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.

 

Intelligent Design; Does Modern Genetic Research Mean Darwin's THEORY of Evolution Belongs In The..

page: 12
12
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Brotherman
reply to post by Phage
 



"So in theory then can there be a so called time reversal all the way back to the singularity if I am reading correctly?"
"I see no such implication."

I ask because in Hawkings lecture he begins to explain how the light cones work and how they bend over longer distances and talks about time reversals in black holes etc, I will go back and quote the section I am alluding to and a little confused about.



One of Hawkings big questions was whether time reversed when the universe stopped expanding and started to contract. Even though the universe would seem to be moving from a chaotic state back to an order state the total entropy of the universe would still increase, hence, time won't/can't reverse.

So I think you are mistaken as to what he was talking about dealing with light.



edit on 30-12-2013 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


I got a better grasp on it, of course I am only speaking out of the BOE in regards to evolution vs ID in which case Hawking is very relevant in making sense out of some things.



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Ghost147
Your bombardment of questions is irrelevant to the discussion as the perceived reality of the world around us is not at question, but what we can actually view and test, which is at question. You can go on and on saying "well how do you know that the computer you're typing on even exists! It's just how your brain is processing touch and sight! HAZZAH!"

You're free to produce some actual content towards this discussion any time you wish. My definitions of anything that a human body and brain can perform has nothing to do with the subject in the context you're asking in, unless of course you're attempting to question evolutionary involvement in those processes.


FriedBabelBroccoli
reply to post by Ghost147
 


Your argument essentially breaks down to the form of, "I don't understand, therefore it does not exist."


On the contrary, I don't see how anything I ever said was a statement of a lack of understanding, as I've been pointing out definitive facts, rather than speculation.




FriedBabelBroccoli
reply to post by Ghost147
 


Also your terminology such as 'need' or 'have to' demonstrates a lack of understanding of the nature of God as described by the book you are criticizing.


I believe you're misunderstanding why I used those words. If a god were to create the universe as is, instantly, then they would have to speed up light in order for us to see all the stars/universes/nebula. Why would that be necessary for us to view in the first place? If that god were to create the universe and let it run how it was "designed" to run, and everything took place how it appears naturally, then that NEED to speed up light would not exist.


I have the feeling that you are not very familiar with nature of time or how it is perceived. That is why I was asking what you meant by vision.

Is Time an Illusion? [Preview]
The concepts of time and change may emerge from a universe that, at root, is utterly static
www.scientificamerican.com...


As you read this sentence, you probably think that this moment—right now—is what is happening. The present moment feels special. It is real. However much you may remember the past or anticipate the future, you live in the present. Of course, the moment during which you read that sentence is no longer happening. This one is. In other words, it feels as though time flows, in the sense that the present is constantly updating itself. We have a deep intuition that the future is open until it becomes present and that the past is fixed. As time flows, this structure of fixed past, immediate present and open future gets carried forward in time. This structure is built into our language, thought and behavior. How we live our lives hangs on it.

Yet as natural as this way of thinking is, you will not find it reflected in science. The equations of physics do not tell us which events are occurring right now—they are like a map without the “you are here” symbol. The present moment does not exist in them, and therefore neither does the flow of time. Additionally, Albert Einstein’s theories of relativity suggest not only that there is no single special present but also that all moments are equally real . . .


This is further compounded in quantum physics.

A succinct little blog about quantum physics explains the issue in far better terms than I can.

quantumweird.wordpress.com...


Think of this: photons live in “null” time. They live and die in the same instant because they travel at the speed of light and therefore if time exists for them, they do not experience it. They experience zero flight time over zero distance no matter how far apart the start and finish line are. They live in a go-splat world. A photon leaving a star a billion light years away destroys itself in our eye the instant it is emitted, having not aged even a fraction of a nanosecond in its long trip. Space and time are that warped!


I hope this helps you 'see' where I am coming from.

-FBB



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 12:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Revolution9
 


Thanks for the vid. It's a good reminder of why evolution theory will remain an unproven theory, a foundationless theory.



