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.

 

Evolution is a farce: Evidence

page: 39
27
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 07:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: kayej1188
a reply to: borntowatch

What about fossil evidence of the intermediate animals that existed that bridge reptiles and mammals? According to the phylogenic tree, mammals and reptiles have a common ancestor. In other words, mammals evolved from reptiles. There's a lot of evidence for this, not just some theory somebody in an armchair made up. There are many many fossils that specifically show missing links between reptiles and mammals. Do you deny this? Do you think the fossils are fake? What would be your objection to that? If you'd like me to present the evidence, I will do so. But first I would like to see what your reply to this would be.


Sadly I dont see the fossil evidence, the shoebox theory is a testament to that issue.
Maybe go study the issues with the fossil evidence rather than suggesting i do.

www.truthinscience.org.uk...


Your link is to yet another creationist website and therefore is somewhat suspect.


No, is it? Really?

As opposed to the dubious evolutionist sites your friends link me to.

All your sites are somewhat suspect to me and in turn I consider them dubious and avoid their silly evidence and myth.

I can play the game as well as any atheist evolutionist can.

Anyway, I am happy just watching the train wreck that is Kennyb

I have heard it before, its Buddhism mixed with Hinduism, maybe topped with a dash of Gnosticism, go Kenny




posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 07:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
I mean seriously it does not contradict the bible what so ever.

100% out of touch with reality.

Darwinism was CREATED to do exactly that (contradict the bible...)

Evoltion is nothing less than a MASSIVE form of mind control masquerading as true knowledge.


In the Illuminati propaganda arsenal, the greatest tool for destroying faith in God has been Darwin's theory of evolution. I know some say "I believe in evolution and God." Nonetheless, countless people have become atheists from being taught the theory as "fact" - I was once one of them.

Darwinism is an Illuminati Scam

The truth is there is no debate, it's an open/shut case when observed through the lens of historical fact: The 'evolution theory' is purely a political weapon used to shut down Man's awakening to his true potential which began with the spread of the revelation of Christ as the promised Savior which all the world was waiting for... Now look around you: illiteracy/ignorance is up, 'science' is faked to serve Global politics and transnational corporations... Socialists needed evolution as the backbone to sell their world-view and evolution needed Socialism to force it into the public mind via compulsory learning and media support.

Exposing the Pagan Roots of Evolution

"Darwinism aids the New Age goal of global purging... The irony is devastating. The main purpose of Darwinism was to drive every last trace of an incredible God from biology. But the theory replaces God with an even more incredible deity: omnipotent chance." ~ T. Rosazak

"Now, it is easy to show that Darwinism, one of the pillars of modern biology, is nothing but a kind of cult, a cult religion. I am not exaggerating. It has no scientific validity whatsoever. Darwin's so-called theory of evolution is based on absurdly irrational propositions, which did not come from scientific observations, but were artificially introduced from the outside, for political-ideological reasons."

Jonathan Tennenbaum: Toward a True Science of Life

"...many elite controlled organizations are heavily involved in the spread of the evolution theory" archive.org...

"The illuminati have a much deeper agenda than most people know, they promote and fund the teaching of evolution, while behind the curtains they worship Lucifer the devil as their own God.. they know the truth in the Bible and they know satan is real, its the sheep who are under the illusion.. please have a look at this and think hard." the-complete-truth.blogspot.com...

His theory of evolution was the result of the spread of Kabbalistic occult science in Europe following the Reformation and through the masonic Alta Vendita, a conspiracy to subvert the Christian faith and replace it with the anti-Christ Kabbalistic world order. Darwinism and its occult science set the foundation for technocracy, or, the scientific dictatorship currently enveloping the world.

Illuminati Agents – Series V

Ever since the time of Darwin, part of the major press has been given the task of disseminating Darwinist indoctrination. The Darwinists of the time were well aware that the theory of evolution would never be corroborated by any scientific evidence, but produced a Darwinist dictatorship as the result of systematic and organized activities and charged part of the major press with spreading the fraud. The press in question is still at work today. The only difference is that the Darwinist fraud they perpetrate has now been exposed.

