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.

 

Animals appearing whole - ie anti-evolution

page: 2
31
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 09:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: FinalCountdown
a reply to: Krazysh0t



So I ask again, where is the evidence that new species are being created and deposited on the earth?


Have you seen modern man?
With it's purposely mangled DNA?
How did we get here?
They still haven't found the missing link.
It's missing.


What "purposely mangled DNA"?

What "missing link"? There's no such thing as "missing links". They're called "transitional forms". We've found loads. Any creature that successfully reproduces is a transitional form.




posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 09:05 AM
link   
um. first, this 'discovery of new species' really means 'weird exotic animal in deep jungle finally identified'. lots of these 'new' animals have been identified (and eaten) for years by the natives (Coelecanth). it's not like you go in your back yard and see a new species of bird out of nowhere.
The dating thing is a mess. one theory is that God created 'pre-aged' materials (geo strata). botton line, all this dating stuff is speculative.
I think this question would be better put to the evolutionists. if animal A (Indricothere) evolves into animal B (Wooly Rhinoceros)...what came in between? if evolution is correct there should be hundreds of generations of transitional species; an animal will be, say, 100% indricothere, then after a few generations (at least) we see a 99% indricothere and 1% wooly rhino, etc...but we don't find any fossils of any of those. Here's an indricothere, here's a wooly Rhino.
this is just one example. the evolutionary 'tree of life' would better be described as 'the evolutionary connect-the-dots'.



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 09:10 AM
link   
I don't see a dividing line between Creationism and Evolution. Why must they be mutually exclusive concepts? I think that most rational people will concede the fact that the Earth is 4.5 Billion years old, and because of it's age has undergone many creation/extinction events. In that line of thought, why can't creationists believe in evolution? The bible certainly isn't specific about the mechanism in which life was created, but if we follow the "7 Days of Creation" timeline, it certainly seems to fit nicely with standing theories.

Creationists seemed to get ragged on by people who want to be seen as progressive, forward thinkers. But one thing I don't see getting addressed much in these types of threads are the problems presented by the lack of transitional fossils.


The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, (must) be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.
Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species


This problem is so prevalent, that other evolutionary theories have been established to sidestep it entirely!
For this reason, I see evolution as much of a faith-based notion as creationism.

Again I ask, is it too much to believe in both?
edit on 26-6-2014 by LuXiferGriM because: formatting

edit on 26-6-2014 by LuXiferGriM because: eta



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 09:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Dave Bowman, on seeing this thread -

"My God, it's full of fail.."



ETA - He wouldn't say that about you OP, just about the incredibly silly replies..

edit on 26/6/2014 by ReturnofTheSonOfNothing because: Statistically improbable edit..



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 09:16 AM
link   
Discussing the logic of theories without any real data to back up either theory has always been my favorite form of mental masturbation.

Add faith and the white stain just keeps getting bigger and bigger.

OOOH, AHHHHHHH.....

Kinda like Hollywood and the media, the science of fictional storytelling for profit.



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 09:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I think someone should mention that human skin is the only skin on the planet Earth that is sinful to expose.

If God was in control, women would be born covered with thick fur that only drops off after they are married.

The original sin wasn't sex. The original sin was being ignorant and embarrassed about your own body that you were born with.

Rubbish.



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 09:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
originally posted by: FinalCountdown
a reply to: Krazysh0t




So I ask again, where is the evidence that new species are being created and deposited on the earth?


Have you seen modern man?
With it's purposely mangled DNA?
How did we get here?
They still haven't found the missing link.
It's missing.




What "purposely mangled DNA"?


"The human form has been tampered with genetically many times under the domination of various invading off-worlders who have forced or beguiled us into their way of life, such as the Nibiruans, Pleaideans, Greys, etc. Our apparently spliced genes and mangled DNA are proof of this. While some of this genetic manipulation was to upgrade our status, most of it was to downgrade us to a level of subordinance for the prevailing power over us. In this sense we acquired an extraordinary genetic diversity which has allowed us to survive under almost any condition. " LINK



What "missing link"? There's no such thing as "missing links". They're called "transitional forms". We've found loads. Any creature that successfully reproduces is a transitional form.


It doesn't matter what they call it these days, there is no evidence (given the immense timeframe necessary for this type of evolution to occur) of our transition into modern man.

It's still "missing"

WE were genetically modified from existing hominoids and "updated" into what we are today.
Following the logic of evolution, there simply is not enough time for modern man to emerge from what was before, using the evidence that we have.

