It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Evolution hoax exposed

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 06:20 AM
Sanctum thanks.

Produckt again go back and read my post and answer my questions that I have asked of you.

Leftbehind. thanks.

[edit on 8-2-2006 by ultralo1]

posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 06:59 AM
Ok, I only want to make a few short points on some things that evolution, and ask what intelligent design's take on them are.
1. Male nipples and the line that runs from the male genitalia to the anus through the perineum (sorry, don't know the proper term). Evolution would have it we have these because we start off kind of "asexual" in the womb, in the very first stages of the development. In the female, the "line" develops open and forms the exterior female genitalia. In the male, the "line" closes, and the gonads descend to become testicles instead of becoming ovaries. Along with nipples, why would we have these things if we were specifically designed seperately. What does intelligent design have to say about this?
2. Evolution in action. What's this we hear about virus' mutating, becoming more resistant and whatever? Wouldn't that be a case of evolution happening right now? Or is it because it can't be seen with the naked eye, and the effect is more "felt", in the case of a victim of a new viral strain, that it doesn't count toward the theory of evolution.

Finally, 3. How many creationists or intelligent design fans have read "Charles Darwin - The Origin of Species"? I'd say a hell of a lot less than scientists (and evolutionists, if that's a word) who've read the Bible. If this debate challenges beliefs held very close to your heart, then you owe it to yourself to understand the debate as fully as possible. Read The Origin of Species AND the Bible **AND** make up your own mind. Don't let people on the internet or scientists/skeptics/pros or cons make up your mind for you. Do the research yourself, read both sides of the argument, and make up your own mind. Once you do that does it really matter what others think?

I myself am reading The Origin of Species at the moment. I can't say it's a thriller read, but it is amazing how many people want to tell you what Darwin's theory was, without knowing what the man himself wrote about it.

posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 07:08 AM

Which question's? I feel I've answered every question you've posted so far. If your talking of your last post toward's me, I refuse to answer that. Not only was that a childish post, it's fully riddled with personal attack's towards me in the extreme compared to my waa waa remark. As I said, go chill out and repost an intelligently thought out post. You've still yet to answer my single simple question that lead you to post in such the manner you've decided to reply towards me. Untill your able to post in a civil manner as sanctum has said, I don't feel there's much left to discuss with you.

posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 07:34 AM
My "post in a civil manner" reminder was directed at more than one person.

Lets play nice and continue this discussion.

posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 07:50 AM

Originally posted by ultralo1
westpoint23. Produckt stated as fact that chemicals could form life in his previous post. I concide that there is the possibilty that it did happen that way. But it has been no closer to being proven than divine intervention has.

Actually, it has.

This set of unlikely circumstances has been put in labs and replicated many times.

To date, no one has managed to find a formula to pray over a heap of chemicals to produce the same thing. There is no evidence of a new type of lifeform (not animal with ties to other animals... lifeform) suddenly appearing on the Earth, presented to us by SpaceAliensManipulatingLifeElements/Deities.

No where in any of my post have I said that evolution is not possible, I wanted to state that it is only a theory.

Perhaps it's just a confusion of terms, here.

Gravity is just a theory. Relativity is just a theory. Boyle's law (the pressure of a gas in a container) is just a theory. Newton's first law is actually a theory, as is his second and third laws. Quantum mechanics is full of theories. Math is chock full of theories (remember proving them?) The Germ Theory for the origin of disease is just a theory.

"Theory" in laymen's terms means "I thought this up and I think this is right."

"Theory" to a scientist means "we have examined all the evidence we can get our hands on and independant researchers have examined it too and these are our conclusions and here's all the pieces to examine."

Why aren't theories in science called "facts" or "laws"? That's because science is open-ended and constantly reviewing and checking things. As better instruments develop or as new mathematics are created (we are constantly creating new types of math... (algebras, particularly) to handle problems such as chaos) then we add to that knowledge. The only possible way we could say "fact" (even about the theory of gravity) is if we somehow were able to examine EVERY single instance of the law and examine it for the full lifespan of the universe.

