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.

 

Evolutionists, where are all the bodies?

page: 12
16
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 04:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Heruactic
a reply to: amazing

I am sorry, i answer only 1 question per thread.


LOL Please accpet my apologies. I hadn't realized I had gone over the limit.




posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 05:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Didn't we already okay this game in the thread about the validity of the flood where nobody wanted to reply when I explained how it would be physically impossible for Noah, his family or any other creature living today to survive on an Earth with an atmosphere consisting of a water canopy containing enough water vapor that when it condensed to rain would be capable of covering all the mountains of earth? And that if that amount if water vapor existed in the atmosphere then every living land creature today would be completely incapable of life in a ore flood world due to the fact that the amount of water vapor required for this magic trick would inevitably create a surface pressure equivalent to 9000 atmospheres therefore it would be the equivalent of living inside a 13,000PSI pressure cooker meaning that nothing that was alive before the flood could survive under current atmospheric conditions and likewise nothing living today could have lived under the alleged pre flood canopy conditions.

On top of all that I'm pretty certain that we both as well as a couple of other tried to explain soil saturation points and gave potential experiments to run to see the efficaciousness and viability of a ATS ability to survive over saturated soil conditions for the period of time(s) genesis states that the flood waters were prevalent. No replies or offers to validate the experiments yet the incredulous rebuttals continue to line up and walk through the door like its the first time they've ever engaged in the conversation. Good times sitting around holding the hands if the ignorant. The things we find entertainment value in are never ending in their amazement.



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 05:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: np6888
a reply to: Answer

Like I've said, you've obviously missed this debate before because none have tried to refute the arguments I've brought forth. Mountains of evidence where? Where is the evidence for the dating of those clams? The evolutionists try to make stuff up(and I mean a ton), like saying that the clams have been dated to be million of years, but in fact, a Google search shows no such evidence.



I wasn't even getting in the middle of the tree debate. I simply noted that your claim that trees don't need sunlight to survive is asinine.

For someone who makes so many demands for evidence, on what evidence do you base your young-earth creationist beliefs? That's where I have an issue with the evolution deniers in this thread... you demand to see the evidence but you base your beliefs off of a single book. Your belief in that book is evidence enough that you lack the ability to discuss the topic logically because you don't base your beliefs off of tangible evidence. Your beliefs are based on your faith in the creation story. Stop asking for evidence if you're not going to open your mind enough to accept it. Any evidence I do present will be met with "well those are just hokey scientists who are trying to push the evolution agenda." In the same way, I can not accept young-earth creationist propaganda as proof of anything. The difference is, most scientists don't have an axe to grind, they're just making observations.

I've yet to see any of the creationists in the thread display a basic understanding of the theory of evolution. You don't even know what you're arguing against and it leads to a lot of frustration for the rest of us.
edit on 9/16/2014 by Answer because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 06:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Frocharocha

Yes those methods are good indicators. Though, I wouldn't bet my life on the accuracy of these methods.
edit on 16-9-2014 by bitsforbytes because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-9-2014 by bitsforbytes because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2014 @ 01:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Frocharocha
We can discover the age of Earth thanks to Uranium 235 which has a life-time of 4.5 billion years unlike Carbon-14 which only has 25,000 years.


Not that you're wrong about the usefulness of radiometric dating techniques but you're way off on the applicable half lives of U-235 and 14C. Carbon 14 has a half life of 5730(+/- 40) years giving it a maximum window of usefulness of roughly 60KY and U-235 has a Half-life of 703,800,000 years not 4.5 bn unless I'm just completely misreading your post. Sorry, just a stickler for accuracy in these matters.



posted on Sep, 17 2014 @ 02:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Didn't we already okay this game in the thread about the validity of the flood where nobody wanted to reply when I explained how it would be physically impossible for Noah, his family or any other creature living today to survive on an Earth with an atmosphere consisting of a water canopy containing enough water vapor that when it condensed to rain would be capable of covering all the mountains of earth? And that if that amount if water vapor existed in the atmosphere then every living land creature today would be completely incapable of life in a ore flood world due to the fact that the amount of water vapor required for this magic trick would inevitably create a surface pressure equivalent to 9000 atmospheres therefore it would be the equivalent of living inside a 13,000PSI pressure cooker meaning that nothing that was alive before the flood could survive under current atmospheric conditions and likewise nothing living today could have lived under the alleged pre flood canopy conditions.



