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: 6
16
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 19 2015 @ 01:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: johnwick

But if the aliens are made of biological material then the same question would come to who created them?


I think if you cannot understand the quad-trillions or more, of molecular interactions, over tens of billions of years, in tens of billions of galaxies, I think your question is moot




posted on Aug, 19 2015 @ 01:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
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?


Hominids have been evolving for 3 million years. Modern humans didn't just appear, they have been slowly evolving like everything else. Modern humans are just the latest species in the line that goes back through early homo erectus and homo habilis.

Homo antecessor and heidlebergensis show the link you are searching for.

humanorigins.si.edu...
edit on 19-8-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2015 @ 03:41 PM
link   
When darwin passed away he stood before God and yell: "you're not suppose to be here"!! a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb



posted on Aug, 19 2015 @ 05:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs
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.



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


You've never seen proof because you have never looked into the matter now have you? Shhh, talk about blind, go do some research on the topic and get the facts before you start making ridiculous claims about me. No worries though, I'm sure you'll come up with some amazing theory to debunk this won't you? Have a look at the proof wise guy:

You can see the actual faked pictures from the modern textbooks here. These textbooks were being produced as late as 2004, even though the fraud was detected in the 1800s! Is this the vaunted self-correction of science, or science being twisted to support social and political goals

Haeckel’s drawings were exposed as fakes by his own contemporaries, and his Biogenetic Law was thoroughly discredited by 20th century biologists. It is now generally acknowledged that early embryos never resemble the adults of their supposed ancestors


In the case of Haeckel, though, I have to begin by admitting that Wells has got the core of the story right. Haeckel was wrong. His theory was invalid, some of his drawings were faked, and he willfully over-interpreted the data to prop up a false thesis. Furthermore, he was influential, both in the sciences and the popular press; his theory still gets echoed in the latter today. Wells is also correct in criticizing textbook authors for perpetuating Haeckel's infamous diagram without commenting on its inaccuracies or the way it was misused to support a falsified theory. Source

If this is what you were taught that convinced you of evolution, better take another look at the facts. You’ve been had.



posted on Aug, 19 2015 @ 05:21 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb
Let's take your computer program analogy and go with it.......

Every single computer program on this planet written with a language anchored in the English language (the vast majority including all assembler languages) , of any length , of any complexity, consists of a sequence of 128 unique characters.

128 characters is that all! to make a program that can play chess or translate languages (even chinese..subtle point) or allow YOU to type things on a keyboard and post to ATS.

Does this mean GOD created 128 ASCII characters, well 128 fixed characters and multiple extended 128 character sets (characters 128 - 255). So in theory a lot more than 256, but as far as languages are concerned 128. That damned Babel tower......


Give me 3 billion ASCII characters and I can guarantee that almost every single program ever created could be written

edit on 19/8/2015 by yorkshirelad because: clarification



posted on Aug, 19 2015 @ 05:24 PM
link   
a reply to: RealTruthSeeker


If this is what you were taught that convinced you of evolution, better take another look at the facts. You’ve been had.


What is your next point? Or is the Haeckel chart your ace in the hole?



posted on Aug, 19 2015 @ 05:27 PM
link   
Forgot to add : It does not matter how many contrived or disguised articles you write, God still does not exist. Time to join the enlightened human beings of the 21st century and cast aside 2 thousand years of indoctrinated nonsense.



posted on Aug, 19 2015 @ 05:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: RealTruthSeeker


If this is what you were taught that convinced you of evolution, better take another look at the facts. You’ve been had.


What is your next point? Or is the Haeckel chart your ace in the hole?


No ace, he said he never seen proof regarding Haeckel, so I provided him some.



posted on Aug, 19 2015 @ 06:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: RealTruthSeeker


If this is what you were taught that convinced you of evolution, better take another look at the facts. You’ve been had.


What is your next point? Or is the Haeckel chart your ace in the hole?


No ace, he said he never seen proof regarding Haeckel, so I provided him some.


so you have no further points to make concerning "questions Darwinists cannot answer"?



posted on Aug, 19 2015 @ 06:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

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.


Fair enough. But from what I've seen, religious people and those who choose to believe in something outside of what science claims to explain get ridiculed. I don't blame them though... they are taught to only believe what they learn in school. Darwinism is the norm. It therefore becomes the popular opinion. We're becoming a much more secular world and I've unfortunately seen this decline in belief of a higher "power" lead to ridicule and literally being mocked.

God forbid someone doesn't believe in Evolution as it is taught and chooses to believe in "God" whatever/whoever it/he/she may be.. It wasn't too long ago the reverse was true. Apart from now they are called religious lunatics for believing in God rather than witches for believing in Science



posted on Aug, 19 2015 @ 07:00 PM
link   
these are the greatest threads ever!!!


One sides only purpose is to bring the sword of might down on unbelievers to smite the satanists... the other side always tries in vain to teach basic science thinking blindly that someone really wants to learn!


JAJAJAJAJAJJAJAJAJAJAJJAJAJA


The molecular biologist post was priceless.


This kid also started a "smite thee" thread today.


I need some popcorn baby.



posted on Aug, 19 2015 @ 07:30 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb



Now from the research I have done there is no type of mutation that adds new genetic information into the genome.


Is your research documented? Published? Peer reviewed? Does it follow the scientific method?

You're saying that new genetic information can't be added? Have you observed that over the long term (long enough for evolution)?

