Evolution, It's only a theory

reply to post by jfj123


do you listen to coast to coast am? it seems like you are missing a lot of information/ peaces of the puzzle.

If you do a little research into obe/nde/regression you will soon come to realise that reincarnation is real and is there for the evolution of the soul, and a more evolved soul needs a more evolved body.
But wait, there is more, when you ask for your higher self or god during a obe you will find that the following experience is exactly the same and that you are god or at least part of it.
So why is it so difficult to think that that has a role/influence in/on this dimension on the tools of our souls (bodies)?
As for this dimension, it is a school to learn action-reaction and is far more dense and more difficult to manipulate then the higher dimensions in which we will live after we have learned our lessons here and then we do not need a tool(body) to live in this dimension anymore we go on learning in the other dimensions. It is all about progression.

There are studies on these subjects I suggest you look into it before you talk about things you do not know enough about. It just helps to see the bigger picture.

And no I am not religious nor are my parents, just looking at the facts with an open mind.

Originally posted by B.A.C.

Originally posted by Kapyong
Gday,

Originally posted by B.A.C.
The evidence on transitional fossils is slim at best, definitely not conclusive.

How would you know?
You refuse to even look at the evidence.


Kapyong

I've looked at the evidence, and you can't name 51, let alone thousands.

You're ignorance.

deny ignorance.

Go to the following links to research transitional fossils

Due to the rarity of preservation and the likelihood that speciation occurs in small populations during geologically short periods of time, transitions between species are uncommon in the fossil record. Transitions at higher taxonomic levels, however, are abundant.

www.talkorigins.org...

Fossil Hominids The Evidence for Human Evolution
www.talkorigins.org...

www.talkorigins.org...

www.talkorigins.org...

Of course you won't read these links as it will interfere with your belief system which would obviously be devastating to your psychi.

reply to post by jrod


You have to admit, there is fairy dust going around! On both sides.

I never said that, but I am open to that idea and I am also open to the idea of a creator. Evolution does has evidence and many refuse to see it.

No, we just require more evidence than supposition in the filling in the gaps. I readily accept much of what is being said, but I am not a romantic. It takes more reasoning to convince me. The leaders such as Dawkins aren't helping the issue.

But you show intelligence in admitting that there is a possibility of a creator. Cudos to you!!!

Originally posted by jrod
Why isn't anyone taking any shots at my opinion?

Being a strong beliver in evolution I should be an easy target. Someone enlighten me, why is evolution such a hated theory?

Because people who believe in god feel as if evolution is a direct attack on their beliefs so they must suppress any knowledge about evolution so they can feel better about their religion.

This type of thinking led to the Inquisition and Salem Witch trials

But suppression of the truth isn't good enough so they've made up their own fake science called creationist science and they say things like
There are no such things as dinosaurs

or if there are dinosaurs, noah had them on the ark. Could you imagine the carnage at the raptor cages

or the earth is only a few thousand years old.

There is no proof for any of their claims but it makes them feel better to believe the lie

reply to post by jfj123

This is not necessarily true. There are scientists who believe in evolution with all their heart but also believe in a god. They are not mutually exclusive.

Yes, over 55% believe in God or don't know, while 45% claim to be atheists. It is interesting to note that some of the most well known and accomplished of scientists - DO believe!

Originally posted by B.A.C.

Gravitational Theory explains the LAW of Gravity.

Electromagnetic Theory explains the many LAWS of electricity.

Germ Theory doesn't explain a LAW because it depends on evolution theory.

Evolution Theory doesn't explain a LAW because there is no LAWS to explain.

Again, go do your research before you accuse others of having not done theirs.

Once again

In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations.2 It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be.

Some people think that in science, you have a theory, and once it's proven, it becomes a law. That's not how it works. In science, we collect facts, or observations, we use laws to describe them, and a theory to explain them. You don't promote a theory to a law by proving it. A theory never becomes a law.

In fact, if there was a hierarchy of science, theories would be higher than laws. There is nothing higher, or better, than a theory. Laws describe things, theories explain them.

Here's an example of something you posted:

An example will help you to understand this. There's a law of gravity, which is the description of gravity. It basically says that if you let go of something it'll fall. It doesn't say why. Then there's the theory of gravity, which is an attempt to explain why. Actually, Newton's Theory of Gravity did a pretty good job, but Einstein's Theory of Relativity does a better job of explaining it. These explanations are called theories, and will always be theories. They can't be changed into laws, because laws are different things. Laws describe, and theories explain.

www.notjustatheory.com...

