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.

 

Top Ten Scientific Facts : Evolution is False and Impossible.

page: 13
96
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 07:12 PM
link   
I have not read every post in this thread but i can guess its basically a back and forth fight about who is right and who is wrong.

How is it that you can believe that ONE being created everything in the universe, yet it would not create life that would evolve to better itself?




posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 10:21 PM
link   
"Its a real paradox, but to be fair, it can legitimately be asked, then who created God?"

I agree what you said after this, but i want to ellaborate. One thing i say to people is.... It makes more sense for god to come from nothing, than matter come from nothing, because matter has no mind or anything really. People, get over it, YOUR NOT THE SMARTEST BEING IN THE UNIVERSE. The distance between heaven and earth is the distance between gods thoughts and ours. Yes, were stupid.

I honestly dont even think asking where god came from is a valid question. God is beyond, intelligent, hes GOD.

Dude i totally agree with you, this evolution is BULL#. Ive always said, i will never depend on human kind for eternal destiny unless we know everything, and we never will, therefore god is my only trustworthy being when it comes to eternal purpose and destiny.



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by plumjoose
It makes more sense for god to come from nothing, than matter come from nothing, because matter has no mind or anything really.

Problem with comparing matter to energy [god] is that they're the both same thing.. and why does the universe need a 'mind'? Do you think your god makes us stick to the planet? The universe doesn't need help to do what it does naturally.


[edit on 1-4-2006 by riley]



posted on Apr, 4 2006 @ 01:28 AM
link   
We didn't come from nothing, this is a common misconception by idiots.

Before the Big Bang all the mass was compact into a tiny dense mass, then the Big Bang, which really was a Big Expansion, happened. The Matter and Anti-Matter collided, and thankfully there was more Matter then Anti-Matter.

Although, the Big Bang isn't about the Big Bang, it is about what happened afterwards. 10 to the -43 of a second, or 1/10millionth trillionth trillionth trillionths of a second the Universe expanded, Inflated, uncontrollably, doubling in size every 10 to a -34 of a second. Gravity emerged at the same instance of expansion, or 1- to the -43 of a second. Even shorter period of time after that, or about 10 to the -52 of a second after gravity emerged electromagnetism emerged along with the strong and weak nuclear forces. These were joined soon by elementary particles, which is amazing cause if anything had changed, quicker, slower, stronger, weaker, we might not have a Universe. If gravity was, or became stronger, it could halt the expansion of the Universe and collapse in on itself creating a singularity, again, starting the whole process over again.

This is known as the Goldilocks Effect, everything is just right. Not to hot, to cold, just right. Now say you wanted to get to the edge of the Universe and stick your head out, see what is there. Now this is impossible in two ways, first, no ship is fast enough to get to the edge, and second we can't get their. We, in this Universe, are like a plane on Earth. Even though the plane flies in a straight line, it curves, and if it had the fuel would eventually arrive at the airport it took off from. So would happen to a space ship as the Universe is curved, the space ship, even going in a straight line, would follow the curve of space the same way a plane follows the curvature of Earth. This follows Einstein's Theory of Relativity.

But maybe humans aren't meant to know, as the Dr. Halding once said
"The Universe is not only queerer then we suppose it is queerer then we can suppose."



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 05:12 PM
link   
Devin,

We dearly need more people like you! You hit the nail right on the head.

TommyTrouble



please review this link... www.abovetopsecret.com...


[edit on 22-4-2006 by masqua]

[edit on 22-4-2006 by masqua]

[edit on 26-4-2006 by tommytrouble]



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 06:25 PM
link   
A Quantum Computer will seriously challenge the position that no one "being" can know everything.



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 08:24 PM
link   
A Quantum Computer wont matter, the Weather man still wont be able to predict the weather LMAO. But..... boy would I like to play Video Games on that Bad Boy.


