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.


Top Ten Scientific Facts : Evolution is False and Impossible.

page: 14
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 27 2007 @ 10:30 PM
this is to superjumpman. answer to number one. there are a few intermediate fossils, but just because there arent millions of them doesnt mean they arent there. we just havent discoverd them all yet doesent mean they dont exist.
if you want me to try to answer your other questions, send me a u2u after you have made 20 posts. i will do my best to answer them to the best of my ability

posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 07:38 PM
I have been gone from this thread a while....

I have just finished "A Case for the Creator" and it really approaches this subject really well....

The Case for a Creator: A Journalist Investigates Scientific Evidence That Points Toward God

Of all the chapters I enjoyed the most, Jonathan Wells' chapter on the icons of evolution was the best. Wells' evidence is simply too strong to be ignored and illustrates how dishonest and shrewd the academic community is in dissemenating false evidence. From the Miller-Urey experiement to Haeckel's drawing of various embryos, Wells' marshals too much evidence to show that the scientific community is being dishonest when in the evidence it produces in favor of evolution. Another chapter of particular interest is William Lane Craig's arguments that cosmology and astronomy point to a Creator. Relying on the Kalam cosmological argument Craig convincingly argues that everything that began to exist has a cause and since the universe is not eternal but began at the big bang, then the universe must have a creator. Then, Craig proceeds to show why every rival to the big bang is inadequate or doesn't fit the observed evidence. Particularly interesting is his critique of Hawking's model in which Hawking substitutes imaginary numbers into his equation to end up with an eternal universe. The problem with this model is that it assumes there is such a thing as imaginary time which is somewhat contradictory. Furthermore, a majority of the scientific community rejects Hawking's imaginary time approach. Regardless of Hawking's stature within the scientific community, a model that relies on imaginary time and unobservable phenomena is not scientific. If it comes down to choosing between an eternal universe and an eternal God, I will choose an eternal God.

I thought this review was very well put, much better than I can can do. The explanation of the Big Bang and its relevance to the subject was eye-opening to say the least.

Another subject of appeal to me was the 'irreducible complexity', which I have all along used in my talks with folks on evolution.

It tells of a flagellum on a bacteria that is similar to a motor that rotates at 10000 rpm and can stop and reverse direction almost immediately. Man can not even come close to this.

DNA was another and the formation of the proteins needed.

NO matter your feelings on this, its a good book and the scientists are stating to change their minds because, only a Creator makes sense.

Call it Intelligent design or whatever, but this makes sense.

Great book on the subject.

posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 04:04 AM

Originally posted by edsinger
Another subject of appeal to me was the 'irreducible complexity', which I have all along used in my talks with folks on evolution.

It tells of a flagellum on a bacteria that is similar to a motor that rotates at 10000 rpm and can stop and reverse direction almost immediately. Man can not even come close to this.

And that is proof of a god? Give me a break.

The flagella is not "irr. complex" Evolution of the flagella

posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 05:57 AM
edsinger, strobel hasn't been able to put up one argument that a decent evolutionary biologist can't smack down.

i'd call for a dawkins/strobel debate on the issue, but it really doesn't solve anything to make a confrontational debate in this situation. there isn't an actual conflict on evolution within the scientific community, so we'd be creating a false representation. that, and i think it's better when we talk about the evidence instead of argue against each other. the evidence shows that evolution is right.

and flagella have come up and been found to not be irr. complex in other discussions on O&C

posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 10:25 AM

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul the evidence shows that evolution is right.

And this is incorrect, it might be the opinion of the majority of scientists but many when confronted with the actual evidence seriously began to ask about design, it is not by chance at all.

Have you actually read the book? It is not the author, it is the PH D's he is interviewing that make the case using the very science that evolutionists use.

Has evolution came up with an explanation of the Cambrian explosion yet?

posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 10:43 AM

Originally posted by edsinger
And this is incorrect, it might be the opinion of the majority of scientists but many when confronted with the actual evidence seriously began to ask about design, it is not by chance at all.

