A Microbiologist Explains Her Conversion From Evolution To Creation.

ATTENTION

The sniping, personal jabs and off topic posts stop NOW. Further disruption may result in a temporary thread closure and/or post bans.

Wertdagf
reply to post by sulaw

 

We share a common ancestor with other current day primates. The different evolutionary paths are what we see in the separate paths from that common ancestor.

[SNIP]

edit on 29-10-2013 by Wertdagf because: (no reason given)

Mod Note: ALL MEMBERS: We expect civility and decorum within all topics - Please Review This Link.

edit on 10/29/2013 by kosmicjack because: (no reason given)

So we see common equatable factor in that we are all built off the same building blocks in regards to DNA. Hardly, proves evolution or we'd all evolve into 1 single supierior species, hardly the case.

I do see your point however.

Evolution and Creationism are Synonymous!!

Simple as that...

The simplest answer is usually the correct one!

Looking at 2 sides of the same coin or yin and yang....

An Epic Duality!!

reply to post by Astyanax


in other words, you agree with me that the majority of the scientific community (including self-aggrandizing amateurs on ATS) will hold fast to any accepted theory no matter how full of holes it gets, until an independent-thinking person with initiative figures it all out for you and presents it wrapped up in a bow.

reply to post by AbleEndangered


I've been saying this Able, I 100% agree!

reply to post by AbleEndangered

Evolution and Creationism are Synonymous!!

I can only go as far as adaptation and creationism are synonymous.
Well same thing actually.

SuperFrog
reply to post by chr0naut

 

Random, you said random?

Please read topic before making such a funny random joke.

There is nothing random about evolution, mentioned in this topic many times.

Also evolution has been observed in laboratories last 50 years. No randomness and not only mutation, as you randomly selected to show it.

edit on 29-10-2013 by SuperFrog because: (no reason given)

I was referring to randomness in a numerical sense where I mean the absence of order to a number set.

Genetic mutation is a chaotic, random (stochastic) process but over time and iterations reveals boundaries to the number set.

Genetic change has been observed in laboratories (and in the wild) for the last 50 years. While many aspects observed fit with Evolutionary Theory, there are aspects which do not.

reply to post by sulaw

Where's my talking monkey! And don't pull it's takes millions of years, minor changes in the Monkeys should be universal, no? There should be NO monkeys left! They should all be walking talking, poker playing, cigar smoking humans?

You'll get your talking monkey when your god walks up to me, shakes my hand, apologizes for being late, offers to buy me a coffee, and treats me to a couple long hours of in-depth discussion.

FYI: You really should do some research on mutations. You don't seem to understand them very well.

SuperFrog
reply to post by tomoe723

 

Let's guess what is more likely to cure cancer - scientist who are looking for cure or prayers?

I don't have problems with scientists using mouse in experiments.

it's interesting that you pull out "prayers" out of nowhere.

the cure for cancer in humans will end up being a wild-goose chase if scientists continue to use mice or pigs or rabbits. the biggest flaw in evolution theory is the belief that we all share some genetic history with other species which is the basis for using mice.

but i suppose you don't have problems wasting millions of taxpayer dollars as grant money for futile research.

SuperFrog
reply to post by tomoe723

 

Let's guess what is more likely to cure cancer - scientist who are looking for cure or prayers?

I don't have problems with scientists using mouse in experiments.

Currently, prayers seem to be winning at curing cancer.

but I'm sure science will catch up. It's definitely helped to define the disease more fully.

reply to post by chr0naut


No, money is winning. Money always wins. So should we attribute the development of currency to religion or science? I don't know about that one.

reply to post by solomons path

Science: Theory is not promoted to fact. Facts are explained by theory.
Religion: Ideology is promoted to fact. Facts are misrepresented to fit Ideology.

So pertaining to evolution Sol.
Dinosaurs are ?

A. Reptiles

B. Mammals

C. Mamtiles
Or
D. Able to shift according to scientific preference during the course
of a discussion such as this one.

Right now I would say D. Obviously !

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Well that put a smile to my face! First laugh you got out of me! I was thinking the same theory about my talking, cigar smoking Monkey!!! Tooshay~ Well played sir...

However, it is noted that neither you nor I, provided definitive proof and too say otherwise is just taking jabs at individual ideology.

There are religions that go to the extremes same as atheists to proove there point, which is no point at all.

Let people believe what they will, it hold no bearing on your reality nor your reality on mine, I just have a distaste for those that push there ideology on others and railroad a thread to prove there own reality.

As Able stated, they are synonomous to each other and actually compliment each other once the ego is broken down and looked at with an open mind.

Again, I know your not here to make friends, I've tango'd with you on this before and both walk away non the wiser nor greater. We just are, and that "are" is what we are all trying to define in life whether we hold to Atheistic view or a Dogmatic view of some sort, in the end we hold true to the experiances that life presents and itself, retorts to my initial response on page 2 of "the school of life".

Best regards,

reply to post by sulaw

Let people believe what they will, it hold no bearing on your reality nor your reality on mine, I just have a distaste for those that push there ideology on others and railroad a thread to prove there own reality.

I'm just here to balance the scales. Devil's Advocate, if you will. I'm a believer in the yin and yang.

As Able stated, they are synonomous to each other and actually compliment each other once the ego is broken down and looked at with an open mind.

Or would be, if either side allowed the other to smooth their edges. As it is, religion is oppressive and shallow and science is cold and ruthless. But if given a choice between the two, I would take science because it doesn't look up to a domineering narcissistic almighty douche who dreams of dozing off to our praises for all of eternity. Or whatever it is that theists believe in these days.

Again, I know your not here to make friends, I've tango'd with you on this before and both walk away non the wiser nor greater. We just are, and that "are" is what we are all trying to define in life whether we hold to Atheistic view or a Dogmatic view of some sort, in the end we hold true to the experiances that life presents and itself, retorts to my initial response on page 2 of "the school of life".

Meh. In 100 years, I will be dead and none of this will matter to me.

reply to post by randyvs


Reptiles. If anyone says otherwise, they've got a surprise coming when their pet iguana starts laying eggs.

AfterInfinity
reply to post by chr0naut

 

No, money is winning. Money always wins. So should we attribute the development of currency to religion or science? I don't know about that one.

edit on 29-10-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

Perhaps.

I have known several people close to me who had cancer and were religious and the cancer completely disappeared, without trace, prior to treatment beginning.

I have known several (including my wife) who were treated by having the cancer excised (which is hardly a win for science).

I have also unfortunately known several people who succumbed to cancer during treatment.

I think the most rational response is to get treated, pray like hell, keep as fit as you can and throw money at anything that looks like a cure.

SuperFrog
reply to post by tomoe723

 

Let's guess what is more likely to cure cancer - scientist who are looking for cure or prayers?

I don't have problems with scientists using mouse in experiments.

chr0naut

SuperFrog
reply to post by tomoe723

 

Let's guess what is more likely to cure cancer - scientist who are looking for cure or prayers?

I don't have problems with scientists using mouse in experiments.

Currently, prayers seem to be winning at curing cancer.

but I'm sure science will catch up. It's definitely helped to define the disease more fully.

edit on 29/10/2013 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)

this is a perfect example of a dogmatic following to some ideologies in science. this science is just another form of religion where textbooks are the bible and the "holy" writers are the scientists.

true science is left stagnant because of such dogmatic following by it's supposed proponents who still cling to theories as if they are undeniable absolute facts... when in actuality, behind the veil that fuels such dogmatic following is their hatred for religion or any form of spirituality.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


As I said A.I I agree with you. So perhaps you can give me a hand
clearing this up. i'll google.