent. Not to be confused by blind faith, because I do not blindly follow. Rather my proofs of God are by personal experience and the events surrounding me so there isn't a way to write a formula about it. Biology though, is another story. It's very, very visually based. Even the things unseen to the eye are depicted in illustrations to demonstrate examples. So, for people to study evolution and then say "I don't see the connections" on a large scale tells us there is problem with it. I'm not saying evolution is wrong, I'm just saying provide support or don't preach it as scientific gospel.

[edit on 4-11-2004 by saint4God]



posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 02:52 PM
link   
Evolution is the cover story for this month's National Geographic. Its actually kind of funny! On the cover it says "Was Darwin Wrong?", and on the inside it says "No". I thought that was great! Anyway, here is a link to part of the article, you will have to check out the magazine to read the rest.

magma.nationalgeographic.com...



posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Misfit
Evolution: A continuing process of change from one state or condition to another or from one form to another.

Not exist?

Can you say:
tadpole & catepiller
to
frog & butterfly?

Evolution.

Misfit


Thats not evolution it's metamorphisis.



posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 11:57 PM
link   


in February 2001, no less than 45 percent of responding U.S. adults agreed that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so



Still fewer Americans, only 12 percent, believed that humans evolved from other life-forms without any involvement of a god.


So the majority of people believe that evolution is wrong and only 12% actually believe in total evolution without any involvment from a God. This is after what they teach in class.

Nature is vicious if it created us to believe in something greater than ourselves ... dont you agree?


[edit on 5-11-2004 by shmick25]



posted on Nov, 5 2004 @ 12:25 AM
link   
It is not only a little ironic that "no such thing as evolution" should be posted in the "Conspiracies in Religions" forum: rather, such a juxtaposition is highly appropriate.






top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join