So if I am to understand your position, you are stating that the Noah flood was caused by a deluge of water?
Nothing else?
Are you saying the flood was just rain.
Thats how I understand your position, that would be sad.



posted on Sep, 17 2014 @ 02:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Answer
I've yet to see any of the creationists in the thread display a basic understanding of the theory of evolution. You don't even know what you're arguing against and it leads to a lot of frustration for the rest of us.



You think, you dont think.

Why not give us creationists a brief description then.
Why not educate us silly souls

Or howbout this

DNA mutates
Mutations can be beneficial
Beneficial mutations in animals spread and cause new species



posted on Sep, 17 2014 @ 05:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: borntowatch


Dont answer if you havnt studied the facts, you are just guessing.


Read that statement of yours over a couple times and then do a little research into how long ago the first dinosaurs appeared. Ill give you a hint... Not BILLIONS of years ago.

Another little tip, archaeologists aren't the ones who study human remains so I'm not sure what their silly theories have to do with this at all.


Pete, I dont have to read the post I wrote it.
I dont care about the time frame, I want an explanation as to why dino bones are easier to find than the bones of the so called missing link.
Its absurd, you miss the whole point to win a few points.
Have the points, you are right obviously, dinosaurs still exist today.
www.youtube.com...
( I havnt watched the video so I can only assume it supports the theory)

Now explain why dino bones seem easier to find than missing link bones.


Lets do a little theoretical math.

Just for easy numbers, lets say 1 skeleton of any animal fossilizes each year. (pretty sure its a much rarer event than that, but as I say, easy numbers.)

Dinosaurs were around for about 180,000,000 years equates to 180,000,000 fossils. (in laymens terms "lots and lots")
Man has been around for about 200,000 years, which equates to 200,000. (also known as less that 180,000,000)

Lets now pretend that we only uncover about 1% of fossilized remains.

That should give us 2,000 remains of man and 1,800,000.

This is without even taking into consideration population size or geographical and cultural factors all of which would heavily bias more towards greater numbers for the dino's and less for man.


EDIT - Just to aknowledge the others who presented these simple numbers before me. I'm up to page 4 of this thread at the moment.
edit on 17-9-2014 by idmonster because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2014 @ 06:55 AM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch

No he's saying that the flood was physically impossible



posted on Sep, 17 2014 @ 07:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: borntowatch

No he's saying that the flood was physically impossible


Which is quite correct.



posted on Sep, 17 2014 @ 07:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: borntowatch

No he's saying that the flood was physically impossible


Which is quite correct.


But of course. Anyone who thinks the flood actually happened either has a poor understanding of physics or is lying to themselves to substantiate their belief in a book written thousands of years ago.



posted on Sep, 17 2014 @ 07:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: itsallgonenow
a reply to: Snarl

Hmm then someone has not read the bible.


Well I've read it three times back to back , every word? However, not seen it mention a time line. So can you please highlight which verse we should all look at. The whole age of the world thing was just a guess made up by several Christians.

As for human burials, again very tricky to find. Every body will be a needle in a haystack.

However, Sima de los Huesos, in Spain is a good example of early human burial, whereby bodies were thrown into a cave system. Good thing is when you have these types of findings they give a very accurate date reading because you can pretty much count the layers of debris that form each year (Seasonal weathers etc etc - Detritus from autumn leaves creating a thin dark layer, followed by the lighter dust layer from the summer).

Again, how do we know that evolution is not a process of gods creation? I wish people would ...well...just educate themselves a little before these bible rants. There are no definitive facts about what happened and when it happened and how it happened, but we can see little pieces of the jigsaw. i.e. a 400,000 year old early human burial site.



posted on Sep, 17 2014 @ 10:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: Answer
I've yet to see any of the creationists in the thread display a basic understanding of the theory of evolution. You don't even know what you're arguing against and it leads to a lot of frustration for the rest of us.



