It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
As a note, I was at a local hospital and read a pamphlet that said when breast feeding became more popular recently, that there was an increase outbreak of ricketts(sp). This was due to the fact that our milk supply is fortified with vitamin D to prevent ricketts from occuring.
That would make sense if it became less popular.. could you elaborate on this please? Can too much ViD cause ricketts? Sounds interesting. Quote by Riley
[edit on 30-1-2006 by riley]
Originally posted by Al Davison
It'll take time to read all of this but, one problem I noticed in several places as I was scanning it - there is the near constant refrain of "it must be false because we haven't yet discovered it".
If every field of science has now concluded that everything that can be known is already known and science is pretty much finished all its work, then I somehow missed that announcement. Can you help me find that memo?
Originally posted by edsinger
The deer that can sense danger the quickest and run the fastest are able to escape the predator on a more consistent basis. However, other examples on the evolutionary tree have many laughable flaws. One of the best is the thought that a bird began to evolve a wing. Why this would occur is not answered by evolutionists. The wing stub did not make the bird more adaptable in his environment. The wing was much too small for the bird to fly. Why would a bird evolve a wing that was useless? This is backwards from the evolutionary natural selection concept that birds adapt and change in order to survive better in their environment. The bird with a half-size wing is placed at a disadvantage in its environment. Why would the bird continue for millions of generations improving a wing that was useless? The theory of evolution is based on natural selection of the most adaptable member of a species. A bird with a useless wing is at a severe disadvantage and the opposite from natural selection. According to natural selection the members of the bird species with the smallest useless wing would be the most adaptable and most likely to survive in the largest numbers. According to the theory of natural selection birds could never evolve to fly. Evolution is simply nonsense. This is so funny. We are then led to believe that some birds got tired of carrying around a worthless half-size wing so they grew fingers on the end to help climb trees. The wings became arms and a new species was developed. Evolutionists actually believe this nonsense.
The evolutionist will claim that the presence of many individual species proves evolution. This shallow statement is devoid of reason, logic and scientific proof. Evolutionists line up pictures of similar looking species and claim they evolved one to another. Humans are a great example. There are hundreds of species of extinct monkeys and apes. Petrified skulls and bones exist from these creatures. Evolutionists line up the most promising choices to present a gradual progression from monkey to modern man. They simply fill in the big gaps with make-believe creatures to fit the picture. This procedure can be done with humans only because there are many extinct monkey and ape species. They never do this with giraffes and elephants. These pictures are placed in all evolutionists' text books to teach kids this nonsense. The picture is simply a grouping of individual species that does not prove evolution.
Scientists a century ago believed the smallest single living cell was a simple life form. The theory developed that perhaps lightning struck a pond of water causing several molecules to combine in a random way which by chance resulted in a living cell. The cell then divided and evolved into higher life forms. This view is now proven to be immature to the degree of being ridiculous. The most modern laboratory is unable to create a living cell. In fact, scientists have been unable to create a single left-hand protein molecule as found in all animals.
The evolutionist ignores the problem surrounding the human female egg and the male sperm in the evolutionary theory. The female egg contains the X-chromosome and the male sperm contains either an X-chromosome for the reproduction of a male or a Y-chromosome for the reproduction of a female. The female eggs all develop within the ovaries while she is a baby (fetus) within her mother's womb. Evolutionists claim environmental factors cause small changes in the offspring in the evolutionary chain. However, the environmental experience of the female cannot change the chromosomes within her eggs and cannot have any effect upon her offspring. Her body cannot go into the eggs contained within her ovaries at her birth to make an intelligent change. Females cannot be a part of the evolutionary theory for these reasons.
The scientific fact that DNA replication includes a built-in error checking method and a DNA repair process proves the evolutionary theory is wrong. The fact is that any attempt by the DNA to change is stopped and reversed.
The second law of thermodynamics proves that organization cannot flow from chaos. Complex live organisms cannot rearrange themselves into an organism of a higher form as claimed by evolutionists. This is scientifically backwards according to the second law of thermodynamics that has never been proven wrong. Scientists cannot have it both ways. The second law of thermodynamics is proven to be correct. Evolution lacks any scientific proof. Evolution is simply an empty theory.