Ha! Creationist propaganda, just as weak as the moon dust argument or the mountain top fossils argument.

No Evolutionnist has problems disproving the stuff written by Creationnists, contrary to what creationnists want you to believe (as they want you to think evolution is not widely accepted, while it perfectly is)

posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 11:02 AM
There may be a mechanism of communication that is not yet understood in the scientific community. Whether this mechanism lies in the realm of the supernatural or natural, is anyone's guess, and is at the heart of this discussion.

Pasted below is some thoughts I had in another CT vs. Evolution thread.

Something that crosses my mind from time to time is fruit.

I ponder how in the world could trees have evolved, to produce fruit with seeds, to be eaten by a critter, then deficated later, to seed and grow. How on earth could a tree even comprehend that:

1. The critters have a digestive system, and If they were to eat the fruit, that the seeds would eventually come out later.

2. The seeds they produce in the fruit, wouldn't be digested. Would be resistant to the critters digestive acids.

3. The critters would eat the fruit period.

4. That there are even critters around.

These are simple rough ideas, but I don't have the time to really put much coherent thought into it.

I guess I understand evolution as being a causal/effect system. But with regards to fruit and seeds; how does the tree's genetics or whatever, recieve the effectual information needed to evolve?

Something to ponder I guess. I don't subscribe to either scenario fully.

-and another thing. I'm not an arborist so I don't know what tree's produce the 'whirly birds', but do you know what I'm talking about? The single wing tree seeds that fall and spin like a rotor? How does a tree understand lift? When the first seed dropped straight to the floor but couldnt get enough light to grow because it was too close to mom, how did the tree know that the little tree didn't grow? How could the tree hold the concept that it's seeds had to travel a distance away from mom? Crazy stuff really.

posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 11:10 AM

Originally posted by nextguyinline

-and another thing. I'm not an arborist so I don't know what tree's produce the 'whirly birds', but do you know what I'm talking about? The single wing tree seeds that fall and spin like a rotor? How does a tree understand lift? When the first seed dropped straight to the floor but couldnt get enough light to grow because it was too close to mom, how did the tree know that the little tree didn't grow? How could the tree hold the concept that it's seeds had to travel a distance away from mom? Crazy stuff really.

Interesting thoughts indeed.....hmmm must be some design in there somewhere.

Darwin himself even said that when the missing fossil record was found he would be vindicated, and yet it still has not been found, and according to Darwin himself, then his theory fails.

posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 11:44 AM
There is no doubt science is only as good as the research that goes into it and for me at least the science is so far better than a "god" did it....

For example, if a god, especially the perfect one so often claimed by most of the fervent bible thumpers was behind it all how come the god does crappy work at best - to wit:

1. Unstable planet - Earth is geologically unstable and subject to wild temperature swings (warm periods/ice ages) and volcanism that often leads to wiping out the handiwork..??

2. Sun will go Red Giant in ~4.5 billion years, taking the Earth and all the handiwork with it..??

3. Galaxy will collide with M31 (Andromeda) kinda causing a mess of things..??

4. Gave the Earth and solar system with a cosmic pinball quality - comets and things tend to run into the handiwork..??

And those are just the biggies....

Believe what you want about evolution, but to throw down and worship that kind of craftsmanship is beyond crazy - it's just plain and simple brainwashing and without any critical thought.... Heck - I want a refund for the shoddy work or at least be able to file a warranty claim against the entity/god/alien. Anyone have that number or address..??

posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 12:02 PM
You GO ED!!!

Facts are facts, and truth is truth. The flood of Noah's day, which is retold in over 270 cultures and societies, explains the dissappearance of so many KINDS of animals. Everything that evolutionist claim requires a BELIEF to believe it. Doesn't belief fall into the realm of Religion and not science? I have yet to see an example of Evolution, unless they are claiming evolution has stopped now? Why are so many so called extinct KINDS being found all the time? I love the discussion on the motor on the bacteria. The trylobite is a good discussion too. The world's most advanced eye ever made was on the first of the creatures? Why do some planets and moons spin backwards? And a host of other questions the Religion of Evolution can't answer without "FAITH".

posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 12:32 PM

Originally posted by UofCinLA
1. Unstable planet - Earth is geologically unstable and subject to wild temperature swings (warm periods/ice ages) and volcanism that often leads to wiping out the handiwork..??

