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.

 

Can Evolution be proven? or is it just a theory/religion?

page: 8
1
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 05:23 PM
link   
I didn't see that one. I apologize on that instance since that would have been poor math. I was just thinking of the tidal effects from a moon that was a few thousand Km closer. I don't think you could say they were ever touching. How would the moon escape the earth's gravity?

[edit on 26-6-2005 by dbates]




posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 05:28 PM
link   
ok I do admit I did a few numbers mixed up. but that doesnt prove my theory wrong.



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by expert999
ok I do admit I did a few numbers mixed up. but that doesnt prove my theory wrong.



Correction: hypothesis.


Zip



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 05:46 PM
link   
ok whatever. but you do know that if the moon were half the distance the effect of gravitational pull would be 4 times as great as it is now.

this can be explained by the inverse square law.

if you go back to far in time, you have a big problem.



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 05:48 PM
link   
You keep ignoring the fundamental arguments that I and others are making, concentrating on your specific claims that you do not source. If you want to talk about the possibility of proving evolution, then please respond to my sourced arguments.

Zip



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by expert999
ok I do admit I did a few numbers mixed up. but that doesnt prove my theory wrong.





Well then, by your logic, even though evolution is not perfect, it doesn't prove it wrong.


You did a whole lot of mixing up with your numbers. If evolution theory had as many basic premises shattered as your hypothesis, then yes that would prove it wrong.

The thing is, evolution does not explain everything, but it fits the evidence better than anything else.

There is no other theory.

Biblical Young Earth theories have nothing backing them up. There is no credible science to such hypothesis.

Creation is compatible with evolution and an ancient earth. The bible was not meant to be taken literally.



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 05:56 PM
link   
This article should put to rest any of your questions about the age of the moon. It is long, but VERY good, and absolutely REQUIRED READING before you make another claim about the moon.

www.talkorigins.org...

An introductory quote:



One of the common arguments made in support of young-Earth creationism is that the dynamic age of the Earth-moon system (as determined by the physics of the Earth-moon tidal interaction) is too young to support a multi-billion year age for the system. In this article I will (a) review the basic physics of gravity and tides, (b) review the history of theoretical models for Earth-moon tides, (c) review the paleontological evidence relevant to the history of the Earth-moon system, and (d) demonstrate that the combination of theory and observation refute the young-Earth creationist arguments, with reference to specific young-Earth arguments and their specific failures.

This is intended as a review for readers not versed in physics and math, so the arguments are presented as non-technically as possible. There are references to more technical work, for those who are interested in following up any of the arguments presented here as accepted assertions.


Zip



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 05:59 PM
link   
ok answer me this question: where did the EARTH come from?




ignorance is bliss. knowledge is agony.


this quote is from an evolutionist point of view. see if you are ignorant of the creator, than you arent wrong.
but once you know, you are in deep crap because you are now accountable for your life.

but as weird as this may seem, I agree.
and it is actually true.
and he is now accountable



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 06:00 PM
link   
There is no way you read that article in that short amount of time.

Zip



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 06:16 PM
link   
just answer the question, you dont need to show me links or anything.

just tell me where the earth came from...



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 06:27 PM
link   
Here is one theory on the origin of the solar system.

csep10.phys.utk.edu...

The reason we give links as answers is that excessive quoting makes threads unreadable.


You should read them instead of dismissing them.

You have yet to answer any of our questions satisfactory, it is a little rude to demand answers to new questions once you start losing the debate.

If you want to know where the earth came from start a new thread.

Evolution theory has nothing to do with the origin of earth.

It is about what life did once it was started. Evolution makes no statements on how life was created.

Evolution and Abiogenesis are two different things.



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 06:32 PM
link   
I have already stated that I will not answer any new questions from you until you respond to my sourced answers to you that I have already provided. You are jumping around, completely ignoring my arguments, and attempting to side track the entire thread with new questions.

Your latest question, "where did the Earth come from," is a multilayered question, which I will attempt to answer for you, although I want you to acknowledge that leading the conversation to this question is another example of a non-sequitir on your part, and the fact that you do not respond to my responses is quite annoying. (Z: "See, Expert? That's why I think this, and here are sources!" / 999: "Okay, tell me why you like pizza, then.")

