Animals appearing whole - ie anti-evolution

originally posted by: uncommitted
a reply to: Krazysh0t
And the point about the first single celled life form appearing on Earth? You don't mention that.

Well abiogenesis is a nice hypothesis with some evidence to support it. Panspermia is another hypothesis. But see, the difference between those and what we are talking about is that the scientists are actually trying to produce the evidence for them being true. Also it is FAR more believable that a few small lifeforms appeared on the planet and evolved over millions of years into everything we have today rather than EVERY species on the planet appearing fully developed all at once. For one, the fossil record doesn't show that to the be the case. If it were, the deeper we dig in the ground, the more diverse the fossils we find should be. Also we should be able to find fossils of say bears alongside fossils of dinosaurs. This is also not the case.

Actually, people do tend to assume someone referred to as a creationist believes in all of the theories associated with it - you used the term creationist so I'm afraid if you must use labels you have to take that into consideration whether you mean to or not.

Well that is ANOTHER problem with the religious accounts. No two people, it seems, can agree HOW exactly god created all the life on the planet if he didn't use evolution to do so. Me, I'm looking at the evidence that the earth gives us and asking the creationists to make their theories fit the evidence. Or provide evidence of their own that they are correct. I have yet to receive ANY evidence after three pages of discussion. I've gotten a lot words and people trying to dismantle evolution though.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Quadrivium

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Quadrivium

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: FinalCountdown

Ok, if evolution isn't true, how do new species of lifeforms appear on the planet?

Ummm......... Creation was finished quite a while ago.
New lifeforms don't appear....
They are found.

So since 99% of all species on the planet are extinct, you are suggesting that the earth, back when it was first created was exponentially more diverse than it is today? Keep in mind that the fossil record should bare that out. There should be more and more fossils the deeper we dig, but that isn't the case. Not to mention we can show that different species lived at different points in earth's past. Where is your evidence?

Where did I suggest this?
Speciation indeed happens......
Within Genus/family/kind.

The problem many people have is with the assumption that one genus can speciate into a new genus.

The problem with that saying is that we have evidence that different species existed at different points in earth's past. Where did these species come from? For instance, the dinosaurs we have clear evidence that they existed for a certain period of time that was after the first life appeared on the planet and WAY before humans appeared on the planet. Not to mention, just like the dinosaurs there are whole OTHER species of animal, plant, micro-organisms dying out as well. The Earth WOULD have to be VASTLY more diverse in life if all life was created at once. It's not like you or I see Tyrannosaurus' speciating into different types of t-rexes.

We have evidence of FIVE major extinction events. Where did all the new life come from after these extinction events happened?

Where did life come from to start off with? No life, no evolution, no argument.
You demand answers, yet you follow a religion that does not have a beginning. Evolution has no beginning.
As I stated on the first page...
"The god of evolution is time. The followers of evolution, in it's entirety, believe that all things are possible through their god. Sound familiar? ".
How can you demand answers about where species came from, when you claim evolution has nothing do do with the first species coming about?

a reply to: Quadrivium

Dude ...

That just wasn't fair at all.

a reply to: Krazysh0t I just made a thread a couple days ago where i tried to lay out how this would work it is called pyramid earth and explains how earth was created in sections brought together by a computer. GOD created heavens and earth meaning that many planets could have species that we do not until a section is mended into earth. Kinda like an etch a sketch connected to many other etch a sketches. This set up would allow for eveloution,flat earth,creation, and just about every other annomaly we have here on earth. It could mean that earth does not look like we think but it is just a rock that was used for the first sketch or picture. The biggest clue for me is that everyone is right but does not have the whole story.

a reply to: Quadrivium

How many times has this been explained to you? Evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life. A god (pick one) could have started the first single-celled lifeforms and it wouldn't change the theory of evolution one bit.

originally posted by: Snarl
No, it is not. You will lose all credibility with me if I catch you moving the goalposts (explained further below in bold).

You see, anyone can look at the definition of 'evolution' and not feel like they understand it absolutely. That is because the words used to describe it are as soft as the science itself.

