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.
Originally posted by MrXYZ
Statement: Everything has a beginning and something that created it, stuff doesn't just evolve, someone has to create it...ergo, there's a creator.
If the statement were true, something had to create this god creature.
The whole "something HAD to create us, ergo there's a creator" is total hogwash!
Originally posted by edmc^2
So OT which one is more outrageous or makes sense (even to 5th grader)?
Life can ONLY come from NON-LIFE by BLIND CHANCE?
Or
Life can ONLY come from LIFE by an Intelligent Creator?
Ty,
edmc2
Originally posted by Xtrozero
Is this concept to complex for many of you to understand?
Originally posted by Xtrozero
We can only understand what physics our universe works by, and within our universe we see beginnings and endings, and so we cannot comprehend the concept of always been here and always will be here.
So where is the problem? I think the problem is in our inability to comprehend…
So explain to me why God would need a creator, why does there need a beginning or end? I agree if he was within our universe he would need one and would need to live by our universal laws of physics.
[edit on 22-8-2010 by Xtrozero]
reply posted on 19-8-2010 @ 05:55 PM by nophun
Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by nophun
As for your statement that I was spinning what he said, no such motive on my part since I have the utmost respect for him and his work. As a matter of fact I've learned a lot from him growing up and still do along with other great men of science.
Thus the intent of the quote was to show that even him – a legendary Astrophysicist/biologist has to come to a conclusion that life requires a designer – be it of an alien origin or something else.
Alien and/or God the whole point of your OP is flawed. If something that "looks designed needs a designer", that designer needs a designer. Saying "He always existed. He always was" is doing nothing but waste time.
Carl Sagan once said "If we say "God" was always here, why not say the universe was always here?"
Most of them are out of context or completely fabricated. The Carl Sagan quote you posted is a good example of this.
[I]“As for your statement that I was spinning what he said, no such motive on my part since I have the utmost respect for him and his work. As a matter of fact I've learned a lot from him growing up and still do along with other great men of science.
Thus the intent of the quote was to show that even him – a legendary Astrophysicist/biologist has to come to a conclusion that life requires a designer – be it of an alien origin or something else. Nor the intent was to show that he a 'theist' (in fact he an atheist). If you read throughout my postings with his name in tag – the subject always deals with the origin of life, not to show or spin that somehow he believed in a divine being. Reason also why I asked if you have any idea of what he meant by a “Great Designer”.
As for the "the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution" quote I have no way of checking that source, but I do know the statement "still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution" statement is complete bull#.
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
I recommend you check out phylogenetic ancestry of the horse for a really good example.
en.wikipedia.org...
Moving on.
We are still on this ?
Is elephants good enough ?
locolobo.org...
You have obviously never actually spent 10 minutes to look and see what fossils we have .. have you ?”
Obviously, there came a point at which these absurdly mutated teeth had become useless for feeding, which forced them to use their already-flexible noses to rake and trowel food into their mouths the same way modern elephants still do today. Initially, both the top and bottom incisors grew out as well as the lower jaw. I will use this Deinotherium to represent the point at which that trend came to an end, when the lower jaw sort of "dropped off" so to speak, leaving one now-very-long nose, which was out there by itself as it is on modern elephants...
“You seem like a semi-intelligent person, why not check out a REAL science book or web page. I am sure you will be surprised.”
“This site is an amateur endeavor to promote science, but is not a scientific resource.
Readers interested in further investigation of either biological evolution or the origin of life
are encouraged to visit the University of California at Berkeley's exemplary web-primer.”
“In any case, Helicoprion exemplifies some of the difficulties involved in reconstructing ancient creatures from only a few clues.”
“Below is a sculpture I did of Elginerpeton, what I consider to be the real-life animal depicted on all the Darwinfish bumper stickers. I did this piece a few years ago, when I didn't know so much about them. But I had the assistance (via email) of paleoartist, Richard Hammond, and the famous Cambridge professor of vertebrate paleontology, Dr. Jennifer Clack, the world's foremost expert on the fauna of that period. We don't have enough of the skeleton to be certain about the whole shape. But this is one of several contemporary species in this apparent sequence, and they all look about the same. So I've made this one consistent with its siblings. Notice that both dorsal fins and the anal fin are absent from this rendering, as they are on all similar species from this class. And as is typical, the tail fin is not fluked. The first fish with fluked tails lived alongside this one. But their tails are still obviously quite primitive, like a salamander's tail. Most sarcopterygiian fish never had a more fish-like tail than Elginerpeton did.”