To answer your question, basically, there was a large (edit: nebula) cloud of cosmic material swirling around this area of space after a supernova. Gravity forced the material to condense into somewhat of a series of lumps. These became the planets local to this solar system, and the sun itself, as I understand it.

Zip

[edit on 6/26/2005 by Zipdot]



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 09:56 PM
link   
You also have to consider the question "Is Christianity right?" What about the other religions that do not agree with Christianity? The beliefs of the Greeks, Romans, Mayans, Aztec, Native American, native people of Australia are wrong in your opinion? You can say that evolution is wrong but when you say that Christianity is the only right choice then you screw your self over. Consider other religions.



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 02:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by expert999
you know, I have come to the conclusion that you dont like that facts that I give. if they are fake, prove that they are fake, if you cant, then get off my back.

I've been consistently doing so. Just one more example in the endless link of nonsense you've provided:



Originally posted by expert999
25,000 years ago, according to the rate its been decreasing, the magnetic field would have fried everything on earth.

First, you say it is decreasing, then it supposedly would have fried everything on earth. Which is it? Second, even if you adjust the phrase to a somewhat more reasonable: the ABSENCE OF the magnetic field would have fried everything on earth, even that would be wrong. The magnetic field never decreases completely and even if it did, the impact would be nowhere near as big as you claim it is. On the negative side, a reversal could knock out power grids, hurt astronauts and satellites, widen atmospheric ozone holes, send polar auroras flashing to the equator and confuse birds, fish and migratory animals that rely on the steadiness of the magnetic field as a navigation aid. But these repercussions would fall short of catastrophic, "frying everything" as you may have seen in Hollywod movies such as The Core. On the positive side, we would have a nice aurora borealis on a much larger portion of the planet however.



Originally posted by expert999
and its not spamming. you are spam. you cant shut up just because you think that your religion has to be right. the only reason that you think its right is because you hope that its right.

Continuously spewing false information in an endless row in an effort to deliberately mislead people in a certain direction falls under what I call spamming. It's not just me that thinks you're wrong, it is science in general.



Originally posted by expert999
you hope that there is not God or a creator. guess what if you are wrong, you lose a lot. if im wrong, I lose nothin.

Wrong, even if there is a creator and his name happens to be Allah, you could be deeply #ed as well.



Originally posted by expert999
my theory exists in a book. and so does yours. my theory exists in the bible and your exists in the textbooks on schools. and because of your reactions to the posts on this thread, it shows that evolution is a religion. you have no facts to back up your theory.

On the contrary, it is the bible that has little facts to back up what it says, science has plenty of it.



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 03:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by dbates

Originally posted by LeftBehind

Originally posted by expert999
the speed of light is a theory, no one knows that it travels at the same rate through all space and time. in fact they proved that it slows down when it enters the atmosphere.


From the Terms and Conditions of this site:

1.) You will not post any material that is knowingly false, misleading, or inaccurate.


Stop doing this expert999.


Can we stick with the subject and please stop picking on poor expert999. He/she actually has quite a few good post in this thread. You'd be better off doing a bit of research before screaming about his well-researched post. It seems that the knowledge that the speed of light can be slowed down has been around since 1850.

It is not false or inaccurate - at least not in this instance, contrary to many others of his "facts" - but misleading. He cites the well known fact that the speed of light in matter is slower than in vacuum, which no scientist denies, as a so called argument for undermining the claim in general relativity that the speed of light in vacuum is constant and independent of the observer. This IS misleading.



Originally posted by dbates
The moon's orbit.


Measurements show that the Moon is receding from Earth at a rate of about 3.8 centimeters per year.

Point being? Do the math, 4 cm per years times 150,000,000 = 600,000,000 cm or 6,000 km. That is nowhere near touching the earth's surface as the distance between earth and moon is beyond 300,000 km!



Originally posted by dbates
Dinasour footprints with human foot prints.
I've personally seen what looks very much like human and dinosaur footprints in Glen Rose TX. There is debate about the prints being human, but you can't really swing it either way. From seeing them in person I'd say they were human footprints. The prints are shaped and spaced like a person made them.