No one has yet to offer any real proof for evolution or creationism.

I then choose to believe the more awesome scenario, Creationism by advanced beings (gods) that may even be earlier advanced beings from our own planet from an early eon.
edit on 26-6-2014 by FinalCountdown because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 09:25 AM
link   
We must have been created by something greater than ourselves, the arrogant little shaved ape said.

The arrogant little shaved ape went on to explain that it had to be something greater than himself because he feels himself to be so great and powerful and it would be impossible for him to rise from something he ignorantly considers to be lesser than himself....

....



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 09:28 AM
link   
Scientists discovering new species.... Just because we have never seen a bug in the rain forest before doesn't mean it hasn't been there since the beginning of time. Or a crazy looking deep sea animal.

Anyhow, you bring up some interesting topics. Unfortunately your thread is already full of people making fun of Christians and their intelligence levels so I doubt a serious discussion will be possible. (But alas ATS is known for this.) Anyhow, were there 500 dog breeds created by God? Or even at the time of the flood? Were there 500 different types of cats? Ants? monkeys? Bears? Since it isn't documented it's difficult to argue. But there is one case we can study: According to Genesis God created one man and one woman. How many different races of homo sapiens are there today? At least three, right? Caucasian, Mongolian, Negroid. Where did they come from? I have my own speculations but am curious what others think.

Also to answer some other generic questions - the thought process that because someone who believes in Creationism doesn't have the answer for some minute detail on planet Earth should give up their belief is childish. There are many answers Evolutionists do not have. Specifically the most important question of all (to me), which is abiogenesis. How did life begin?



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 09:31 AM
link   
a reply to: FinalCountdown

1. Post an actual scientific source for this "mangled DNA" claim

2. Transitional forms have been posted up many times. You have access to google, there's no exscuse for such ignorance.

In short, you're talking nonsense.



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 09:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

If evolution isn't true, then that must mean that God creates animal species whole and just deposits them onto the planet, correct?

Let's just put the habeus stoppus with the oversight in your logic. If creationism is the answer ... then God is real. If God is real, it is possible for him to do any damn thing he wants. I want new animal species ... voila!!

The evolution/creationism argument has 'always' been about denying the existence of God. I am not fooled by this, are you?



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 09:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: JonMel77

Possibly, I'm just trying to follow the Creationist logic.



But you aren't, not literally. If someone believes that the universe was created, does that make them a creationist? Logically, yes. Does that mean that it's a given that they believe any mixture of notions such as no evolution and young earth theory and wrapping them all into one seemingly convenient bundle? No, not really, in fact most likely not as such views are not ones the majority subscribe to, whether they follow a particular faith or not.


This thread is directly aimed at people who don't believe in evolution and try to substitute their creationist viewpoint as the counterargument. I never said anything about young earth theory. Just creationism and that we are assuming that evolution isn't true. Most people who say it isn't true think so because of god. That is why I lead down this path. If this doesn't apply to you, then I wasn't addressing you in the OP.


Anyhow, only mentioned that is it makes such a sweeping assumption (I'm not sure if a figure is available who believe only in the 'species appeared out of nowhere' and 'The earth is less than 6,000 years old' is available? I'm sure in some American states it may be a high proportion, but that tells a different story in itself). Having said that, and just to show the exception can sometimes be worth considering, at some point in the indeterminate past, nothing which we as rational people would classify as life existed on this planet. Then something we would classify as life did....... so, it's not an unfair question to ask, where did it come from? Yes, I am talking about a single cell life form, but before it there were no others.


Again I said nothing about Young earth creationism. You did.



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 09:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Quadrivium

My aim was at the parroting part of the cult.

The only difference i see between a group following scientific principals and a group following religious principals is that one group does not and are not allowed to question.

Then again, science has many branches that are proven to work.. physcis(enginerring, eletrctonic...), chemistry,,, i have no time to list scientific accomplishments... Religious accomplisments on the other hand... are all taken by faith.

If you take something happened to you as god's works or miracle, someone else might taken them as effect of action and has no meaning to supernatural.

Are religious minds smarter than scientific minds? generally they tend to trap themselves in a small space and are satisfied with unprovable answers provided by a uneducated person.



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 09:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: MyHappyDogShiner
We must have been created by something greater than ourselves, the arrogant little shaved ape said.

