It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

hasnt evolution been proven?

page: 6
0
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 01:42 PM
link   
Riley- what facts do you stand on? carbon dating? the missing link? evolution inside a species? were you there when it all began? or do you go with what your text book tells you? darwin what do you think about him? i think we should start a new thread and call it ....creation and evolution fact or faith? yes i think i will do just that.




posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by ninki
or do you go with what your text book tells you?


That is actually quite humorous as the only thing creationist have to go on IS a book.



posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 06:10 PM
link   
jonna- the point is that both sides have the same thing-books, theory,faith.



posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by ninki
Riley- what facts do you stand on? carbon dating? the missing link? evolution inside a species?

This I don't understand. If a domestic cat evolved into something similar to a lion over a millenia it would still be a cat.. but they would NOT be the same species. If I were to believe as you do.. I would have to insist that either the domestic cat is not really a cat.. or a lion is not really a cat.
And carbon dating I do consider.. together with core sampleing, archeology, DNA analises and palentology.

were you there when it all began? or do you go with what your text book tells you? darwin what do you think about him?

I don't blindly go with anything that I'm told. I consider data in conjunction with other data. If you are AGAIN suggesting that SCIENTIFIC books are comparable to the bible.. you are wrong. There are thousands of books by objective scientists who have done their OWN scientific research and presented REAL scientific evidence.. and I'm fairly certain a creationalist has never won the nobel prize for science. The bible.. something that was handed down.. first verbally though generations and then transcibed by scholars. Scientific books are based on scientific research NOT fables. I'm not sure why you can't understand the difference.



posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 11:54 PM
link   

# 5 it has been shown in some studys that if re constructed the ark could easily hold 2 of all pair, and that with much room to spare...


LMAO you care to provide a link to such an outrageous claim? Thats saying the arc could hold two of every living species alive today (since you refute evolution) ! How big was noah's arc? LOL



posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 02:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by instar

# 5 it has been shown in some studys that if re constructed the ark could easily hold 2 of all pair, and that with much room to spare...


LMAO you care to provide a link to such an outrageous claim? Thats saying the arc could hold two of every living species alive today (since you refute evolution) ! How big was noah's arc? LOL


yeah, you do release that there are estimated about 30millions species of animals, the majority no yet discovered. You times this by 2 to get the pair = 60million and just say there is era in the estimation in animal species... give a generious 25% + or - for that era. So what lets just say there would have to be 45million to 75million animals?
And yet, that is just animal species... You still have plants, fungis, microbes.

I wouldnt know where to start. Thats a hell of alot of species.
And yet again, even if you did, lets just say. You cant make a animal species survive with 2 animals. OK? so the pair would reproduce, then the offspring of them would mate together, with there own blood, family?.... i dont think this would go down to well with nature. We have seen the effects in humans.

[edit on 12/11/2004 by cheeser]



posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 10:03 AM
link   
why dont you take the time to look it up? the ark was plenty big enough to carry pairs of mamals and birds and their food, according to the messurements stated in the bible. there were also more than a pair brought of the animals to eat and to sacrifice,,,,i am sure you counted the sea creatures in the # given above, but i think they could swim...dont you?



posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by ninki
why dont you take the time to look it up? the ark was plenty big enough to carry pairs of mamals and birds and their food, according to the messurements stated in the bible.

What were the measurements? seriously.. I don't have a bible on hand.



posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 02:27 PM
link   
Riley -you should remidy that bible situation soon. this will be my last post on this perticular thread, as i feel that i am already talking the same issues on 2 other threads creation and evolution fact or faith? and evolution realy how? THE ARK________450 feet long.75 feet wide.45 feet high. make a roof for it and finish it to within 18" of the top.door in the side.upper, lower and middle decks....to bring on the ark..2 of all land moving animal,and bird.if you still want to continue this flood talk or want to talk about the ark ..find me at the above mentioned posts.



posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by ninki
Riley -you should remidy that bible situation soon. this will be my last post on this perticular thread, as i feel that i am already talking the same issues on 2 other threads creation and evolution fact or faith? and evolution realy how? THE ARK________450 feet long.75 feet wide.45 feet high. make a roof for it and finish it to within 18" of the top.door in the side.upper, lower and middle decks....to bring on the ark..2 of all land moving animal,and bird.if you still want to continue this flood talk or want to talk about the ark ..find me at the above mentioned posts.


450feet by 75 by 45????? that's about 33yrds longer than a football field, that sounds to me like an awefully small ship? especially if your carrying how many animals?no wait two of them? how many different types of animals are there today?



posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by bordnlazy
how many different types of animals are there today?




The Mammal Species of the World (MSW) contains the names of the 4,629 currently recognized species of mammals, in a taxonomic hierarchy that includes Order, Family, Subfamily, and Genus.

More: nmnhgoph.si.edu...


And that is JUST MAMMALS up to 1993.

Edit Addition:

Insects



All these species are divided up into about 32 orders, depending on whose taxonomic system you use, of which, the largest is the Beetles, or Coleoptera, with 125 different families and around 500,000 species they are an incredibly diverse group of animals. In fact, one in every four animal species on this planet is a beetle.

More: www.earthlife.net...