Darwinist Propaganda Techniques



posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 07:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: kayej1188
a reply to: borntowatch

What about fossil evidence of the intermediate animals that existed that bridge reptiles and mammals? According to the phylogenic tree, mammals and reptiles have a common ancestor. In other words, mammals evolved from reptiles. There's a lot of evidence for this, not just some theory somebody in an armchair made up. There are many many fossils that specifically show missing links between reptiles and mammals. Do you deny this? Do you think the fossils are fake? What would be your objection to that? If you'd like me to present the evidence, I will do so. But first I would like to see what your reply to this would be.


Sadly I dont see the fossil evidence, the shoebox theory is a testament to that issue.
Maybe go study the issues with the fossil evidence rather than suggesting i do.

www.truthinscience.org.uk...


Your link is to yet another creationist website and therefore is somewhat suspect.


No, is it? Really?

As opposed to the dubious evolutionist sites your friends link me to.

All your sites are somewhat suspect to me and in turn I consider them dubious and avoid their silly evidence and myth.

I can play the game as well as any atheist evolutionist can.

Anyway, I am happy just watching the train wreck that is Kennyb

I have heard it before, its Buddhism mixed with Hinduism, maybe topped with a dash of Gnosticism, go Kenny



So, you admit to avoiding actual evidence that contradicts your personal beliefs because it's therefore 'silly'? (Facepalm)

Creationist sites like the one that you mentioned are highly dubious because they claim that there is a inbuilt bias within Darwinism. Actual study of the actual facts disprove that. However, such facts disproving that said bias exists are then ignored by creationists.



posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 07:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Murgatroid

You don't actually know very much about Charles Darwin, do you?



posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 07:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Murgatroid

I have to wonder. Do you actually ever formulate your own opinions or do you just parrot what sounds good to you from other people on the internet? I ask because every one of your posts is just a short blurb followed by a string of external quotes from dubious sources that don't prove anything.



posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 07:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch

No, is it? Really?

As opposed to the dubious evolutionist sites your friends link me to.


Dubious sites? Those are the sites that are going to tell you exactly what evolution says. Yes they are biased towards evolution, but reading those sites is getting your information right from the horse's mouth. It's a much better source than reading a Creationist site that makes things up. Didn't your English professors in college teach you how to properly vet sources?


All your sites are somewhat suspect to me and in turn I consider them dubious and avoid their silly evidence and myth.

I can play the game as well as any atheist evolutionist can.


No I'd say you are much better at playing the game of ignorance than any "atheist evolutionist".



posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 07:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: kennyb72
a reply to: Barcs



You say we live in a multi dimensional universe, but that is your opinion


It is also the opinion of some of the brightest minds on the planet, Stephen Hawking, Michio Kaku to name just two of the more high profile scientists. Quantum physics is pretty much screaming out this fact but many main stream scientists don't have the internal fortitude to put their hands up, demoting it to pseudoscience.


Just because some of the brightest minds say it is so doesn't make it so though. They still don't have the evidence to prove even questionably, let alone definitively, that there are more dimensions out there than the ones we know and can experience. I'm not trying to say that they are wrong here, but don't make the mistake of claiming highly theoretical science is true while at the same time saying that evolution, a theory with much evidence supporting it, isn't entirely correct.


The whole Higgs Boson or Higgs field study provides the question "What is the field that holds matter together". Matter is formed in this dimension because it exists on the outermost layer of a multidimensional onion. The movement of atoms are slowed down to the extent that their aggregates appear to be solid. Our five physical senses are the only real tools we have to make sense of it all and are pretty inadequate in terms of understanding the big picture. It won't always be that way.


"Five physical senses" is an outdated model of our senses. We have much more than five senses.

Quantum Physics is a very interesting topic, but again it is highly theoretical. There is a much more likely chance that major parts of Quantum Physical theory is wrong versus evolution being wrong.


I just witnessed the phenomena of non linear time, my internet connection dropped out for 20 minutes and it seemed like forever - spooky! totally beyond my understanding.


