evolution, where is the evidence???!!! I see none

Prophet = One who suffers from ergot poisoning.
Biblical Author = One who suffers from ergot poisoning.

Ergot is a funny thing really. It's this stuff that grows on wheat. A mold, a fungus. It turns a single grain of wheat into a little factory for LSA. That's Lysergic Acid. Base form of '___'.

How many people knew about ergot 2-3000 years ago? Not many. How many people didnt know not to grind those strangly darkened grains in their flour? Not many. How many people were walking around tripping balls? A LOT.

What's with the new anti-evolution thread per week thang. Are these people THAT unoriginal? Read a book! Preferably one with references.

The best defense for evolution is "Christians are on drugs"? Please stop wasting bandwidth, there are people here who actually enjoy an intellectual conversation. All the more reason why evolution cannot defend itself.

Originally posted by saint4God
The best defense for evolution is "Christians are on drugs"? Please stop wasting bandwidth, there are people here who actually enjoy an intellectual conversation. All the more reason why evolution cannot defend itself.

Ever since, some members have lost the ability to debate, or deniy the freddom of speech soley due to their unmitigated hatred of anything dealing with religion.

Sorry if evidence points to a bunch of druggies, thats the way it goes. I know, you like reading a book that, using to evidence, just "Go to hell and die". But people with brains go hey, this guy did drugs, saw "god" and is now a saint So the RCC supports drug use. I know that means using your brain for more then a hood ornament, but hey, it gets the juices flowing.

Also, religon, where is the evidence???!!! I see none. You have nothing but drugged up people writing about zombies and magicians and giants that fall from the sky. Hell, the greatest science fiction book ever written is the bible.

Go ahead people, read all the books, from cover to cover, and I don't mean "I read it, all of it, well, some of it, well, the parts they went over in church, well, some of those, a couple times the Browns were on and I didn't want to miss the game." but read it. After you get done you will convert. I mean, after all the billions god kills, Jesus orders you to kill kids and babies, all the genocides ordered by god, rape, torture, and thats leaving out all the giants, zombies, angels, herds of wild mongeese riding three eyed cyclops(yes, 3 eyed cyclops) who breath fire.(ok, so there were no wild herds of mongeese)

EDIT: APC, some say the Salem Witch Trials were due to ergot posion. Some people ate ergot tainted bread, saw some crazy things, and then blamed witches, and there you go. Now if only they had seen god they would have been made saints, but noooo, they had to see fairy people and demons when blown out of their mind on drugs.

[edit on 24-5-2005 by James the Lesser]

Originally posted by kenshiro2012

Originally posted by saint4God
The best defense for evolution is "Christians are on drugs"? Please stop wasting bandwidth, there are people here who actually enjoy an intellectual conversation. All the more reason why evolution cannot defend itself.

Ever since, some members have lost the ability to debate, or deny the freddom of speech soley due to their unmitigated hatred of anything dealing with religion.

\

slick
saint
kenshiro



Great job. Any impartial reader will be able to discern the problem here on BOTH topics

Originally posted by James the Lesser
Also, religon, where is the evidence???!!! I see none.

Then start your own thread and we'll discuss these allegations.

Any impartial reader will be able to discern the problem here on BOTH topics

Thanks Jake, this reminder is a big help.

[edit on 24-5-2005 by saint4God]

James the Lesser
Again and again, please try to turn down the hatred and provide the proof to back your rantings.

JTL's posts are starting to appear as if he himself is typing them in a beserk rage. Turn down the heat, boy! You're making the atheist side look bad. Also, is it only me or is it that the only people are JTl, Saint, me, and the other guy? This thread has veeered very far off topic.

lol people REad the lacerta files and then you would realise that evolution is impossible for humans as it took 148 million yrs for animals to evolve into mammles and only 2 million ys to involve into intelligent beings?.WE were created by aliens and we are the 7th creation.The past 6 creation were destroyed as our creatos failed to perfect us.THey played god.THe original inhabitants of this planet were homo sauras which evolved from dinosaurs and their evlution stopped 10 million yrs ago.And our creators came and accelerated our evolution by genetic manupulation and they made planet earth a zoo planet and this planet was taken form the saurians.
www.sabon.org...

[edit on 25-5-2005 by warthog911]

Sad as it sounds, warthog makes more sense then any christian. Instead of all mighty powerful people that don't exist, he has real people that do exist and could do this.

