The Primary Axiom or Evolution is just a lie and should be replaced by Intelligent Design

a reply to: TerryDon79

It is one Axiom of the theory but the Theory was far more complex, actually Darwin never actually denied god's existence it was others whom made that assertion, a thousand years is a day and a day is a thousand years, even a living vessel without god's soul (breath of life) is just the soil of the earth animated by electrochemical interaction's.

And you would be surprised just how many Quantum physicists believe in God.

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: LABTECH767

You also know that Darwins theory of evolution has itself evolved? It's no longer just the theory he originally put forth.

I never said scientists dont believe in a deity.

a reply to: TerryDon79

The truth is Darwin's original theory has been proven false by science...
So the theory had to replace the old premise with new conjecture...
This too is on its way out the door...

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: TerryDon79

The truth is Darwin's original theory has been proven false by science...
So the theory had to replace the old premise with new conjecture...
This too is on its way out the door...

And let me guess, it's getting replaced with Goddidit?

a reply to: TerryDon79

You get me wrong, I was merely positing the fact that many do believe in God, as for the Theory evolving, yes it is actually no longer Darwin's theory but to quote a scientist it does contradict conservation of energy at the supposed early stages of life, later once the adaptive and self replicating helix is in place then it behaves very differently.

Here is another thought for you, it is called propagation of genetic material through viral transmission, take a typical host species and take a virus, it is contradictory for the virus to kill it's host and the most successful virus on the planet are non lethal so periodically they actually shut down and end up becoming part of the DNA of the host, they also like to homogenise there habitat, ie there host's and this is especially true for pan species viral pathogen's and parasite's, place two species in close enough proximity with a common virus and over time the virus (which also becomes contaminated by it's host DNA and so can then trade these segments' between species) homogenises the biology of these two species.

Human's and Pig's have very similar internal structure as far as there digestion is concerned (though pig's can eat hear, nail's and bones as murderer's and the mafia know all too well and these two disparate biological entity's have a very close relationship with of course the Pig being the oldest surviving domesticated animal (yet it only takes about two or three generation of being free to revert back into warthog like wild boar), and guess what human's have also lived side by side with apes and other primated for a very long time, could it be that they do not share a common ancestor but that rather they share common gene trading parasites.

Cancer has been reverse engineered into a pathogenic virus and guess what, virus, deactivated at some point and incorporated into our DNA but not part of our main sequence or even one of our building block's but of course the point is shown that it can happen and does happen all the time in nature, this is not Evolution or Adaptation but Mutation or even Biologically Tailored evolution which is beneficial to a pan species pathogen/parasite/symbiotic community of pathogens we call virus, those small strang's of RNA or DNA in an enzymatic protiene shell, we are only aware of the one's that cause trouble but there are so many more we trade with those around us in every breath.

a reply to: LABTECH767

You're analogy of pigs/boar and human/apes is fundamentally flawed.

Boars and pigs are more than just cousins, they are brothers and sisters. They are the same thing.

Humans and apes are not brothers and sisters. They are cousins. They aren't the same thing, but come from the same thing.

It's like saying that both domesticated cats and lions are essentially the same thing. If you leave a cat in the wild for a few generations it will become a lion. Or a house and a donkey, seagull and crow, trout and tuna etc

a reply to: TerryDon79

Ah the hypothothetical missing link, hang on a moment just need to wet my gill's this fish bowl is getting a little dry, ahh that's better.

Seriously that is not the point you are skipping around another mechanism that is ignored, one that fundementally challenges the linear evolution approach to the subject matter, I have no problem with mutation and trial and error and can even see that as a tool of the creator, I also have no problem with an ancient earth as time for us is not the same thing for God according to scripture, a day is a thousand years and a thousand years but a day before the lord.

What I am saying is that even if you accept evolution you can not accept a species in isolation, the eco system is actually an organism and it is extremely complex, far more than a human being is, we are living in a protoplasmic soup of virus and bacteria and though probably less than a hundred million viral infections leaves any genetic material in the host cell there are simply so very many virus that this does happen, if that virus was carrying genetic material it picked up from a previous and different host species than it can add that to the genetic make up of the new host overwriting the same sequence with the equivelant from the other species, the cell is self repairing and most such genetic errors will be refected in the active DNA but what about the Endron's, is the self repairing and mitosis function of the genetic material really geared to repair that to the same extent as the active DNA which has the added impetous that it is the functioning code of the cell and has to work so if it does not then the next generation of cell will be subnormal or even die before it undergoes mitosis itself, if of course functional strand's are introduced then it will replicate perfectly normally but foreign traits will be passed on to the next generation and of course given enough of these transfers then sufficient foreign trait's will be passed to make it more like the other host species of any combination of other host species almost like the virus is acting like an ecological immune system and changing and integrating any genetic material which may not have belonged before? or keeping the genetic material common between many species for it's own survivability.