And I was feed up with people using the chimp is my cousin routine to bolster there arguement. They do not realize just how different 5% equals.

Actually, it's the difference between chimps and humans on a genetic basis is 1.3% and I don't think you realize how CLOSE that is.

(it's 4% if you pretend the duplicate information in our genes is irrelevant... and there's no proof that it actually is:

Truthseeka, first question. celocanth the fish, thought to be exticnt for millions of years found to be alive in 1930s. Gorrilas, Ivory billed wood pecker. Just because we have not seen it befor does not mean that it has never existed before and just evolved today. Can you show me that they evolved from something else ( missing link)?

In fact, we can.

I work in a lab (volunteer) and I process fossils (scrape, grind, and remove them from the surrounding rock, repair any breaks, try to match up pieces with other pieces we have from that same individual) and I think you may not be aware of just how much fossil material we have on ancestral forms of all of the above and more. I'm currently processing some material from a Ceratopsian that appears to be something not seen before. A new species.... but not a new group of animals.

So, yes, there's a wealth of information including a lot of long sequences showing how animals evolved over time (and plants, too, though folks forget them.) If you truly are curious, check out

No I cannot show you that a DC is there, not trying to be smart but it is called Faith. On the last two what have we humans crossed with ...

Actually, we didn't cross with anything. In our own lifetime we've seen changes in humans (we've all gotten taller as a group. I'm sure you're familiar with people being only an average height of 5'2 or 5'4 a few hundred years ago)... and we're talking about a few hundred years. Humans have changed even more the longer we were around.

500,000 years ago our ancestors were homo erectus... looked fairly modern, too. If you tossed them into the shower, gave them manicures, fixed their hair at a salon and dressed them and sent them out on the street, you probably wouldn't recognize them for a different species of human. They'd look a little funny, but you couldn't tell the difference at a quick glance.

Why do you think that there are no studies involving miracales or the proof of divine inteligence.

I'll bite on this one: How would YOU propose such a study be done?

Remember that the study must be able to:
* tell a miracle from a coincidence
* produce repeatable miracles for which there is no other possible answer
* produce this same evidence for someone who is Buddhist, or athiest, or agnostic
* distinguish the actions if it was performed by the divinity of your choice as opposed to it being performed by, say, Isis or Bast or Ra or Odin or Thor or Allah.

That's all it would take to produce a study, and there are religious organizations and religious colleges that would fund this thing in a heartbeat (I don't know if you're aware of all the funding that is given to religious research on things like Biblical archaeology and so forth but it's far more than a few pennies.)

posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 12:20 PM
i miss stated in my post to westpoint23 the word "could" should read "will".
Just how big of a step is it from a piece of RNA that cannot self replicate to a bacteria? The expirments that were linked by produckt only talk about making this kind of RNA. Please give me an analogy of how big a differance this is from non replictaing RNA to a simple bacteria.

I do realize how close 1.3% is to being 100%. When percentages are used it is always stated that we are that close to each other, but if we use real numbers, 1.3% of 6billion base pairs is 78000000 differances in our genomes. It would be different if it was 1.3% of 100 base pairs.
Also as a side note how big is the differnce in identical twins genomes or siblings genome?

I cannot reply to your complete post at this time, but I will.

posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 12:27 PM
I dont have time to fully reply, just short snipits

Answer 1: woman was creted in mans immage, I had nips first, man created in gods image He had them befor me ask him.

Answer2: Why is it called mutating instead of evolving? Ask the scientist.

Answer3 : How many scientist have read the bible?

I dont have the answers I wish that I did. Just threw these answers out for fun

Do not take them as serious debate material

[edit on 8-2-2006 by ultralo1]

posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 12:35 PM
Those base pair's make up our genes. Those genes make up our DNA. The genes do the grunt work, not the base pairs.

Here are a few site's if you'd like to learn more about the genetic code.

