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 Vs. God

page: 24
22
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 3 2013 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity
reply to post by Barcs
 


See, more disingenuous claims from you. You admit they did not find Lucy's hands and feet so they just gave her human ones, but they have found other Australopithecus skeletons and they now ADMIT they have apelike hands and feet, and that their wrists lock and they walk on all fours just like apes, and NOT like humans!

Please give me a link to this other Australopithecus Afarensis skeleton that was found with "ape like" hands, and please explain why that is wrong in evolution. We are talking 4 million years before humans and 2 before the homo genus even emerged. Why would they be required to have human hands? Hands are also something that can change over time, but you have no clue what evolution even means. The common ancestor between man and ape is not a 50/50 hybrid of the two species. Please stop using these fallacious arguments. Do you understand how science works? They found Lucy and it was very interesting at the time so they made an estimated reconstruction. They did not find all of the fossils, so they estimated on the hands. You act like that is so terrible because you can't bear the thought of evolution being true and the god myth being just a myth.


There could be a thousand hominids, and it doesn't mean change to new kinds because there is not linkage.

Explain what you mean by linkage. There is genetic evidence, biological evidence and fossil evidence. What more do you want? A time machine so you can watch every single little step between ancient ape and modern human?


If we came from apes, then why are there still apes, we are better in so many ways, or why are there no other intermediate examples?

We didn't evolve from modern apes! Humans and chimps (and great apes) share a recent common ancestor. You don't seem to understand the difference. 'Why are there still apes?' is the oldest excuse in the book. There are TONS of intermediate examples, 20+, you just choose to ignore and deny them. Creatures don't have to get better. This is a basic fundamental fact of evolution. They change with the environment.


You know, it's just as easy for me to say, God made a bunch of different ones, and the strong have survived, and the weak have died off.

Really? So you have physical proof and evidence that God exists? Sorry but there is physical proof of the evolutionary process, and none for god. OOPS.


See, that is my theory, and I have actual proof to back it up, and don't need to pretend there are fossils out there somewhere to prove my theory. Now, I can't put God on a table for you, so there is where my theory means it cannot be observed. You cannot put forth the necessary fossils and only the people on this thread and others like you keep saying it's proved, when the top evolutionists admit they don't have the fossils to prove it.


You have actual proof to back it up yet you admit it cannot be observed?


I'd love to see your proof. You are dismissing scientific theory for a friggin guess. How do you not see this? Hold your own beliefs to the same unrealistic standards that you hold evolution to, or continue to be a hypocrite. The choice is yours. No evolutionary biologists say they don't have fossils to back up evolution. You need to stop making stuff up. They might not have the complete picture, but that doesn't mean it's wrong. There is still WAY more evidence for evolution than god (which there is ZERO).




posted on Sep, 3 2013 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by theabsolutetruth
 


Wow, well thats amazing if all life has evolved from the same/same kind single celled organism. Would be weird with all the matter and energy going on on earth at that time that only one kind of celled organism formed, and from that moment it carried the potential to turn into all life.



posted on Sep, 3 2013 @ 10:41 AM
link   

With the advent of scanning tunneling microscopy it was possible to observe
directly DNA base molecules with possible hydrogen bridge donors and acceptors
to self-organize into such periodic organic molecular layers on mineral template
surfaces. Since then a large number of studies of these self-assembled
DNA-base systems have been published


Molecular Self Assembly and the origins of Life


The application of near field microscopy techniques, namely scanning tunneling
microscopy (STM), to self-assembled two dimensional nucleic acid crystals has
allowed for the first time real space analysis of these systems with molecular scale
resolution. This has stimulated the development of new concepts regarding the
possible role of molecular self-assembly in the de novo emergence of higherordered
supramolecular architectures, comprised of today’s DNA and protein
building blocks and eventually guiding a route to life under prebiotic conditions.
We have suggested that purine and pyrimidine monolayers could be candidates for
a stationary phase in organic molecule separation systems, and as templates for
the assembly of higher-ordered polymers at the prebiotic solid-liquid interface. In
some cases, such as adenine on molybdenite, a symmetry break can be observed
which may have some role in the origin of biomolecular structural asymmetry. In
the future it should be possible to test experimentally whether the proposed
scenario actually may lead to the necessary compounds.



posted on Sep, 3 2013 @ 10:55 AM
link   
Evolution is futile. The inability to observe it, the math against it, makes it impossible. Time is even against evolution. And lastly, evolution theory takes the notion that it is always modifying and making organisms more perfect through each change. This is a bias. Things have tendencies to deconstruct in the natural world to the most simple and stable forms. therefore all life should have been single cell self replicating and nothing more than that. More complex life forms are less stable and therefore not good examples of true evolution. Everything should continually devolve (as it were) into successive and simpler forms of life until they all become a single cell and only one kind of cell would make evolution perfect.