I believe this is a good thing, its makes the planet change and in some respects allows life to exist.

Originally posted by UofCinLA
2. Sun will go Red Giant in ~4.5 billion years, taking the Earth and all the handiwork with it..??

Well even if evolution was real, then the few millions of years for an ape to 'evolve' into a human with the brains to do what he has done in 10000 or so years makes the 'billions' of years out not even a scary thought. We should be able to move in 10000 more years or so.

Originally posted by UofCinLA
3. Galaxy will collide with M31 (Andromeda) kinda causing a mess of things..??

Well since the red giant will swallow the earth by that time it is not a big worry of mine.

Originally posted by UofCinLA4. Gave the Earth and solar system with a cosmic pinball quality - comets and things tend to run into the handiwork..??

Yeah and a super Gamma burst would probably wipe us out also, just as a solar glitch could also.

Its Creation, it had a beginning and therefore it had a creator...

posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 02:15 PM

Originally posted by edsinger
Its Creation, it had a beginning and therefore it had a creator...

Yeah - like I said, a crappy one.... I'm still trying to find the warranty hotline number - do you have it handy..??

We do have pretty good evidence all around us that evolution and selection does actually occur. Those blind, pigment lacking fishes that have evolved in the cave pools. We've seen a bit of a bump in dog species since we started to walk upright and given some more time, I suspect that some will diverge far enough apart to no longer be able to breed with each other. There are many others....

Yes there are gaps in our understanding - heck science has only flourished in the last 1000 years and we have to go digging in the dirt for fossils to glean information so there are bound to be holes and we are at odds with the crappy earth constantly recycling everything. The evolutionary "jumps" and gaps may get filled as more things are discovered. A big part of science is being open to examining those new discoveries and not just leaping to a never changing conclusion. We observe, test and repeat and try to connect the dots. Faith and beliefs have no part in the process - can you test or measure a faith..?? Well, the inquisition(s) tried but I think even the thumpers have come around on that one by now and can see the flaws in those attempts....

Sure it sucks to have to come to grips with our own insignificance as humans in the big picture. To prop that up with faith and beliefs, while helpful, do not change the fact that we have no clue what we are doing here and the more we observe, the more we see just how insignificant we really are. We live at natures whim, we have no control and at the most basic level we eat, sleep, eliminate wastes and reproduce - just like every other living thing on this dirt ball. We are no better or different....

posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 09:20 AM
Well... Here you go!

But here is some facts on Evolution..

Also, the counter argument, Intelligent Design, is based on nothing but the Bible.
Here some stuff on that.

..has catalogued many traits produced by point mutations (changes at precise positions in an organism's DNA)--bacterial resistance to antibiotics, for example.

Mutations that arise in the homeobox (Hox) family of development-regulating genes in animals can also have complex effects. Hox genes direct where legs, wings, antennae and body segments should grow. In fruit flies, for instance, the mutation called Antennapedia causes legs to sprout where antennae should grow. These abnormal limbs are not functional, but their existence demonstrates that genetic mistakes can produce complex structures, which natural selection can then test for possible uses.

Moreover, molecular biology has discovered mechanisms for genetic change that go beyond point mutations, and these expand the ways in which new traits can appear. Functional modules within genes can be spliced together in novel ways. Whole genes can be accidentally duplicated in an organism's DNA, and the duplicates are free to mutate into genes for new, complex features. Comparisons of the DNA from a wide variety of organisms indicate that this is how the globin family of blood proteins evolved over millions of years.

11. Natural selection might explain microevolution, but it cannot explain the origin of new species and higher orders of life.

