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.

 

Is There Evidence for Evolution? Show it to us.

page: 7
20
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 20 2015 @ 01:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
Just once I'd love to see the evidence Creationists have to offer to prove a Creator.

Why ask for something from man that only God himself can give?

One does not prove theology.

Which is precisely why evolution will NEVER be proven...

Evolution is a religion based upon faith and assumptions that have nothing to do with Science.

It is believed TOTALLY by blind faith.

The only difference is that unlike Christianity, evolution is a blind faith - which is is COMPLETELY contradicted by evidence and science...


originally posted by: WeAllDieSoon
The nature of the Truth is that not everyone hears it. The proof of God is everywhere. Creation itself is proof. Knowing the Truth and proclaiming it is not pride. I can provide evidence, which I already have, but proof is something that comes from God. The truth is either God revealed the truth or He didn't. The truth is you have been given the ability to seek the truth. Where there is smoke... Me, I know because I spent years seeking. My God has revealed Himself to me. He does that after you seek Him. He does it because He said He would. You can't know if I am telling the truth, though. That is because God designed your reality so that it is up to you, personally, to seek the truth. If you hear it, and believe it, you will seek God. And then you will know what I know.

"Most of what is being taught in university classrooms today, in biology, and also in physics and mathematics, is actually not science at all, but essentially a variety of religious cult, whose immediate roots can be traced, among other things, to the Cathars and Bogomils of the medieval "dark ages"!

True, this cult, which controls much of our educational system and scientific community, naturally does not advertise itself openly as a fanatic form of irrationalist belief; rather, it calls itself "the scientific establishment"; it typically brands those who refuse to accept its most egregious doctrines, as "unscientific."

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




posted on Aug, 20 2015 @ 01:55 AM
link   
SCREW MY ENTIRE EDUCATION!!!!!


THOR LIVES!!!!!


u guys just have to believe me or thor will set yall on fire or something but srsly this sh#t is real!!!


THOR LIVES!!!!!



posted on Aug, 20 2015 @ 02:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: uwascallywabbit
THOR LIVES!!



posted on Aug, 20 2015 @ 02:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
Just once I'd love to see the evidence Creationists have to offer to prove a Creator.


I don't know about others, but I would say that Creationists aren't trying to prove God through science, that is impossible. Only that they are trying to get a better understanding of HOW it works.



posted on Aug, 20 2015 @ 02:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Murgatroid

The only difference is that unlike Christianity, evolution is a blind faith - which is is COMPLETELY contradicted by evidence and science...


Well done I don't think I have seen such a stupid contradictory comment like this ever.
Just sent it to all the sites people send stupid Christian comment to.
You should be proud.



posted on Aug, 20 2015 @ 02:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Murgatroid

surprisingly, we are in agreement

second line



posted on Aug, 20 2015 @ 02:12 AM
link   
First of all, I'm a Christian. I also believe in evolution, or change over time. One clear case is how humans are evolving to be bigger. I remember going to a monastery built in 400 A.D. somewhere in Turkey (i think) when I was a kid and all the doorways we're 5 feet tall, because that's how tall grown men were at the time. Just because I believe something was created doesn't mean it wasn't created over a long period of time with evolution. My 2 cents...



posted on Aug, 20 2015 @ 02:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
a reply to: mOjOm
You cannot offer the alternative either. Proof that a creator does not exist.



That's not how it works though and you know it. You claim there is a Creator so it's on you to provide evidence for it not the other way around. I'm not making a claim, you are, so it's your job to back up your claim.

Who's laws are you citing (how it all works NOT TO YOUR LIKING). Who is in charge of you that you come to these conclusions I have to back anything up. How does one justify enlightenment or an intrinsic knowing of this system and its dynamics to a tad pole that desperately wants to become a frog.



posted on Aug, 20 2015 @ 02:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker

originally posted by: sn0rch
I look at the evidence for evolution, and I accept it.


And you accept it based on what? Have you observed or tested any of this information your self? Or did you just take their word for it because it was written in a science book which was also written by men?


it's called common sense and logic.

What's your basis for god?

this is stupid lmao... being hassled by a god botherer about the fundamental concepts of a theory.

Let me try once more: I accept evolution as a theory. I accept it because what I can observe, what I can see from the scientific community which spans hundreds of years of scrutiny, is that this theory makes sense to me, using logic and extrapolation. I put my belief in things I can postulate scenarios from. I do not need solid evidence to accept the validty of a theory, because I know that 100% evidence is beyond the means of testing. We cannot experiment for millions of years to verify - we can observe what we can see, and we can form a basis an idea from this.

your god is nothing more than imagination. Desire, and wants. You need god to justify your existence. You cannot grasp the non-importance of your life. You need a god who made you for a reason.

