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: 29
22
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity
 


He jumped right to long legged big winged animal, flying or short legged winged animal flying.
No. I went from a good runner on two legs to one which, through evolution, developed a really nice set of wings. With wings like that, running wasn't very important.

Your confirmation bias is showing.

edit on 9/9/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 07:31 PM
link   

UnifiedSerenity
reply to post by peter vlar
 


Actually, Phage did not explain how a useless leg that is "pre-wing" is helpful to the animals survival and by natural selection it would become extinct and not evolve.

He jumped right to long legged big winged animal, flying or short legged winged animal flying. I am talking about this millions of years slowly evolving from an animal that uses four legs to get around, hunt, build dens etc to one that has some pretty useless front limbs that are less dense than before trying to make it another half a million years before it gets wings that can fly.

You all know that it would not survive and therefore it is not a likely explanation of how birds evolved or how anything evolved.


And I think his analogy soared over your head like a Haast's eagle. T-Rex had short arms with no flight capability and did ok. Likewise in a modern sense with Ostrich, dodo or penguin. They've adapted to their environment and surroundings. If there were predators like you describe the end result would have been much different. Where you go wrong is you propose a rigid set of parameters and want someone to exaplain all aspects within the confines of your preapproved scenario. That's not how nature works. It's not concerned with the confines of your particular world view.



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 07:47 PM
link   

UnifiedSerenity

I like the example that believing in evolution with its vast improbability is the same as believing a tornado could hit a massive junkyard and when it leaves an hour later a perfect able to fly 747 would be left in it's wake. Most pro-evolution people hate this example because it is exactly what they believe happened millions of years ago. How can you create something from nothing? How can you get life from non-life. And if we being so intelligent cannot create life, then how can it just happen by accident.



You're talking about abiogenesis, not evolution. A fallacy most all creationists spew. A few questions for you:

1. Who says something was created from nothing? Why couldn't there always have been something?
2. If you believe in god, you believe he created our universe from nothing, so how do you suppose "god did it?" And if god is able to do it, who created god?
3. If you pose that god does not require a creator, then why should the universe require one?
4. Why do you claim we can not create life? Of course we can.
edit on 9-9-13 by paradox because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 07:50 PM
link   
reply to post by peter vlar
 


Look, it's cute to use T-Rex that stood how many feet? Had a huge head with big sharp teeth and very dense bone structure supporting it's massive body. Now, come back to reality of a lizard or some critter like that turning into a normal size bird. Can you simply not see that while it's front legs lose bone density and it is trying to survive in a brutal world of eat or be eaten that while it was spending all the time without the use of it's front legs as it would have before that it is at a disadvantage? It can't fly, it cant run as it used to and how is it supposed to survive to continue to turn into a bird?

Or are you postulating that T-Rex is the critter that turned into the bald eagle?

This is your theory, so do tell me how this all makes sense? Imagine you are mutating and you lose the practical use of your hands and arms, how are you going to survive in the ancient world? You can't pick up a club, you can't fight off any critters that are not as limited as you are with your half arm half wing growing.
edit on 9-9-2013 by UnifiedSerenity because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 08:01 PM
link   
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity
 


Look, it's cute to use T-Rex that stood how many feet? Had a huge head with big sharp teeth and very dense bone structure supporting it's massive body.
Check out coelophysis, not really very big at all. You may as well check out archaeopteryx while you're at it.


Or are you postulating that T-Rex is the critter that turned into the bald eagle?
No. Common ancestors maybe, but there were these guys:
www.copyrightexpired.com...


Imagine you are mutating and you lose the practical use of your hands and arms, how are you going to survive in the ancient world?
Do you think that evolution means your hand just fall off or suddenly become non functional?
edit on 9/9/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 08:03 PM
link   
reply to post by paradox
 


I believe God created everything by His word from His very being. None of what you have questioned explains evolution. Would you care to explain how a lizard losing it's bone density with once useful front limbs has them become useless while it cannot fly and survive until they develop into useful wings?

How long would you survive in a primitive world where survival of the fittest is the law as it is today and you no longer have arms? Or you no longer have useful legs? Just how does that work?



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity
 


Why is it you chose to ignore every single question asked? My goal is not to explain to you evolution. Many people have done that and you ignore it. My goal is to question the logic (or lack thereof) behind the beliefs you are so passionate about.
edit on 9-9-13 by paradox because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Phage is it your theory of evolution that says we change very slowly over millions of years so at some point that leg is useless. Where is Archeopteryx ancestor ? I am not talking of a functional wing, but one that is neither running leg nor functioning wing. Why would it do this? It would prevent it from flying and prevent it from being a successful hunter or forager. It would be truly handicapped.



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 08:07 PM
link   
reply to post by paradox
 


God creating from nothing is not Abiogenesis. Abiogenesis wants us to believe that life came from non life by natural means. God is very natural and the source of life and able to do all things. Why don't you try answering some questions.