Just because you fail to understand the concepts doesn't prove or disprove it though. One can fail to misunderstand why the truth is true, but still believe it is true. It wasn't until I started posting on this website and was forced to research evolution to counter many a creationist's anti-evolution posts that I REALLY learned how evolution worked. Up until then I still believed it was true, I just didn't understand it fully. Now I know better than ever that it is true. Too much evidence shows that it is true. Plus, everything else in the universe works by starting out simply and getting more complex over time (and don't bring up the 2nd law of thermodynamics, that is for closed systems and doesn't apply to the earth which is an open system).

Easy enough. I'll get him to sign up for an account in the next five minutes on one condition. Please provide me the phone number for that guy who survived the last mass extinction.

I don't need that guy, I have fossils and the fossil record to show that it happened. When you are digging through the earth and you find a diverse lifeset with many fossils and then suddenly you get a bit deeper and the diversity drops by 70% or more as well as the number of fossils dropping substantially then you have evidence for a mass die off. When this holds true around the world for the same time frame of fossils, then you have evidence for a mass extinction event.

Whether you believe the fossil account or not, it is STILL more evidence for my side than the opposing side which has yet to provide any evidence.

You want real truth? Here you go.
Q: Is God responsible for periodically replacing species on the planet?
A: I don't know. No one knows. One would need faith in the existence of God to answer the question.

Q: Is evolution responsible for the variety of species which exist and have existed as evidenced in the sparse fossil record?
A: I don't know. No one knows.

I'm agnostic, I know these things. But I also know that agnosticism deals in probabilities. We assign a probability to something being true based on the available evidence to support the claim. If the evidence for a certain claim overwhelmingly favors it, then I concede that it has a VERY high probability of being true and I can say that it is most probably true or even that it is true given a high enough probability.

One would need faith in soft science to answer the question. You might need extraordinary faith ... considering scientists will happily enter a hoax into evidence (e.g. Piltdown Man) to win the debate in the court of public opinion.

And the great thing about science is that it is peer-reviewed so when these hoaxes happen, they WILL be exposed eventually and outed as such. Once the hoax is exposed, they are stricken from the list of available evidence. But keep in mind, just because events like the piltdown man are hoaxed, doesn't discredit all the other corroborating evidence for it. You'd have to show that EVERY last bit of evidence for evolution was hoaxed to make that claim.

You asked for witnesses to these events. Do you not consider religious texts to be a proper accounting of the truth?

Religious texts being a proper accounting of the truth? You JUST got done talking to me about people hoaxing science, and you are trying to pass off books and writings by people centuries ago before the term "quality control" was even a thing as truth? What makes you think that some people didn't just write a bunch of stories down and pass them off as truth? If you want me to believe something written in a religious text, you will have to show me additional evidence outside the religious text that corroborates the claims within.

Tell me ... are there more fossils 'in the record' than there are religious texts? Would you care to 'weigh' the evidence with me? LOL

Yes there are FAR more fossils than religious texts. Was that a real question?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: FinalCountdown

Ok, if evolution isn't true, how do new species of lifeforms appear on the planet?

I never said evolution isn't true for plants and animals ( including apes)
I'm saying that modern man did not arrive to be all that we are through basic evolution.
I'm saying that we were created to be out of what was here.

originally posted by: Quadrivium
Where did life come from to start off with? No life, no evolution, no argument.
You demand answers, yet you follow a religion that does not have a beginning. Evolution has no beginning.

Not knowing all the answers doesn't disprove the answers that we do know. So not knowing how life began doesn't disprove that we know how it develops. These are two unrelated concepts.

As I stated on the first page...
"The god of evolution is time. The followers of evolution, in it's entirety, believe that all things are possible through their god. Sound familiar? ".
How can you demand answers about where species came from, when you claim evolution has nothing do do with the first species coming about?

That's easy, evolution and god can coexist. No one said they couldn't. God could have created the first organisms (single celled) and then let evolution take over from there.

a reply to: deadeyedick

Interesting theory, can you link the thread? I'd like to take a gander.

originally posted by: FinalCountdown

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: FinalCountdown

Ok, if evolution isn't true, how do new species of lifeforms appear on the planet?

