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: 40
27
<< 37  38  39    41  42  43 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 09:59 AM
link   
The link I referred to in my post is here: www.talkorigins.org...
It is very helpful to follow along with this link because it provides pictures, citations, and further information. And the citations it links are from ACTUAL, PEER-REVIEWED, WELL-RESPECTED SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS LIKE SCIENCE. So, born2watch, before you say your typical shpeel about how you refuse to visit links, and refuse to look at "evolution" websites, please keep in mind that the data and information here presented are from neutral, peer-reviewed scientific journals.




posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 11:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: kayej1188
The link I referred to in my post is here: www.talkorigins.org...
It is very helpful to follow along with this link because it provides pictures, citations, and further information. And the citations it links are from ACTUAL, PEER-REVIEWED, WELL-RESPECTED SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS LIKE SCIENCE. So, born2watch, before you say your typical shpeel about how you refuse to visit links, and refuse to look at "evolution" websites, please keep in mind that the data and information here presented are from neutral, peer-reviewed scientific journals.


game over. evolution is NOT a farce.
edit on 1-12-2014 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 02:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: kennyb72
a reply to: Barcs


You are treading on very dangerous ground as far as scientific method is concerned. The fact that a theory is as good as the latest available information and when presented the theory is modified. I have to use another cliche and there are two readily available, so for efficiencies sake, "Science is barking up a blind alley". it wouldn't be the first time.


There's nothing dangerous about trusting the scientific method. Yes, a theory is as good as the latest VERIFIED and CONFIRMED information. Can you please provide a list of modern scientific theories based on the scientific method that have been suddenly proven wrong? You seem to think a theory is the same as a hypothesis and that theories are just a guess that can suddenly be wrong. Please provide just one case where this has happened. And please don't say, "people use to think the earth was flat". That wasn't a scientific proposition based on the scientific method. Good luck.


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.

It has nothing to do with internal fortitude. It has to do with lack of physical evidence. They have a mathematical theory, not a scientific theory. When physical objective evidence is discovered that verifies another dimension, THEN it will become a scientific theory and hold as much merit as evolution, but as of now, that's not the case. If evolution was not correct science, it would not be actively applied today in modern medicine.

Funny, though, how you have your doubts about evolutionary science (a field that has been established with evidence over the past 150 years) because science changes over time, yet believe a hypothesis in its infancy like string/m theory where we haven't even touched the surface yet and you admit is just an opinion. That sounds like a huge double standard to me.


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),


They don't appear to be working out too well? By all means, give us examples of some scientific models that aren't working out. LMAO. Attacking science is so petty. Let it do its thing, it brings us closer and closer to understanding the universe.
edit on 1-12-2014 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 04:27 PM
link   
a reply to: kayej1188

Wow, thats great and its quite believable, its a chain of ideas that link one species to the next over time, sounds just like evolution

Listen careful kaye, I understand evolution, I understand the concept, I once believed it.
I get why you believe it and dont have an issue.

for me though It is not supported by physical evidence.
You only have a few fossils to show the change in the jaws and ears, not nearly enough to satisfy me.
You, scientists, the theory of evolution lacks the physical evidence to support your theory

Where are all the transitional fossils, hence my comment about the shoebox theory, go study it.

All you have done is told me what you think and then expect me to agree because you think its true.
A chain of ideas is not a chain of evidence.
Its hard to understand the difference but there is a difference

Now I am going to waste my time and link you to a site called conservapedia. They talk about the issues I have with the missing links.
If you care to understand my position, answer my issues then you must read it and address my concerns.
Outside of that you are just another evolutionist who thinks they can demand what I should believe without addressing my issues

www.conservapedia.com...