The whole point is the genome changes. Nothing is *added* per se, but it changes, and those changes create additional changes. THAT's why it evolution: small changes over time that affect the genome. You want to use a computer program as an example, but I offer this: The building blocks of the genome is more or less set; the building blocks are there but they can *rearrange* into other things, hence new traits and new changes. This is similar to numbers. We have a select few numbers, namely 0-9 (0 and 1 for binary), but we get many more numbers because of this. Same difference.

A mutation might lose a dominant bit of information but it will be retained recessively, at least until the genome completely changes.



posted on Aug, 19 2015 @ 08:28 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Leaving aside the question you asked about "information" being added and Evolution9's well informed answer, (/thread), i would like to rewrite your op to apply to the alternative biblical viewpoint and see what happens:

Biblical creationism is based solely on divine intervention and the creation of all lifeforms by an omnipotent deity over a specific period of time as recorded by primitive human myth over thousands of years. I don't think that anyone can disagree that to get from nonlife to life in one week is going to require some kind of miraculous event outside of natural physical law.
Now from the research I have done there is no such extraordinary event outside of natural physical law that can create life from nonlife. All creation myths take the same base concept and sift it around; a state of nothingness plus God can make thingness..
Let's equate that to a computer program of zero lines of code. If I give you that code and tell you that you can't write anything new, all you can do is take what's there and move it around in anyway you like.
You could never create new piece of the program without any lines of code whatsoever. You could take zero lines from the program and copy them somewhere else, but you will still have zero lines of code and a state of nothingness.
So the question here is which creation myth do you prefer over confirmed, observed and measured scientific analysis? If you prefer historical myth to provable scientific fact then God's got come 'splainin to do, (he created science after all).

I think you can see how applying the same standards you request of science, (which it can answer to), to the unscientific biblical viewpoint of creationism leaves us with circular logic and nonsense. Religion is unscientific and has no business disputing scientific findings. Science doesn't sit there trying to poke holes in scripture, it stays well away from it, why won't biblical literalists extend the same courtesy?

This thread is titled "one of the many questions darwinists cannot answer".. Leaving your dubious labelling of those who understand evolution as "darwinists" aside, perhaps this is a good opportunity for you to provide more of these supposed "many questions" and get them answered...? Perhaps you could even provide a few answers of your own?
edit on 19-8-2015 by spygeek because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 20 2015 @ 12:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: MCL1150
When darwin passed away he stood before God and yell: "you're not suppose to be here"!! a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb



You do know that evolution does not explain the start of life, or the meaning of life, or even if life has had intelligent design. It is just a method of the how, now the "why" is what you can work on.



posted on Aug, 20 2015 @ 04:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker



In the case of Haeckel, though, I have to begin by admitting that Wells has got the core of the story right. Haeckel was wrong. His theory was invalid, some of his drawings were faked, and he willfully over-interpreted the data to prop up a false thesis. Furthermore, he was influential, both in the sciences and the popular press; his theory still gets echoed in the latter today. Wells is also correct in criticizing textbook authors for perpetuating Haeckel's infamous diagram without commenting on its inaccuracies or the way it was misused to support a falsified theory. Source


You might like to continue that quote just a smidgen:


Unfortunately, what Wells tries to do in this chapter is to take this invalid, discredited theory and tar modern (and even not so modern) evolutionary biology with it. The biogenetic law is not Darwinism or neo-Darwinism, however. It is not part of any modern evolutionary theory. Wells is carrying out a bait-and-switch here, marshalling the evidence and citations that properly demolish the Haeckelian dogma, and then claiming that this is part of "our best evidence for Darwin's theory."



originally posted by: RealTruthSeekerIf this is what you were taught that convinced you of evolution, better take another look at the facts. You’ve been had.


Frankly, this is what 'your lot' do, constantly: cherry-pick quotes and misrepresent and for the casual observer you are like a cancer and a harlot: ultimately deadly and at the same time enticing.

Shame on you.



posted on Aug, 20 2015 @ 04:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: MrConspiracyIt wasn't too long ago the reverse was true. Apart from now they are called religious lunatics for believing in God rather than witches for believing in Science


Well, actually, it was the religious who called them witches for believing and demonstrating a knowledge that religion could not explain.



posted on Aug, 20 2015 @ 06:18 AM
link   
so you're saying Heidelbergensis gave birth to a modern human? how does that work within our timeframe? and don't play that- "you just don't know all the facts" b.s. give me some facts not vague speculations like "they're all over the place"


a reply to: peter vlar



posted on Aug, 20 2015 @ 06:23 AM
link   
"slowly evolving" really? check your dna www.nature.com...

a reply to: Barcs



posted on Aug, 20 2015 @ 08:38 AM
link   
You saying something is ridiculous and people eat it up. Look in the mirror man



posted on Aug, 20 2015 @ 09:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: bottleslingguy


so you're saying Heidelbergensis gave birth to a modern human? how does that work within our timeframe? and don't play that- "you just don't know all the facts" b.s. give me some facts not vague speculations like "they're all over the place"


a reply to: peter vlar



Obviously you don't know all the facts if you think one species just gives birth to another. It's about the change of the population over time. Keyword: population. I gave you the facts in the link in my previous post.


"slowly evolving" really? check your dna www.nature.com...


You didn't prove anything with that link. 200,000 years is a long time. 7 million is even longer. What are you getting at?
edit on 20-8-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
16
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join