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 12:27 AM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


I'm an ardent skeptic in regards to the topic but I wouldn't go so far as to say it is foundation-less, what makes you say that?



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 12:44 AM
link   

Brotherman
reply to post by edmc^2
 


I'm an ardent skeptic in regards to the topic but I wouldn't go so far as to say it is foundation-less, what makes you say that?


It's foundation-less because evolutionist had to come up with an equally foundation-less hypothesis - the abiogenesis hypothesis.

Which posits that life came by accident and blind chance from absolutely nothing.

Thus foundation-less.

Creation is on the other hand have a foundation - A Creator.



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 12:51 AM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Although I agree abiogenesis is important to understand evolution in its differing forms whether cosmological or biological, does not exactly mean that there was a creator, I believe that there is some kind of creator but I can't really prove it kind of like science can't say for sure what caused the singularity in the big bang to occur either. Can I ask, Have you read this whole thread? Because this is covered quite extensively and most of the things have been a great help to my learning of all the sided arguments in a neutral manner? If not I would suggest going through and checking it all out.



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 01:32 AM
link   

Brotherman
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Although I agree abiogenesis is important to understand evolution in its differing forms whether cosmological or biological, does not exactly mean that there was a creator, I believe that there is some kind of creator but I can't really prove it kind of like science can't say for sure what caused the singularity in the big bang to occur either. Can I ask, Have you read this whole thread? Because this is covered quite extensively and most of the things have been a great help to my learning of all the sided arguments in a neutral manner? If not I would suggest going through and checking it all out.


Yes, I read the thread and watched the op vid and as far as the origin of life is concern (i.e abiognenesis) the reply from proponents of evolution is either "we don't know" or 'some sort of chemical mixture that resulted to life - by chance' (paraphrasing here).

thus evolution/abiognenesis has no real foundation.



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 06:00 AM
link   

edmc^2

Brotherman
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Although I agree abiogenesis is important to understand evolution in its differing forms whether cosmological or biological, does not exactly mean that there was a creator, I believe that there is some kind of creator but I can't really prove it kind of like science can't say for sure what caused the singularity in the big bang to occur either. Can I ask, Have you read this whole thread? Because this is covered quite extensively and most of the things have been a great help to my learning of all the sided arguments in a neutral manner? If not I would suggest going through and checking it all out.


Yes, I read the thread and watched the op vid and as far as the origin of life is concern (i.e abiognenesis) the reply from proponents of evolution is either "we don't know" or 'some sort of chemical mixture that resulted to life - by chance' (paraphrasing here).

thus evolution/abiognenesis has no real foundation.



i'm with you on this.
evolutionists like to jump into the middle of the timeline.

ignore how it all started.

somehow it did and here we are! ta daaaa!!!!

we ever find the duck that gave rise to the plattypus?



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 12:44 PM
link   

tsingtao

edmc^2

Brotherman
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Although I agree abiogenesis is important to understand evolution in its differing forms whether cosmological or biological, does not exactly mean that there was a creator, I believe that there is some kind of creator but I can't really prove it kind of like science can't say for sure what caused the singularity in the big bang to occur either. Can I ask, Have you read this whole thread? Because this is covered quite extensively and most of the things have been a great help to my learning of all the sided arguments in a neutral manner? If not I would suggest going through and checking it all out.


Yes, I read the thread and watched the op vid and as far as the origin of life is concern (i.e abiognenesis) the reply from proponents of evolution is either "we don't know" or 'some sort of chemical mixture that resulted to life - by chance' (paraphrasing here).

thus evolution/abiognenesis has no real foundation.



i'm with you on this.
evolutionists like to jump into the middle of the timeline.

ignore how it all started.

somehow it did and here we are! ta daaaa!!!!

we ever find the duck that gave rise to the plattypus?




Yes, the platypus was a funny one.

Is it a duck turning into a beaver or a beaver into a duck?

Hmmmm....

The Creator does indeed have a sense of humor!

Anyway- that's just the thing that gets me about evolution theory.

If the basis is non existent then what ever theory one can come up with to explain its very existence is null and void. Otherwise one must rely on blind faith that such impossibility actually happened. And what faith must one have to actually accept that nothing can produce something. Something that is beyond logic and common sense.