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: TerryDon79

The truth is Darwin's original theory has been proven false by science...

If that's the case you should be able to supply a citation sporting that, right?

So the theory had to replace the old premise with new conjecture...
This too is on its way out the door...

Not even close to reality. The backbone of Darwin's original thesis was 'Descent with Modification'. It's still the backbone of Modern Evolutionary Synthesis and is reinforced and supported by new genetic data that Darwin had no access to 167 years ago. Predictions made by Darwin in 'On the Origin of Species' have been confirmed and independently replicated.

Just a couple of Darwin's predictions were that we would find fossilized precursors to the Trilobite(which we have), that Pre-Cambrian fossils would be discovered which became reality in 1953 with the discovery that they not only exists but that they were actually very common. They simply needed to be viewed through a microscope. A third predictin by Darwin was that because there are two types of whales biased on dentition, baleen whales who strained their food as they ate and whales with teeth, Darwin predicted that a fossilized precursor to both containing both teeth and Baleen would be found and it has.

There are dozens of accurate predictions made under MES and all of them support evolution as a factual aspect of biology.

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: TerryDon79

Ah the hypothothetical missing link, hang on a moment just need to wet my gill's this fish bowl is getting a little dry, ahh that's better.

There is no "missing link".

Seriously that is not the point you are skipping around another mechanism that is ignored, one that fundementally challenges the linear evolution approach to the subject matter, I have no problem with mutation and trial and error and can even see that as a tool of the creator, I also have no problem with an ancient earth as time for us is not the same thing for God according to scripture, a day is a thousand years and a thousand years but a day before the lord.

Evolution is not linear. The "day is a thousand years..." has no science behind it. That is purely a religious stand point.

What I am saying is that even if you accept evolution you can not accept a species in isolation, the eco system is actually an organism and it is extremely complex, far more than a human being is, we are living in a protoplasmic soup of virus and bacteria and though probably less than a hundred million viral infections leaves any genetic material in the host cell there are simply so very many virus that this does happen, if that virus was carrying genetic material it picked up from a previous and different host species than it can add that to the genetic make up of the new host overwriting the same sequence with the equivelant from the other species, the cell is self repairing and most such genetic errors will be refected in the active DNA but what about the Endron's, is the self repairing and mitosis function of the genetic material really geared to repair that to the same extent as the active DNA which has the added impetous that it is the functioning code of the cell and has to work so if it does not then the next generation of cell will be subnormal or even die before it undergoes mitosis itself, if of course functional strand's are introduced then it will replicate perfectly normally but foreign traits will be passed on to the next generation and of course given enough of these transfers then sufficial foreign trait's will be passed to make it more like the other host species of any combination of other host species almost like the virus is acting like an ecological immune system and changing and integrating any genetic material which may not have belonged before? or keeping the genetic material common between many species for it's own survivability.

Cells breakdown, decay and produce other bad cells. It's called aging, cancer and other known things. DNA can be broken, distorted, changed by a lot of factors from the unknown (being in the womb is a good example), to environmental conditions.

But I'll say this again. There is no proof of evolution not happening. That's what science works with, proof.

The whole thing about evolution being against creation is ridiculous from the word go. The 2 have nothing to do with each other.

a reply to: TerryDon79

There is one fundemental law of all science that so many overlook, this tenet is pivotal to pure science,

Any Theory can be supported but never proven.
Any Theory can be Disproven and once disproven is no longer valid.

Changing and adapting the theory mean a NEW theory.

Theory's are mental construct's, model's of the world basted on empirical data we collect like when we place petri dishes into incubators with control's nearby for statistical analysis and observation.

Anthropology is missing this statistical analysis as it is not done real time on live specimen's and instead is performed on often extinct fossils which show dissimilarity, then the anthropological hypothesis (And it is not a theory because it is not based on controlled empirical analysis and study the date is flawed because it is not repeatable in most cases taking a single fossil and claiming it solves a problem lack's repeatability, taking five of them is also no good) based on evolutionary Conjecture posits an Idea, that Idea get's then called a FACT by LAYMEN and scientists whom are ignoring the aforementioned tenet of Science.