Chimpanzee's and human's have roughly the same amount of genes. The difference between chimps and human's are how those genes are working. We have certain genes on by default that chimps don't. Chimps have certain genes on by default that us humans don't. We may have genes that chimps don't even have. Chimps may have genes humans don't even have. Most of our genetic code is just junk. It no longer produces the protiens it once did for whatever purpose they were used for.

posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 12:38 PM
Great post, Byrd.

Ultralo1, let me clarify myself. By cross, I don't mean like a human sexing a pig.
I mean, we can make hybrid cells between human cells and mouse cells. We can grow human organs in animals. That right there shows that all life is linked through genetics.

If you take HOM genes from a Drosophila fly and insert them into a mouse, which has had its HOX genes analogous to the fly one knocked out, the mouse will still be normal. OK, HOM and HOX genes are homeotic genes that regulate development. If a mouse is missing the HOX gene for eyes, the HOM gene for eyes from the fruit fly will give the mouse eyes.

More later, I gotta grab some lunch.

posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 02:42 PM

Originally posted by ultralo1
What makes most religious people mad about evolution is that it is stated as fact. IT IS THEORY. it has never been proven or disproven in 150 years. Just like the BIG BANG (produckt) it is all theory. In schools it is taught as fact. That is what makes people mad and then the fact that the theory of creationism cannot even be mentioned in a class room. That there is no possibilty that creationism can be true is a belief held by evolutionist, and because i believe that there is an intelligent design then I am just a religious nut job that cannot be reasoned with because I dont believe in evolution. But All creationists should bow down to eveolution because it is a scientific THEORY. I dont think so.
ALSO this comparison of our DNA to Chimp DNA saying we are so close to being each other is STUPID. Have any of you run the numbers? The Human Genome has 3 BILLON base pairs in our DNA. So that makes the 1%differance between us 30 MILLON base pairs. Now does 1% look that close. I dont think so. ANd since we are diapole creatures we have 6Billion Base pairs which makes a 1% differance 60 Million base pairs. Now to put this into perspective, 60 million is hitting the lottery 6 billion is the gross national product of a small country. It is not even in the same league.


PS. DNA base pair source www.MadSci .org

I just wanted to repost my original statement/ Rant because even I have gotten away from the message i was trying to get across.

posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 02:56 PM

Originally posted by Produkt
Those base pair's make up our genes. Those genes make up our DNA. The genes do the grunt work, not the base pairs.

Chimpanzee's and human's have roughly the same amount of genes. The difference between chimps and human's are how those genes are working. We have certain genes on by default that chimps don't. Chimps have certain genes on by default that us humans don't. We may have genes that chimps don't even have. Chimps may have genes humans don't even have. Most of our genetic code is just junk. It no longer produces the protiens it once did for whatever purpose they were used for.

So you are sying that we have roughly the same amount of genes and that the differance is in how we use them? That is the 1%, 1.3%, 5% i am talking about in my original rant. Even though we share so much basic building material with chimps we are not equals. That was my original point.

posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 03:22 PM

Even though we share so much basic building material with chimps we are not equals. That was my original point.

Of course we're not equal's, that's the wonder's of genetics. If we were all equal's we'd all have the same exact genetic code coded in the same exact way. You and I would ... pretty much be clone's of each other. Chimps would look like the cloned version of me and you. But, some creature's have less genes than humans and chimps do. They evolved down a different evolutinary path then we did, so again, they are not equals to human's just because they have the same chemicals in they're genes as we do.

posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 03:34 PM
Science's problem with religion:

Lets start from ground zero. You know nothing.
Then you open your eyes. You see the ground. We skip the 4-5 years it takes to assimilate with your senses and understanding the different impressions, still everything is new.
So, you see the ground. You find you stand on it. It stops you from falling through it, and you walk around on it. Its huge.
You now discover a rock. This fascinates you. And you realize that on both sides of your field of view are a pair of hands. With these you pick up the rock. You notice it falls down with a thud as you let go.
Then you look up. You are mindblown by the vast sky. And by the sun. The sun, you notice, moves from one side to the other, and it becomes dark when it dips below the horizon.