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 08:09 PM
link   
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity
 


"2. If you believe in god, you believe he created our universe from nothing, so how do you suppose "god did it?" And if god is able to do it, who created god?
3. If you pose that god does not require a creator, then why should the universe require one? "

It is also a fallacy to say "god is very natural" blah blah blah when there is no proof of a creator's existence, and no proof that the universe requires a creator. It is a weak cop out.
edit on 9-9-13 by paradox because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 08:17 PM
link   
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity
 


Phage is it your theory of evolution that says we change very slowly over millions of years so at some point that leg is useless.
Whether or not legs become useless depends upon the environment and other adaptations which may occur in an animal.



Where is Archeopteryx ancestor ? I am not talking of a functional wing, but one that is neither running leg nor functioning wing.
Ancestor of archeopteryx? I gave you a possibility already.
Archeopteryx was not a good flier. Neither is a chicken but they can both run and fly. What about that Ostrich?

You seem to think that evolution is an all or nothing proposition. Some things work better than others, that doesn't mean something becomes useless if there is an advantageous mutation, and somethings that are "useless" don't necessarily disappear from an organism.

edit on 9/9/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 08:20 PM
link   

UnifiedSerenity
reply to post by peter vlar
 


Look, it's cute to use T-Rex that stood how many feet? Had a huge head with big sharp teeth and very dense bone structure supporting it's massive body. Now, come back to reality of a lizard or some critter like that turning into a normal size bird. Can you simply not see that while it's front legs lose bone density and it is trying to survive in a brutal world of eat or be eaten that while it was spending all the time without the use of it's front legs as it would have before that it is at a disadvantage? It can't fly, it cant run as it used to and how is it supposed to survive to continue to turn into a bird?

Or are you postulating that T-Rex is the critter that turned into the bald eagle?

This is your theory, so do tell me how this all makes sense? Imagine you are mutating and you lose the practical use of your hands and arms, how are you going to survive in the ancient world? You can't pick up a club, you can't fight off any critters that are not as limited as you are with your half arm half wing growing.
edit on 9-9-2013 by UnifiedSerenity because: (no reason given)


its not my theory, its a hypothesis. you would do yourself a world of good to differentiate the two concepts. I am in no way asserting that T-rex evolved into any eagle let alone a bald eagle. Since I'm coming back to your reality, what is a normal sized bird? You are making an obscene amount of generalizations and assumptions. why don't you read up on the subject? even a cursory google search will yield some decent answers regarding when certain species came into play, the environmental niche they thrived in and what predators they had to deal with. Ahhh... screw it, archaeopteryx may not have been able to fly but it sure as heck had some sharp teeth and its claws were pretty impressive. you seem to think a theropod hatched some eggs one morning and all of a sudden a couple of the lil guys had hollow bones, no wings and no way to defend itself and that is completely incorrect. And as I previously said, nature isn't aware of your artificial construct so it goes on unabated by concepts of god.



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 08:33 PM
link   

UnifiedSerenity
reply to post by peter vlar
 


Look, it's cute to use T-Rex that stood how many feet? Had a huge head with big sharp teeth and very dense bone structure supporting it's massive body. Now, come back to reality of a lizard or some critter like that turning into a normal size bird. Can you simply not see that while it's front legs lose bone density and it is trying to survive in a brutal world of eat or be eaten that while it was spending all the time without the use of it's front legs as it would have before that it is at a disadvantage? It can't fly, it cant run as it used to and how is it supposed to survive to continue to turn into a bird?

Or are you postulating that T-Rex is the critter that turned into the bald eagle?

This is your theory, so do tell me how this all makes sense? Imagine you are mutating and you lose the practical use of your hands and arms, how are you going to survive in the ancient world? You can't pick up a club, you can't fight off any critters that are not as limited as you are with your half arm half wing growing.
edit on 9-9-2013 by UnifiedSerenity because: (no reason given)


Ive noticed you have a tendency to cherry pick information i guess your used to this trying to support ID. However i have had to continually prove you wrong over and over throughout this thread. First no one believes t rex became a bird the species that is believed to have become birds is actually called theropods. You might remember a member of there family on Jurassic park aka velociraptors.

These were by no means giants in fact about the same size as a bird we have today known as an ostrich. As far as how wings developed eventually they turned out to be more useful then legs i personally could seee he advantage to a small dinosaur competing for food. And i really never meant this to turn into a debate on dinosaurs when i mentioned the man in your video was wrong and dinosaurs didnt have scales which turned in to wings. So what do you do try to defend what your expert said in the video with pages arguing over how flightless dinosaurs get wings wow. If you truly want to know i will sit down at some point and show you the archaeological evidence the Chinese have made some remarkable contributions in this area.