The lamnoids (order Lamniformes) include many of the most famous and instantly-recognizable of sharks. The Goblin Shark, Sandtiger, threshers, Megamouth, Basking, and the Great White are all members of this group. From the dim depths of prehistory, these sharks have left a rich fossil record.
As a group, lamnoids are characterized by heavily-built, solid teeth that have proven durable against the onslaught of erosion over geological time. As a result, their ancestors have left many beautiful and highly informative fossil teeth. In addition, the lamnoids have heavily calcified but fragile vertebral centra which are also sometimes preserved. Beyond these structural basics, only a few assorted fossilized bits and pieces survive - some of them squirreled away in private collections, where their true value remains hidden from paleontologists.”
“Solenodonsaurus janenschi is a transitional species between basal anthracosaurs and their apparently non-amphibious descendants. Known from a single, incomplete fossil, it shows loss of the lateral line on the head, which was present in amphibians, but still has the single sacral vertebra of the amphibian. Two other specimens known from the early Pennsylvanian period, (Hylonomus and Paleothyris) also show the sort of half-amphibian / half-reptile features which anti-evolutionists keep saying could not exist.
Haptodus (late Pennsylvanian) -- One of the first known sphenacodonts, had several skeletal features becoming more mammalian, particularly in the teeth, which began to show the first true rooted canines, and not the sort of fangs snakes have. Subsequent species lost the last vestiges of strictly-reptilian bones, and developed the ear drum, another exclusively mammalian trait. Throughout this sequence, we also see an improvement in the ligaments and muscularity to show a steady progression from very primitive lizard-like things to more advanced and adaptive "reptiles" that were also arguably mammals of one sort or another at the same time. In fact, there were several of these which blur the line between reptiles and mammals so much that in some cases, its difficult to state which class these things should belong to. Procynosuchus (latest Permian) the first cynodont, was already a sort of dog-like pseudo-lizard which quickly begat some very lizard-like primitive quasi-mammals, like thrinaxodon. These early Triassic cynodonts had very definite canine teeth and are considered by many to be one of the first mammals, even though they weren't quite complete mammals, and still bore some vaguely-reptilian vestigial traits. These were also among the very few mammal-like semi-reptiles to survive the Permian extinction, an event even more devastating than that which later brought on the demise of the dinosaurs. By the time we get to things like Cynognathus (early Triassic, but suspected to have existed even earlier) we have a nearly complete mammal with just the slightest reptilian traits, like the as-yet undistinguished uniform reptilian-style cheek teeth behind the definitely mammalian canines.
Lagomorphs:
Barunlestes (see above) The possible Asian rodent/lagomorph ancestor.
Mimotoma (Paleocene) -- A rabbit-like animal, similar to Barunlestes, but with a rabbit dental formula, changes in the facial bones, and only one layer of enamel on the incisors (unlike the rodents). Like rabbits, it had two upper incisors, but the second incisor is still large and functional, while in modern rabbits it is tiny. Chuankuei-Li et al. (1987; also see Szalay et al., 1993) think this is the actual ancestor of Mimolagus, next.
Mimolagus (late Eocene) -- Possesses several more lagomorph-like characters, such as a special enamel layer, possible double upper incisors, and large premolars.
Lushilagus (mid-late Eocene) -- First true lagomorph. Teeth very similar to Mimotoma, and modern rabbit & hare teeth could easily have been derived from these teeth.
After this, the first modern rabbits appeared in the Oligocene.
“Beginning at the base of the Cambrian period and extending for about 10 million years, all the major groups of skeletonized invertebrates made their first appearance in the most spectacular rise in diversity ever recorded on our planet.”—(California, 1981), Salvador E. Luria, Stephen Jay Gould, Sam Singer, p. 649.
Stephen Jay Gould .. Did you know he is a evolutionary biologist?
Yes, he would be talking about the Cambrian explosion, and the point of quoting this would be ... ?
Your creationist website might tell you the Cambrian explosion disproves evolution ... but it does not. ( I am guessing this is your point )
Deducing the events of half a billion years ago is difficult, as evidence comes exclusively from biological and chemical signatures in rocks and very sparse fossils.
Major radiations of life forms have occurred at other times, too. One of the most extensive diversifications of life occurred in the Ordovician, for example (Miller 1997).