I don't. I see life as the amazing thing it is. I don't see it as magic. I see it as magnificent.

you require supernatural myths to justify your existence.

I only need to know that we are born, we live and we die. That is all there is. God...

is not there. Sorry that you dislike how blunt I am about that. But I am tied of imagination having more control over my life than reality. Religion to me is a crutch used by people incapable of reasoning.

and as such, removes the burden of reason.

you are proof of this.



posted on Aug, 20 2015 @ 02:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: soulpowertothendegree
Every single organism is created, then evolves then improves itself thereby evolving some more.


Show evidence of an organism being created then.

Show me spontaneous or supernatural or whatever you call it, moment of creation from a Creator.


Belief as it is here, requires no evidence.

Hence god has so much power. Belief is all there is needed. Not even a theory nor a model to base it on.

Just "God did it, and if you disagree, you're a sinner and hell awaits you."

If a primitive person is told this, when they fear the thunder as angry gods, they will bend their will to a human who says the right things.

that's religion. a chain, a whip and mindless slavery.


edit on 20-8-2015 by sn0rch because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 20 2015 @ 02:26 AM
link   
That's exactly what I thought you'd all say.

Bla Bla Bla, God, Bla, Bla, Bla.....

No evidence at all. Thanks for playing.



posted on Aug, 20 2015 @ 02:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
originally posted by: sn0rch
originally posted by: vethumanbeing


snOrch: The great white sharks are a highly efficient killing machine that has evolved in it's environment to the point where it requires little adaptation to survive. Mutation does not happen for no reason. It helps life adapt to it's environment. Once it's adapted, unless changes occur to affect it's environment, it wont need to evolve. Apart from this, you do know there are 400 known species of shark?
400 genetic variants... so, again, given the environment, we see adaptations.
Adaptations lead from an aquatic lifeform, eventually coping to live outside of water during droughts, leading to the formation of rudimentary lungs, leading to limbs that not only are used to swim, but also on land, which leads to adaptations for land, and less and less requirement for water, which leads to a land based life form, far removed from the fish that millions of years prior lived entirely in water.
There we see more and more adaptation over time.. that fish, that amphibian, that 4 legged mammal, and so on.
Land is a hostile environment.

Never has a land fish (that I know of become a whale mammal) or a whale mammal grow legs. Fish have not evolved at all; like the simian as it relates to its better half the human the same fish to whale metaphor remains as well.


Fish without legs..

Why are people taking what is here today and trying to claim there should be other things to prove the things today?

Evolution is not one thing. It is a constant series of subtle changes. You don't get batches of change. You have a constant ongoing evolution. Far out this is hurting my head.. did anyone school at all? or is this where all the "School lies to us!!" crowd are?

evolution does not have stopping points. Where suddenly a new thing emerges. it's not like everything today just popped out of an old form of creature. there is no"Fish fish fish fish mouse" series of evolution.

Evolution is on going. We are evolving right now. Every thing we change in our environment, causes adaptations in us, on such minute levels that we cannot see it.

but then, I cant see god either, so I guess we're at a stand off...



posted on Aug, 20 2015 @ 02:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: radarloveguy
If evolution was real , and man evolved
from monkeys , .... why are there still monkeys ?


shouldn't they have all evolved into people ?

and all those ameobas , shouldn't they be dolphins by now ?

creation please



*slaps radarloveguy around a bit with a large trout*

I evolved from IRC. Now I forum.



posted on Aug, 20 2015 @ 02:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: vethumanbeing

Who's laws are you citing (how it all works NOT TO YOUR LIKING). Who is in charge of you that you come to these conclusions I have to back anything up. How does one justify enlightenment or an intrinsic knowing of this system and its dynamics to a tad pole that desperately wants to become a frog.


I'm not citing any laws. You're babbling BTW.

It's just a simple fact. You make a claim, you must provide something to back it up. Otherwise your claim isn't worth crap. For all I know you just made it up. That's how it works. You said there is a creator, fine, show me. Show me why you make that claim or else you just full of crap. You can keep going on with your little fit your throwing if you want to but it still comes back to you backing up your claim of a creator which you can't do.



posted on Aug, 20 2015 @ 02:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: vethumanbeing

originally posted by: radarloveguy
If evolution was real , and man evolved
from monkeys , .... why are there still monkeys ?


shouldn't they have all evolved into people ?

and all those ameobas , shouldn't they be dolphins by now ?

creation please


Its just simple logic. The amoebas should at least have more than ONE cell by now (come on its been at least a half billion years).