I never said evolution isn't true for plants and animals ( including apes)
I'm saying that modern man did not arrive to be all that we are through basic evolution.
I'm saying that we were created to be out of what was here.

Well that really wasn't the premise of my thread. I can accept that you accept evolution is true, but think that man was engineered to be like we are today (I personally, find it a bit dubious but I don't have much evidence to counter these claims).

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Thank you.
Can I move on to another thread now?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

And the great thing about science is that it is peer-reviewed so when these hoaxes happen, they WILL be exposed eventually and outed as such.

45 years!! 45 years it took consensus (soft) science to 'finally' admit that they frikkin' lied.

Okay ... I'm done here.

a reply to: Krazysh0twww.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: FinalCountdown

Sure. If you want. I'm certainly not holding you here.

originally posted by: Snarl
a reply to: Krazysh0t

And the great thing about science is that it is peer-reviewed so when these hoaxes happen, they WILL be exposed eventually and outed as such.

45 years!! 45 years it took science to 'finally' admit that they frikkin' lied.

Okay ... I'm done here.

But it DID get exposed. Yes, it is sad that it took half a century to be exposed, but science isn't something you rush. You let it happen at its own pace.

Here is an example of a student back in 1987 finding an error in one of Newton's calculations 3 CENTURIES after he wrote them down.

AFTER 3 CENTURIES, A STUDENT FIGURES THAT NEWTON ERRED

A 23-year-old physics student has discovered an error in Sir Isaac Newton's ''Principia'' that had gone undetected since the work laid out the laws of motion and gravity 300 years ago.

Does this mean that we have to throw everything we know about gravity and motion out the window?

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: Quadrivium

How many times has this been explained to you? Evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life. A god (pick one) could have started the first single-celled lifeforms and it wouldn't change the theory of evolution one bit.

You pick one, I already have mine.

One of the main problems is that there are many Atheist and Evolutionists who try to use evolution to disprove God, you can see this in every related thread on ATS. They also feel the need to suggest, constantly, that they are somehow more intelligent and above those who believe in Creation. This very thread has more than enough evidence of this.
If evolution has nothing to do with how life began, why use it to try and disprove Creation?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: uncommitted
a reply to: Krazysh0t
And the point about the first single celled life form appearing on Earth? You don't mention that.

Well abiogenesis is a nice hypothesis with some evidence to support it. Panspermia is another hypothesis. But see, the difference between those and what we are talking about is that the scientists are actually trying to produce the evidence for them being true.

You aren't answering the question. You called the thread "Animals appearing whole - ie Anti evolution".

So, did the first single celled life form appear whole? The conclusion to that surely must be yes. Panspermia is neither here nor there because it suggests it appeared whole elsewhere, but still appeared whole. Abiogenesis is a theory which to the best of my knowledge we haven't successfully recreated (if I'm wrong, apologies, but even if I am, surely that raises the same point - animal appeared whole).

So, we have a point where as far as we know, the first life form on Earth appeared whole from nowhere. That kind of ssuggests - a little miracle occurred from which evolution took over. That could be used to say both creationism as a concept if the fundamentalist argument is held to one side as a blind belief, and evolution - assuming every building needs a foundation - can co-exist.

Am I suggesting this is the case? Not really I wouldn't know, I wasn't there, I'm just having a little bit of a mental work out and using it to counter the title you used for this thread.

ETA, I see you have accepted that this is for all we know as good a theory as any we have - not sure what that does to your OP though which actually refuted it.

originally posted by: uncommitted
You aren't answering the question. You called the thread "Animals appearing whole - ie Anti evolution".

So, did the first single celled life form appear whole? The conclusion to that surely must be yes. Panspermia is neither here nor there because it suggests it appeared whole elsewhere, but still appeared whole. Abiogenesis is a theory which to the best of my knowledge we haven't successfully recreated (if I'm wrong, apologies, but even if I am, surely that raises the same point - animal appeared whole).

So, we have a point where as far as we know, the first life form on Earth appeared whole from nowhere. That kind of ssuggests - a little miracle occurred from which evolution took over. That could be used to say both creationism as a concept if the fundamentalist argument is held to one side as a blind belief, and evolution - assuming every building needs a foundation - can co-exist.