You think, you dont think.

Why not give us creationists a brief description then.
Why not educate us silly souls

Or howbout this

DNA mutates
Mutations can be beneficial
Beneficial mutations in animals spread and cause new species


Excellent. Finally we're at the core of the problem. You do not understand what the theory actually postulates. Before you post another snarky response, please read the rest:

I figured that you assumed that the TOE states "DNA mutates and the beneficial mutation spreads throughout a species." This description sounds like some magical force (ironic) manipulates the DNA of animals to make it easier for them to survive. This is what many young-earth creationists believe the TOE actually implies (I was brought up in a Christian school and household, I've heard how the TOE is talked about among many creationists.)

Evolution works like this:
1) Every generation has slight changes to their DNA. This much should be obvious because you aren't an exact cloned copy of your mother or father but you do share their traits. I'm sure we can agree on this much, at least.

2) For the sake of simplicity, let's use moths for this example. Let's say that two moths are born in an area with dark brown trees. One of these moths is born with a dark brown camouflage pattern and one is born with a lighter brown camouflage pattern. The moth with the more effective camouflage pattern is able to avoid being eaten by birds and lives longer than the other so he mates with more females.

3) The better-camouflaged moth produces more offspring, therefore more moths inherit his DNA trait of the dark brown camouflage. Now these well camouflaged moths live longer than their lighter-camouflaged peers thereby producing yet more well-camouflaged moths. This trend continues until the lighter-camouflaged moths DNA is practically non existent. All other genetic traits of the dark-camouflaged moth now begin to define the species altogether. That's evolution through natural selection.

More extreme examples would be a situation where, let's say a particular squirrel is born with an extra bit of space in his mouth so he's able to carry more food. He doesn't have to go out as often to gather food so his chance of survival is increased... anytime the survival probability is increased, the opportunities to mate increase so odds are he will produce more offspring with his genetic traits and some of those offspring will inherit the roomier mouth. Eventually, over many many generations, the squirrels with bigger mouths will edge out the squirrels with smaller mouths. Evolution is not a magical process that helps animals survive... it's nature taking its course and genetic traits will be spread or not because the trait either helps survival or hinders it. Scientists can observe this process in a lab.

Now here's where you'll have difficulty accepting the process: it takes incredible amounts of time for drastic changes. The "microevolution vs macroevolution" argument stems from the misunderstanding that they're two totally separate events. They're the same process but time is the determining factor. Macroevolution is a term used to describe the result of many many years of microevolution. This is the main reason why young-earth creationists have such a tough time accepting evolution... you have to first accept that the earth is ~4.5 billion years old. I know you're not here to be converted and I'm WAYYYYY beyond attempting that. I just want you to understand what the TOE actually says so you can argue from a position of understanding instead of that other word that's not an insult but you take it as one (ignorance means you don't know something, doesn't mean you're stupid.)
edit on 9/17/2014 by Answer because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2014 @ 10:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Answer

Excellent. Finally we're at the core of the problem. You do not understand what the theory actually postulates. Before you post another snarky response, please read the rest:

I figured that you assumed that the TOE states "DNA mutates and the beneficial mutation spreads throughout a species." This description sounds like some magical force (ironic) manipulates the DNA of animals to make it easier for them to survive. This is what many young-earth creationists believe the TOE actually implies (I was brought up in a Christian school and household, I've heard how the TOE is talked about among many creationists.)

Evolution works like this:
1) Every generation has slight changes to their DNA. This much should be obvious because you aren't an exact cloned copy of your mother or father but you do share their traits. I'm sure we can agree on this much, at least.

2) For the sake of simplicity, let's use moths for this example. Let's say that two moths are born in an area with dark brown trees. One of these moths is born with a dark brown camouflage pattern and one is born with a lighter brown camouflage pattern. The moth with the more effective camouflage pattern is able to avoid being eaten by birds and lives longer than the other so he mates with more females.

