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.

 

One of the many questions Darwinist cannot answer

page: 5
16
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 06:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: RealTruthSeeker

...cool beans. now you prove a supernatural force (specifically the one you are advocating here) is/was responsible for the genesis and evolution of life on planet earth.


You assume to much, did I say anything in this thread about the supernatural being responsible for anything? No I didn't so stop putting words in my mouth.


well, clearly you dont believe in evolution. so i was encouraging you to provide compelling evidence for a competent alternative theory. creationism (that is, involving a higher or supernatural power) is a popular alternative, though not as fun as ancient aliens.




posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 06:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: RealTruthSeeker

Did you really not read the entire article? Evidently not.

Again, please explain how any of this has anything to do with the mountain of evidence in favour of evolution or the deafening lack of evidence for creationism.


I never said it had anything to do with either, just pointing out the fact that those drawings are fake but have being passed off in textbooks as proof of evolution. Is that true or false?



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 07:21 PM
link   
a reply to: RealTruthSeeker

...not gonna lie, that is actually a really good question. but it does not invalidate the piles of evidence in favor of modern evolutionary theory. not counting the haeckel chart, obviously.
edit on 18-8-2015 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 07:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: johnwick

My main problem is that slow mutation of just say the eye, doesn't seem possible.

Because it would require it to be formed not just the eye, but the nerves and the processing centers of the brain in tandem.

Otherwise it gives no advantage and takes energy away from the body.

That is a hinderence, not an advantage.

And until such a time as it was functional it would only be a drain.


Why would it ever be non-functional? I do not understand your point as in you are suggesting the eye was like some death star construction scenario...



But it was more like extremely simple nerve endings that developed into extremely simple nerves that could detect light only (as below) and so on until we have the eyes of today.








edit on 18-8-2015 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 08:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: pheonix358
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

No one is saying we have all of the answers.

But to use this as an excuse to push creation is just pure BS.

Science is still looking for answers.

So, how about you prove God did it all. All you have is belief and while it may be your cup of tea, it is not mine.

Science will continue to unravel these and many more mysteries. 100 years ago we had absolutely no idea that DNA, Genes and a whole lot of other goodies even existed.

We are getting there. In 2000 years, no one has been able to prove that God exists.

Really, God is all loving, he loves each and every one of us, ........ now ......... get ready for Armageddon!

No thanks.

P


Science is getting us NOWHERE... in regards to anything of importance such as HOW.

Science is wholly and totally controlled to slow it down and make sure it does not ever find it either.

In the exact same way religion and "creationism" is used.

It is just as retarded to believe that "science" is going to ever answer the real questions, since it is NOT ASKING THEM.



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 08:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Your question is poorly thought out. Darwin knew nothing about molecular biology and genetics. His work was developed simply on observation.

Creationists deliberately rewrite history and science to suit their agenda. Most people don't fall for it - fortunately.





SCIENTISTS deliberately rewrite history and science to suit their agenda.

Most people DO fall for it - unfortunately.



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 08:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Answer
If someone were able to answer the questions in your OP to your complete satisfaction, it would not change your opinion one iota about the validity of the Theory of Evolution so, and I'm asking this with 100% sincerity, what is the purpose of this thread?

To me, it seems to be yet another in a very long line of threads that is basically nothing more than a religious person saying "Evolution is so dumb, this is what those dummies believe with all their dumb science lol."


Evolution IS dumb.

It really is amazing watching otherwise rational people try to explain how all of this works, like they know the framework, like it is just a matter of time if they continue down this path to finding out EVERYTHING.

I contend, that HUMANS, do not match ANY stage or parameter, but good luck trying to tell us we just formed out of some crazy coincidence.

Oh wait, that IS what we are being told.

Just because the Creationist story seems silly, why must you easily fall for the ridiculous INCREDIBLE amount of impossibilities that occur in every narrative otherwise ??

Quite likely this entire adventure is being misdirected just as much as anything, but everyone will try desperately for thousands of more years before finally realizing they were being intentionally MISLED.