Despite the large number of fossils available to scientists in 1981, evolutionist Mark Ridley, who currently serves as a professor of zoology at Oxford University, was forced to confess: "In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation."[3]

Scientist Dr. Michael Denton wrote regarding the fossil record:
“ "It is still, as it was in Darwin's day, overwhelmingly true that the first representatives of all the major classes of organisms known to biology are already highly characteristic of their class when they make their initial appearance in the fossil record. This phenomenon is particularly obvious in the case of the invertebrate fossil record. At its first appearance in the ancient Paleozoic seas, invertebrate life was already divided into practically all the major groups with which we are familiar today.[8]

David Raup, who was the curator of geology at the museum holding the world's largest fossil collection, the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, observed:
“ "[Darwin] was embarrassed by the fossil record because it didn't look the way he predicted it would .... Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. ... [W]e have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time." - David M. Raup, "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin 50 (January 1979): 22-23, 24-25. ”


Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould

(photo obtained from Wikimedia commons, see license agreement)
One of the most famous proponents of the theory of evolution was the late Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould. But Gould admitted the following:
“ The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils...We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.[12]


Now I know what many think, these are just evolution hating creationist questions and we dont have to answer them
Well thats fine, dont address them, though unless you do your theory remains a religion to me.

and remember I am discussing this with you, not a linked site. I wont be addressing or visiting any sites you link to, I dont expect you will of any I link you to either

This is a simple essay explaining some concerns
www.ukapologetics.net...


edit on b2014Mon, 01 Dec 2014 17:11:09 -0600123120141pm312014-12-01T17:11:09-06:00 by borntowatch because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 04:44 PM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch

What do you mean? For the example I have given--It is not just a set of ideas. Every single claim made is supported by physical evidence, including sets and sets of skulls along with genetics. I'm just addressing the comment you have just made. You say "Where are all the transtional fossils, hence..." and "All you have done is told me what you think and then expect me to agree because you think its true." Listen carefully, borntowatch, this is not "What I think," these are facts; various scientists and/or museums have all of the fossils you ask for. The entire claim would not be valid unless the fossils were found and analyzed. There is absolutely no way you can deny these as facts. That's like me saying "God doesn't exist because the bible doesnt exist." It's a known fact that the bible exists, it's a matter of how one interprets the claims in the bible, and how one interprets the validity of whether the bible is the word of god or not. In the current example, It's a matter of how you analyze those facts and what conclusions you come to as a result of these facts. The very fact that you made those statements confirms that you barely even read what I presented. Again, there is no debate whether the evidence I have provided is true or not--It is 100% confirmed as being fact. It's a matter of how you interpret the data. Now, if you have an ulterior interpretation for the facts, maybe an interpretation that doesn't necessarily fall in line with evolutionary thinking, than that's completely valid, and that type of discussion is the one I was hoping to have, as many others do as well.



posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 04:45 PM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch

Sure, I will absolutely do so. Allow me some time to read your links and questions and I will present my answers as soon as I can.



posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 04:52 PM
link   
a reply to: kayej1188

I was going to do the same but almost everything in them has been addressed or re-addressed multiple times in the pages of this thread and others. Good luck, but in the end your only option will probably be to agree to disagree.




posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 05:04 PM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch

Why do you assume that fossils (which are incredibly rare to find) are the only way we can show evolution has occured? Just curious.



posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 05:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Murgatroid


Murgatroid!... Mutate or face extinction!



posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 05:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: borntowatch

Why do you assume that fossils (which are incredibly rare to find) are the only way we can show evolution has occured? Just curious.


I am open to any options, why limit your path ways to evidence.

Not assumption opinion or theory, just evidence.



posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 05:28 PM
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?


This is what their "evidence" boils down to, what they believe happened in the past, and its not based on any evidence. No mechanism is ever provided for this supposed event they believe in, just circular arguments based on subordinate micro-evolutionary theories with the hope of time that these mechanisms, they so clearly want us to take purely on faith, will lead to man from molecules. And we're supposed to be impressed by this garbage.



posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 05:30 PM
link   
a reply to: BlackManINC

As opposed to believing in the ramblings from a few tribal sheep herders from 2000 years ago.... right?

makes perfect sense




posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 05:36 PM
link   
a reply to: TechUnique

Hi TechUnique,

I would like to share my opinion with you BEFORE watching the videos, so that the details of it would not cloud my judgment (of course eventually I will watch it).

Evolutionism in the way was put by Darwin has obviously a lot of discrepancies and unproven (or later disproved) facts, from timelines to evolutionary process, all the way to the logical "evolution" of the Homo Sapiens-Sapiens which evolved in intelligence but downgraded in so many physical features that without technology, would have disappeared long time ago.
Technology. This is what makes me think a lot about evolutionism. Did technology really "evolve" witht he man? It seems to me that we have acquired technological advancements in non-continuous chunks and most of the time by accident. So as we have the missing chain in the Evolutionary theory, we as well have more than one missing chain in technological evolution.