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by tsingtao
 


I know evolution is difficult to understand, but it is long past debate and has been described and demonstrated without fail in every leg of biology. It has been settled. Some of the mechanisms are still being worked out, but to say it is foundation less only shows that you dont understand it. At this point there is no other reason not to understand it other than you are not studying it and you are only listening to people who likewise do not understand it.

There is tons of physical evidence that is undeniable. But there are still people who insist on denying it.

Evolution doesnt come into play at the beginning of time. We do not think that life as we understand it could have survived in those extreme conditions. It took billions of years before the universe cooled enough for this to be possible. Since the only fossils we have seen come from this planet, these are the only ones we can really discuss. The oldest of which date at about 3.5 billion years ago (These are the oldest fossils we have found. They were found in Australia)

So to recap, the universe is 13.7 billion yrs old. This planet is dated at about 4.5 billion years old. The earliest provable life possible is 3.5 billion years. Thats a lot of time.

We know there werent humans walking around then. And we can see that there have been animals who have been changing in appearance and becoming more and more like what we look like today. How can any one deny that animals have been changing form for billions of years? We dont dig up horse bones from 65 million years ago. But we do find animals that resembles horses.

Mitochondrial dna is a direct genetic map tracing back millions of years of related animals that shows a clear change from one species to another.

If your not willing to research, and the best argument you can come up with is i dont see how it could happen. Then i can tell you exactly why you dont understand.



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Woodcarver
 





Evolution doesnt come into play at the beginning of time. We do not think that life as we understand it could have survived in those extreme conditions. It took billions of years before the universe cooled enough for this to be possible. Since the only fossils we have seen come from this planet, these are the only ones we can really discuss. The oldest of which date at about 3.5 billion years ago (These are the oldest fossils we have found. They were found in Australia)



In regards to the bolded section I thought maybe you would find this interesting:



Deinococcus accomplishes its resistance to radiation by having multiple copies of its genome and rapid DNA repair mechanisms. It usually repairs breaks in its chromosomes within 12–24 hours through a 2-step process. First, D. radiodurans reconnects some chromosome fragments through a process called single-stranded annealing. In the second step, multiple proteins mend double-strand breaks through homologous recombination. This process does not introduce any more mutations than a normal round of replication would.


Deincoccus Radiodurans
I understand that those are earth bound bacteria however it isn't difficult for me to think that there was something like this or completely different out there in the beginning I mean it is possible but chances are we will probably never know for sure.



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Woodcarver
reply to post by tsingtao
 


I know evolution is difficult to understand, but it is long past debate and has been described and demonstrated without fail in every leg of biology. It has been settled. Some of the mechanisms are still being worked out, but to say it is foundation less only shows that you dont understand it. At this point there is no other reason not to understand it other than you are not studying it and you are only listening to people who likewise do not understand it.


The statement in bold is an extreme exaggeration, you need to be more specific here.

"Some" of the mechanisms are still being worked out . . . . Bwahahahahahaha you are kidding right? There are no laws for validating ANY predictions. If you want to say the science is settled you are going to have to justify that beyond telling someone to do a google search.

The foundation you are talking about is actually very abstract and does need work. I already mentioned it previously but time is not really linear on the quantum level and you need to prove that it need not be for the micro evolution to be taking place as described and further that what the organism is consuming or being exposed to actually supports mutations.

If you want to say it is "random" you must prove that true randomness exists.

To say "some" of the mechanisms are being worked out is ludicrous.

-FBB



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli
 


Your post made me think for a minute, with as large as the universe is what if what we consider random is actually a pattern but the "random" acts that occur are only in a small place that we cannot connect to a pattern kind of like if I look at this pencil eraser I see an eraser and I know what it is, but zoomed in to the atom size I'd have no idea what the hell I was looking at. I hope my explanation makes sense to you I am a bad explainer of myself sometimes.