Now, the rational, scientific way to process these impressions would be something like this:
The ground is vast, you know little of it, for the time beeing you assume its flat. Since you know no more, you draw no conclusions from that.
The rock is different. It is separate from the ground. You dont know why its there, and you discover that it makes a louder thud when you let it go from higher heighths. It also hurts your foot more as it lands on it. Why does your foot hurt? The next day you have problems standing on it. Don't drop the rock on the foot, it will make your foot useless the next day, you conclude.
Why does your hands move? You have no idea. They do, you leave it at that to find out things that are fathomable for you at least.
The sky. Why is it so big? And why is it blue, and become dotted and black at night? You have no idea. In a thousand years you will find out. Maybe.
And when the other chap from the other side of the rock tells you the bigg thing that hurts your eyes to look at is actually pulled from the one side to the other by someone like us, who is blind from looking at it, every day, you frown and say: "Blimey, thats the silliest thing i ever heard, which anus did you pull that shizzle out of?"

The less rational way is something like this:
Why? What? How? I see... thats a tough one... Fish... Dog... Light... Rock... Leftwing... no no no, the blind guy... Ofcourse, it was the blind guy who i've never seen, who pushes the sun over the sky every day. The guy at the other side of the rock can't come up with anything better. Nor can he disprove it. Argument settled.

Draw paralells people.

posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 11:48 PM

Originally posted by ultralo1
Answer 1: woman was creted in mans immage, I had nips first, man created in gods image He had them befor me ask him.

Actually, to say that God created us in his own image (which I know is the official line) would beg the question: What does God need a gender for? Since there is no God but God, why would God need sexual organs? If he (or she) does, that creates a whole new dimension to things. It still doesn't answer why God would give men nipples... Are they for decoration? And if your answer to that is that God couldn't be bothered making men and women more different, doesn't that cast doubt on the whole idea of an omnipotent creator?

Originally posted by ultralo1
Answer2: Why is it called mutating instead of evolving? Ask the scientist.

Maybe the only difference is time scale. We've seen a lot of change in even the human form over the last few hundred years - does that mean we're evolving or mutating? If God intended us to change as a species, that supports evolution. Or is God coming down and making each successive generation taller, stronger, etc. If God is doing that, then he/she is an extremely active God, which would then counter-act why men have nipples. Wouldn't Intelligent Design say that God got us perfect to begin with? So why are we changing. OR maybe, being in God's image, he/she is evolving too, so God has to change us to match???

Originally posted by ultralo1
Answer3 : How many scientist have read the bible?

I'd say many, many, many scientists have read the Bible, Torah or Koran (remember, all the same in the beginning, what Christians call the "Old Testament") and a good many of them would be devout Christians, Jews or Muslims. Somehow most of them can reconcile science with religion, it doesn't have to be one or the other. Whether they have read it or not is irrelevant anyway, as I was saying to you, make an informed decision yourself and have a look at both sides of the debate.

I'm sorry if this is an unpopular thing to say, but how reliable is the Bible? As a historical source, it falls apart.

1. The Old Testament is thousands of years old. The printing press is around 550 years old. You know how texts were copied before then? By hand. You know the game Chinese Whispers (OOPS! I mean Telephone) that young children play, where they sit in a circle and the kids pass on a phrase to the next in the circle and at the end they see how right or wrong the phrase is? Try that over a few thousand years and see just how accurate your copy is to the original.
Sure, aural text is different to written text but think about a few of these things: translation, censorship, spelling mistakes and grammar mistakes. Even though these people have tried their hardest, there would be mistakes and changes over the years that have become "the Bible".

2. So we see that the Bible has itself "evolved" over the years, also remember that until Martin Luther printed the bible in a language other than Latin (in German) in 1534. Until then, the priesthood and the Pope had a "monopoly" on the Bible. Depending on periods of moral liberalism or moral conservatism, parts of the Bible would have been changed, or at the very least, more ephasis put on different parts.

3. Given that the words in the Bible HAVE changed over the years, couldn't it be entirely possible that a line like "We all are from God" could have been translated as "God made us"?