Warthog, you wouldn't happen to be a Realien, would you?

Originally posted by jake1997

Great job. Any impartial reader will be able to discern the problem here on BOTH topics

Jake, please don't try to act like you are an impartial reader, you have stated repeatedly that you believe in young-earth creation.

If I took your comment the wrong way, sorry in advance.


Evolution is a fact. So-called "micro" and "macro" evolution are facts.

Abiogenesis is not the same as evolution.

The real title of this thread should be "Abiogenesis where is the evidence?"

From Wikipedia:

The theory underlying the modern synthesis has three major aspects:

The common descent of all organisms from a single ancestor.

The origin of novel traits in a lineage.

The mechanisms that cause some traits to persist while others perish.

The modern synthesis, like its Mendelian and Darwinian antecedents, is a scientific theory. In plain English, people use the word "theory" to signify "conjecture", "speculation", or "opinion". In contrast, a scientific theory is a model of the world (or some portion of it) from which falsifiable hypotheses can be generated and be verified through empirical observation. In this sense, "theory" and "fact" do not stand in opposition, but rather exist in a reciprocal relationship. Currently, the modern synthesis is the most powerful theory explaining variation and speciation, and within the science of biology, it has completely replaced other explanations for the origin of species, including creationism and Lamarckism.

en.wikipedia.org...


There's my proof.

The proof has been stated many times on the countless other threads on evolution here.

I think most people who start threads like this are not really interested in the truth, but more interested in starting a flame war, or they have a creationist agenda.

No matter how much proof is given, it is too much for some peoples faith to handle, so they ignore it.

Originally posted by James the Lesser
Sad as it sounds, warthog makes more sense then any christian. Instead of all mighty powerful people that don't exist, he has real people that do exist and could do this.

Warthog, you wouldn't happen to be a Realien, would you?

nope i just love alien\reptilian stuff and i am also sad that our creators played god and programmed our mind to hate saurians.I hope i am born in a new planet where thre is no alien # like this.

[edit on 25-5-2005 by warthog911]

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Evolution is a fact. So-called "micro" and "macro" evolution are facts.

So, where are these facts? It's not in the link you cited. I ask because after 5 years of university classes, labs, and research, they seem to have left this important part out. My concentration was Genetics. I think Mattison put forth some great questions and discussion that still goes unaddressed.

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Abiogenesis is not the same as evolution.

True, but some evolutionists love to include it as soon as you say "yes, evolution is valid".

Originally posted by LeftBehind
The real title of this thread should be "Abiogenesis where is the evidence?"

I think it would be a more specific discussion, than a clusterbomb title. I've seen it on both sides, but admittedly I've learned a lot from the general topics too.

From Wikipedia:

Source check!

Wikipedia is a free-content encyclopedia, written collaboratively by people from around the world. The site is a wiki, which means that anyone can edit articles, simply by clicking on the edit this page link.

I don't like it already. Does anyone else see why?

Originally posted by LeftBehind
There's my proof.

The proof has been stated many times on the countless other threads on evolution here.

More please. There's still Mattison's posts that go unaddressed, s/he's in a few other thread too that's worthy of discussion. I'd like to see them pop back up again with answers.

Originally posted by LeftBehind
I think most people who start threads like this are not really interested in the truth, but more interested in starting a flame war, or they have a creationist agenda.

Perhaps, but can you trust that I do not? God can create things how He wants - through nature (evolution) or through miracle (not of scientific law as we understand it). It doesn't really matter in the end. It does not 'debunk' the Bible or anything. Please, as one who aspired to be a professor of Biology, impart some knowledge and we'll have a look-see.

Originally posted by LeftBehind
No matter how much proof is given, it is too much for some peoples faith to handle, so they ignore it.

Again, you'll have to trust and/or challenge me on this.

Pray, train, study,
God bless.

[edit on 25-5-2005 by saint4God]

Saint, forgive me for being lazy, but could you restate the points you are talking about, this thread is way too big too read through before work.


I know Wikipedia seems like it's not that credible, but I have yet to find anything false printed there. Maybe someone else has.

But, Saint if you would be so kind to post Mattison's points again, I will respond to them tonight when I return from the daily grind.

Originally posted by LeftBehind
But, Saint if you would be so kind to post Mattison's points again, I will respond to them tonight when I return from the daily grind.

I'll do my best. There's a boatload of info out there. Some good places to start.

This thread:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Creationist Confusion
www.abovetopsecret.com...