Take Lucy, there WERE more scientists whom disagreed but it got such support from the less than scientific community that rule over that idiology that it then became regarded as a human ancestor? why, well for that very reason.

Let me clarify, I accepe homo neanderthalis as human as I do several other human type fossil's but they could be subgroups rather than ancestors so are a flawed evolutionary model to use, even genetic analysis (performed on these ancient sample's with great ingenuity - getting the fragmented dna to replicate again) does not PROVE beyond any shadow of a doubt any linear descent from these subspecies even when viable data is obtained it merely shows commonality between there dna and our's.

a reply to: LABTECH767

So all that post boils down to is "We didn't see it so there's no proof"?

Well, I haven't been to Australia or China. I'm pretty sure all the evidence point to them existing.

Also, any form of god has never been witnessed.

So if you say there is no proof of evolution because we haven't seen the Homo genus evolving first hand, surely that means you can't believe in intelligent design as you didn't see it happening.

a reply to: TerryDon79

No what I am saying is there is taking on faith like I do with religion and taking on fact.

Having faith in a theory is not taking on fact it is supporting a personal supposition with agreement in the form of that theory or in this case hypothetical model rather than theoretical model.

I have not seen the Ninth planet yet I believe it exists based on the same system of arguments.

What we are really talking about is clashing ideology's and of course then neither of us is right and neither wrong on these points (though we do seem to share the bulk of the facts in common).

anyway that is it for me as I need some shuteye, have a satalite installation coming in the morning and it is 01:11 here, night and god bless.

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: TerryDon79

No what I am saying is there is taking on faith like I do with religion and taking on fact.

Nope, you're wrong. It has absolutely bugger all to do with faith. It has EVERYTHING to do with evidence.

Having faith in a theory is not taking on fact it is supporting a personal supposition with agreement in the form of that theory or in this case hypothetical model rather than theoretical model.

And here we go with the "It's just a theory" nonsense. I was waiting for this to show up.

I have not seen the Ninth planet yet I believe it exists based on the same system of arguments.

Um, you do know that the 9th planet isn't a scientific theory? It's a scientific hypothesis as there isn't enough EVIDENCE to prove it's existence.

What we are really talking about is clashing ideology's.

No, what we're talking about is how you are dismissing science to fit your religion.

You know the device you are using to be on ATS? That's from science and was originally a scientific hypothesis which turned into a theory which got put into practice.

a reply to: neoholographic

It is intelligent design to me. I do not think a god made it i think we are far to dismissive of intelligence in nature of which we are a part of. Evolution occurs and to me it has a intelligence and consciousness of its own. It has the ability to problem solve, has a memory, can problem solve problems and create intricate ecosystems. It just works on a very different time frame to us humans but its there and has a lot to teach us.

a reply to: TerryDon79

i have news for you... all religions arE thEory. based on nothing. prove me wrong....

originally posted by: CaDreamer
a reply to: TerryDon79

i have news for you... all religions arE thEory. based on nothing. prove me wrong....

Why would I want to prove you wrong when that is how I stand?

a reply to: neoholographic

Evolution can only occur if the Big bang was real. And if the universe is expanding…what’s it expanding into?

a reply to: LABTECH767

In the beginning there was nothing and nothing evolved to be everything. Yet nothing evolved everything from nothing contradicts 5 known laws of science.

The proven law of cause and effect
The proven law of conservation of energy/mass
The proven law of increasing entropy
The proven laws of universal information
The proven law of biogenises

This concept also contradicts reason.

Those who believe in this stuff have more faith than those who believe in intelligent design. Atheism, therefore (and by default evolution and the Enormous Explosion are the ones who have the MOST faith.

originally posted by: SanitySearcher
a reply to: neoholographic

Evolution can only occur if the Big bang was real. And if the universe is expanding…what’s it expanding into?

That's a pretty big leap there (in my opinion).

Evolution doesn't need the big bang. All it needs is life to have started (in one form or another).

originally posted by: SanitySearcher
a reply to: LABTECH767

In the beginning there was nothing and nothing evolved to be everything.

This thread is about evolution, not origins.

Evolution =/= Origins