I'm not trying to discredit religion, but I think with creationism/Intelligent Design, the argument has been settled (at least until any evidence for creationism comes up).

!!!HOWEVER, the big question should be "Who started the Big Bang?" After all, science doesn't have even a possible answer to that, and that one event put out all the building blocks in the Universe, enabling all matter and life to develop. If I were religious, that's what I'd be focussing on.

posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 12:33 PM
I have made my decision. And I agree Withe your last 3 statements. My statements were 1 liners. Ouch those were big replies.
more latter

posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 04:05 PM

!!HOWEVER, the big question should be "Who started the Big Bang?" After all, science doesn't have even a possible answer to that, and that one event put out all the building blocks in the Universe, enabling all matter and life to develop. If I were religious, that's what I'd be focussing on.

Science does have a possible answer for both the universe and life without the need of a creator, and evidence that could back both up. Although there are gaps in that evidence, which is what IDT chooses to attack, rather then research and prove it's own theory.

From the link in my sig :

What IDT need's to be focusing on, rather then attacking the gaps of knowledge in existing scientific discoveries, IDT should be proving that life CANNOT occur naturally and that life NEEDS a creator. If they can do that, then the next and final step for them would be proving that an intelliget designer did in fact create the universe and direct the flow of life on this planet.

posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 09:14 AM
darwins evolution vs nurture......

darwin is wrong and stupid im afraid

posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 09:59 AM
I love the whole argument of, "if man evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys around?" It just goes to show how someone doesn't understand how evolution works. While I fully support everyone's right to have their own personal belief in this matter, it certainly helps if one at the very least understands the subject before making any judgments.

Just to clarify ... Man did not evolve from a monkey.....modern monkeys and man evolved from similar ancestors. Man did not evolve from a chimpanzee nor an orangutan for that matter. There has been a lot of talk recently about "intelligent design" if you choose to believe that God is the architect of evolution, then by all means do so. Choosing to ignore that evolution indeed does happen simply because one particular book doesn't mention it seems a bit simpleminded to me. We have observed evolution taking place and it is no mystery. Every time DNA gets blended when new offspring are brought fourth, there are subtle changes. Those that do well, and fit into their environment, go on to propagate further offspring. Those that do poorly, do not, and thus the fitter genes win out in the end. Perhaps it is God who is playing dice with the gene pool, or perhaps he has a particular outcome in mind with every single birth. I am not going to try and speak for God nor attempt to divine his plan if that is what you choose to believe. According to the Bible, Only God may judge others, so whether or not one chooses to believe in Evolution, those who do believe in God should not judge those who believe in Evolution, poorly.

As far as there being one discredited German scientist... That doesn't change very much. Many people had studied the same items he had and long ago had come to differing conclusions. His fall from grace did nothing to change our view of ancient Europe. In any scientific endeavor, where we look back in time, so to speak, there will always be differing opinions. This is just a case of one mans view being found irrelevant.

I wont try and convince anyone in either direction and there is little point in attempting to educate on the Bible, or Darwin's Origin of the Species, as this topic is far to much a loaded gun no matter what camp you find yourself in. The best thing to do, is simply to be tolerant of others and not to try and force your beliefs on others. Jesus spoke of tolerance, along with Mohammed, Buddha, Ghandi, and DR Martin Luther King. As Rodney King once said... " cant we all just get along" There is far more important things to worry about than the history of ones DNA.

posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 11:48 AM
Also, Gravity, Big Bang, and what a black hole is are all theories, so I guess we don't have gravity, big bang, or black holes... Except we do, and in fact black holes are found in the center of every galaxy!

Also, what I love is...

"We have proof, evidence, we have studied blah blah blah."

Compared to...

"We killed enough people to make them stop questioning us about the Earth being flat so now all we have to do is kill some more until they stop questioning us about creation!"

So, evidence v body count, proof v people burned at the stake, who side am I going with...

posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 01:57 AM
if we evolved from monkeys, how did the monkeys get human dna?

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in