There is no scientific evidence that a species can change the number of chromosomes within the DNA. The chromosome count within each species is fixed. This is the reason a male from one species cannot mate successfully with a female of another species. Man could not evolve from a monkey. Each species is locked into its chromosome count that cannot change. If an animal developed an extra chromosome or lost a chromosome because of some deformity, it could not successfully mate. The defect could not be passed along to the next generation. Evolving a new species is scientifically impossible. Evolutionists prove that getting a college education does not impart wisdom.
Evolutionists just throw up their hands at the question of the origin of matter because they know something cannot evolve from nothing. They stick their heads in the sand and ignore the problem. The fact that matter exists in outrageously large quantities simply proves evolution is wrong. The "Big Bang" theory doesn't solve the problem either. Matter and energy have to come from somewhere.
Two NASA two land rovers named Spirit and Opportunity explored Mars during 2004. The topography shows obvious signs of past liquid rivers flowing in numerous places. The rovers have proven that water was once abundant on the surface of Mars, but they have not been able to find any signs of life or any signs of past life on the planet. Mars has a proven history of flowing water on the surface and an atmosphere suitable to support life forms. The planet has had all of the conditions necessary to provide the "spark" of life according to the evolutionary theory, yet there is no life on Mars. The river beds and river banks show no signs of vegetation or trees. The ground has no fossils and no organisms. The place is absolutely sterile.
Mars is not the only place that shows no signs of life. The entire universe lacks any sign of life. There are no radio signals that can be related to intelligent life forms. None of the billions of galaxies has been found to emit any intelligent radio signals. Scientists have been pointing every type of radio telescope possible into space for several decades in hopes of finding an intelligent signal. No signs of life beyond Earth have been found. We are alone.
Once upon a time there was a Polonium 218 element of the family of radioactive isotopes. Nuclear chemists classify Polonium 218 as radioactive because the nuclei of the atom continually emit alpha, beta and gamma radiation. This radiation loss causes the atom to disintegrate or decay into a smaller atom. Eventually the material will become lead, which we commonly use for fishing weights and lead-acid batteries in our cars.
Polonium 218 would be classified in elementary school as being "hyperactive." It can't sit still very long. In only three minutes, half of the atoms decay into a lighter element, and in only one day it is all changed.
Polonium 218 can be created by the decay of a parent atom such as Uranium 238 or some other element below Uranium 238 in the chain. It can also be created as the parent without having come from the decay of a heavier atom. This is very important, so remember this fact.
Once upon a time there was granite rock. Granite is a very unique rock but at the same time is very common and plentiful. It can easily be found in mountain areas such as the Rocky Mountains of Colorado. Granite is easily identified by its hard crystalline structure and light color. The crystals are large enough to be easily seen with the eye. It has an interesting structure with a mixture of light-colored quartz and feldspar crystals, and darker crystals of mica and hornblende. Granite is solid and hard without cracks or seams, and it is very strong.
Granite has another very unique property in that it cannot be created by scientists. It is considered to be an "original" material in the Earth. When melted and allowed to harden, it does not return to the original granite crystalline structure. The new smaller crystalline material is called rhyolite. Granite cannot be made by cooling the initial molten materials. This is very important, so remember this fact.
Granite never contains fossils such as are found in sedimentary rocks. All of these properties have led many scientists to refer to granite as a creation rock, since it could not have solidified from molten material according to the evolutionary theory.
Evolution cannot explain the presence of granite in its present structure. And where is this granite? Everywhere. Granite is the bedrock shell which encloses the entire Earth. Its exact thickness is unknown, but scientists have speculated that it forms a layer about 4.35 miles (7 km) thick, and in some areas possibly 20 miles (32 km) thick. It occurs on every continent.
These are the two friends from day one. We know they were friends because they lived together. The Polonium 218 lived only a very short time (3 minutes), but he left his mark on his friend, granite, in that short time. Polonium emitted alpha particles which left a very distinct mark in the granite. These marks are called Polonium halos. These halos are tiny colored concentric circles which must be viewed with a microscope. The concentric circles are actually concentric spherical marks which appear as circles after the rock is cut open. "How many halos are there?" you may ask. One trillion times 10 billion are present on every continent around the world. They are everywhere.
The Polonium 218 was the parent radioactive isotope because other distinct halos which are created by other isotopes are not present. The Polonium halos are not accompanied by Uranium 238 halos.