There is not much here that I would argue against beyond stating that many current scientific models don't appear to be working out too well. They are all missing a key element(or two), that little piece of the math that says "and then magic happens"
I would suggest or rather pythagorus would suggest that the inclusion of a multiverse will make the math add up. I find it remarkable that a man 2,700 yrs ago describes quantum physics far more eruditely than any of our theoretical scientist in the 21st century.


edit on 1-12-2014 by kennyb72 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 07:52 AM
link   
a reply to: AngryCymraeg
Please re-read my posts and try to apply a little comprehension.



posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 07:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: kennyb72
a reply to: AngryCymraeg
Please re-read my posts and try to apply a little comprehension.



I have read your posts and I am highly dubious of both your contention that evolution is a farce and your other theory. Are you attempting to claim that Einstein somehow ranks below Pythagoras?



posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 08:02 AM
link   
a reply to: AngryCymraeg
Firstly - please point out where I stated that evolution is a farce.
Secondly - Yes Einstein was a mental pygmy compared to Pythagoras, not that I have anything against Alby, I am sure he would agree with me.



posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 08:09 AM
link   
a reply to: kennyb72

Wait you are a believer in Pythagoreanism? I wasn't aware that there were still practicers of this cult.

So which scientific models aren't working out too well? Give me a few examples. Also give me examples of missing key elements from each of these models that magic is used to explain it. I am a deep fan of math, and find that the math adds up pretty well for most scientific models. The only breakdown that I aware of is the breakdown between the quantum level of physics and the standard level of physics. Though you seem to be suggesting that there are more. Show me.



posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 08:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: kennyb72
a reply to: AngryCymraeg
Firstly - please point out where I stated that evolution is a farce.
Secondly - Yes Einstein was a mental pygmy compared to Pythagoras, not that I have anything against Alby, I am sure he would agree with me.



Perhaps farce is too strong a word. However, you seem to hold scientists, modern scientists at least, in some degree of contempt. I presume that that also includes biologists. As for Pythagoras I think that it's a bit much to claim that he was a mental giant compared to Einstein. We know very little about Pythagoras other than the very basics of where (and roughly when) he was born. We aren't even sure where he died. As for his theorem, all we know is that it's associated with him. None of his writings have survived.



posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 08:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

So, you admit to avoiding actual evidence that contradicts your personal beliefs because it's therefore 'silly'? (Facepalm)

Creationist sites like the one that you mentioned are highly dubious because they claim that there is a inbuilt bias within Darwinism. Actual study of the actual facts disprove that. However, such facts disproving that said bias exists are then ignored by creationists.


So you dont read creationist evidence, yet moan at me for not reading your evidence.
Are you for real, think about it just for a second



posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 09:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

So, you admit to avoiding actual evidence that contradicts your personal beliefs because it's therefore 'silly'? (Facepalm)

Creationist sites like the one that you mentioned are highly dubious because they claim that there is a inbuilt bias within Darwinism. Actual study of the actual facts disprove that. However, such facts disproving that said bias exists are then ignored by creationists.


So you dont read creationist evidence, yet moan at me for not reading your evidence.
Are you for real, think about it just for a second


Please reread my post. Did I say that I had not read it? No, I said that creationist sites like the one you posted a link to are full of references to a bias against creationism, presumably because creationism is not taken seriously from a scientific standpoint. You know why? Because the science disputes creationist theories! We have fossils, we have the transitional fossils, we have the DNA studies... the list is almost endless. It's based on science, it's based on evidence, it's based on proof. And all we ever get from the creationists is the same people asking the same questions - and then pretending that no-one has answered their questions.



posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 09:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Dubious sites? Those are the sites that are going to tell you exactly what evolution says. Yes they are biased towards evolution, but reading those sites is getting your information right from the horse's mouth. It's a much better source than reading a Creationist site that makes things up. Didn't your English professors in college teach you how to properly vet sources?


All your sites are somewhat suspect to me and in turn I consider them dubious and avoid their silly evidence and myth.

I can play the game as well as any atheist evolutionist can.


No I'd say you are much better at playing the game of ignorance than any "atheist evolutionist".


Those are the sites that are going to tell you exactly what evolutionist believe as opposed to what is observed in nature. Yes they are biased towards evolution, but reading those sites is getting your information right from the horse's mouth, the scientists who make their living selling evolution to the public. It's a much better source for atheists than reading a Creationist site that uses evidence that evolutionists refuse to read or understand.

