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.

 

DEBATE Evolution vs Creation. Come on in!

page: 7
5
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 26 2013 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by supergravity
reply to post by boncho
 


Let me explain what I have learned,


Evolution occurs on a small scale and locally,methods to measure age of objects are flawed.You can petrify wood in the lab in 3 years, Bury it under a creek it will petrify in 10 years....NOT MILLIONS OF YEARS.
The earth was constructed by the creator with an ICE LAYER TOTALLY SUROUNDING THE EARTH ,this is (the firmament above the firmament) genesis.
The ice layer protected humans and animals from all types of terrestrial radiation, cosmic radiation, solar radiation,ect, etc CAUSING the ageing process to almost STOP. THIS IS WHY PEOPLE LIVED 1000 YEARS.
The ice layer compressed the atmosphere many times what it is today CAUSING BLOOD PLASMA TO TAKE ON OXYGEN .This allowed men to run 100miles before they were tired, Bugs, plants and animals grew many times larger than today.The creator became upset at men using technology on his children such as tower of babel, genetics, and perversion .He allowed a meteor TO SMASH INTO THE ICE SHEILD AND IT collapsed onto the north and south poles .Around the equator it melted as it took 40 days and nights to fall.This flooded the entire earth and formed the grand canyon in 25 minutes, not millions of years.


I just about fell off my unicorn after reading this!
Do you have any citations for any of this? I would like to know who made this stuff up.




posted on May, 26 2013 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by supergravity
 

Assuming this isn't a Poe (bravo to you if it is, well done!), take some time and calculate what the temperature would be if the atmosphere were compressed under the mass of water required to cause it to rain for that long.

Hint: it's been done, and the surface temperature of the Earth would be more than the boiling point of water under those conditions.



posted on May, 26 2013 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by flyingfish

Nonsense!
It is a fact molecules spontaneously react on their own. Its all according to known physical laws. Biology is just complex chemistry and chemistry is just complex physics. There's no consciousness needed. RNA doesn't have any driver, its just a chemical reaction.

Okay.




posted on May, 26 2013 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by vasaga
Mutations + natural selection is insufficient.

How is the below insufficient?


I don't have a problem with any of those points.


Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by vasaga


Really? There is one very simple scientific question. How does only natural selection with random mutations allow for a single celled organism to become a fully fledges conscious human being, whether it's quadrillions of years or millions of years or any other time frame?


Isn't that what the theory of evolution is proposing? When you can answer that, I will accept neo-darwinism as being true. I wish you good luck.


 


Oh jeez, you did it too. You should read my first post and go back and read this article:

Link

Abiogenesis and evolution are two separate beasts. That's like saying theories behind gravity are false because magnetism doesn't explain why I'm cold in the winter.
Nonsense. I know the difference between abiogenesis and evolution. I asked the question from where the first cell was already present. This means that abiogenesis was not part of my question. How the cell first got there is irrelevant to the discussion right now. At least... To the majority here. It has direct implications on evolution, but no one here ever admits that, so, I go along with it, and leave abiogenesis out of it.
edit on 26-5-2013 by vasaga because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2013 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by vasaga
 


Your comment on abiogenesis

At least... To the majority here. It has direct implications on evolution, but no one here ever admits that, so, I go along with it


They don't want to go there because it weakens the the whole concept of a theory, it is intellectually dishonest.
Well I go there as much as I can, because people who continually say they aren't linked just don't want to deal with it.



posted on May, 27 2013 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


You're right. But I've beaten them at their own game multiple times. Thing is, they will never admit it, and will keep repeating the same thing over and over, and that they've debunked my claims multiple times. Just wait for it. Someone will reply to this, and tell me I'm talking nonsense, that I was never right, that they explained everything blah blah.



posted on May, 27 2013 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by vasaga
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


You're right. But I've beaten them at their own game multiple times. Thing is, they will never admit it, and will keep repeating the same thing over and over, and that they've debunked my claims multiple times. Just wait for it. Someone will reply to this, and tell me I'm talking nonsense, that I was never right, that they explained everything blah blah.