“A large number of gaps. This is perhaps the aspect that is easiest to explain, since for stratigraphic reasons alone there must always be gaps. In fact, no current evolutionary model predicts or requires a complete fossil record, and no one expects that the fossil record will ever be even close to complete. …”
“Beginning at the base of the Cambrian period and extending for about 10 million years, all the major groups of skeletonized invertebrates made their first appearance in the most spectacular rise in diversity ever recorded on our planet.”—(California, 1981), Salvador E. Luria, Stephen Jay Gould, Sam Singer, p. 649.
“Darwin’s theory of [evolution] has always been closely linked to evidence from fossils, and probably most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument that is made in favor of darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true. . . . the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution.”—January 1979, Vol. 50, No. 1, pp. 22, 23.
“Beginning at the base of the Cambrian period and extending for about 10 million years, all the major groups of skeletonized invertebrates made their first appearance in the most spectacular rise in diversity ever recorded on our planet.”—(California, 1981), Salvador E. Luria, Stephen Jay Gould, Sam Singer, p. 649.
“Below this [Cambrian period], there are vast thicknesses of sediments in which the progenitors of the Cambrian forms would be expected. But we do not find them; these older beds are almost barren of evidence of life, and the general picture could reasonably be said to be consistent with the idea of a special creation at the beginning of Cambrian times.”—Natural History, October 1959, p. 467.
“If progressive evolution from simple to complex is correct, the ancestors of these full-blown living creatures in the Cambrian should be found; but they have not been found and scientists admit there is little prospect of their ever being found. On the basis of the facts alone, on the basis of what is actually found in the earth, the theory of a sudden creative act in which the major forms of life were established fits best.”—Liberty, September/October 1975, p. 12.
“Evolution theory is having serious trouble with the evidence—but its proponents don’t want an honest debate that might undermine their world view.”
“A century after Darwin’s death, we still have not the slightest demonstrable or even plausible idea of how evolution really took place—and in recent years this has led to an extraordinary series of battles over the whole question. . . . A state of almost open war exists among the evolutionists themselves, with every kind of [evolutionary] sect urging some new modification.”—C. Booker (London Times writer), The Star, (Johannesburg), April 20, 1982, p. 19.
“By the aid of fossils palaeontologists can now give us an excellent picture of the life of past ages.” – p 48.
”The critical first billion years, during which life began, are blank pages in the earth’s history.”-- Red Giants and White Dwarfs, by Robert Jastrow, 1979, p. 97
says Jastrow.
“The fossil record contains no trace of these preliminary stages in the development of many-celled organisms,”
“The record of the rocks contains very little, other than bacteria and one-celled plants until, about a billion years ago, after some three billion years of invisible progress, a major breakthrough occurred. The first many-celled creatures appeared on earth.”-- The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe, by Robert Jastrow, 1981, p. 23.
“The record now reveals that species typically survive for a hundred thousand generations, or even a million or more, without evolving very much. . . . After their origins, most species undergo little evolution before becoming extinct.” p. xv
“The internal anatomy of these creatures is remarkably similar to what you find in flies today. The wings and legs and head, and even the cells inside, are very modern-looking.” - The New York Times, “Prehistoric Gnat,” October 3, 1982, Section 1, p. 49
“Evolution . . . is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being questioned by reputable scientists. Among paleontologists, scientists who study the fossil record, there is growing dissent from the prevailing view of Darwinism.” – Discover, “The Tortoise or the Hare?” by James Gorman, October 1980, p. 88.
“For all its acceptance in the scientific world as the great unifying principle of biology, Darwinism, after a century and a quarter, is in a surprising amount of trouble.” – The Neck of the Giraffe, by Francis Hitching, 1982, p. 12
“[Evolution] is undergoing its broadest and deepest revolution in nearly 50 years. . . . Exactly how evolution happened is now a matter of great controversy among biologists. . . . No clear resolution of the controversies was in sight.” - The Enterprise, Riverside, California, “Macroevolution Theory Stirs Hottest Debate Since Darwin,” by Boyce Rensberger, November 14, 1980, p. E9; Science, “Evolutionary Theory Under Fire,” by Roger Lewin, November 21, 1980, pp. 883-887.
A century after Darwin’s death, we still have not the slightest demonstrable or even plausible idea of how evolution really took place—and in recent years this has led to an extraordinary series of battles over the whole question. . . . A state of almost open war exists among the evolutionists themselves, with every kind of [evolutionary] sect urging some new modification.”—C. Booker (London Times writer), The Star, (Johannesburg), April 20, 1982, p. 19.
