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: 7
16
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 12:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch


Dogs have one common ancestor, probably the wolf.
I hope this silly question has a point


Excellent. Now how did we get the variety of breeds seen today? Selective breeding which caused genetic changes to the population.

If you can admit that the variety of dog breeds all came from a common ancestor, you have accepted that evolution is a real process. See, that wasn't so hard.
edit on 9/16/2014 by Answer because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 01:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: MonkeyFishFrog
a reply to: borntowatch

You're mistaking the geological timescale principal of stratification which is the study of sediment deposits to determine age with radiometric dating, the actual method of determining the age of the Earth and fossils. There are radioactive isotopes that decay in steady and consistent rates over time. Physicists and chemists are able to measure the amount of an element present in a sample to see how old it is.

You live in Western Australia. Are you familiar with Jack Hills? Jack Hills is home to the oldest known rocks and crystals on Earth. They've dated them to be 4.3 billion years old.

I've even had the opportunity to hold a sample.


No I have never heard of Jack Hills, interesting
However
I still have issues with radiometric dating and yes stratification.
I thought we should look at one issue at a time, rather than lead on to other issues and make a whole sorry confused mess.

“The study reinforces our conclusion that Earth had a hydrosphere before 4.3 billion years ago,” and possibly life not long after,” said lead author Prof John Valley from the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Interesting how the good Prof has a conclusion and then finds pieces to reinforce it. That doesnt sound like being guided by discovery, sounds like conclusion guides discovery.
Thats my opinion.

Anyway is this the place to discuss these issues?
Maybe we (you) might be kind enough to start a new thread
"Explaining/overcoming creationists misunderstandings" sorta thing.


Though many people around here love to claim that I am an ardent unchangeable fundy, its not the case.
I am happy to accept that evolution and Gods creation is compatible..... if proven



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 01:41 AM
link   
a reply to: itsallgonenow

I have a counter challenge :

account for all the dead in the brittish isles since 1066

we have sufficiently accurate records of the population since then

and until the 20th century - cremation was rare in the UK

so where did all the british bodies go ?????????



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 01:44 AM
link   
a reply to: ignorant_ape

We ate them.



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 02:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Murgatroid

Virtually every place, person, custom, and event depicted in the Bible has been shown to have been grounded in history. And nearly every single archaeological artefact, from Noah to Abraham, from Moses to Christ, is evidenced by the Bible and dated to a time preceding Islam.



So what. There are lots of historically accurate history books around. Where they ALL written by Giod just because they are accurate.......? You might want to raise your standards there a bit. Which gets to my other point I made that you didnt absorb.

My point was simple..... Even if you think the world has only been around 6 thousand years. The bible misses more history than it catches. Entire civilizations and continents are not even mentioned.

Care to explain that ?



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 02:31 AM
link   
a reply to: itsallgonenow

I can answer this quite simply. Time causes decay, stone tools were too valuable to bury with people during a hunter-gatherer phase of history (little time to sit down and carve new tools), weather, geological changes and human interference throughout the procession of history from then to now: construction, lack of understanding (archaeology and reverence for historical artifacts was not a big thing among the general populace until rather recently). All of these things are very good reasons for a lack of a graveyard earth.

P.S.
There is such a thing as minimum sustainable population for proper and survivable genetic diversity. 8 humans, or even 8 of any animal assumes at maximum if everyone is comfortable with it, six combinations of mated pairs, assuming there are four male and four female. If we managed to survive the crippling genetic defects until now, we would all be horrifically destroyed by a lack of genetic diversity leading to defects. Six toes is the least of the problems available. Look up any list of genetic issues and every successive generation of intermixed interbred couples would exponentially increase the chances of a particular defect. Consider that a moment, then ask yourself why your version of events makes any scientific sense at all. I can believe in localized flooding, there are enough flood stories throughout various cultures, but a far larger group would have to survive it for us to survive til now.