TommyTrouble

[edit on 26-4-2006 by tommytrouble]



posted on Aug, 1 2006 @ 10:55 AM
link   
You are assuming that it is possible for nothing to exist. Matter has aways existed just like life has always existed.



posted on Aug, 1 2006 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Logicalthinkingman
You are assuming that it is possible for nothing to exist. Matter has aways existed just like life has always existed.


also ID theory requires the belief in an eternal creator

though the whole life always existing thing is a bit of a stretch, matter and energy have seemingly always existed



posted on Aug, 1 2006 @ 01:54 PM
link   
The point is that there cannot be nothing. Something has always existed and always will. We think of things in terms of having a begining and an ending; only because our scope of perception is limited.



posted on Aug, 21 2006 @ 01:42 AM
link   
There are a lot of guys out there that are gainfully employed, healthy overall, survived life-threatening events (bar-room brawls, tours of duty, etc.) yet have some flaw that practically ensures they will not breed. Perhaps a horrible disfigurement from a childhood accident-a burn for example. Maybe they have uncontrollable body odor. Just because they are "fit" does not mean they will pass on their "fitness". Also, even if they do breed, the offspring have just as much chance of NOT inheriting the genetic difference. Dominant traits prevail. Oddities in genetics are not dominant. If the changes in genetics were a 50/50 crap shoot (as they are), the already ridiculously long time frame for evolution to occur would be doubled.
"our emotions, desires, egos, wills are all just a part of the most likely successful type of system". Our emotions, desires, egos, wills are what is driving mankind to kill off his fellows, poison his environment, etc. ad nauseum. Not exactly an efficient or successful system for survival.
"Ice from water is an increase of order." Does it evolve into peanut butter or is it still water? If you were cryogenically preserved would that be a higher order of Slank or would you still be Slank, just colder?
"Species is an abstraction." (true) "Gene is an abstraction." The human genome has been mapped-pretty neat trick to do with an abstraction. "Chromosome is an abstraction." Chromosomes are numbered and identifiable. That's concrete, not abstract.
"You can interbreed many close species of animals. Producing a reproductively viable offspring is the trick." Indeed! It's the very "trick" needed to make an evolutionary process work at all.
"Evolution doesn't care..." Evolution has feelings? Maybe even desire, ego and will? Sounds like a sentient being. Honestly, why this "evolutionary" push for life at all? Why is there a need to keep it all going at any cost? Sounds like a very strong will, desire and ego is at work.
Also, a question for Zaphod 58 (or whoever might have an answer). I know that mitochondrial DNA can determine familial links in humans even if the offspring are from different races. Is there such an equivalent test that can show galapagos lizards have a common ancestry? I'm not being sarcastic; I would honestly like to know if such a genetic testing is possible.



posted on Aug, 21 2006 @ 05:09 AM
link   
Had another question. In the beginning (whenever that was), when there was the beginnings of breedable creatures (I think we can all agree that primordial ooze didn't breed in the sense of passing on useful genetic traits) what exactly did the first creatures eat? Each other?
Also, I have read every post on this thread-all 13 pages (man! I need to get a life!) and I noticed on about page 3 a very intelligent post by Nobody Really was not answered or adressed at all by anyone. Anyone care to return to that post and try to refute the logic? That would liven up this thread considerably and hopefully pull it out of the poo-flinging contest to which it has degraded.
It's a sad commentary that people seeking enlightenment and education can not voice an opinion (however unenlightened or uneducated) without having their intelligence and character maligned.
So far, using the rules of logic, none of the posts have proved either a case for evolutionism or creationism (mine included) but it's a topic worthy of the many probing questions presented on this thread.



posted on Aug, 21 2006 @ 05:37 AM
link   
My bad. NobodyReally posted on page 5.



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 12:19 PM
link   
so is the original poster going to concede that all 10 of their "scientific facts" have done nothing but proven the ignorance of certain arguments against evolution?



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 03:25 AM
link   


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?


You presume that the wing was developed in this strange growing stub method... what if the wing developed as a skin flap between arm and body? use to scare predators in much the same way as a peacock... The larger this became the larger the animal could appear to be and thus the higher chance of scaring away predators.





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.


Using a similar technique of massive energy transfer they've managed to turn a primordial soup into enzymes... the basis for life...

Single cell organisms have evolved in other ways which supports some sort of mass grouping or inter-cellular structure. For instance sea weed is a collaboration of lots of single cells which work independently of each other but still exist as one organism- if single celled organisms are capable of such a collective existence then its certainly plausible that more advanced cells could have come together and began to specialize thus forming the first of the higher lifeforms.