That's precisely it. The points on evolution that have been answered in this thread are fully overlooked by the ones arguing creationism.

And while points made for evolution are sound, linked to scientific data to back it up, you can't be happy with that. Instead, you push a creationist's wet dream of, "We have the answers to EVERYTHING"

Creationism Disclaimer: You must ignore all scientific data out there.

Well, if that's how you want to win your argument so be it.



posted on May, 27 2013 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


They don't want to go there because it weakens the the whole concept of a theory, it is intellectually dishonest.

I know you won't understand this any better this time than all of the other times the same point has been made, but I'm in a banging-my-head-against-the-wall kind of mood: it does not matter how life got here -- abiogenesis, the Abrahamic god said "waka jakwaka" and it was here, Frank the Space Unicorn farted it out, aliensdidit, whatever -- evolution is observed. The observed and objective fact that allele frequencies change over time within a given population has nothing to do with how life got here in the first place. Part of me is still amazed that you can't grasp that. The other part of me is too busy enjoying a Sixpoint Diesel too much to care.



posted on May, 27 2013 @ 07:26 PM
link   
reply to post by vasaga


How does only natural selection with random mutations allow for a single celled organism to become a fully fledges conscious human being, whether it's quadrillions of years or millions of years or any other time frame?


Isn't that what the theory of evolution is proposing? When you can answer that, I will accept neo-darwinism as being true. I wish you good luck.


 




Okay, let's go back to your question. You are asking how a single celled organism can go beyond the single cell prison they are in correct?


The transition from one-celled microbes to multicellularity was a huge step in the evolution of life on this planet, but as daunting as this evolutionary step seems, it didn't happen just once. Today's plants, fungi, animals, and various types of algae are all descendants of separate transitions to multicellular life.

All of these transitions from a single-cell lifestyle to multicellularity occurred in the very distant past, so how can we learn anything about them? It turns out that it is not hard to find living, modern examples that closely parallel the momentous evolutionary transitions that led to animals, plants, and fungi. Right now on earth there are primitive multicellular organisms that, in many ways, resemble the first multicellular creatures that existed a billion years ago. Researchers are using these organisms to understand what kinds of genetic changes are needed to turn a single-celled organism into a multicellular one.




Here is part of the time line the researchers came up with:

1) ~223 million years ago, a species of single-celled green algae began forming aggregates of cells stuck together by a glue of secreted proteins and sugars (and we can see species which do this today).

2) Also ~200 million years ago, the rate of cell division began to be controlled genetically. Unlike single-celled organisms, which reproduce whenever the surrounding environment is right, the new multicellular algae began controlling exactly how many daughter cells they produce. This is a critical step towards establishing a multi-cellular body-plan with genetically controlled dimensions.

3) Roughly 10 million years later, the cells of some multicellular algae species began to orient their whip-like flagella in the same direction, so that all of the flagella would work together to control the swimming direction of the organism.

4) By ~100 million years ago, some of the algae species had established separate reproductive germ cells, and ever since then, various volvocine algae species have developed more cells with highly specialized functions.


www.science20.com...

If you are looking for the study that was done to come to these conclusions, you can find it here:

Source
edit on 27-5-2013 by boncho because: (no reason given)


I think the major change you are looking for is where a species switches from asexual reproduction to sexual reproduction, but this is observed in a single species today, which is able to switch back and forth.


Alternation between sexual and asexual reproduction [edit]

See also: Plant reproduction#Sexual reproduction
Some species alternate between the sexual and asexual strategies, an ability known as heterogamy, depending on conditions. Alternation is observed in several rotifer species and a few types of insects, such as aphids which will, under certain conditions, produce eggs that have not gone through meiosis, thus cloning themselves. The cape bee Apis mellifera subsp. capensis can reproduce asexually through a process called thelytoky. A few species of amphibians, reptiles, and birds have a similar ability (see parthenogenesis for examples). For example, the freshwater crustacean Daphnia reproduces by parthenogenesis in the spring to rapidly populate ponds, then switches to sexual reproduction as the intensity of competition and predation increases. Another example are monogonont rotifers of the genus Brachionus, which reproduce via cyclical parthenogenesis: at low population densities females produce asexually and at higher densities a chemical cue accumulates and induces the transition to sexual reproduction. Many protists and fungi alternate between sexual and asexual reproduction.