Now dear krazyshot, you vet source your religion, I will mine

I am not ignorant of your argument, you are clearly ignorant of mine.
Hypocrite much?



posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 09:15 AM
link   
This thread has become a competition to see who has the last word.
If people refuse to accept the facts let them wallow in their ignorance.



posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 09:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Dubious sites? Those are the sites that are going to tell you exactly what evolution says. Yes they are biased towards evolution, but reading those sites is getting your information right from the horse's mouth. It's a much better source than reading a Creationist site that makes things up. Didn't your English professors in college teach you how to properly vet sources?


All your sites are somewhat suspect to me and in turn I consider them dubious and avoid their silly evidence and myth.

I can play the game as well as any atheist evolutionist can.


No I'd say you are much better at playing the game of ignorance than any "atheist evolutionist".


Those are the sites that are going to tell you exactly what evolutionist believe as opposed to what is observed in nature. Yes they are biased towards evolution, but reading those sites is getting your information right from the horse's mouth, the scientists who make their living selling evolution to the public. It's a much better source for atheists than reading a Creationist site that uses evidence that evolutionists refuse to read or understand.

Now dear krazyshot, you vet source your religion, I will mine

I am not ignorant of your argument, you are clearly ignorant of mine.
Hypocrite much?


For the umpteenth time, neither evolution nor atheism are religions. The Theory of Evolution is a scientific theory. It has no bible, it has no clergy, it has no churches. Atheism is a philosophy that says that gods are myths and therefore do not exist. You can't have a clergy there, it doesn't work that way. I'm not sure why creationists keep making the same mistakes on these matters, but perhaps its their mindset - do religious people view everything in terms of religion? Creationist evidence against evolution comes from two places. Either the bible (which is not a scientific document) or a misunderstanding - something deliberate - of scientific facts.



posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 09:31 AM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch

Reading a Creationist site is like going to your friend's mom and asking her what her son believes about something. Reading a pro-evolution site is like going to the actual son and asking him instead. If you can't see the difference here then you have a serious problem vetting sources and probably need to go back and study how to do that.

Also, I'm not ignorant of your argument. I've read the bible. I know what your argument is. I also have read the Creationist sites that you like to believe and I know that they all say strawmans about evolution to try to debunk it. You see, I DO actually try to learn both sides of an argument before voicing my opinion, unlike you who just likes to believe lies and strawmans because they substantiate your beliefs while denying anything that contradicts those beliefs without looking at it.
edit on 1-12-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 09:54 AM
link   
This thread is becoming ridiculous. Please can we stay on topic. The topic is evolution, and I'd very much like to have a discussion solely on this topic. There are people here who understand and agree with the theory, and there are some that don't. I would ask Kennb72 to please discontinue his rant. If you would like to start a topic on consciousness and our subjective/objective understandings on nature, you are more than free to do so. But 3 pages of back and forth on this topic is really leading the discussion astray. I have attempted to put forth a line of evidence to be discussed. For those of you that have problems with this line of evidence, could you please state what it is you have a problem with, and we can engage in discussion. Borntowatch, this is not a personal attack on you, but you are truly taking away from the discussion and giving creationists a bad name. All we want is to have an intellectual discussion. If nothing else, you can learn a little bit more of the theory, regardless of what you believe to be true. I'd ask you to look at the evidence and line of reasoning I have provided, and use critical thinking to explain what it is that you think doesn't support evolution. I will post it again because it's now buried 3 pages back.



posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 09:54 AM
link   
Why do you assume that the intermediary animal is called so because it lived on land and water? This is not the case whatsoever. I will present the evidence, but you have to do me the courtesy of actually reading it and taking the information in. Try to do so with an open mind. I will warn you, it requires actually reading the information and thinking critically; moreover it's actual hard science, and just judging from the conversations here so far, those who are not very familiar or well versed in biological studies may have a tough time grasping the concept. I strongly believe that SO much of why creationists like some on this board are so reluctant to accept evolutionary theory is because it actually requires a pretty substantial understanding of anatomy and physiology. The average person who has not taken a college level course in biology will be completely lost in this. And I fully expect (although I hope that I am wrong) that many people will stop reading after the 2nd paragraph or so, mainly because they are lost. But nonetheless, here we go: NOTE, THERE ARE PICTURES AND CITATIONS THAT GO ALONG WITH THE FOLLOWING THAT CAN BE FOUND HERE, WHICH I STRONGLY ENCOURAGE YOU TO FOLLOW ALONG WITH: www.talkorigins.org...