Why? Single celled organisms as they are today, are quite adapted to their environment.

See this is the problem. You think evolution means one thing stops to be, after it becomes something else.

If one thing is in one environment, it will adapt to that environment.

If something happens to that environment that becomes hostile to life, life will adapt. It will mostly die, but the adaptations that are conducive to that change, will continue.

If something happens to cause a segregation in that environment, where life is now influenced by separate external influences, then the life that is in the original environment, happy as it was, no need to adapt in any way, will remain similar to how it was. The life that is now in a unique environment will adapt. become different. Change.

Millions of years of change result in potentially new forms of species - we all have the same fundamental parts.

I give up though. No one here is bothered if they are right or wrong. And frankly, some of the arguments prove that the capacity to accept an idea other than your own, is beyond change.

If you guys want to believe in magical sky wizards, who are watching you and who will only care about you if you devote your earthly existence to them, well good luck.

Don't get in my face, though, please. I don't get in yours. I don't go to churches and bang on how stupid it all is.

So stop getting in my way and telling me what I can and cannot do. or I'll evolve on your face.




posted on Aug, 20 2015 @ 02:41 AM
link   
Here we go

Pre-Australopithecine: Pierolapithecus catalaunicus -> Sahelanthropus tchadensis - > Orrorin Tugenensis -> Ardipithecus ramidus -> Ardipithecus kadabba - > Genus Australopithencine

Genus Australopithecine: Australopithecus anamensis - > Australopithecus afarensis - > Kenyanthropus platyops -> Australopithecus africanus -> Australopithecus garhi -> Australopithecus aethiopicus - > Australopithecus robustus ->Australopithecus sediba -> Australopithecus boisei -> Genus Homo

Genus Homo: Homo gautengensis -> Homo habilis -> Homo georgicus -> Homo floresiensis -> Homo erectus ->Homo ergaster - > Homo antecessor -> Homo heidelbergensis - >Denisovans -> Homo neanderthalensis -> Cro-Magnon -> Homo sapiens

Do i need to go further?? By the way i believe in god.



posted on Aug, 20 2015 @ 02:47 AM
link   
originally posted by: sn0rch
originally posted by: vethumanbeing


vhb: Never has a land fish (that I know of become a whale mammal) or a whale mammal grow legs. Fish have not evolved at all; like the simian as it relates to its better half the human the same fish to whale metaphor remains as well.



snOrch: Fish without legs..
Why are people taking what is here today and trying to claim there should be other things to prove the things today?
Evolution is not one thing. It is a constant series of subtle changes. You don't get batches of change. You have a constant ongoing evolution. Far out this is hurting my head.. did anyone school at all? or is this where all the "School lies to us!!" crowd are?

Our past paleolithic lizard ancestry should explain our current circumstances (political/social) constant throat cuttings? Evolution as you say is not entirely the answer, but a symptom of subtle changes within species to adapt and survive. These were not earth shattering momentous beak shape changes within birds (as in Now birds have beaks before they had open gob holes).



snOrch: evolution does not have stopping points. Where suddenly a new thing emerges. it's not like everything today just popped out of an old form of creature. there is no"Fish fish fish fish mouse" series of evolution.

Evolution is on going. We are evolving right now. Every thing we change in our environment, causes adaptations in us, on such minute levels that we cannot see it.


Emerging specie are falsely classified as an endangered specie. I can understand the potential for MIXUPS.


snOrch: but then, I cant see god either, so I guess we're at a stand off...

No one has SEEN God because IT has no physical form (its information only) but its influence is all around us. The brilliance of the way the ecosystems work within each other; 1 and 1/2 million (another million to go) different insect specie identified alone exist on this planet and do not make war with each other like we do. We have consciousness and still kill each other for cultural/religious differences/natural resource gains. Science cannot teach spiritualism or its byproduct; compassion toward ones fellow man.
edit on 20-8-2015 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 20 2015 @ 03:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: vethumanbeing

Who's laws are you citing (how it all works NOT TO YOUR LIKING). Who is in charge of you that you come to these conclusions I have to back anything up. How does one justify enlightenment or an intrinsic knowing of this system and its dynamics to a tad pole that desperately wants to become a frog.


I'm not citing any laws. You're babbling BTW.
It's just a simple fact. You make a claim, you must provide something to back it up. Otherwise your claim isn't worth crap. For all I know you just made it up. That's how it works. You said there is a creator, fine, show me. Show me why you make that claim or else you just full of crap. You can keep going on with your little fit your throwing if you want to but it still comes back to you backing up your claim of a creator which you can't do.