Evolutionary biologists have written extensively about how natural selection could produce new species. For instance, in the model called allopatry, developed by Ernst Mayr of Harvard University, if a population of organisms were isolated from the rest of its species by geographical boundaries, it might be subjected to different selective pressures. Changes would accumulate in the isolated population. If those changes became so significant that the splinter group could not or routinely would not breed with the original stock, then the splinter group would be reproductively isolated and on its way toward becoming a new species.

Natural selection is the best studied of the evolutionary mechanisms, but biologists are open to other possibilities as well. Biologists are constantly assessing the potential of unusual genetic mechanisms for causing speciation or for producing complex features in organisms. Lynn Margulis of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst and others have persuasively argued that some cellular organelles, such as the energy-generating mitochondria, evolved through the symbiotic merger of ancient organisms. Thus, science welcomes the possibility of evolution resulting from forces beyond natural selection. Yet those forces must be natural; they cannot be attributed to the actions of mysterious creative intelligences whose existence, in scientific terms, is unproved.

posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 09:21 AM
Nevertheless, the scientific literature does contain reports of apparent speciation events in plants, insects and worms. In most of these experiments, researchers subjected organisms to various types of selection--for anatomical differences, mating behaviors, habitat preferences and other traits--and found that they had created populations of organisms that did not breed with outsiders. For example, William R. Rice of the University of New Mexico and George W. Salt of the University of California at Davis demonstrated that if they sorted a group of fruit flies by their preference for certain environments and bred those flies separately over 35 generations, the resulting flies would refuse to breed with those from a very different environment.

13. Evolutionists cannot point to any transitional fossils--creatures that are half reptile and half bird, for instance.

Actually, paleontologists know of many detailed examples of fossils intermediate in form between various taxonomic groups. One of the most famous fossils of all time is Archaeopteryx, which combines feathers and skeletal structures peculiar to birds with features of dinosaurs. A flock's worth of other feathered fossil species, some more avian and some less, has also been found. A sequence of fossils spans the evolution of modern horses from the tiny Eohippus. Whales had four-legged ancestors that walked on land, and creatures known as Ambulocetus and Rodhocetus helped to make that transition [see "The Mammals That Conquered the Seas, " by Kate Wong; Scientific American, May]. Fossil seashells trace the evolution of various mollusks through millions of years. Perhaps 20 or more hominids (not all of them our ancestors) fill the gap between Lucy the australopithecine and modern humans.

Creationists, though, dismiss these fossil studies. They argue that Archaeopteryx is not a missing link between reptiles and birds--it is just an extinct bird with reptilian features. They want evolutionists to produce a weird, chimeric monster that cannot be classified as belonging to any known group. Even if a creationist does accept a fossil as transitional between two species, he or she may then insist on seeing other fossils intermediate between it and the first two. These frustrating requests can proceed ad infinitum and place an unreasonable burden on the always incomplete fossil record.
Nevertheless, evolutionists can cite further supportive evidence from molecular biology. All organisms share most of the same genes, but as evolution predicts, the structures of these genes and their products diverge among species, in keeping with their evolutionary relationships. Geneticists speak of the "molecular clock" that records the passage of time. These molecular data also show how various organisms are transitional within evolution.
14. Living things have fantastically intricate features--at the anatomical, cellular and molecular levels--that could not function if they were any less complex or sophisticated. The only prudent conclusion is that they are the products of intelligent design, not evolution.
This "argument from design" is the backbone of most recent attacks on evolution, but it is also one of the oldest. In 1802 theologian William Paley wrote that if one finds a pocket watch in a field, the most reasonable conclusion is that someone dropped it, not that natural forces created it there. By analogy, Paley argued, the complex structures of living things must be the handiwork of direct, divine invention. Darwin wrote On the Origin of Species as an answer to Paley: he explained how natural forces of selection, acting on inherited features, could gradually shape the evolution of ornate organic structures.

posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 09:21 AM
Generations of creationists have tried to counter Darwin by citing the example of the eye as a structure that could not have evolved. The eye's ability to provide vision depends on the perfect arrangement of its parts, these critics say. Natural selection could thus never favor the transitional forms needed during the eye's evolution--what good is half an eye? Anticipating this criticism, Darwin suggested that even "incomplete" eyes might confer benefits (such as helping creatures orient toward light) and thereby survive for further evolutionary refinement. Biology has vindicated Darwin: researchers have identified primitive eyes and light-sensing organs throughout the animal kingdom and have even tracked the evolutionary history of eyes through comparative genetics. (It now appears that in various families of organisms, eyes have evolved independently.)