For example, the slime mold Dictyostelium undergoes binary fission (mitosis) as single-celled amoebae under favorable conditions. However, when conditions turn unfavorable, the cells aggregate and follow one of two different developmental pathways, depending on conditions. In the social pathway, they form a multicellular slug which then forms a fruiting body with asexually generated spores. In the sexual pathway, two cells fuse to form a giant cell that develops into a large cyst. When this macrocyst germinates, it releases hundreds of amoebic cells that are the product of meiotic recombination between the original two cells.[11]

The hyphae of the common mold (Rhizopus) are capable of producing both mitotic as well as meiotic spores. Many algae similarly switch between sexual and asexual reproduction.[12] A number of plants use both sexual and asexual means to produce new plants, some species alter their primary modes of reproduction from sexual to asexual under varying environmental conditions.[13]


en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 27-5-2013 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2013 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


They don't want to go there because it weakens the the whole concept of a theory, it is intellectually dishonest.

I know you won't understand this any better this time than all of the other times the same point has been made, but I'm in a banging-my-head-against-the-wall kind of mood: it does not matter how life got here -- abiogenesis, the Abrahamic god said "waka jakwaka" and it was here, Frank the Space Unicorn farted it out, aliensdidit, whatever -- evolution is observed. The observed and objective fact that allele frequencies change over time within a given population has nothing to do with how life got here in the first place. Part of me is still amazed that you can't grasp that. The other part of me is too busy enjoying a Sixpoint Diesel too much to care.


No, I actually think they are saying now, even without abiogenesis, evolution is void and null because they can't see how a single celled organism can change to a multi celled organism, even though this is observed today, and in the fossil record.

Or, I imagine the idea of something change from asexual to sexual being something very tough for a creationist to grasp, but again, observed today and in the fossil record.

If a woman takes male hormones, one part of her sexual organ begins to look like the male sexual organ. This isn't a mere coincidence, or because god made Eve from one of Adam's rib.

The evolutionary drivers inside us saw that sexual reproduction was beneficial to the environment we were in, so the change happened. Of course, this was long before we "popped out of curious George as a human."

I know a creationist goes to the zoo, looks at a monkey and states emphatically, "Evolutionists and scientists are idiots!" but really, there are more similarities than they'd like to recognize between the two of them.




posted on May, 27 2013 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by flyingfish

Nonsense!
It is a fact molecules spontaneously react on their own. Its all according to known physical laws. Biology is just complex chemistry and chemistry is just complex physics. There's no consciousness needed. RNA doesn't have any driver, its just a chemical reaction.


I feel like you completely ignored the video I posted.



posted on May, 27 2013 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 





No, I actually think they are saying now, even without abiogenesis, evolution is void and null because they can't see how a single celled organism can change to a multi celled organism, even though this is observed today, and in the fossil record.


As much as you want to divide the issue to justify the discussion you can. I like the people that are " I believe and understand evolution......I don't know about abiogenesis...but it doesn't matter because evolution is true"

So they want to break up the discussion into to 2 parts:
1)Non-living matter developing into a single cell.
2)A single cell developing into two humans male and female.

Perhaps scientifically by pure definition Evolution does not cover the first one. But conceptually and culturally it does for almost all people, except for the ones that want to debate it ad nauseum as they want to make a point of saying by pure scientific definition you are wrong.
I get it, it has been posted many times here at ATS for years.
News flash in case you haven't figured it out yet, cosmological development, abiogensis and evolution are a joint package for those of us that believe in creation via God as told by the bible.
You will NEVER separate them for us. So to try to is like one poster said banging your head against a brick wall, don't waste the bandwidth or the keystrokes.