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 05:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: thedeadtruth
The bible misses more history than it catches. Entire civilizations and continents are not even mentioned.

Care to explain that ?


If he cant then I will.
Its not a book about world history, isnt that obvious.
Its just about Hebrew history.
The coming of the Messiah, and His teachings

Surely that is self evident
edit on b2014Tue, 16 Sep 2014 05:20:29 -050093020142am302014-09-16T05:20:29-05:00 by borntowatch because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 05:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: borntowatch
Dogs have one common ancestor, probably the wolf.
I hope this silly question has a point


Excellent. Now how did we get the variety of breeds seen today? Selective breeding which caused genetic changes to the population.

If you can admit that the variety of dog breeds all came from a common ancestor, you have accepted that evolution is a real process. See, that wasn't so hard.


Ahmm seriously
You want me to admit that a dog breed comes from another dog breed, didnt I just do that
Is this a game of deja vu where I say something and you say, say it again.

So a dog turns in to a dog, wow the light has dawned, I am an evolutionist, you .....
Wait a second, I know dogs come from dogs.

My issue is what common ancestor is there for dogs and what they come from, turtles, cats, horses. whales.

What is the dog related to, where is its common ancestor.
If the wolf came first what was before that, where are the fossils

Your answer is at the very least pointless and contends nothing at all.



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 05:31 AM
link   
What bible are you reading? There is no passage stating the Earth is only a few thousand years old...Please post the passage..A lady in the 1800s started that nonsense....a reply to: itsallgonenow



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 05:50 AM
link   
You guys that believe in evolution always fail in your arguments with 1 single trip up.....You need a new species for evolution to be evolution.....and its never happened...

1) A Breed of a dog is not a species..They are different words for a reason Just like species variation and evolution are different words...I know evolutionists like to claim any little change is evolution but its not.... All have a range of change we can accomodate, too much in either way and the species dies off....

2) Canis Familiaris is the only " species " of dog that exists..All species of creature has variety...Sorry thats not evolution...No new species=Not evolution....Silly rabbits, Tricks are for Kids....

3) Evolution is still a theory. Why are people claiming it as fact when the theory has no actual evidnce ( Its data people are choosing to interpret certain ways without any compromise...That doesn't mean any of those conclusions are valid...Its a joke )

A guy at work told me about some random guy that wanted to selectively breed a version of the fox to not be afraid of humans...Apparently there is a gene or other physical trait in some animals that causes them to fear humans...He would kill any foxes that acted afraid of him and breed the ones that did not until all of the foxes in his possession were not afraid of him...My wo worker went onto to explain that as aresult the physical make up of the foxes changes resulting in them having longer ears....My co worker claimed this was forced evolution....I told him No thats eugenics ( and it is ).....Selective breeding is also not evolution...thats why its called selective breeding...This is the crap evolutionsits believe wholeheartedly....and people here call me ignorant? LOL


a reply to: Answer



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 06:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: wyrmboy12
You guys that believe in evolution always fail in your arguments with 1 single trip up.....You need a new species for evolution to be evolution.....and its never happened...


I always love when someone claims that proponents of evolution fail in their arguments and then proceed to have less than a basic understanding of what it is evolutionary theory states. The only failure I'm seeing is your definition of evolution and your lack of research into the topic.




3) Evolution is still a theory. Why are people claiming it as fact when the theory has no actual evidnce ( Its data people are choosing to interpret certain ways without any compromise...That doesn't mean any of those conclusions are valid...Its a joke )


Then give some examples. Blanket statements don't make for a valid argument anymore than your lack of understanding of what a scientific theory is or what supporting data exists.