Today's intelligent-design advocates are more sophisticated than their predecessors, but their arguments and goals are not fundamentally different. They criticize evolution by trying to demonstrate that it could not account for life as we know it and then insist that the only tenable alternative is that life was designed by an unidentified intelligence.

15. Recent discoveries prove that even at the microscopic level, life has a quality of complexity that could not have come about through evolution.
"Irreducible complexity" is the battle cry of Michael J. Behe of Lehigh University, author of Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. As a household example of irreducible complexity, Behe chooses the mousetrap--a machine that could not function if any of its pieces were missing and whose pieces have no value except as parts of the whole. What is true of the mousetrap, he says, is even truer of the bacterial flagellum, a whiplike cellular organelle used for propulsion that operates like an outboard motor. The proteins that make up a flagellum are uncannily arranged into motor components, a universal joint and other structures like those that a human engineer might specify. The possibility that this intricate array could have arisen through evolutionary modification is virtually nil, Behe argues, and that bespeaks intelligent design. He makes similar points about the blood's clotting mechanism and other molecular systems.
Yet evolutionary biologists have answers to these objections. First, there exist flagellae with forms simpler than the one that Behe cites, so it is not necessary for all those components to be present for a flagellum to work. The sophisticated components of this flagellum all have precedents elsewhere in nature, as described by Kenneth R. Miller of Brown University and others. In fact, the entire flagellum assembly is extremely similar to an organelle that Yersinia pestis, the bubonic plague bacterium, uses to inject toxins into cells.
The key is that the flagellum's component structures, which Behe suggests have no value apart from their role in propulsion, can serve multiple functions that would have helped favor their evolution. The final evolution of the flagellum might then have involved only the novel recombination of sophisticated parts that initially evolved for other purposes. Similarly, the blood-clotting system seems to involve the modification and elaboration of proteins that were originally used in digestion, according to studies by Russell F. Doolittle of the University of California at San Diego. So some of the complexity that Behe calls proof of intelligent design is not irreducible at all.

posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 09:22 AM
Complexity of a different kind--"specified complexity"--is the cornerstone of the intelligent-design arguments of William A. Dembski of Baylor University in his books The Design Inference and No Free Lunch. Essentially his argument is that living things are complex in a way that undirected, random processes could never produce. The only logical conclusion, Dembski asserts, in an echo of Paley 200 years ago, is that some superhuman intelligence created and shaped life.

Dembski's argument contains several holes. It is wrong to insinuate that the field of explanations consists only of random processes or designing intelligences. Researchers into nonlinear systems and cellular automata at the Santa Fe Institute and elsewhere have demonstrated that simple, undirected processes can yield extraordinarily complex patterns. Some of the complexity seen in organisms may therefore emerge through natural phenomena that we as yet barely understand. But that is far different from saying that the complexity could not have arisen naturally.

"Creation science" is a contradiction in terms. A central tenet of modern science is methodological naturalism--it seeks to explain the universe purely in terms of observed or testable natural mechanisms. Thus, physics describes the atomic nucleus with specific concepts governing matter and energy, and it tests those descriptions experimentally. Physicists introduce new particles, such as quarks, to flesh out their theories only when data show that the previous descriptions cannot adequately explain observed phenomena. The new particles do not have arbitrary properties, moreover--their definitions are tightly constrained, because the new particles must fit within the existing framework of physics.
A broadcast version of this article will air June 26 on National Geographic Today, a program on the National Geographic Channel. Please check your local listings
In contrast, intelligent-design theorists invoke shadowy entities that conveniently have whatever unconstrained abilities are needed to solve the mystery at hand. Rather than expanding scientific inquiry, such answers shut it down. (How does one disprove the existence of omnipotent intelligences?)