Again, this is JUST INSECTS.

[edit on 17-12-2004 by Jonna]



posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 02:57 PM
link   
The bible states that the flood waters had risen 22 cubits, and they covered all the mountains and such. A cubit measured then at app. 1.5 feet. I think they need to worry about 33 feet of water trying to cover a mountain before they need to worry about an ark.



posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by ninki
why dont you take the time to look it up? the ark was plenty big enough to carry pairs of mamals and birds and their food, according to the messurements stated in the bible. there were also more than a pair brought of the animals to eat and to sacrifice,,,,i am sure you counted the sea creatures in the # given above, but i think they could swim...dont you?


this is right to a certain degree. but then again...
The sea animals, Wouldnt the fresh water be poluted by the salinity. -therefore dying. The only animals that would survive would be the ones in the ocean. But then again... all of the corals ecosystem would crumble, why are they so close to the surface? sunlight, the ocean levels would increase and therefore the runs rays would of been deminished.

you also have to take these things into account.

and also, how could all the animals be collected if yet even today all of them arent known? and im sure we have a hell of a lot more people now searching for these undiscovered animals than what they did then.



posted on Dec, 18 2004 @ 08:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by ninki
Riley -you should remidy that bible situation soon.

And why should I remedy this?

this will be my last post on this perticular thread,

Seems you always start up new threads when you've lost arguments.

THE ARK________450 feet long.75 feet wide.45 feet high. make a roof for it and finish it to within 18" of the top.door in the side.upper, lower and middle decks....to bring on the ark..2 of all land moving animal,and bird.

Physically impossible. A boat would have to be the size of a small city to carry that many animals. Also.. feeding all these animals would take up even more room. An elephant eats 130-260 kg [300-600 pounds of FRESH follage a day for example. The great cats require fresh meat.. and did Moses handle live crocodiles?
These animals would also havbe required FRESH WATER.. Ninki.. where would Moses have gotten fresh water from? Thats alot of barrels.
Also.. did Moses travel all the way to Australia to pick up the koalas and kangaroos?! It used to take boats two and a half years to get here from england.. and I think rounding them all up would have taken a little longer.. it's a big place.

if you still want to continue this flood talk or want to talk about the ark ..find me at the above mentioned posts.

The threads are messy enough.. perhaps you should address the moses issue and then concentrate on the others so there is no more confusion.



posted on Dec, 18 2004 @ 09:01 AM
link   
RILEY- just for you..here i am ...listen how long did it take noah to build the ark? this is why you should remidy the bible situation, because you cannot say you do not believe in something that you do not know, try the food before you say you dont like it.......noah lived a long time building the ark you tell me how long?...also i believe all land mass to have been conected pre-flood...also it says in that bible that you need, that the animals came to him, so no i dont think he had to go to australia, the animals came to him. also it takes more math than just assumption math to say an ark could not hold all those animals..i dont want to post all over the place but am glad to talk to you about the ark issue on the other threads, makes my life easier...i have a 1 year old.



posted on Dec, 18 2004 @ 10:06 AM
link   
post moved- needs deleting.



[edit on 18-12-2004 by riley]



posted on Dec, 18 2004 @ 07:03 PM
link   
Ninki, the earth was NOT one mass 6000 years ago! Science has proven it so, its NOT theory! The storys of the bible simply do not add up to known science fact no matter how much you twist or distort them. if you dont twist or distort them and infact take them word for word literally, then they dont add up at all!
As much as Id like to beleive the storys are fact, I think there is ALOT of miinterpretation in what is written and what may or may not have happened so long ago. Im willing to beleive there was a localised flood of serious proportions in the area and that noah built a ship and collected two of each local animal, beleiving it was the end of the world, and released them when the waters subsided.
Likewise, many of the bible stories could be interpreted this way.
This does not make the stories less true, just a matter of interpretation by the folk of the time of writing.
Faith is a wonderful thing, but blind faith, ignoring the obvious and factual evidence for the sake of faith in the written word of folk who lived long ago is bordering on stupidity.
Read that again, Faith itself is not stupidity, let there be no misunderstanding.



posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 11:53 AM
link   
Our genes with monkeys are similar, but it doesn't mean we are related. LIke the people with the RH Negative blood type, has more similar genes with Dolphins and the one with RH Positive blood type, got more genes similar to monkeys. however, 90% of the world population has the RH positive blood type. and only 10% got the RH Negative blood type.

I believe and I know we are not from the monkeys. Maybe we were crossed DNA with them. Even that, it doesn't mean we are an evolved monkey race. Most monkeys would be humans.... I think we are from a compeltely different line. From another race we cannot understand because we never saw or heard about them except the people with extra developped sensorial senses.

One fact for sure is we are NOT from the monkeys, is: 90% of the world population is RH Positive, which means they have similar genes with the monkeys, but however, the Mitochondrial DNA is completly different from the mitochondrial DNA of the monkeys. Mitochondria by the way, is the source of energy of your cells. It converts proteins and sugars etc... into energy and stores it into the ATP. If we would be from the monkeys, there energy source would be the same as ours but no they are not. Also another interessting fact is: none of the mitochondrial system on this earth has a similar or share the same system.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join