Creationism: Were we created by a superior being OR superior beings? If I look at what we have done in history, whoever created us made sure we had an evil component always present throughout the ages, and no matter how high our scientific and moral attainments, that evil root would never fade away.
If we had to create life and spread into a new territory to help us or to HELP THEM, wouldn't we create a life which could be an improvement of our own? Or would we create a self-destructive race which could pose a threat to ourselves?

So my feeling is that there has been an attempt to improve something that was already present. Technology and science could have been given to us as an aide to the limitations that the improvement brought along.
However a question remains: a primitive man, in its essential behavior, is violent in the measure of its instincts and in relation to its needs. An "evolved" or "created" Homo Sapiens-Sapiens WITH TECHNOLOGY and science, adds to instinct also ego and ambition, without being able to remove its evil nature.

This is the paradox I am stuck with, and can but looking at our origin as results of Interventism rather than Evolution or Creationism per se.
I hope I didn't go off topic, and that I can watch your link soon.



posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 05:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: BlackManINC

As opposed to believing in the ramblings from a few tribal sheep herders from 2000 years ago.... right?

makes perfect sense



At least we have a mechanism, which is God, you apes have provided nothing but the magic wand of time.



posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 05:41 PM
link   
a reply to: BlackManINC

Well hate to break it to ya bro... You're the same as I am...

Regardless of if evolution or creation is correct... you and I are the same....

IF I am an "ape" then so are you... I feel like I should be sticking my tongue out mocking you like we're in the school yard... but I won't stoop to your level...

I will say though... At the very least the evolution camp has educated people on their side... where as you are stuck with illiterate barbarian sheep herders, who in some cases still thought the world was flat...

have fun with your delusion though


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



posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 05:42 PM
link   
a reply to: BlackManINC

Must you always sound so angry and insulting?

"You apes".

Am I suppose to take it like a racial charge or some prejudice against evolution?

Either way I'm not offended. But petty name calling...

So Christ like ya know? Very constructive.



posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 05:43 PM
link   
a reply to: BlackManINC

Apes like yourself are welcome to worship your ape deities while apes like us have no need of your ape deities.

In the end we are all apes most have moved on from flinging poo.



posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 05:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

I disagree. I think most, if not all, still throw poo. It just smells different now.



posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 05:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: BlackManINC

Well hate to break it to ya bro... You're the same as I am...

Regardless of if evolution or creation is correct... you and I are the same....

IF I am an "ape" then so are you... I feel like I should be sticking my tongue out mocking you like we're in the school yard... but I won't stoop to your level...

I will say though... At the very least the evolution camp has educated people on their side... where as you are stuck with illiterate barbarian sheep herders...



Translation: In other words, all you have is another mans biased unjustified soup to man interpretations on the evidence who, declaring themselves to be wise, became fools.


originally posted by: Akragon"Regardless of if evolution or creation is correct... you and I are the same....


So this is the best you can do, hey? Not good enough, we either evolved by random acts of chance mutations or we were designed as separate and complete beings from the start. There is no in between. What we observe in nature are created beings, we see no logical reason at all to believe in evolution by common descent. If you can't even provide a mechanism for your theory, then your theory has no legs to stand on to begin with, period.



originally posted by: AkragonIF I am an "ape" then so are you... I feel like I should be sticking my tongue out mocking you like we're in the school yard... but I won't stoop to your level...


You apes have been mocking creationists since this thread was first started. Ridicule levied against the OP for having the audacity for merely posting a different world view than yours is all I see, and of course as always, backed up with no real evidence as I have shown time and again. Its always you creatures that start it all, as this thread shows, but you can never finish it against an informed creationist.









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



posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 05:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
a reply to: BlackManINC

Must you always sound so angry and insulting?

"You apes".

Am I suppose to take it like a racial charge or some prejudice against evolution?

Either way I'm not offended. But petty name calling...

So Christ like ya know? Very constructive.


Not at all, they call themselves apes, so I'm just calling them what they believe themselves to be.



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 37  38  39    41  42  43 >>

log in

join