What about the Paluxy River "man tracks," then? Some are, as one wag put it, carvings made by the hand of man, rather than his foot. This is admitted even by the creationists. Other tracks were made by feet, but not human feet: some alleged "man tracks" are modified or eroded dinosaur tracks. When a heavy animal withdraws its foot from soft mud, the mud will flow back along the sides of the track, making an oblong impression which can look superficially like a human footprint; some of the "man tracks" are formed in this fashion. A three-toed dinosaur places most of its weight on the center toe. In soft mud, the center toeprint will be deeper. In some of the "man tracks" presented in creationist books, faint traces of side toes can be seen, suggesting that these footprints are really just eroded dinosaur tracks. These tracks show claw marks at the "heel" of the "human" print, another indication that the track is a misinterpreted dinosaur track. Also, in at least one footprint sequence, dinosaur tracks and human footprints alternate. Either people evolved very quickly from dinosaurs and then back again, or the "human" tracks are just indistinct dinosaur tracks.

These dinosaur prints lack the anatomy of human footprints, although some creationists claim to be able to see "big toes," "balls," and "arches" in eroded holes in the river bank. If the whole bank is surveyed, however, it can be seen that there are hundreds of erosion holes and washed-out places. The irregular shapes are like inkblot tests: one can imagine all kinds of figures. The "human" prints imagined from these erosional features are carefully selected examples that are best described as wishful projections of the hopes of scientific creationists to see what they want to see.

Other evidence also argues against the alleged human prints being genuine. Dinosaurs and humans are not the same size and weight, but both kinds of tracks are sunk to the same depth in the mud. Stride length is influenced by leg length, so dinosaurs and humans should not have had the same stride length. Yet when the distances between footfalls are measured, the human prints are spaced the same distance apart as are the dinosaur prints. Also, the creationist explanation for how human and dinosaur tracks came to lie together seems farfetched. Supposedly, the creatures who made the tracks were fleeing the rising waters of Noah’s Flood. However, creationists recognize that there are several thousand feet of water-deposited sedimentary rock beneath the footprints, and several thousand feet on top of them. Somehow, the Flood must have deposited the base rock, receded long enough for the dinosaurs and humans to run across the valley (leaving their tracks), and then covered the tracks with a tidal wave, sealing -- but not destroying -- the tracks with a layer of mud. This procedure would have had to occur numerous times, because the dinosaur and human tracks appear in several different layers. Many questions remain unanswered by such a scenario.

Dinosaurs became extinct about 63 million years ago; after this they do not appear in the fossil record. For over 150 million years before this date, however, they are quite abundant. If humans and dinosaurs coexisted, one would think that human remains would be found in all or at least some of the hundreds of dinosaur fossil sites that have been explored. Or, dinosaur bones should be found in the hundreds of human and mammal fossil sites that formed during the last 63 million years. The fraudulent Paluxy "man tracks" are offered as proof of dinosaur and human coexistence, but they are not convincing, being rather misinterpreted dinosaur tracks, erosional features, or out-and-out carvings.

www.skepticreport.com...



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 11:01 AM
link   
yeah and some creationists believe in the big bang theory which totally contradicts the bible. doesnt make the evolutionist look any better.



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 11:07 AM
link   
and it doesnt make creation wrong. based on what one believes



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 11:18 AM
link   


Wrong, even if there is a creator and his name happens to be Allah, you could be deeply dorked as well.


according to other religions, if you are bad you go to hell, but you only stay there for a certain time period. see in my book (the bible) once you are in hell, there is no going to heaven. if you go to hell you stay there.

so like I said before, when I die, I win no matter what.



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 11:36 AM
link   
Physicist Melvin Cook, Nobel Prize medalist found that helium-4 enters our atmosphere from solar wind and radioactive decay of uranium. At present rates our atmosphere would accumulate current helium-4 amounts in less than 10,000 years.

Physicist Robert Gentry has reported isolated radio halos of polonuim-214 in crystalline granite. The half-life of this element is 0.000164 seconds! To record the existence of this element in such short time span, the granite must be in crystalline state instantaneously.10 This runs counter to evolutionary estimates of 300 million years for granite to form.
and buy the way, his funding was cut just because this was contradicting the evolution theory/hyhpothesis/religion/

Evolutionists have constructed the Geologic Column in order to illustrate the supposed progression of "primitive" life forms to "more complex" systems we observe today. Yet, "since only a small percentage of the earth's surface obeys even a … portion of the geologic column…the claim of their having taken place to form a continuum of rock/life/time…over the earth is therefore a fantastic and imaginative contrivance.1" "The lack of transitional series cannot be explained as being due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled."2 This supposed column is actually saturated with "polystrate fossils" (fossils extending from one geologic layer to another) that tie all the layers to one time-frame. "To the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation.


so what if the universe really is young? that does put a big dent in the evolution fairytail



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by expert999
Physicist Melvin Cook, Nobel Prize medalist found that helium-4 enters our atmosphere from solar wind and radioactive decay of uranium. At present rates our atmosphere would accumulate current helium-4 amounts in less than 10,000 years.