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 08:40 PM
link   

UnifiedSerenity
reply to post by paradox
 


God creating from nothing is not Abiogenesis. Abiogenesis wants us to believe that life came from non life by natural means. God is very natural and the source of life and able to do all things. Why don't you try answering some questions.


No abiogenisis want you to believe life came from chemistry a natural process if you will. Well Intelligent Design wants you to believe a magical entity created life. So why are we inserting a magical deity where hes not needed? Your whole argument rushes back to the god of the gaps i mentioned earlier in the thread. However your inserting him into things you dont understand since i assume you know gods dont create lightening or do you believe in Thor?



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 09:49 PM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 


Dragonrider,

They have tried for years to prove lightening could create life and they have not done so. They gave up on those experiments as a matter of fact. They thought life was spontaneous because mold and maggots would appear, and that was a strong belief at one time, then it was proved that it was bacteria and fly eggs.

This is about evolution making statements of fact regarding millions of years we cannot observe producing changes in kind we do not see in the fossil record that if you look at it naturally does not make sense because at some point that animal that is changing is at a serious disadvantage and no matter how much you want to believe a lizard turned into a bird, it would have been killed as easy prey before it gained the ability to fly.

It's simple logic and yet you don't want to even think about it seems.

Granted, it takes a lot of faith to believe in an unseen God. It takes looking around at the order of things, the Fibonacci sequence, Golden Ratio, order of the planets and orbit of the moon which if you try to make that happen is impossible to realize that there is something intelligent that put it all together.

If you walk down a beach and see a beautiful sand castle built and no one is around, do you assume it happened by accident or do you think, "Hey, someone built that!" How much more complex are we than a simple sand castle and yet you want to believe it all happened by chance?



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 11:28 PM
link   

UnifiedSerenity
reply to post by dragonridr
 

This is about evolution making statements of fact regarding millions of years we cannot observe producing changes in kind we do not see in the fossil record that if you look at it naturally does not make sense because at some point that animal that is changing is at a serious disadvantage and no matter how much you want to believe a lizard turned into a bird, it would have been killed as easy prey before it gained the ability to fly.

It's simple logic and yet you don't want to even think about it seems.

It doesn't seem logical to you because your looking at it the wrong way. Your focusing on the animal becoming an easy target because it backs up your point but if you look at a change as something that didn't help or hinder or one that would help the animal survive then your point falls apart.

While it may have been a trait of a single animal, it would, if the animal survived and procreated, become a trait shared by a group.
edit on 9-9-2013 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 11:46 PM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 


I am looking at the simple physical act of changing from a dense boned four legged critter to one that is less dense, has two non functioning legs that are not quite wings yet. Again, chop off your arms and go try to live in the wilderness and if you are still alive in 3 months I will reconsider my logic.

Evolution says they change over millions of years so you don't go from lizard to bird without the inconvenience of non functioning legs.



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 11:56 PM
link   

UnifiedSerenity
reply to post by daskakik
 


I am looking at the simple physical act of changing from a dense boned four legged critter to one that is less dense, has two non functioning legs that are not quite wings yet. Again, chop off your arms and go try to live in the wilderness and if you are still alive in 3 months I will reconsider my logic.

That isn't the same. Cheetahs have a lower bone density than most large cats and it doesn't make them helpless.

Without knowing if predators existed or not or if the lighter load may have led to easier gathering of food you can't say if this was a benefit or a disadvantage.


edit on 10-9-2013 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 02:33 AM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 


You are trying to compare Cheetah's to a bird's bone density in their wing? Please, try to compare apples to apples. We are talking about a ground animal slowly over millions of years growing it's front legs into wing structures that have to be VERY light that will for a long time due to evolution be unable to support them.

You are really trying hard to make it fit, but in reality you know I am right. Go look up wing strength for weight bearing and doing things a land dwelling animal needs to do. Quite frankly, they would be a hindrance for thousands of years and yet you want to believe they would survive this and not become extinct bases no natural selection.



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 02:47 AM
link   

UnifiedSerenity
reply to post by daskakik
 

You are trying to compare Cheetah's to a bird's bone density in their wing? Please, try to compare apples to apples. We are talking about a ground animal slowly over millions of years growing it's front legs into wing structures that have to be VERY light that will for a long time due to evolution be unable to support them.

If they no longer use them for support then it wouldn't matter how light they became. It still doesn't change the fact that you can't call it an advantage or disadvantage without knowing the environment.


You are really trying hard to make it fit, but in reality you know I am right. Go look up wing strength for weight bearing and doing things a land dwelling animal needs to do. Quite frankly, they would be a hindrance for thousands of years and yet you want to believe they would survive this and not become extinct bases no natural selection.

We have no idea if they would or wouldn't have died off. That is the problem, your looking at it from a single POV without taking other variables into account.

One thing I do know is that you can be wrong which is more than you are willing to accept.
edit on 10-9-2013 by daskakik because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
22
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join