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 08:23 PM
link   
WE ARE STAR PEOPLE: Scientific proof we were created by aliens


DON'T be alarmed, but you have alien DNA in your genetic code. Science says so.
Scientists from Kazakhstan believe that human DNA was encoded with an extraterrestrial signal by an ancient alien civilisation, Discovery.com reports.
They call it "biological SETI" and the researchers claim that the mathematical code in human DNA cannot be explained by evolution.
In a nutshell, we're living, breathing vessels for some kind of alien message which is more easily used to detect extra terrestrial life than via radio transmission.
"Once fixed, the code might stay unchanged over cosmological timescales; in fact, it is the most durable construct known," the researchers wrote in scientific journal, Icarus. "Therefore it represents an exceptionally reliable storage for an intelligent signature.
"Once the genome is appropriately rewritten the new code with a signature will stay frozen in the cell and its progeny, which might then be delivered through space and time."
The scientists also claim that human DNA is ordered so precisely that it reveals an "ensemble of arithmetical and ideographical patterns of symbolic language".
Their research has led the scientists to conclude that we were invented "outside the solar system, already several billion years ago".
The thesis supports the hypothesis that Earth is the result of interstellar life forms distributed by meteors and comets.
So if we are just vessels for alien communication, exactly what kind of secret message are we carrying in our DNA?
And if we were the creation of aliens, who created them?


www.news.com.au...

The Sumerian Culture claim in their clay tablets that humans where created by the anunnaki Gods from a planet called Nibiru.
Through the great works of scholars such as Zecharia Sitchin and Lloyd Pye, we have learned that the anunnaki are said to have created Humans from the primitive man already here, and combined their genes with the primitive Neanderthal to create us.



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 09:46 PM
link   
In response to ParasuvO







Evolution IS dumb.




Opinion, an uneducated opinion.
maybe you'll add some facts to sway me.





It really is amazing watching otherwise rational people try to explain how all of this works, like they know the framework, like it is just a matter of time if they continue down this path to finding out EVERYTHING.



You do believe in Genetics, DNA, Peer reviewed science exists.
Perhaps you can Add some facts that those who UNDERSTAND science are the ones who don't get it, Lets see.





I contend, that HUMANS, do not match ANY stage or parameter, but good luck trying to tell us we just formed out of some crazy coincidence.

Oh wait, that IS what we are being told.


Told? Like a general barking orders? That's not how science works.





Just because the Creationist story seems silly, why must you easily fall for the ridiculous INCREDIBLE amount of impossibilities that occur in every narrative otherwise ??


Seems silly? It's not silly at all, just not based in reality.




Quite likely this entire adventure is being misdirected just as much as anything, but everyone will try desperately for thousands of more years before finally realizing they were being intentionally MISLED.


What adventure? Which part do you not understand apart from all of it?
Who is misleading who? I'll tell you who.. You are misleading yourself and everyone around you.
Putting your hands over your ears and saying "I'M NOT LISTENING" Does not make you correct.

Nothing to back up any of your claims, just a clear rant of a swivel eyed crazy person.



posted on Aug, 19 2015 @ 03:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: weirdguy
a reply to: RealTruthSeeker

Well #, it must be the magic man in the sky then.


Not magic.

Not a man.

Not "in the sky".

If your comprehension is reduced to fairy tales, of course things look like fairy tales.


edit on 19/8/2015 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2015 @ 06:05 AM
link   
you're probably right that there is some self sustaining process that keeps life going and adapting but that still doesn't mean some earlier evolved species from another planet couldn't have blended their genes with one of the natural creatures here on this planet. earlier hominids took millions of years to morphologically change and modern humans just appeared less than two hundred thousand years ago from what? not Neanderthal, not denisovans, so from what? where are the intermediate species? where did they disappear to? Why can't we find any record of them but we do find the record of civilizations that go back over one hundred thousand years. There's just no time for your idea that we were part of the natural order here on Earth to work in a natural cadence.

a reply to: Klassified



posted on Aug, 19 2015 @ 06:24 AM
link   
There's one thing I can say about Creationists - they're all consistent. They disappear into the ether when they can't answer real questions. OP, like all the others, has disappeared from the conversation. OP, if you're out there, what are you afraid of?



posted on Aug, 19 2015 @ 06:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: ParasuvO

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Your question is poorly thought out. Darwin knew nothing about molecular biology and genetics. His work was developed simply on observation.