3) The better-camouflaged moth produces more offspring, therefore more moths inherit his DNA trait of the dark brown camouflage. Now these well camouflaged moths live longer than their lighter-camouflaged peers thereby producing yet more well-camouflaged moths. This trend continues until the lighter-camouflaged moths DNA is practically non existent. All other genetic traits of the dark-camouflaged moth now begin to define the species altogether. That's evolution through natural selection.

More extreme examples would be a situation where, let's say a particular squirrel is born with an extra bit of space in his mouth so he's able to carry more food. He doesn't have to go out as often to gather food so his chance of survival is increased... anytime the survival probability is increased, the opportunities to mate increase so odds are he will produce more offspring with his genetic traits and some of those offspring will inherit the roomier mouth. Eventually, over many many generations, the squirrels with bigger mouths will edge out the squirrels with smaller mouths. Evolution is not a magical process that helps animals survive... it's nature taking its course and genetic traits will be spread or not because the trait either helps survival or hinders it. Scientists can observe this process in a lab.

Now here's where you'll have difficulty accepting the process: it takes incredible amounts of time for drastic changes. The "microevolution vs macroevolution" argument stems from the misunderstanding that they're two totally separate events. They're the same process but time is the determining factor. Macroevolution is a term used to describe the result of many many years of microevolution. This is the main reason why young-earth creationists have such a tough time accepting evolution... you have to first accept that the earth is ~4.5 billion years old. I know you're not here to be converted and I'm WAYYYYY beyond attempting that. I just want you to understand what the TOE actually says so you can argue from a position of understanding instead of that other word that's not an insult but you take it as one (ignorance means you don't know something, doesn't mean you're stupid.)


damn, how embarrassing is this, I am sorry, you caught me out.

I typed in Basics of evolution and found a school science based site and used their simple model.

Oops, how do I feel now being exposed as a thief of others material, scientists material, education department material, material I didnt give credit to the authors to.
I am sorry and feel some what guilty because I was lazy.
science.howstuffworks.com...

Now please continue on. Did I miss something



posted on Sep, 17 2014 @ 11:45 AM
link   
feels like one of those times when everyone is so intent on making sure everyone else brings a dish to the potluck that half of them forget to bring their own dish. i'll let you guess which half is which.



posted on Sep, 17 2014 @ 12:26 PM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch

No, you're not understanding me properly. I'm saying that the conditions said to exist and repeated by you yourself make life as we know it 100% impossible as a result of the atmospheric pressure alone. I didn't bother getting into any if the other oddities, contradictions and non sequiturs of genesis that make the entire premise not just physically impossible but entirely illogical as well. As usual you either purposely misrepresent people's positions or are incapable of basic grammatical interpretation or are trolling for your own amusement because that's not at all what I said. I pointed out the scientific impossibility of only one aspect of the postulated scenario. How about you discuss the scenario and pass over the ad hominem. Or are you unable to dispute the science so mocking the message sender was the easier route?



posted on Sep, 17 2014 @ 12:46 PM
link   
the first step is deciding that god is the correct answer because you dont have a better one. the second step is doing research to back up that assertion, keeping all the corroborating evidence and dismissing anything that contradicts it. the third step is poking holes in theories that oppose your own while studiously ignoring the glaring gaps in yours. the fourth step is role playing, pretending to very respectably employ science while at the same time doing your very best to circumvent it. the fifth step is to use the clash between science and pseudo-science to prove that science is unreliable and therefore no better than religion. return to step one.

am i describing this goose chase pretty well?



posted on Sep, 17 2014 @ 05:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: Answer

Excellent. Finally we're at the core of the problem. You do not understand what the theory actually postulates. Before you post another snarky response, please read the rest:

I figured that you assumed that the TOE states "DNA mutates and the beneficial mutation spreads throughout a species." This description sounds like some magical force (ironic) manipulates the DNA of animals to make it easier for them to survive. This is what many young-earth creationists believe the TOE actually implies (I was brought up in a Christian school and household, I've heard how the TOE is talked about among many creationists.)

Evolution works like this:
1) Every generation has slight changes to their DNA. This much should be obvious because you aren't an exact cloned copy of your mother or father but you do share their traits. I'm sure we can agree on this much, at least.