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 Y chromosomes is used male reproduction (XY) and the X chromosomes used for female reproduction (XX). And yes you're virtually right, the existence inside the womb is going to be fairly consistent- but there are thousands of other factor that affect sperm and egg production/secretion/fertilization! Everything from diet to rate of meiosis of sex cells.... The fundamental changes to DNA come during replication, namely in the Pro phase and meta phase stages (as the DNA is tangled up so nucleotide chains risk exchanging bases- thus causing mutation)




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.


.... But there are may different genes for evry protein... say the gene CGCACT codes for protein 1 then the gene GCTASC may also code for the same protein... this is a mutation but it will not be "Detected" as the protein is still in production. A drastic change may result in a completely new protein code... this may be detected but it may not be stopped... unless of course cancer is some kind of conspiracy (sarcasm BTW)

Scientific Fact No. 6- looks on wikipedia... it'll tidy up the definition of Thermodynamics second law... its simpler to presume that we simply aren't fully organised yet.

Scientific Fact No. 7- I draw your attention to corn, tigons and ligers, the mule

I would go on... but word limits are rather annoying (although necessary)



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 07:53 AM
link   
you said : 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.
you do relize how slow radio waves travel?
in the early 1900 hundreds we sent out a radio message containing a picture of a human among a few other things and its expected to reach another galaxy thousands of years from now?

you also said that humans could not have evolved from apes,
no one ever said they did we evolved from a completely diffrent animal but the apes evolved from the same animal there our ''cousins'' its like there was a fork in the road they went one way we went another.



posted on Mar, 17 2007 @ 07:20 PM
link   
I never cease to be amazed at how in threads such as this, people seek to make adaptation and evolution the same thing. It must be because adaptation is easily observable and provable, and therefore a good wagon to hitch evolution to. There is an enormous difference however. We know that every organism has a vast amount of DNA information that goes unused in any given generation, and this to me seems an obvious explanation for the great adaptability that all species show. The idea that all life comes from a common ancestor however, is a completely different proposition, and one that requires much more than simple adaptability within a species.



posted on Mar, 18 2007 @ 10:15 AM
link   
On ATS we seek to deny ignorance. It is very sad to see so many people with little understanding of such an interesting subject. Science is not evil and everyone should, at the very least, understand critical thinking and the scientific method.

Evolution, at it's very heart, is a solid explanation of life as we know it. In a nutshell, it was proposed that two mechanisms are responsible for the wide variety of life here on Earth: Natural selection, and Genetic drift.

In Genetic drift, much of the research has been done on how species respond to single mutations, the random changes in single nucleotides on the DNA chain. Heck, we know that even something as simple as sunlight can affect DNA. Other work has focused on Recombination, the process that occurs in sexual selection when the genetic sequences of parents are recombined. When your parents swapped genetic information, something new and different was formed.

Natural selection, describes how these different genetic combinations work towards propagating those with a given advantage. The Antelope that was born with the ability to run faster will get away from the Cheetah, and thus give rise to faster offspring.

Not that dificult to follow.

There is an additional factor in evolution that is little understood by many, and that is Horizontal evolution. In Vertical evolution, advantageous genetic traits are passed up the genetic tree to offspring. In Horizontal evolution, genetic material is passed between species, or across the branches, so to speak. Horizontal gene transfer (HGT) is a cross-species form of genetic transfer. It occurs when the DNA from one species is introduced into another. The idea was dismissed when first proposed more than 50 years ago. Advances in Molecular Biology and a better understanding of Genetics has given us new tools of understanding. For example, the advent of drug-resistant bacteria and other discoveries, including the identification of a specialized protein that bacteria use to swap genes, has recently led to wide acceptance of the HGT theory. The evidence for HGT is now clear and mounting. We can even thank HGT for a great deal of our immune system.


Published in Physical Review Letters:
"We know that the majority of the DNA in the genomes of some animal and plant species - including humans, mice, wheat and corn - came from HGT insertions. For example, we can trace the development of the adaptive immune system in humans and other jointed vertebrates to an HGT insertion about 400 million years ago. Life clearly evolved to store genetic information in a modular form, and to accept useful modules of genetic information from other species."


Genetic signatures can be traced back to far earlier origins. New species arise over time. A great deal of time. Some ask why there are no transitional species, those which are "half way" evolved to a new species. They seek to find the kangaroo that is evolving wings so it can jump farther, or a squirrel with half a wing. That simply shows a sad lack of understanding of the subject. All species are in the process of evolution, even man. If one actually takes the time to look closely, there is clear evidence of transitional species both in fossil records and other species alive and well, living today.