A ridiculous claim.



Helium is a very light atom, and some of the helium in the upper atmosphere can reach escape velocity simply via its temperature. Thermal escape of helium alone is not enough to account for its scarcity in the atmosphere, but helium in the atmosphere also gets ionized and follows the earth's magnetic field lines. When ion outflow is considered, the escape of helium from the atmosphere balances its production from radioactive elements (Lie-Svendsen and Rees 1996).




Physicist Robert Gentry has reported isolated radio halos of polonuim-214 in crystalline granite. The half-life of this element is 0.000164 seconds! To record the existence of this element in such short time span, the granite must be in crystalline state instantaneously.10 This runs counter to evolutionary estimates of 300 million years for granite to form.
and buy the way, his funding was cut just because this was contradicting the evolution theory/hyhpothesis/religion/


His funding was cut because he was a crackpot:



Polonium forms from the alpha decay of radon, which is one of the decay products of uranium. Since radon is a gas, it can migrate through small cracks in the minerals. The fact that polonium haloes are found only associated with uranium (the parent mineral for producing radon) supports this conclusion, as does the fact that such haloes are commonly found along cracks (Brawley 1992; Wakefield 1998).

The biotite in which Gentry (1986) obtained some of his samples (Fission Mine and Silver Crater locations) was not from granite, but from a calcite dike. The biotite formed metamorphically as minerals in the walls of the dike migrated into the calcite. Biotite from the Faraday Mine came from a granite pegmatite that intruded a paragneiss that formed from highly metamorphosed sediments. Thus, all of the locations Gentry examined show evidence of an extensive history predating the formation of the micas; they show an appearance of age older than the three minutes his polonium halo theory allows. (Wakefield 1998).

Stromatolites are found in rocks intruded by (and therefore older than) the dikes from which Gentry's samples came, showing that living things existed before the rocks that Gentry claimed were primordial (Wakefield 1998).




Evolutionists have constructed the Geologic Column in order to illustrate the supposed progression of "primitive" life forms to "more complex" systems we observe today. Yet, "since only a small percentage of the earth's surface obeys even a … portion of the geologic column…the claim of their having taken place to form a continuum of rock/life/time…over the earth is therefore a fantastic and imaginative contrivance.1" "The lack of transitional series cannot be explained as being due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled."2 This supposed column is actually saturated with "polystrate fossils" (fossils extending from one geologic layer to another) that tie all the layers to one time-frame. "To the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation.


There is little science in this bizarre claim.



The existence of the entire column at one spot is irrelevant. All of the parts of the geological column exist in many places, and there is more than enough overlap that the full column can be reconstructed from those parts.

Breaks in the geological column at any spot are entirely consistent with an old earth history. The column is deposited only in sedimentary environments, where conditions favor the accumulation of sediments. Climatic and geological changes over time would be expected to change areas back and forth between sedimentary and erosional environments.

There are several places around the world where strata from all geological eras do exist at a single spot -- for example, the Bonaparte Basin of Australia (Trendall et al. 1990, 382, 396) and the Williston Basin of North Dakota (Morton 2001).




so what if the universe really is young? that does put a big dent in the evolution fairytail


EVOLUTION FAIRY TALE?

*Scoff*

...And what is the bible? The universe may be younger than we think but it's older than 6,000 years, PERIOD. We have evidence to support this well-known theory.



according to other religions, if you are bad you go to hell, but you only stay there for a certain time period. see in my book (the bible) once you are in hell, there is no going to heaven. if you go to hell you stay there.

so like I said before, when I die, I win no matter what.


When you die, you'll be dead. So, by the definition of the word, DEAD, you'll be, ya know, NOT LIVING. You won't "win" anything because you won't exist.

Zip



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join