But, seeing that evolution is basically the work of imagination and not much more, it doesn't really matter.



posted on Sep, 3 2013 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Fromabove
 


If not evolution then what?



posted on Sep, 3 2013 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity
reply to post by peter vlar
 


I am going by what the evolutionists claim. They can prove adaptation within a species, but they cannot and have not shown changing of kind from one species to another. A horse is a horse, a fruit fly is a fruit fly, bacteria are bacteria, and finches are finches. Show me them becoming something else, and oh. don't let a scientist design it with new genes etc. Just watch them in the case of short lived specimens, change their environment etc, but no monkey business of gene splicing etc..

The evidence is no where to be found. I am not talking about species adaptation which they like to call micro evolution which would be better called intra-species evolution. Show me interspecies changes. Show me changing of kinds. That is what Darwin claimed. He claimed we come from common ancestors, so show me. Darwin said we would find the intermediate changes in the fossil record and despite thousands upon thousands of fossils cataloged we do not see that. Thus it is a belief system and should not be taught as fact and truth. It in fact has less proof to go on that Christianity which has historical proof of events in the bible, eye witness accounts handed down, and proof of data systems in DNA, Fibonacci sequence, golden ratio, and the world around us. People can choose to not accept that faith, but evolution stands on much more flimsy proof.



Has it ever occurred to you that maybe you are getting your information from the wrong sources? Maybe you need to read what the science guys actually say, instead of what the ID folk say the science guys says.
The Intelligent Design promoters have an agenda and they count on people like you to be uneducated about evolution
en.wikipedia.org...

Other statements of Johnson's acknowledge that the goal of the intelligent design movement is to promote a theistic and creationist agenda cast as a scientific concept.

Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools.
—[2]

This isn't really, and never has been a debate about science. Its about religion and philosophy.
—[3]



posted on Sep, 3 2013 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity


Yes, please do show us the observable change in kind and since you cannot observe 60 million years ago, please show it happening today. Finches are still finches, fish are still fish, and bacteria are still bacteria.



Can caterpillars turning into butterflies be considered as observable evolution?



edit on 3-9-2013 by whatsecret because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 3 2013 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Fromabove
 



Except that saying something is historical fact is at best guess work. And since evolution cannot be observed it is unscientific.


Have you actually done your research on this subject, or are you just jumping on a bandwagon that you are comfortable with? This thread contains loads of observations supporting evolution. If you haven't found evidence here, it's because you are not willing to see it. I wonder why that is?
edit on 3-9-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 3 2013 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Fromabove
 



Evolution is futile. The inability to observe it, the math against it, makes it impossible. Time is even against evolution. And lastly, evolution theory takes the notion that it is always modifying and making organisms more perfect through each change. This is a bias. Things have tendencies to deconstruct in the natural world to the most simple and stable forms. therefore all life should have been single cell self replicating and nothing more than that. More complex life forms are less stable and therefore not good examples of true evolution. Everything should continually devolve (as it were) into successive and simpler forms of life until they all become a single cell and only one kind of cell would make evolution perfect.

But, seeing that evolution is basically the work of imagination and not much more, it doesn't really matter.


Hmm...sounds like armchair biology to me. In other words, not actual science. Why don't you go and spend 20 years actually researching and experimenting and analyzing this stuff? You might change your tune once you actually know something about the subject.
edit on 3-9-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 3 2013 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fromabove

Evolution is futile. The inability to observe it, the math against it, makes it impossible. Time is even against evolution. And lastly, evolution theory takes the notion that it is always modifying and making organisms more perfect through each change. This is a bias. Things have tendencies to deconstruct in the natural world to the most simple and stable forms. therefore all life should have been single cell self replicating and nothing more than that. More complex life forms are less stable and therefore not good examples of true evolution. Everything should continually devolve (as it were) into successive and simpler forms of life until they all become a single cell and only one kind of cell would make evolution perfect.