2) For the sake of simplicity, let's use moths for this example. Let's say that two moths are born in an area with dark brown trees. One of these moths is born with a dark brown camouflage pattern and one is born with a lighter brown camouflage pattern. The moth with the more effective camouflage pattern is able to avoid being eaten by birds and lives longer than the other so he mates with more females.

3) The better-camouflaged moth produces more offspring, therefore more moths inherit his DNA trait of the dark brown camouflage. Now these well camouflaged moths live longer than their lighter-camouflaged peers thereby producing yet more well-camouflaged moths. This trend continues until the lighter-camouflaged moths DNA is practically non existent. All other genetic traits of the dark-camouflaged moth now begin to define the species altogether. That's evolution through natural selection.

More extreme examples would be a situation where, let's say a particular squirrel is born with an extra bit of space in his mouth so he's able to carry more food. He doesn't have to go out as often to gather food so his chance of survival is increased... anytime the survival probability is increased, the opportunities to mate increase so odds are he will produce more offspring with his genetic traits and some of those offspring will inherit the roomier mouth. Eventually, over many many generations, the squirrels with bigger mouths will edge out the squirrels with smaller mouths. Evolution is not a magical process that helps animals survive... it's nature taking its course and genetic traits will be spread or not because the trait either helps survival or hinders it. Scientists can observe this process in a lab.

Now here's where you'll have difficulty accepting the process: it takes incredible amounts of time for drastic changes. The "microevolution vs macroevolution" argument stems from the misunderstanding that they're two totally separate events. They're the same process but time is the determining factor. Macroevolution is a term used to describe the result of many many years of microevolution. This is the main reason why young-earth creationists have such a tough time accepting evolution... you have to first accept that the earth is ~4.5 billion years old. I know you're not here to be converted and I'm WAYYYYY beyond attempting that. I just want you to understand what the TOE actually says so you can argue from a position of understanding instead of that other word that's not an insult but you take it as one (ignorance means you don't know something, doesn't mean you're stupid.)


damn, how embarrassing is this, I am sorry, you caught me out.

I typed in Basics of evolution and found a school science based site and used their simple model.

Oops, how do I feel now being exposed as a thief of others material, scientists material, education department material, material I didnt give credit to the authors to.
I am sorry and feel some what guilty because I was lazy.
science.howstuffworks.com...

Now please continue on. Did I miss something


The amazing thing is that's all you got from what I typed. You apparently skimmed that link and decided to dismiss the information out-of-hand as yet another "validation" that Evolution is hokey.

That's the biggest issue I take with evolution deniers... you don't want to actually understand what's being presented. You want to pick and choose the pieces that are easy to disagree with to fit your own beliefs.



posted on Sep, 17 2014 @ 05:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm
the first step is deciding that god is the correct answer because you are too lazy or uneducated to grasp anything more complicated. the second step is doing research to back up that assertion, keeping all the corroborating evidence and dismissing anything that contradicts it. the third step is poking holes in theories that oppose your own while studiously ignoring the glaring gaps in yours. the fourth step is role playing, pretending to very respectably employ science while at the same time doing your very best to circumvent it. the fifth step is to use the clash between science and pseudo-science to prove that science is unreliable and therefore no better than religion. return to step one.

am i describing this goose chase pretty well?


Fixed portion is in bold. Unfortunate but accurate.

Also, you missed step 6: Play martyr and claim you're being "attacked" for your beliefs when others try to point out how wrong you are. Religious folks LOVE when they can pull the "attacked for my beliefs" card. It further validates their assumption that scientists are out to get 'em.
edit on 9/17/2014 by Answer because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2014 @ 01:16 PM
link   
Since your link quotes numerous Biblical passages which prove the primitive cosmology of the times, there's not a whole lot to say. Here's another one though: "The One who builds His upper chambers in the heavens And has founded His vaulted dome over the earth..." (Amos 9:6) a reply to: np6888


edit on -05:00pmThu, 18 Sep 2014 13:35:04 -05003001359 by Parthin because: error in grammar.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join