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Brotherman
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli
 


Your post made me think for a minute, with as large as the universe is what if what we consider random is actually a pattern but the "random" acts that occur are only in a small place that we cannot connect to a pattern kind of like if I look at this pencil eraser I see an eraser and I know what it is, but zoomed in to the atom size I'd have no idea what the hell I was looking at. I hope my explanation makes sense to you I am a bad explainer of myself sometimes.


Well yes, I would say that's exactly it. We exist in the atomic level of the universe. That's how small we are or how large the universe is.

The universe zoomed out could be a human being for all we know.



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by PhotonEffect
 


IDK I was trying to rationalize random in the bigger scope of things, I am actually searching right now for maybe some scientific or philosophic explanation that may be worthwhile. Do ya got any handy links?



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 03:37 PM
link   

edmc^2

Brotherman
reply to post by edmc^2
 


I'm an ardent skeptic in regards to the topic but I wouldn't go so far as to say it is foundation-less, what makes you say that?


It's foundation-less because evolutionist had to come up with an equally foundation-less hypothesis - the abiogenesis hypothesis.

Which posits that life came by accident and blind chance from absolutely nothing.

Thus foundation-less.

Creation is on the other hand have a foundation - A Creator.




This whole Evolution/Creationism argument has one major flaw.

Evolution is a tool and creationism is a purpose. The two are totally different things, so how can we debate one against the other? Its like debating what an artist was thinking when he paints and trying to compare his brush to his feelings.

The brush is the mechanism to which painting can be accomplished, just like evolution is a mechanism to show how life can change.

I never understood why creationists never suggested that God used evolution to make man...So what tool did God use?

I think the more precise debate would be whether evolution was random events that follow precise laws of the universe or whether there is an intelligence behind it all.

I was never comfortable with creationism since it seems to me that it reduces God down to doing parlor tricks and not following his own universal laws he created. On one side it is suggested that given a few 100 millions of years complex life can evolve from simple life and on the other side God pulls a human out of a hat and sets him on the planet.





edit on 31-12-2013 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2014 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 





This whole Evolution/Creationism argument has one major flaw.


Agree, it has one major flaw. One that can't be bridge. One of total opposite since one cancels the other.
One destroys the other.

And contrary to what you said, the concept are incompatible since Creation (ism) destroys Evolution in that a Creator is a necessity as He is the Creator of all things, while evolution eliminates the need of a Creator - God.

In other words, the two concepts CAN'T be mixed.

To believe that they complement each other is a total delusion of the facts.



posted on Jan, 1 2014 @ 04:45 PM
link   

edmc^2
reply to post by Xtrozero
 





This whole Evolution/Creationism argument has one major flaw.


Agree, it has one major flaw. One that can't be bridge. One of total opposite since one cancels the other.
One destroys the other.

And contrary to what you said, the concept are incompatible since Creation (ism) destroys Evolution in that a Creator is a necessity as He is the Creator of all things, while evolution eliminates the need of a Creator - God.

In other words, the two concepts CAN'T be mixed.

To believe that they complement each other is a total delusion of the facts.




So are you saying that God could not have used evolution to create man. The process the same but with intelligent guidance along the way?



posted on Jan, 1 2014 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Xtrozero

edmc^2
reply to post by Xtrozero
 





This whole Evolution/Creationism argument has one major flaw.


Agree, it has one major flaw. One that can't be bridge. One of total opposite since one cancels the other.
One destroys the other.

And contrary to what you said, the concept are incompatible since Creation (ism) destroys Evolution in that a Creator is a necessity as He is the Creator of all things, while evolution eliminates the need of a Creator - God.

In other words, the two concepts CAN'T be mixed.

To believe that they complement each other is a total delusion of the facts.




So are you saying that God could not have used evolution to create man. The process the same but with intelligent guidance along the way?


Yes. That's what I'm saying.

Evolution theory is never a part or parcel of Creation.

In fact evolution is a slap to the face of the Creator himself as he is portrayed as incapable of creating a perfect being. Furthermore where does Jesus Christ or Adam and Eve fit in the picture when the Scripture said that they were created in God's image?

How do you fit into the picture man's sin and Jesus giving his life for the forgiveness of sin?


Can you?



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join