OH, so you need someone who is in deep understanding of who and what the AUO is to explain its existence. Why would I do this for you? I have spent at least 2 or 3 hours in deep contemplation reading 1000s of texts for many years in pursuit of this nebulous being, questioning myself, and relationship with it; just to give this information up to you at YOUR demanding WHIM (most likely wasted upon and laughed at) by a negatively inclined Atheist that has nothing but contempt for the God that created this world and given you the gift of the experiences and the privilege to exist within ITS REALM. Are you so arrogant in your puny self styled greatness, to not see what your are asking? You still haven't corrected the spins the left to right/right to left of your merkaba avatar. You don't know what that vehicle is do you?
edit on 20-8-2015 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 20 2015 @ 03:52 AM
link   
There are some large hurdles to overcome if anyone wishes to make a cogent, convincing stand against evolution.. They would need to offer alternative explanations for the fundamental principles the science is based on.

The universal genetic code. All cells on Earth, from our white blood cells, to simple bacteria, to cells in the leaves of trees, are capable of reading any piece of DNA from any life form on Earth. This is very strong evidence for a common ancestor from which all life descended.

The fossil record shows that the simplest fossils will be found in the oldest rocks, and it can also show a smooth and gradual transition from one form of life to another.

Human beings have approximately 96% of genes in common with chimpanzees, about 90% of genes in common with cats (source), 80% with cows (source), 75% with mice (source), and so on. This does not prove that we evolved from chimpanzees or cats, though, only that we shared a common ancestor in the past. And the amount of difference between our genomes corresponds to how long ago our genetic lines diverged

Humans, dogs, snakes, fish, monkeys, eels (and many more life forms) are all considered "chordates" because we belong to the phylum Chordata. One of the features of this phylum is that, as embryos, all these life forms have gill slits, tails, and specific anatomical structures involving the spine. For humans (and other non-fish) the gill slits reform into the bones of the ear and jaw at a later stage in development. But, initially, all chordate embryos strongly resemble each other.

In fact, pig embryos are often dissected in biology classes because of how similar they look to human embryos. These common characteristics could only be possible if all members of the phylum Chordata descended from a common ancestor.

Creationists often ask, like this thread does, for the one best piece of evidence which “proves” Darwin’s theory of evolution. By asking that question, the creationist seeks to avoid what he regards as the distasteful task of studying evolution. He’s looking for a shortcut so he can focus on only one item and perhaps refute it, hoping that this will suffice to demolish the theory. But the creationist’s question reveals not only his ignorance of evolution, but a fundamental misunderstanding of science itself.

In science, theories are never proven to be true. Proof is something that happens in geometry, not science. The only proof of which science is capable is proof that a theory is false. That will happen when something is verifiably observed that undeniably contradicts an essential feature of the theory. That has not happened with evolution.

To the disappointment of the creationist questioners, there is no one piece of evidence that “proves” the theory of evolution. The theory’s acceptance rests on the totality of all the evidence. Any one item, considered alone, may have many possible explanations, and to a casual observer, a non-evolutionary explanation may seem as plausible as any other. But what of all the other evidence? Can an alternate explanation survive the same rigorous testing that the existing theory has survived? Is it consistent with other branches of science? The theory of evolution passes those tests. No alternative explanation comes close.

That’s the problem facing evolution deniers when they attack evolution by focusing on one piece of evidence and trying to explain it away. Even if there were a bad data point (and there have been some), all the rest still stands, and the quantity is enormous. The more evidence an existing theory explains, the more difficult it becomes to find excuses for it; and it’s still more difficult to devise a credible alternative explanation for all of that evidence.

The reason there is nearly universal acceptance among scientists for the theory of evolution is that all the evidence thus far examined supports the theory — and none contradicts it. It’s not just the biological evidence from the fossil record, comparative anatomy, and DNA analysis. It’s also that the theory is consistent with other fields of science, such as geology, plate tectonics, astronomy, and physics.

It is important to note that a theory which is supported by all the available evidence, like evolution, is not the same as a “theory” like intelligent design, which will be consistent with any evidence that might turn up. A “theory” that will always be consistent with everything doesn’t really explain anything. It may be an excellent theological doctrine, but it isn’t a scientific theory at all, because no test or observation could ever disprove it.

The answer to the creationist in search of evolution’s smoking gun is that we don’t have one for you. Instead, we have a constantly-growing mountain of evidence, and that’s what you’ll have to deal with. But if you want a simple way to prove that Darwin was wrong, go out and find your own smoking gun — the one that will contradict evolution. Good luck. Fame awaits you.



posted on Aug, 20 2015 @ 03:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Luuke123
Were/are you one of the 'watchers/nephilim' that created this planets species?




top topics



 
20
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join