One minute there was nothing. The next minute there were parent Polonium 218 radioactive atoms locked in the center of solid granite. The granite rock could not have formed from cooling molten rock. Granite will not form that way. In fact, scientists cannot make granite by any method. They can make diamonds but not granite. Granite is solid. The Polonium could not penetrate existing granite because it is not porous or cracked. This was day one.
These friends are absolute scientific proof that evolution is dead. First, the granite could not have been produced by evolutionary theories, the Earth cooling, etc. Second, the Polonium locks the entire time period into an instantaneous event proven by nuclear chemistry. The time is not "millions and millions and millions" of years. The granite was produced as a solid with the Polonium parent elements inside at that instant. Within the first three minutes, half of the Polonium had decayed into a lower element. The Earth, granite and Polonium were created by God together in an instant.
This concept is based on the suggestion that those members of a species that are a little stronger, a little larger, or run a little faster will live longer to procreate offspring with these superior adaptations.
Originally posted by Jamuhn
Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
Originally posted by ghost
Just for a point of relivence, How many scientist with degrees in biology do you personally KNOW?
16 Master Degrees
Only 4 PhDs!!!!!! You realize that is not that many, right?
Originally posted by RDouglas
I am a Christian. I do not believe in Evolution. But it has nothing to do with my belief in God. God and Evolution can both exist right?
But anyway. There is a lot of "proof" of evolution, but none of it is proof. It is just evidence that supports it. Not evidence that proves of it.
Studying evolution I've asked my self a couple of questions.
I am not supporting Creationism, I'm just questioning evolution.
And I am not trying to say it doesn't exists, I'm just trying to find answers to questions that I find go against evolution.
1. If evolution exists how would a certain animal like a zebra evolve it's stripes. Unless a group of Zebras some how all evolved the same way at the same time this zebra will be a black and white target. There would need to be more than one zebra for it's stripes to be an advantage.
2. If evolution takes sooooooo long to take place wouldn't the climate change, thus the environment change before evolution takes place. What if the animal slowly evolves for it's environment and then there is a drought, and this animal was made to survive the cold. Wouldn't it die off and many of the original stay alive? I mean if evolution takes up to millions of years there'd have to be an ice age or drougt or atleast a hurricane that changes the climate.
3. On Galapagos Island, the marine lizards are always nearly extinct whenever El Nino occurs. If it could change so much, and it's been there so long. Wouldn't atleast one of the lizards be atleast naturally selected to stand warmer waters?
4. Okay suppose the mass evolution of animals into Zebra's do occur, Or They are marine lizards that can stand warmer water, and the climate doesn't change. And it does manage to survive and reproduce.... Theres only 50% of a chance each time it's offspring will carry the gene. 25% if the trait is recessive. And less than 13% if the trait is carried on the Y chromosome and is recessive. And what if it does get the trait? It's offspring can still die.
But this doesn't PROVE EVOLUTION IS FALSE. It just supports it.
There is no PROOF of evolution just evidence that supports it.
I have not seen PROOF of creationism or evolution yet. Just evidence that supports it.
Hell, I could find EVIDENCE that supports spontaneous generation.
Please don't be childish and poke fun at my grammar. I'm here for an intelligent debate.
Evolution could exist, but I'd doubt it'd be the origin of species according to how rare it'd be possible for something to seriously evolve into something distinctively different.
God and Evolution can both exist right?
I am not supporting Creationism, I'm just questioning evolution.
If evolution exists how would a certain animal like a zebra evolve it's stripes.
If evolution takes sooooooo long to take place wouldn't the climate change, thus the environment change before evolution takes place.
What if the animal slowly evolves for it's environment and then there is a drought, and this animal was made to survive the cold. Wouldn't it die off and many of the original stay alive?
I mean if evolution takes up to millions of years there'd have to be an ice age or drougt or atleast a hurricane that changes the climate.
On Galapagos Island, the marine lizards are always nearly extinct whenever El Nino occurs. If it could change so much, and it's been there so long. Wouldn't atleast one of the lizards be atleast naturally selected to stand warmer waters?
Okay suppose the mass evolution of animals into Zebra's do occur
Theres only 50% of a chance each time it's offspring will carry the gene. 25% if the trait is recessive. And less than 13% if the trait is carried on the Y chromosome and is recessive. And what if it does get the trait? It's offspring can still die.
Please don't be childish and poke fun at my grammar. I'm here for an intelligent debate.