Get it yet???
And just for the record, evolution is not an attack on religion.

Originally posted by DocTesla
well evolution has fossils so we win

creationism is also a theory but with much less proof

Not to nit pick but creationism is not a theory as it has not been tested, observed, reproduced, etc...
At best you could call creationism an hypothesis.

Originally posted by B.A.C.
reply to post by jfj123

 

Prove that evolution is a lie? Is that what this thread is coming to?

Gravitational Theory - explains the LAW of Gravity.

Electromagnetic Theory - explains the many LAWS of electricity.

But

The Theory of Evolution - attempts to explain it's own theory.

Cheers.

Read down a bit. I explain this for you
I also provided a link for your convenience

Originally posted by B.A.C.

What is the problem here?

The problem is that people cannot believe in the junk science of evolution without attacking or denying the existance of God. (not a proven fact by the way----you have been brain washed into believing it is a proven fact).

You cannot staddle both sides of the fence on this issue by thinking God is behind evolution. That is just absurd.

If you don't stand for the creator behind the creation, then you will fall for anything, including falling for something as profoundly ignorant as believing evolution is a proven fact, when in FACT it is not.

I'll make this simple for you.
Since you claim junk science is behind evolution all you have to do is DISPROVE EVOLUTION.
Show us the junk science and why it can't work and you'll disprove evolution.
You'll also get a nobel prize and world wide fame.
When will you be able to do this so I can check in on the thread? Do you think you'll have disproven evolution by tomorrow afternoon or should I wait until Thursday?

So by Thursday you can PROVE evolution?

Science has already proven it. Now it's up to you to discredit all the scientific evidence. Can you?

Go read many quotes by leading scientist that admit they have a LOT of the answers concerning evolution, but not ALL of the answers.

If you have a large puzzle and you have enough pieces to know what the picture is, you can say what the picture is. Simple enough?
Every question you've had about evolution has been answered here yet you still try to refute it with NOTHING. You provide not evidence that evolution is wrong. If it's completely wrong as you claim, surely you can back up your statement right? You wouldn't just make baseless statements here would you?

Is there evidence for evolution? Absolutely.

Excellent then you agree that evolution is real Good job !

Is there lot's of evidence for evolution? Possibly.

Even better, you admit there's a lot of evidence for evolution

Can you or anyone else say you have all the answers for evolution? Nope.

Correct. But nobody can say they have all the answers about anything yet we're able to create incredible machines and build vast skyscrapers that reach up into the sky, etc...
You don't have to have every little answer in the universe to draw a conclusion so you know how something works. If that were the case, we'd still all be living in caves and hunting with pointy sticks.

Therefore it is not fact yet. It is still just a theory, no matter how you'd like to redefine theory.

You obviously don't know the meaning of a scientific theory even though it's been posted MANY, MANY times. Your refusal to read and grasp what a theory is, doesn't make it less valid, it just makes you more foolish. Sorry to say

[edit on 3-3-2009 by jfj123]

[edit on 3-3-2009 by jfj123]

Originally posted by MatrixProphet
reply to post by jfj123

 

This is not necessarily true. There are scientists who believe in evolution with all their heart but also believe in a god. They are not mutually exclusive.

Yes, over 55% believe in God or don't know, while 45% claim to be atheists. It is interesting to note that some of the most well known and accomplished of scientists - DO believe!

Yep and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that !
I'm not an atheist myself yet I fully believe in evolution ONLY based on massive amounts of evidence to support it.

Originally posted by B.A.C.
OK I'l be one of the religious nuts to respond

In science, the word theory is used as a plausible general principle or body of principles offered to explain a phenomenon.

The word is derived from Greek θεωρία theoria (Jerome), Greek "contemplation, speculation"

en.wikipedia.org...

Why don't I believe in evolution?

It is speculation.

Not only is evolution not observable, it is not testable or repeatable in a lab.

The Missing Links, where are they? If evolution were true where are all these skeletons that are halfway through evolving? There are none.

Even today, this world is filled with simple one-cell structured living organisms. Why didn't they evolve?

What about the written record? The cuneiform writing system originated perhaps around 2900 BC, if man has been here evolving for so long, why don't we see evidence of it?

Why don't we see new species emerging? There should be new species evolving before our very eyes, where are they? Instead we see the extinction of species. Has evolution now stopped?

Answer these questions for me.