Intelligent design offers few answers. For instance, when and how did a designing intelligence intervene in life's history? By creating the first DNA? The first cell? The first human? Was every species designed, or just a few early ones? Proponents of intelligent-design theory frequently decline to be pinned down on these points. They do not even make real attempts to reconcile their disparate ideas about intelligent design. Instead they pursue argument by exclusion--that is, they belittle evolutionary explanations as far-fetched or incomplete and then imply that only design-based alternatives remain.
Logically, this is misleading: even if one naturalistic explanation is flawed, it does not mean that all are. Moreover, it does not make one intelligent-design theory more reasonable than another. Listeners are essentially left to fill in the blanks for themselves, and some will undoubtedly do so by substituting their religious beliefs for scientific ideas.

Time and again, science has shown that methodological naturalism can push back ignorance, finding increasingly detailed and informative answers to mysteries that once seemed impenetrable: the nature of light, the causes of disease, how the brain works. Evolution is doing the same with the riddle of how the living world took shape. Creationism, by any name, adds nothing of intellectual value to the effort.

posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 09:23 AM
Also, we have evolved even today? 1000 years ago we would all be giants. Humans have gotten taller. 1, 000 years ago I'd be burnt at the stake for being a witch because I'm 5'11. basketball players would be killed enmass as children as they reach the average of 4'10 at the age of 5 or whatever before they became giants, like Goliath.

Also, humans have evolved to gain resistances to diseases that used to kill people.
Just some info on Transitional Species...

Also, if God is perfect then why do we have useless parts?
On Evolution(Including Humans) here is a list of Top Ten Useless Limbs and Organs.

Humans are 3 of the ten, with the top 1 and 2 on the list! So, why these useless things if God is perfect? Was he drunk or does he have a mental handicap?

Now I understand that Father McGrady just got done raping your son so he knows better then a scientist who has done studies and recreated evolution in labs...

[edit on 9-7-2007 by Lightstorm]

posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 10:46 AM
You're making extremely broad assumptions, edsinger. I didn't read every single reply you've made, but from the posts I did read, you're making statements like we have control over the changes that occur naturally. You're saying things are impossible to change. I've done a quick search and see absolutely nothing about you referring to mutations. You can't dismiss mutations, no matter how you look at it. This is a key part of the evolutionary theory.

Now let's take out everything that is even close to speculation. There is at least one thing that is impossible to dismiss: anything and everything, from the amount of limbs to the arrangement of amino acids in your DNA can be changed by mutations. Many of such mutations does not cause a organism to become sterile and can be passed onto offspring, some negative, but some positive. I'm starting to become curious if you're purposely avoiding the parts of evolution that can be, and are proven scientifically. Care to comment on this?

posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 12:48 PM
edsinger, just because we can't explain something YET doesn't mean we WON'T. that's how science works. you've created a god of the gaps.

Shot at 2007-07-09

posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 11:32 PM

Originally posted by Jamuhn
Ahhh...the power of Google...

Carbon-14 dating of carbon buried in the same layer with dragon bones helps to confirm that they are really only thousands of years old. The myth-ions and myth-ions of years never happened; only in the past 200 years has it become fashionable to forget our true ancient history (of thousands of years) in favor of God-hating (or: "bumbling-inherently-weak-god") evolution.

There ya go, they are disputing the reliability of dating methods, although, I'm not sure if a 2-second explanation is satisfactory.

[edit on 29-8-2005 by Jamuhn], bound to be a completely unbiased and informative source in the debate

Carbon-14 dating only works with materials that are at most 60,000 years old. That means it's rather nice for testing when those posts around Stonehenge were hammered in, but not much use if you want to know when that trilobite kicked the bucket.

In short, dating methods are at their most unreliable when you are using them incorrectly.

new topics

top topics

<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in