But, seeing that evolution is basically the work of imagination and not much more, it doesn't really matter.


Your lack of knowledge regarding the subject is glaringly evident when I read your post above.

~ Evolution of species is observable and I've posted several links to support

~ Mathematics does support evolution

Introduction to the Mathematics of evolution
New mathematics research proves there's plenty of time for evolution


~ Evolutionary theory does not state that organisms evolve to be "more perfect". It only says that mutations may or may not be more advantageous to survival and reproduction, those mutations that are advantageous remain while those that aren't, die off.

~ You are not familiar with the concept of "self organization" in nature and you don't fully understand entropy.

Self-Organization & Entropy - The Terrible Twins


It woulld be great if everyone that wants to argue against evolution would actually become familiar with the topics they choose to counter.... like that's gonna happen...



posted on Sep, 3 2013 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity
reply to post by Barcs
 

There could be a thousand hominids, and it doesn't mean change to new kinds because there is not linkage. If we came from apes, then why are there still apes, we are better in so many ways, or why are there no other intermediate examples? You know, it's just as easy for me to say, God made a bunch of different ones, and the strong have survived, and the weak have died off.


Why do you keep asking this idiotic question? Evolution doesn't work linearly. It works in a tree pattern, with many branching paths all from a singular source. Many paths do die off, but some don't (read not just one doesn't die off). So just because humans exist doesn't mean you can't have similar but different species existing concurrently in environments more suitable to them. This also means that you can have apelike ancestors that could in no way evolve into humans (because they went down a different evolutionary path).

It's funny for the amount of critiquing you give the theory of evolution, it would be nice to see you use that same fine tooth comb to go through your religion. Evolutionists pile on evidence after evidence, but because they cannot produce that definitive smoking gun, you scream "HOAX!" at the top of your lungs despite all the other evidence indirectly showing that evolution is not only possible but highly likely (I'm not going to say that it is 100% fact, because it might not be. I don't claim to know everything). Meanwhile, you fall back on a "theory" (I use this word lightly due to its lack of evidence) that's only evidence supporting it is a book that was written by a bunch of men with a very limited understanding of the world (let alone universe) hundreds if not thousands of years ago.



posted on Sep, 3 2013 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity
reply to post by Barcs
 


See, more disingenuous claims from you. You admit they did not find Lucy's hands and feet so they just gave her human ones, but they have found other Australopithecus skeletons and they now ADMIT they have apelike hands and feet, and that their wrists lock and they walk on all fours just like apes, and NOT like humans!

See, more bs and you know it because this has already been documented on this thread.

There could be a thousand hominids, and it doesn't mean change to new kinds because there is not linkage. If we came from apes, then why are there still apes, we are better in so many ways, or why are there no other intermediate examples? You know, it's just as easy for me to say, God made a bunch of different ones, and the strong have survived, and the weak have died off. See, that is my theory, and I have actual proof to back it up, and don't need to pretend there are fossils out there somewhere to prove my theory. Now, I can't put God on a table for you, so there is where my theory means it cannot be observed. You cannot put forth the necessary fossils and only the people on this thread and others like you keep saying it's proved, when the top evolutionists admit they don't have the fossils to prove it.
edit on 3-9-2013 by UnifiedSerenity because: (no reason given)


This entire thing betrays your intimate lack of knowledge on the subject. I've tried to explain to you before that even without a complete skeleton there are other morphological features we use to determine if something was bipedal or not. Features such as the angle of the foramen magnum indicates where the head and neck lie in relation to each other which tells us that she held herself much more like we do than quadrapedal apes. Additionally the pelvis is a tell tale indicator of bipedalism. In a quadruped – an ape, say – the feet are held far apart, and each hind leg descends straight to the ground beneath the hip socket. In bipedal humans, on the other hand, the feet pass close to each other during walking so that the body's center of gravity can move ahead in a straight line. If this didn't happen, the center of gravity would have to swing with each stride in a wide arc around the supporting leg. This would be extremely clumsy and inefficient, wasting a lot of energy. So in bipeds, both femora angle in from the hip joint to converge at the knee; the tibiae then descend straight to the ground. In the human knee joint, this adaptation shows up in the angle – known as the "carrying angle" – that is formed between the long axis of the femur and tibia. It is also referred to as the weight bearing angle and is a determinate of how the creature held itself during locomotion. I could go on but what's the point... we're both beating a dead horse.