A guy at work told me about some random guy that wanted to selectively breed a version of the fox to not be afraid of humans...Apparently there is a gene or other physical trait in some animals that causes them to fear humans...He would kill any foxes that acted afraid of him and breed the ones that did not until all of the foxes in his possession were not afraid of him...My wo worker went onto to explain that as aresult the physical make up of the foxes changes resulting in them having longer ears....My co worker claimed this was forced evolution....I told him No thats eugenics ( and it is ).....Selective breeding is also not evolution...thats why its called selective breeding...This is the crap evolutionsits believe wholeheartedly....and people here call me ignorant? LOL


It's not eugenics, it's selecting for specific traits. It's forcing natural selection. It's been done and these fox are able to be imported from Russia who has pioneered this work for decades.



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 06:29 AM
link   
a reply to: wyrmboy12

You are right there, all dog breeds are of one species.

The main issue IMO is that we cannot determin a new species as it will be far too similar to its predisessor. It is only after a long (very long) time that we can look back and see the full picture of 'stages' of evolution.

I find that when we examine a past/extinct species, it is somewhat a platau of that species evolution, where the changes either had slowed down significally or even stopped altogether. After a perlonged peroid that offshute species would be classed as a species of its own.

It is like Bread being toasted slowed down by a billion times. Half the time it is still considered bread and then it is considered as Toast. You can see it transitioning and changing over time because of an external enviroment. Because it happens quickly we can say after a minute that slice of bread is now toast and obviously was bread before. Like IMO evolution takes longer and so long with external forces that change with it we cannot see the simple connections.

Fair enough bread is bread and it is by no means a spiecies, I just wanted to point out that all we have are screenshots of the past in stills. Because we cannot see the full process and most likely never will, does not mean we cannot look at the begining and end results and do 1+1. Thats where evolution is the best theory we have. It fills the gap we cannot see, yet its obvious of a change in species.



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 07:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch

You know your problem KS, you have a closed mind

I have a legitimate conundrum, maybe not to you. So you say my view, understanding is irrelevant and thats fine.
Its not irrelevant to me.


No you don't. You have an imaginary conundrum that could easily be solved if you'd just bother to attempt to understand science, especially evolution, better. Then you try to project that imaginary conundrum unto us and say WE have a closed mind when we disagree and tell you that you are wrong.


All I hear is someone not addressing the issue, sidestepping and making up reasons to sidestep.


There is no issue. Just you willingly ignoring evidence and creating strawmans.


Me I would hear the problem, understand the issue and then explain why I choose to think alternately.


Except you don't understand the issue. The thread I linked is proof of it.


Biological evolution is the final link in the chain (possibly a spiritual evolution), if it is not to you, if it doesnt make sense why comment.
Is this an exercise in pride, authority, do you feel power in belittling me, make you a bigger person?
It makes me see the opposite, also makes me think you have a closed and little mind


I'm just speaking the truth. I'm informing the other poster that speaking to you is possibly a waste of time since you have no intention of learning anything about the opposing argument and think that your preconceptions of the opposing argument are good enough to argue off of.


The universe evolved, the elements, the planets then us.
take out any one of those movements and its all redundant


Yes that is what current scientific theories say; but if one theory is wrong, that doesn't make all the theories wrong. That's where you are incorrect. I've already explained this to you in the other thread over the course of the 40 some pages it is. You didn't listen then and you won't listen now.


But no, I have to obey you, submit myself to your reasoning with out explanation. Who is the child?


I wasn't even talking to you. I was talking to MonkeyFishFrog. You just felt like you had to interject because I was talking ill about you, but I was only speaking the truth.



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 07:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: wyrmboy12

3) Evolution is still a theory. Why are people claiming it as fact when the theory has no actual evidnce ( Its data people are choosing to interpret certain ways without any compromise...That doesn't mean any of those conclusions are valid...Its a joke )

Please track down the definition of scientific theory, if only so as not to look foolish at cocktail parties.



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 07:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: wyrmboy12
You guys that believe in evolution always fail in your arguments with 1 single trip up.....You need a new species for evolution to be evolution.....and its never happened...