Creationists deliberately rewrite history and science to suit their agenda. Most people don't fall for it - fortunately.







SCIENTISTS deliberately rewrite history and science to suit their agenda.

Most people DO fall for it - unfortunately.


Please remember that the next time you turn on your computer.
We scientists spend a lot of time making history, not rewriting it. Clowns like you would still be rubbing two sticks together to make a fire if it weren't for us.



posted on Aug, 19 2015 @ 06:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Do you have absolutely ANYTHING in your repertoire than an appeal to authority fallacy??? I'm sorry but your gods (scientists) are not the be all end all of knowledge, most of them are wrong as has been meted out throughout history..


How about explaining how talking to scientists about what their theories are saying is an appeal to authority fallacy? I mean it's not like I said you have to BELIEVE them. You just have to know what they are saying first before you can be qualified to refute their ideas.

I mean what you just did here is the equivalent of saying that talking to or asking a priest about what Christianity says is an appeal to authority fallacy.


The first step in acquiring real knowledge is acknowledging this fact, the modern paradigms are most certainly wrong. This is even more true now, (not less as likes to be portrayed) because of specialization within fields. No one wants to question anyone outside of their specialty, so instead they fudge (throw out outlier data) any numbers that don't fit establishment guidelines.

Jaden


The first step to acquiring knowledge is to be able to understand what you are reading so you don't look foolish when you go off on some random tangent about appeal to authority fallacies.
edit on 19-8-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2015 @ 06:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: ParasuvO
Creationism IS dumb.

It really is amazing watching otherwise irrational people try to explain how all of this works, like they know the framework, like it is just a matter of time if they continue down this path to finding out EVERYTHING.

I contend, that HUMANS, do not match ANY stage or parameter, but good luck trying to tell us we just formed out of some crazy mythical diety's doing.

Oh wait, that IS what we are being told.

Just because the Evolution story seems silly, why must you easily fall for the ridiculous INCREDIBLE amount of impossibilities that occur in every narrative otherwise ??

Quite likely this entire adventure is being misdirected just as much as anything, but everyone will try desperately for thousands of more years before finally realizing they were being intentionally MISLED.


Made a few corrections for you there...
edit on 19-8-2015 by noonebutme because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2015 @ 11:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
you're probably right that there is some self sustaining process that keeps life going and adapting but that still doesn't mean some earlier evolved species from another planet couldn't have blended their genes with one of the natural creatures here on this planet. earlier hominids took millions of years to morphologically change and modern humans just appeared less than two hundred thousand years ago from what? not Neanderthal, not denisovans, so from what?


I guess a library card or even Google are out of the question here so... Homo Heidelbergensis is the answer to your query. This information isn't secret. It's out there for everyone to read. They just have to be bothered to care enough to look for the answers instead of throwing their hands in the air while wondering "what" and "why".



where are the intermediate species? where did they disappear to? Why can't we find any record of them but we do find the record of civilizations that go back over one hundred thousand years.


They are all over East Africa( for us) and Europe and Western Asia(for HN and HA). They "disappeared" slowly into the constituent species that arose from them in their ecological and geographical niches. We find a great many records of them physically, archaeologically and geologically. That you aren't aware of something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.



There's just no time for your idea that we were part of the natural order here on Earth to work in a natural cadence.


There are in fact, copious amounts of time for the involved species to have emerged though. Once you factor in the actual physical and archaeological evidence and corroborate it with the geological data it becomes quite clear actually that it was indeed a slow process over nearly 3 MA that led from H. Habilis to H. Sapiens Sapiens with many intermediaries and gradients in between.



posted on Aug, 19 2015 @ 12:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Do you have absolutely ANYTHING in your repertoire than an appeal to authority fallacy??? I'm sorry but your gods (scientists) are not the be all end all of knowledge, most of them are wrong as has been meted out throughout history..

The first step in acquiring real knowledge is acknowledging this fact, the modern paradigms are most certainly wrong. This is even more true now, (not less as likes to be portrayed) because of specialization within fields. No one wants to question anyone outside of their specialty, so instead they fudge (throw out outlier data) any numbers that don't fit establishment guidelines.