The arrogant little shaved ape went on to explain that it had to be something greater than himself because he feels himself to be so great and powerful and it would be impossible for him to rise from something he ignorantly considers to be lesser than himself....

....

We must have evolved from something not as complex and much simpler than ourselves, the arrogant Created man said.
The arrogant Created man went on to explain that there could not have been anything greater than himself because he feels himself to be so great and powerful and it would be impossible for him to be Created by Something more intelligent, more powerful than himself.
Quad



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 09:39 AM
link   
a reply to: bbracken677


Do trees in your yard just appear? Or do they grow from seeds, or "suckers" growing off the original tree?


So you are saying that animals and trees and such appear as babies or seeds and then grow up? How are they raised?


Do people (and animals) appear suddenly whole and fully grown, or do they reach full growth by a process?


I would call this process evolution, but for the sake of the thread we are pretending that evolution isn't real.


Therefore, when God created our current existence, it was not instantaneous but rather the result of a process. Indeed one could say that He created the process that created us. Therefore, God created man, correct?


You could say that, yes.
edit on 26-6-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 09:41 AM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

Funny.
Let's see,
We evolved, right, from apes, correct?
Rather quickly in my opionion, no?
Evolved from a creature that could live in the world as is, covered with protective fur and tough skin, right? We evolved into a fur free "advanced" creature that requires some form of clothing just to survive the worst I the elements, right?
Suddenly we're building fires and counting stars with piles of gold, right?
Flash forward from not having electricity to 100 years later talking about cloning man and the next shuttle mission.
Yeah right.
We had help.
Modern man did not "poof" "evolve" into such a fragile and mentally complex creature in the short timespan that evolution dictates.
We had help.
Creationism



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 09:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Snarl
a reply to: Krazysh0t

If evolution isn't true, then that must mean that God creates animal species whole and just deposits them onto the planet, correct?

Let's just put the habeus stoppus with the oversight in your logic. If creationism is the answer ... then God is real. If God is real, it is possible for him to do any damn thing he wants. I want new animal species ... voila!!

The evolution/creationism argument has 'always' been about denying the existence of God. I am not fooled by this, are you?


No it isn't about denying god. Using the very same logic that you just employed, if God is real, it is possible for him to do any damn thing he wants, which means he could use evolution as a tool to develop life throughout the universe.



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 09:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: FinalCountdown

2. Transitional forms have been posted up many times. You have access to google, there's no exscuse for such ignorance.



Humor us, would you please? And by the way, I'm not asking for a singular example of it, like say an Archaeopteryx. Evolution, by definition mind you, demands a comprehensive timeline.

In fact, there should be as many if not more transitional fossils than "finished product" fossils.

On second thought, the entire proposition seems silly. Following logic, all fossils should be transitional fossils, by Evolution's definition.



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 09:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: luciddream
a reply to: Quadrivium

My aim was at the parroting part of the cult.

The only difference i see between a group following scientific principals and a group following religious principals is that one group does not and are not allowed to question.

Then again, science has many branches that are proven to work.. physcis(enginerring, eletrctonic...), chemistry,,, i have no time to list scientific accomplishments... Religious accomplisments on the other hand... are all taken by faith.

If you take something happened to you as god's works or miracle, someone else might taken them as effect of action and has no meaning to supernatural.

Are religious minds smarter than scientific minds? generally they tend to trap themselves in a small space and are satisfied with unprovable answers provided by a uneducated person.

Who is not allowed to question? My faith is strengthened by asking questions.
Generally I find that many who accept evolution in it's entirety, don't truly understand what it is claiming. They have scientists telling them what they "believe" happened and many accept this without question. In essence, they are satisfied with unprovable answers provided by, what they believeto be, an "educated" person.



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 09:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: FinalCountdown
a reply to: GetHyped

Funny.
Let's see,
We evolved, right, from apes, correct?
Rather quickly in my opionion, no?
Evolved from a creature that could live in the world as is, covered with protective fur and tough skin, right? We evolved into a fur free "advanced" creature that requires some form of clothing just to survive the worst I the elements, right?
Suddenly we're building fires and counting stars with piles of gold, right?
Flash forward from not having electricity to 100 years later talking about cloning man and the next shuttle mission.
Yeah right.
We had help.
Modern man did not "poof" "evolve" into such a fragile and mentally complex creature in the short timespan that evolution dictates.
We had help.
Creationism



What created this supposed alien intelligence that tampered with our DNA?



new topics




 
31
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join