...and as an aside. Is your avatar from a Kung-Fu movie? As a fan and practioner I'm interested in knowing which one.

[edit on 25-5-2005 by saint4God]

I usually avoid these threads, but at last a question i can answer

The picture is from Big trouble little china

www.imdb.com...

It's a great film not really kung fu tho. Unless you like your kung fu with a Hollywood flavour

Great flick! It's been so long since I've seen it, I'll have to catch it again.



[edit on 25-5-2005 by saint4God]

Left Behind

Here is my point of view on this. I am a "layman" here so go easy on me. I agree Mattison is probably the most informed here on ATS when it comes to macro-evolutionary "anomalies" (from a 'micro does not equal macro POV").

Micro- and macro-evolution are not the same thing. Micro is a fact based on emperical evidence macro is a hypothesis.(as i understand the jargon)

“Darwinists will no doubt object to this characterization of their theory…Darwin’s mutation-selection mechanism constitutes a fruitful idea for biology…But Darwinism is more than just this mechanism. Darwinism is the totalizing claim that this mechanism accounts for all the diversity of life. The evidence simply does not support this claim. What evidence there is supports limited variation within fixed boundaries, or what is typically called microevolution.
Macroevolution – the unlimited plasticity of organisms to diversify across all boundaries – even if true, cannot legitimately be attributed to the mutation-selection mechanism. To do so is to extrapolate beyond its evidential base. www.geocities.com...

(added bold text to quote, Rren)

Mutations are used as evidence of how macro-evolution happens(ie, micro+mutations+long time=macro). Again this is not proven and does not support all of the data that we have, its a hypothesis.

However, in laboratory experiments, fruit flies have been altered to grow legs from there heads, one of many freakish major mutations possible. These changes were produced by large doses of radiation to greatly increase the mutation rate and alter genes. These changes neither created a new structure (just altering existed ones) nor changing the fly into a new kind of insect. These flies may breed under laboratory conditions, but cannot survive in nature because of this harmful mutation.
Davis writes, “Mutation does not introduce new levels of complexity, and it cannot be shown that it is a step in the right direction. Most observed mutations are harmful, and there is no experimental evidence to show that a new animal organism or even a novel structural feature has ever been produced from the raw material produced by mutations.www.pilgrimtours.com...

(added bold text to quote, Rren)

You can't use natural selection(micro) as proof of macro-evolution. Here are some examples:
- Cambrian explosion (sudden appearance of most species during same time period)

- missing horizontal branches in the fossil record

- placement and frequency of "transitional forms" in the fossil record

-frequency, extent, and repetition of symbiosis

-Macro-evolution would require new abilities, increasing complexity, and massive amounts of new genetic information. But such levels of change have never been observed in genetics.

-Macro-evolution requires thousands of “just right” mutations. Micro-evolution can be thought of as “horizontal” change, whereas macro-evolution, if it were ever observed, would involve numerous “upward” and beneficial changes in complexity. Again no proof of this in biology or the geologic record.

The distinction between micro- and macro-evolution was formulated by evolutionary biologists (not creationists or design theorists), and remains a topic of active research and debate within evolutionary theory. Like it or not macro-evolution is not a fact its a hypothesis based on micro-evolutionary evidence.







[edit on 25-5-2005 by Rren]

Originally posted by Rren
Micro-evolution can be thought of as “horizontal” change,

There's no doubt this happens, but I always understood this as an adaptation of an inherent capability. That is to say, by Mendel's research, change happens according to genetics but is dormant (recessive) and is not beyond the boundries/design of the organism. Are we talking about the same thing or is there a difference between adaptation and micro-evolution?

whereas macro-evolution, if it were ever observed, would involve numerous “upward” and beneficial changes in complexity. Again no proof of this in biology or the geologic record.

The distinction between micro- and macro-evolution was formulated by evolutionary biologists (not creationists or design theorists), and remains a topic of active research and debate within evolutionary theory. Like it or not macro-evolution is not a fact its a hypothesis based on micro-evolutionary evidence.

Woot!

If I gave you all the unassembled parts to a bicycle in a giant bag and you shook them for a million years you would never ever have an operational bicycle.

Someone or Something had to first of all design and egnineer the interworking parts and then put them together so they worked purposefully and intellegently. The human body is a million times more complex.

Life was not a random accident. We were lovingly and thoughtfully created.

My opinion.

Stacey

Hi Saints!