The problem lies in that far too many simply don't understand basic science and then fail to make the logical conclusions. In some cases there are those who even deny what is in front of them. Remember, it was the same people who threw Galileo in jail as a heretic simply for stating that the Earth revolved around the Sun and not the other way around. Denial of reality based on religious dogma.

Happily though, even the Vatican has embraced the findings of evolutionary scientists and there is no need for there to be any argument between the two. Evolution does not disprove the existence of God, it is simply an explanation of how life works.


[edit on 18-3-2007 by Terapin]

[edit on 18-3-2007 by Terapin]

[edit on 18-3-2007 by Terapin]



posted on Mar, 19 2007 @ 10:52 PM
link   
I still have questions that need to be answered.

1. Where's all the missing link fossils?
2. Where did all the energy, molecules, micromolecules, and what not come from?
3. Why can't we see humans evolve into a new species today?
4. Why does HIV exist?
5. How does one mutate something that can't be mutated because it doesn't exist?
6. How does a fetus's heart start to beat when the cells contained in the original zygote, haven't even developed yet?
7. If Intelligent Design is so easy to disprove, then why can't people teach it in schools?
8. When does a species reach a stage in evolution where the offspring is a new species?
9. When was the beggining of time? (By any point of view, there is no beginning of time!)
10. Why can't humans comprehend the beginning of time, which in fact is infinite, and never started, nor will it ever end? (Think about that one long and hard folks)
11. Assuming most Big Bang and Evolutionists believe there is no afterlife, (which of course, not all do) then why are you wasting your quickly diminishing seconds of life arguing about things that don't matter in the long run because eventually, we will all die and in a few thousand more years of the evolutionary process, your life will be nothing more than a spec of dust in the eternal universe.

Just questions that I think IDers and Evolutionists MUST ask themselves. This IS a non ignorance forum, and that is what these questions strive for.

Just wondering.



posted on Mar, 20 2007 @ 05:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by supajumpman
I still have questions that need to be answered.

Still? But you just joined.


1. Where's all the missing link fossils?

If evolution occurs through small mutations with each generation there would be no missing link. It would be gradual.

2. Where did all the energy, molecules, micromolecules, and what not come from?

Wrong forum.

3. Why can't we see humans evolve into a new species today?

We can.. Einstein had three times more synapses than a regular person. If any of his ancestors inherit that trait it would be an evolutionary mutation. It's unfortunate that we can't study his parents' brains [he donated his to science].

4. Why does HIV exist?

To teach the young kids that sharing needles and unprotected sex are bad? What does this have to do with evolution? It's a disease. Does the common cold have a devine destiny too? :shk:

5. How does one mutate something that can't be mutated because it doesn't exist?

What?

6. How does a fetus's heart start to beat when the cells contained in the original zygote, haven't even developed yet?

Because the fetus develops from the zygote. It's encoded in the dna.

7. If Intelligent Design is so easy to disprove, then why can't people teach it in schools?

Because it hasn't been proven and is not a scientific theory. The 'concept' is based on religious belief.

8. When does a species reach a stage in evolution where the offspring is a new species?

Which species? There are examples of insects and birds evolving [lots of generations in a short time].

9. When was the beggining of time?

In this universe.. the big bang. What does this have to do with evolution?

(By any point of view, there is no beginning of time!)

So why ask the question then?

10. Why can't humans comprehend the beginning of time,

We weren't there.

which in fact is infinite, and never started, nor will it ever end? (Think about that one long and hard folks)

The existence of time is dependent on the existence of space.. it expanded with the big bang. E=mc2.. research it.

11. Assuming most Big Bang and Evolutionists

The big bang has nothing to do with evolution theory. It is NA.

believe there is no afterlife, (which of course, not all do) then why are you wasting your quickly diminishing seconds of life arguing about things that don't matter in the long run because eventually, we will all die and in a few thousand more years of the evolutionary process, your life will be nothing more than a spec of dust in the eternal universe.

So?

Just questions that I think IDers and Evolutionists MUST ask themselves. This IS a non ignorance forum, and that is what these questions strive for.

Yet you don't know the difference between evolution and the big bang..?


[edit on 20-3-2007 by riley]



new topics

top topics



 
96
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join