Jaden


This thread is scientific topic. Acting like it's automatically wrong because scientists have been wrong about certain things in the past is beyond silly. Either you have something to add to the topic of mutations or you are once again just being off topic and ranting about the establishment.

The first step in acquiring knowledge is testing it. This is what scientists do every day and no it's not an appeal to authority because any experiment can be duplicated by anybody that understands the process and has the materials. Do you have absolutely anything in your repertoire other than denial and science bashing? Also if you claim that MOST scientists have been wrong, you're going to need to back that one up.

As far as modern science goes with the scientific method, it's been pretty solid and I've never seen an official scientific theory end up being completely wrong. Yes, little bits and pieces get updated and changed when new discoveries are made, but if you think this is true, perhaps you have an example of a theory that has been proposed since the establishment of the scientific method in the early 1900s that ended up completely wrong.
edit on 19-8-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2015 @ 12:51 PM
link   
a reply to: RealTruthSeeker

I've never seen proof of the "faked" drawings claim. Yes, they may not be 100% accurate because they were drawn in a time before ultrasound, plus they are drawings not pictures. They have been criticized but I haven't seen any proof whatsoever that they were intentionally faked. "Everybody knows it" isn't proof. Evolution deniers seem to be the only ones that know this and they are the least familiar with science so I apologize if I don't consider their claims to hold merit. And nobody says that fetus drawings are definitive proof of evolution, they are drawings. They are just another thing to add to the huge pile of evidence, showing how we are related to the rest of the animal kingdom, as mad as this makes you.


I never said it had anything to do with either, just pointing out the fact that those drawings are fake but have being passed off in textbooks as proof of evolution.


Prove this. Show me a current school text book that references these drawings and says that they are proof of evolution.


originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: RealTruthSeeker

Did you really not read the entire article? Evidently not.

Again, please explain how any of this has anything to do with the mountain of evidence in favour of evolution or the deafening lack of evidence for creationism.


It has nothing to do with it whatsoever. Just another random science denier inserting off topic attacks on science into a thread about genetic mutations. Does "real truth seeker" ever do research on both side? Nope. Is he going to address the topic of the thread. Nope.


edit on 19-8-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2015 @ 12:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: MrConspiracy
HA the minute you attack Darwinism you get called a creationist and believer in God.

Some of you are narrow minded.


If the shoe fits....

The large majority of the attacks on science here at ATS are posted by biblical literalists and young earth creationists. There are a few evolution deniers that believe aliens did it, but they are more rare. I try to call them science/evolution deniers when I can, because that's a more accurate description and some people get upset when creationists are associated with the denial of science. Personally, I do not think "creationist" means anybody who believes creation. It refers to a specific group of fundamentalist Christians that believe the Genesis account of creation was literal. Keep in mind, that generally when folks use the term "creationist" that is the group they are referring to, as they are the most vocal with their claims against science and evolution. They aren't talking about Christians as a whole or even religious people as a whole.
edit on 19-8-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2015 @ 12:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: ParasuvO
Science is getting us NOWHERE... in regards to anything of importance such as HOW.

Science is wholly and totally controlled to slow it down and make sure it does not ever find it either.

In the exact same way religion and "creationism" is used.

It is just as retarded to believe that "science" is going to ever answer the real questions, since it is NOT ASKING THEM.


Science is getting us nowhere? Have you seen the technology we have developed in the past 40 years? It's not about asking questions, it's about finding evidence and there is NO EVIDENCE for any god or creator. You can ask questions until the cows come home, but science is about what can be tested and verified. Right now there is no way to test or verify anything about god or creation process. Science isn't against god, it just has no comment at the moment because it hasn't discovered anything to suggest one way or the other. Claiming science will never learn the answers is silly. It has been building and improving itself for the past hundred + years. Imagine giving it 1000 years at that level of improvement?

Thus far you are the 4th creationist that popped into this thread and posted off topic rhetoric. Do you have anything to add to the topic or do you guys just flock to this thread for ego stroking and science bashing?

Welp. Looks like the OP ran for the hills. I guess that's how it works when you can't defend your own points.


edit on 19-8-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
16
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join