I always love when someone claims that proponents of evolution fail in their arguments and then proceed to have less than a basic understanding of what it is evolutionary theory states. The only failure I'm seeing is your definition of evolution and your lack of research into the topic.




3) Evolution is still a theory. Why are people claiming it as fact when the theory has no actual evidnce ( Its data people are choosing to interpret certain ways without any compromise...That doesn't mean any of those conclusions are valid...Its a joke )


Then give some examples. Blanket statements don't make for a valid argument anymore than your lack of understanding of what a scientific theory is or what supporting data exists.


A guy at work told me about some random guy that wanted to selectively breed a version of the fox to not be afraid of humans...Apparently there is a gene or other physical trait in some animals that causes them to fear humans...He would kill any foxes that acted afraid of him and breed the ones that did not until all of the foxes in his possession were not afraid of him...My wo worker went onto to explain that as aresult the physical make up of the foxes changes resulting in them having longer ears....My co worker claimed this was forced evolution....I told him No thats eugenics ( and it is ).....Selective breeding is also not evolution...thats why its called selective breeding...This is the crap evolutionsits believe wholeheartedly....and people here call me ignorant? LOL


It's not eugenics, it's selecting for specific traits. It's forcing natural selection. It's been done and these fox are able to be imported from Russia who has pioneered this work for decades.


Well Peter Vlar did you happen to read how dogs prove evolution by breeding other dogs

I think that wyrmboy made some valid points, are you dismissing them all with your comments or will you dismiss them with valid evidence

Seriously do you expect us to believe that a variety's of Canis Familiaris (Thanks WB) prove evolution like the poster above called Answer believes it does.
Prepared to comment, explain why we are wrong?



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 07:32 AM
link   
Millions of animals die everyday, yet go into the forest, even miles in, and the forest ground is not littered with recognizable dead bodies everywhere. I don't think you really understand how decay happens, and how rapidly it happens, and how complex it really is.



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 07:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Maltese5Rhino

It is like Bread being toasted slowed down by a billion times. Half the time it is still considered bread and then it is considered as Toast. You can see it transitioning and changing over time because of an external enviroment. Because it happens quickly we can say after a minute that slice of bread is now toast and obviously was bread before. Like IMO evolution takes longer and so long with external forces that change with it we cannot see the simple connections.


Your analogy is good, very simple and comprehendable.

Sadly in the natural world we cant find any evidence of the bread turning in to toast, no transitional fossils.
What came before the wolf, what animal

Its a simple question.
What came before the elephant, the girraffe, where is the scientific evidence, the bones, the bodies.



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 07:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: thedeadtruth
So what. There are lots of historically accurate history books around. Where they ALL written by Giod just because they are accurate.......? You might want to raise your standards there a bit. Which gets to my other point I made that you didnt absorb.

My point was simple..... Even if you think the world has only been around 6 thousand years. The bible misses more history than it catches. Entire civilizations and continents are not even mentioned.

Care to explain that ?


My point was simple as well...

You are incorrect.

Where is your evidence?

The only thing you have convinced me of is that it does not exist.

Care to explain that?

Like someone else mentioned, your argument is a complete waste of time as the Bible is not a history book.



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 08:02 AM
link   
As evolution even been proved yet becouse from what i understand it is the theory of evolution,



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 08:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch

What came before the wolf, what animal

Its a simple question.
What came before the elephant, the girraffe, where is the scientific evidence, the bones, the bodies.


You want to debate evolution and creationism but fail already knowing about essentials a first grader can look up on the internet? How comes you don't know about the ancestors of, say, wolves, or whatever other animals?
Why don't you educate yourself? It's not secret science? This information, ie. our current status quo of knowledge is right there and accessible. (PRO TIP: Enter "creodonts" in google. But I have a feeling that real KNOWLEDGE is actually not even on your agenda.)

Also..that no transient fossils exist is a lie. I am baffled you guys repeating this over and over - this too can be looked up by anyone, you don't need a major in biology etc. for this research.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join