As for your assertion that Australopithecines were found with ape like hands and or feet... hate to break it to you but that "transitional form" you keep demanding... you just gave it. Give yourself a pat on the back.
edit on 3-9-2013 by peter vlar because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 3 2013 @ 03:06 PM
link   
what i find amazing is that the i.d. crowd and creationist crowd demand proof, yet reject the proof offered.

we should turn it around on them.

show me animals popping into existence as your theory says. many animals go extinct every year, so surely your god must be popping a few into being to take up the slack, no?

why does your "science book" say insects have 4 legs, bats are birds, and rabbits chew their cud?

explain speciation. one group becomes two, then those two become four, all with unique changes. how many times does this happen before the last group has no resemblance to the first?



posted on Sep, 3 2013 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 

You got the OP to accept that adaptation happens, way back on page 4 but, he/she refuses to accept that adaptation is part of evolution. Stop banging your head on that brick wall.

edit on 2-9-2013 by daskakik because: (no reason given)


Adaption is part of evolution whether he "believes" it or not is simply a characteristic of his lack of knowledge.

An example would be North/South American salamanders. Moving in their typical migration pattern we see changes in their genetic makeup 8 different times. The first salamander cannot produce offspring with the last salamander, but both of them can produce offspring with any of the other ones who are in the middle of the migratory areas. The two have adapted to their environment so genetically differently that the salamanders are now two completely different species.

Now, if we can get adaption to the point that we're crossing the salamander's species boundaries for survival... what stops it from crossing to other reptiles? And past reptiles? What is stopping it? God?

edit on 3-9-2013 by LightOrange because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 3 2013 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by stormson
 


You see, that is amazing that rather than deal with the arguments made showing the problems with the theory of macro evolution not being proved you want us to prove God. We are not teaching creation by God in public schools, but you are teaching the belief in evolution as fact when it has not been proved.

Macro evolution is based on faith alone and not on science. It is not observable and it is not proved via the fossil record no matter how many times you claim it is. Circular arguments are used to defend it and yet you have no problem with them.



posted on Sep, 3 2013 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by LightOrange
 


They are still salamanders and not a new kind. That does not prove common ancestry though you want to believe it does.



posted on Sep, 3 2013 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


There was a period of high meteorite activity then, to and from Earth and Mars, perhaps there were other interactions that were a catalyst for the formation of proteins and DNA in the right environment for divergence and speciation , for example a particular type of photon or atomic reaction.



posted on Sep, 3 2013 @ 05:20 PM
link   
The law of common sense is so hard for some:




posted on Sep, 3 2013 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity
The law of common sense is so hard for some:





you shouldn't be so hard on yourself. it'll be OK

In all seriousness though I actually watched this video and the gentleman couldn't be more wrong right out of the gate. He was correct regarding Darwin's lack of enthusiasm for using the word evolution but the reasoning as well as how Darwin referenced it in Origin of Species is incorrect. He did not utilize the word evolution because it had already been utilized in the 17th C to describe embryonic development. He instead preferred "descent with modification". And then he completely lost any credibility when he decided to throw out the law of thermodynamics, rename it and redefine it. It's another case of someone who doesn't believe in evolution moving the goal posts so that his argument looks more reasonable or in this case "logical".
edit on 3-9-2013 by peter vlar because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 3 2013 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity
 


An evangelical christian out harassing people on the streets why is this shocking i expect it.you seem to think this somehow disproves evolution because he found people that have no idea what it is. All this proves is alot of people slept through science. My other favorite part is walking whale i love it. I assume there talking about Ambulocetus. He was very cool actually in fact hes also related to hippos as well. So im not entirely sure if walking whale is quite appropriate but to each his own. So whats this supposed to prove any way people are gullible and will buy anything we knew that or religion wouldn't exist.




top topics



 
22
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join