Am I suggesting this is the case? Not really I wouldn't know, I wasn't there, I'm just having a little bit of a mental work out and using it to counter the title you used for this thread.

ETA, I see you have accepted that this is for all we know as good a theory as any we have - not sure what that does to your OP though which actually refuted it.

Actually the abiogenesis hypothesis doesn't state that they appeared whole at all, but basic building blocks of life formed chemically (like amino acids) which then evolved into life forms.

Abiogenesis#current models

There is still no "standard model" of the origin of life. Most currently accepted models draw at least some elements from the framework laid out by Alexander Oparin (in 1924) and John Haldane (in 1925), who postulated the molecular or chemical evolution theory of life.[61] According to them, the first molecules constituting the earliest cells "were synthesized under natural conditions by a slow process of molecular evolution, and these molecules then organized into the first molecular system with properties with biological order."[61] Oparin and Haldane suggested that the atmosphere of the early Earth may have been chemically reducing in nature, composed primarily of methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), water (H2O), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), carbon dioxide (CO2) or carbon monoxide (CO), and phosphate (PO43-), with molecular oxygen (O2) and ozone (O3) either rare or absent, however, the current scientific model is an atmosphere that contained 60% hydrogen, 20% oxygen (mostly in the form of water vapor), 10% carbon dioxide, 5 to 7% hydrogen sulfide, and smaller amounts of nitrogen, carbon monoxide, free hydrogen, methane and inert gases.[62][63] In the atmosphere proposed by Oparin and Haldane, electrical activity can catalyze the creation of certain basic small molecules (monomers) of life, such as amino acids. This was demonstrated in the Miller–Urey experiment by Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey reported in 1953.

Nothing miraculous about it at all when you look at it like that. Chemistry happened that produced some building blocks for life. These building blocks evolved into actual organisms. These organisms continued to evolve into what we have today.

I still want to see evidence for animals such as bears or whales appearing wholely developed. I notice that I am back on the evolution (and in this case abiogenesis) defensive front. This thread's purpose is to gather the evidence for the counterpoint, not disprove evolution or abiogenesis.

originally posted by: Quadrivium

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: Quadrivium

How many times has this been explained to you? Evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life. A god (pick one) could have started the first single-celled lifeforms and it wouldn't change the theory of evolution one bit.

You pick one, I already have mine.

One of the main problems is that there are many Atheist and Evolutionists who try to use evolution to disprove God, you can see this in every related thread on ATS. They also feel the need to suggest, constantly, that they are somehow more intelligent and above those who believe in Creation. This very thread has more than enough evidence of this.
If evolution has nothing to do with how life began, why use it to try and disprove Creation?

Everyone I've ever talked to that believes evolution (and yes that includes ATS) maintains that a god could exist and that evolution doesn't prove or disprove god. I want to see hard evidence of what you are saying is true. Though I doubt that it exists since you are actually misrepresenting the purpose of my thread in this very post by suggesting I'm trying to use evolution to disprove god. So how about showing a bit of intellectual integrity and not put words in my mouth?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

This appears to be almost a troll level thread. That, or you've never actually studied any religions at all. I'm pretty certain most every religion accepts adaptation and gene expression, even if some followers lack knowledge of such things in scientific terms. Breeding dogs, for example, has been around for a while and all.

The contention that most creationist hold is that one creature does not become another. The term species is not really applicable, as even the slightest deviation gets a new gene pool labelled as a species, as long as it's been isolated for a while. So the argument you'd be having isn't about new species, but rather entirely new creatures, period. And the interesting thing is, if you were to cluster all the closely related species together, suddenly the diversity of life doesn't appear quite so daunting. Debates about science aside, it's not an illogical concept, provided you can allow for a creator in the first place.

I might add, the other interesting angle to it all is that it gives birth the concept that, rather than life being improved and diversified over time due to changes in DNA, life is degraded. I can certainly think of times I've ventured out to Walmart and come home with the feeling that life is being degraded with every passing generation...