God Bless

cancel

Originally posted by MatrixProphet


Yes, with about 45% or less of the scientific community. Over 55% believe in an intelligent power or creator...

This is the infamous fuzzy math. It does what the percentage of the community believes, this is not an election. 100% of the people may not believe in the truth but that does not mean it is not the truth.

reply to post by jfj123

Yep and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that !
I'm not an atheist myself yet I fully believe in evolution ONLY based on massive amounts of evidence to support it.

Yup! Shows your openness and lack of prejudice. Makes us more adaptable to new insight and growth potentials.



I like Friedrich Nietzsche quotes - also.

reply to post by jrod

This is the infamous fuzzy math. It does what the percentage of the community believes, this is not an election. 100% of the people may not believe in the truth but that does not mean it is not the truth.

I am basing it on a study that was done. The rest of your reasoning alludes me.

But I do find it interesting that some of the most recognized scientists many of whom are authors, willingly admit to God being part of the solution, while still believing in evolution.

It is also interesting to think on; how many on ATS are actually scientists? Most I would hazard to guess, are voyeurs without experience.

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by vcwxvwligen

Mainstream science, itself, is a religion

Nope.
Religion requires the belief in something without evidence to support it's existence-FAITH

Science requires verifiable and reproducible evidence.

2 completely different things

Religion isn't built on faith, but personal conviction.

2 + 2 = 4 is built on faith. Rounding irrational numbers is also built on faith. Believing your lyin' eyes is also built on faith. As a matter of fact, with more scientists accepting quantum theory, old school assumptions about the properties of matter are also built on faith.

It's easy to reproduce 2 + 2 = 5

I said "mainstream science." Read again

Originally posted by Kapyong
Gday,

Originally posted by vcwxvwligen
Carbon dating is not observable in a lab either, nor are estimates about the age of the Earth and the universe

More creationist nonsense.

Carbon Dating IS observable in the lab, which you would know if you ever bothered to check the facts.

But anyway -
what is this cretinist nonsense about being "repeated in a lab"?

It's silly nonsense.

Can we replicate a volcano in a lab?
No.
So vcwxvwligen does not believe in volcanoes.

Can we replicate the moon's orbit in a lab?
No.
So vcwxvwligen does not believe the moon orbits the earth.

Can we replicate a tsunami in the lab?
No.
So vcwxvwligen does not believe in tsunamis.

This is such a stupid argument, but creationists still make it, decades after it has been disproved.

That's the problem with creationists - they are incapable of learning.


Kapyong

The halflife of carbon-14 is more than 5000 years. That can't be observed.

Volcanoes and tsunamis can be observed

Good point, how does anybody really know what goes on in outer space?

Originally posted by Kapyong
Gday,

Originally posted by vcwxvwligen
You can't prove that a mummy is 3,000 years old unless you sit there and watch it for 3,000 years. Carbon dating is only "established" by people who depend on it.

Wrong again.
Which vcwxvwligen would know if he didn't refuse to study the facts.

Carbon Dating HAS been conclusively shown to be accurate by many tests of actual known age objects.

Of course, creationists have to deny this fact.


Kapyong

Ah, with contaminated test samples!

Makes perfect sense!

Originally posted by vcwxvwligen


Mainstream science, itself, is a religion

Nope.
Religion requires the belief in something without evidence to support it's existence-FAITH

Science requires verifiable and reproducible evidence.

2 completely different things

Religion isn't built on faith, but personal conviction.

2 + 2 = 4 is built on faith. Rounding irrational numbers is also built on faith. Believing your lyin' eyes is also built on faith. As a matter of fact, with more scientists accepting quantum theory, old school assumptions about the properties of matter are also built on faith.

It's easy to reproduce 2 + 2 = 5

I said "mainstream science." Read again

sorry but nonsense.
IF we couldn't prove 2+2=4, then our whole system of math would be wrong and everything based on math would not be able to exist such as cars, computers, buildings, etc...
Science is not built on faith. Your failure to understand this, doesn't change the reality of it


[edit on 3-3-2009 by jfj123]

You didn't even quote properly

Calling me stupid was a personal attack

My point is that science is neither perfect, infallible or complete. Treating it as so amounts to exercising faith

Originally posted by vcwxvwligen
You didn't even quote properly

Calling me stupid was a personal attack

My point is that science is neither perfect, infallible or complete. Treating it as so amounts to exercising faith

Sorry who are you talking to ??
Just wondering