“To secular scientists, the fossils, evidences of the life of the past, constitute the ultimate and final court of appeal, because the fossil record is the only authentic history of life available to science. If this fossil history does not agree with evolutionary theory—and we have seen that it does not—what does it teach? It tells us that plants and animals were created in their basic forms. The basic facts of the fossil record support creation, not evolution.” - Liberty, September/October 1975, p. 14
So if the fossil record is as what most 'evolutionist' claim. Why is it that the evidence gathered do not support it (according to the quotes above).
First off I stopped reading all the quotes you are using, for the reason above.
No, the fossil record is just a very, very small piece to the evidence we have supporting evolution. I am talking HUGE amounts of evidence.
“[Evolution] is undergoing its broadest and deepest revolution in nearly 50 years. . . . Exactly how evolution happened is now a matter of great controversy among biologists. . . . No clear resolution of the controversies was in sight.” - The Enterprise, Riverside, California, “Macroevolution Theory Stirs Hottest Debate Since Darwin,” by Boyce Rensberger, November 14, 1980, p. E9; Science, “Evolutionary Theory Under Fire,” by Roger Lewin, November 21, 1980, pp. 883-887.
“The fossil record is an important source for scientists when tracing the evolutionary history of organisms. However, because of limitations inherent in the record, there are not fine scales of intermediate forms between related groups of species. This lack of continuous fossils in the record is a major limitation in tracing the descent of biological groups. Furthermore, there are also much larger gaps between major evolutionary lineages.[citation needed] When transitional fossils are found that show intermediate forms in what had previously been a gap in knowledge, they are often popularly referred to as "missing links".
There is a gap of about 100 million years between the beginning of the Cambrian period and the end of the Ordovician period. The early Cambrian period was the period from which numerous fossils of sponges, cnidarians (e.g., jellyfish), echinoderms (e.g., eocrinoids), molluscs (e.g., snails) and arthropods (e.g., trilobites) are found. The first animal that possessed the typical features of vertebrates, the Arandaspis, was dated to have existed in the later Ordovician period. Thus few, if any, fossils of an intermediate type between invertebrates and vertebrates have been found, although likely candidates include the Burgess Shale animal, Pikaia gracilens, and its Maotianshan shales relatives, Myllokunmingia, Yunnanozoon, Haikouella lanceolata, and Haikouichthys.[citation needed]
What is hard to understand about this ? Did you read the page I posted ?
Edmc2: Sure I did! and it gave me a headache -ty.
Seriously what do you not understand here?
Edmc2: Why you can’t fathom the concept of an “always-existing designer/creator”?
Okay the alien thing again ...
Okay even if there is a god and/or alien creators, We KNOW evolution happened here on Earth. We KNOW humans and the apes share a common ancestor.
Edmc2: “We KNOW evolution happened here on Earth”. Says who? I assume you and your fellow evolutionist here. Correct? OK got it.
“We know there were no Homo sapiens in the beginning.”
edmc2:That sir is a fact and I truly agree 100%! They were created after the earth was ready to be inhabited ("6th creative 'day'").
You can say some alien god thing put a few unicellular prokaryote here 4 billion+ years ago .. but WTF is the point?
Edmc2: If you say so! But the point is life can only come from life - that is the truth and nothing but the truth!
Do you seriously think a real scientist would accept this as a final answer ?
Edmc2: Of course, real scientist accepts the truth that “LIFE CAN ONLY COME FROM LIFE”. But misguided scientist with the agenda to push the evolution theory as a fact? Of course not, they will not “accept this as a final answer“. For it also takes honest and humble heart not only mind to accept the truth that God is the source of Life! And there are a lot of them out there; they are just too humble to get recognized for their work. Because the first thing in their life is God, then their savior and Lord Jesus Christ then family and the rest, details.
Next you said:
(# it! I am sick of searching google for more link for you )
You seem like a semi-intelligent person, why not check out a REAL science book or web page. I am sure you will be surprised.
“The curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the fossils go missing in all the important places.”
” Intermediate forms are missing from the fossil record. Now we see why, essentially because there were no intermediate forms.”--Hoyle and Wickramasinghe
Originally posted by jheated5
Whenever something is proven someone decides they think they can disprove it.... When evolution was suggested first it was just a theory, then several years later we observed micro organisms evolving..... So then it turns into fact but its not all fact because we haven't watched a human evolve in front of our eyes...... The creationist hole just keeps getting deeper and deeper with every new scientific discovery, not that evolution contradicts creation but you think trying to disprove it will prove your god is real somehow and give you meaning in life.....
Originally posted by jheated5
reply to post by edmc^2
Are you denying micro evolution has happened or been observed? If you think I'm talking about micro organisms turning into an elephant than no that's not what I"m talking about.....