ALSO NOTE THAT THIS IS JUST ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE OF THIS TYPE OF ANALYSIS AMONG THOUSANDS OF ADDITIONAL ARCHIVED DATA THAT PRESENTS SIMILAR DATA INVOLVING INTERMEDIATES BETWEEN MANY SPECIES.

Osteologically (bones), there are two major striking differences that exist between reptiles and mammals: (1) All living reptiles have at least four bones in the lower jaw (e.g. the dentary, articular, angular, surangular, and coronoid), while all living mammals have only one (the dentary), and (2) all living reptiles have only one middle ear bone (the stapes), while all living mammals have three (the hammer, anvil, and stapes). As mentioned above, the standard phylogenetic tree indicates that mammals gradually evolved from a reptile-like ancestor, and that transitional species must have existed which were morphologically intermediate between reptiles and mammals.

Developmental biologists discovered something that further complicates the picture. In the reptilian fetus, two developing bones from the head eventually form two bones in the reptilian lower jaw, the quadrate and the articular (Pelycosaur as an example ). Surprisingly, the corresponding developing bones in the mammalian fetus eventually form the anvil and hammer of the unique mammalian middle ear (also known more formally as the incus and malleus, respectively.) These facts strongly indicated that the hammer and anvil had evolved from these reptilian jawbones—that is, if common descent was in fact true. This result was so striking, and the required intermediates so outlandish, that many anatomists had extreme trouble imagining how transitional forms bridging these morphologies could have existed while retaining function.

To sum up, During their evolution, two mammalian middle ear bones (the hammer and anvil, aka malleus and incus) were derived from two reptilian jawbones. Thus there was a major evolutionary transition in which several reptilian jawbones (the quadrate, articular, and angular) were extensively reduced and modified gradually to form the modern mammalian middle ear. At the same time, the dentary bone, a part of the reptilian jaw, was expanded to form the major mammalian lower jawbone. During the course of this change, the bones that form the hinge joint of the jaw changed identity. Importantly, the reptilian jaw joint is formed at the intersection of the quadrate and articular whereas the mammalian jaw joint is formed at the intersection of the squamosal and dentary.

How could hearing and jaw articulation be preserved during this transition? As clearly shown from the many transitional fossils that have been found, the bones that transfer sound in the reptilian and mammalian ear were in contact with each other throughout the evolution of this transition. In reptiles, the stapes contacts the quadrate, which in turn contacts the articular. In mammals, the stapes contacts the incus, which in turn contacts the malleus. Since the quadrate evolved into the incus, and the articular evolved into the malleus, these three bones were in constant contact during this impressive evolutionary change. Furthermore, a functional jaw joint was maintained by redundancy—several of the intermediate fossils have both a reptilian jaw joint (from the quadrate and articular) and a mammalian jaw joint (from the dentary and squamosal). Several late cynodonts and morganucodon clearly have a double-jointed jaw. In this way, the reptilian-style jaw joint was freed to evolve a new specialized function in the middle ear. It is worthy of note that some modern species of snakes have a double-jointed jaw involving different bones, so such a mechanical arrangement is certainly possible and functional.

Since these discoveries were made, several important intermediate fossils have been discovered that fit between Morganucodon and the earliest mammals. These new discoveries include a complete skull of Hadrocodium wui (Luo et al. 2001) and cranial and jaw material from Repenomamus and Gobiconodon (Wang et al. 2001). These new fossil finds clarify exactly when and how the malleus, incus, and angular completely detached from the lower jaw and became solely auditory ear ossicles. The relevant transition, then, is a process where the ear bones, initially located in the lower jaw, become specialized in function by eventually detaching from the lower jaw and moving closer to the inner ear. WE HAVE SKULLS THAT BEAUTIFULLY DISPLAY THIS TRANSITION STEP BY STEP, BEGINNING FROM EARLY REPTILES ALL THE WAY TO EARLY MAMMALS.



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join