For the record I support the big bang theory controlled by God, and old earth creation. Science when it comes to the creation of non-living matter cannot be ignored, and is generally accurate. Unlike theories of fanciful conjecture and supposition, that uses a flawed human bias.



posted on May, 27 2013 @ 08:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33


1)Non-living matter developing into a single cell.


 


Can you please point out with elements on the periodic table are "living" and which ones are 'non-living'?




News flash in case you haven't figured it out yet, cosmological development, abiogensis and evolution are a joint package for those of us that believe in creation via God as told by the bible.
You will NEVER separate them for us. So to try to is like one poster said banging your head against a brick wall, don't waste the bandwidth or the keystrokes.

For the record I support the big bang theory controlled by God, and old earth creation. Science when it comes to the creation of non-living matter cannot be ignored, and is generally accurate. Unlike theories of fanciful conjecture and supposition, that uses a flawed human bias.


Pick and choose your position whether or not it's contradictory and make no sense in the process? Check.



posted on May, 27 2013 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by HarryTZ

Originally posted by flyingfish

Nonsense!
It is a fact molecules spontaneously react on their own. Its all according to known physical laws. Biology is just complex chemistry and chemistry is just complex physics. There's no consciousness needed. RNA doesn't have any driver, its just a chemical reaction.


I feel like you completely ignored the video I posted.


Actually I watched the video and enjoyed it...Thanks.



posted on May, 27 2013 @ 09:28 PM
link   
reply to post by flyingfish
 


So, RNA is 'just a chemical reaction'?



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 04:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


News flash in case you haven't figured it out yet, cosmological development, abiogensis and evolution are a joint package for those of us that believe in creation via God as told by the bible.
(Emphasis mine.) I hope you utilize sources of comparable relevance when looking for the answers to theological questions. Like maybe a copy of a Haynes Repair Manual for Subaru Legacy and Forester (2000 - 2006 edition).



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 07:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by HarryTZ
reply to post by flyingfish
 


So, RNA is 'just a chemical reaction'?


And your point being?



Here try it for yourself... GenScript you can have RNA chemically synthesized to your specifications.

However before you spend the money may I suggest you start with the basics.

edit on 28-5-2013 by flyingfish because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 09:54 AM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 





Can you please point out with elements on the periodic table are "living" and which ones are 'non-living'?


Ok that is a facetious question, not one worth answering .
But......
Professor of Biology Alexandre Meinesz highlighted the dilemma. He stated that over the last 50 years, “no empirical evidence supports the hypotheses of the spontaneous appearance of life on Earth from nothing but a molecular soup, and no significant advance in scientific knowledge leads in this direction"

Are you a professor of Biology ?



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 

Apparently you aren't a biology professor either.

Here's the quote in context, from Meinesz's "How Life Began: Evolution's Three Geneses", since you're just quote mining:

The balance sheet of the last 50 years of research on the origin of life is simple. No empirical evidence supports the hypotheses of the spontaneous appearance of life on Earth from nothing but a molecular soup, and no significant advance in scientific knowledge leads in this direction. Even if our alchemists one day reconstruct in their laboratories part of the puzzle of how bacterial machinery arose, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to prove that that is how things actually happened on Earth. By contrast, we are witnessing the emergence of a group of new arguments and a new piece of evidence in favor of an alternative hypothesis : an extraterrestrial origin. I will add that, if this hypothesis is supported by other sorts of tangible evidence, many of the articles contesting the first reports that appeared in 1996 will be thrown into question. After all, if a research team proves that these traces could be of inorganic or terrestrial origin, there is no decisive reason to choose between the two hypotheses – there is doubt. The two demonstrations cancel one another. However, if other lines of research prove that the rock really does have traces of life, it is worth reexamining the previously disputed finding.

As you can see, his objection isn't to abiogenesis but which version of abiogenesis occurred, and he includes panspermia.

And to say that "no significant advance in scientific knowledge leads in this direction" is subjective. Witness "The Origin of Life by Means of Autocatalytic Sets of Biopolymers", a Doctoral thesis published last year by Meng Wu.



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 10:52 AM
link   
creation of the universe which evolved and brought forth life. human intelligence was created and evolved into modern man.




top topics



 
5
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join