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: 16
96
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Ja, ja, that's why Darwin is mentioned in a banned book list from the nazi party...


So I assume you have read the "Origin of the Species"

In it Darwin himself said that if these links are not found then evolution falls on its butt.

I think that adaptation explains much but there are those that say that is evolution at work. whatever, I think evolution as we all know of it, is a religion itself.




posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 06:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger

So I assume you have read the "Origin of the Species"

In it Darwin himself said that if these links are not found then evolution falls on its butt.


and we've found them, hundreds of thousands of them. darwin never said we had to find ALL of them. it would actually be absurd to say we need to find every single species that ever existed between one form and another... because that's just ridiculous when you think of how many bones fossilize... it's not very many.




whatever, I think evolution as we all know of it, is a religion itself.


yet it acts nothing like religion. it doesn't have a dogma, doctrine, or any aversion to questions being asked....
see, you're being blinded by your religion here. evolution is SCIENCE. it will never be anything more than SCIENCE.



posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 07:48 AM
link   
What did Darwin say?




What did Darwin say about the "origin of life"? There is not a sentence anywhere in any of the six editions of The Origin of Species in which he advanced a "theory" concerning the origin of life, as distinguished from the origin of species.-3 Nowhere did Darwin take up the question of whether his conception of natural selection may extend also into the realm of the inorganic, or the transition from the inorganic to the organic. Once only did he approach the question: on page 484 of the last chapter of the first edition, we find, '. . . probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed". In the second and succeeding editions he finished the last sentence of his book by saying that "life ... having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one . ."4


NOTE: I added the Bold

Darwinism & Contemporary Thought A Review



posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 04:08 PM
link   
edsinger, you just show that darwin was alive at a time before chemical biology had really taken off. he also had no idea what DNA was, is that an argument against DNA?

copernicus thought that the orbits of celestial bodies around the sun was circular, but we know it's eliptical.

you're trying to squeeze out the argument from authority here, but it never works. it's considered a logical fallacy for a reason.



posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by GeneralT.
Evolution was a religion for Hitler along with the occult.


Ja, ja, that's why Darwin is mentioned in a banned book list from the nazi party...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 12-7-2007 by melatonin]


Probably because he feared it might be written by a jew

The guy was a huge proponent of survival of the fittest, which
is the foundation of Evolutionary Theory.



posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 05:15 PM
link   
'survival of the fittest' was coined by Herbert Spencer, who was more an advocate of Lamarckism than Darwinism. He was also a major mover in the social darwinism movement, however, he was involved in such ideas before Darwin's work was published.

Although he did create the term after reading Darwin's work.



posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
edsinger, you just show that darwin was alive at a time before chemical biology had really taken off.


Not at all, just that even he recognized a Creator.......

I was reading about the nervous system and the method of a impulse being transmitted, I had no idea that it was an electrical>mechanical>electrical process and the locks and keys involved in milliseconds even....


Yeah that is by evolution alright,


reading somewhere a quote from some Nobel Laureate that said that evolution could not be right as eternity was to long for things to develop from mutations....



posted on Jul, 14 2007 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
reading somewhere a quote from some Nobel Laureate that said that evolution could not be right as eternity was to long for things to develop from mutations....


AGAIN with the logical fallacy of the argument from authority.
you can't support an argument by saying "this expert said it"
you must put your own logic and science using the available evidence.



posted on Jul, 14 2007 @ 10:39 AM
link   
Look I am just repeating what I read, these people are a heck of a lot smarter than I am so I tend to listen to what they say.

You are the one that keeps "alleging that the Christians are religious nuts that do not understand science" by pointing out the fact that some pH D's and not only that, but MIT pH D's even, believe in Creation and not Evolution it does support my argument.



posted on Jul, 14 2007 @ 12:08 PM
link   
I don't believe I am saying this but I support the Islamic position on this. AMAZING!




The notion of intelligent design (ID), which suggests some cellular structures are too complex to have evolved naturally, is a case in point. In the United States in December 2005, a judge echoed most experts in calling it "a religious view, not a scientific theory" and blocked attempts to add it to a Pennsylvania school's syllabus.

Huseyin Celik, Turkey's Education minister, publicly supports it. evolutionary theory overlaps with atheism, intelligent design with belief," former university lecturer said on Turkish television last November.


Turkish scientists confront creationists' theory


I mean this is an eye-opener for me


Tensions are rising in Turkey's schools and universities as academics and scientists confront the growing influence of Islamic creationists



posted on Jul, 15 2007 @ 05:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
Look I am just repeating what I read, these people are a heck of a lot smarter than I am so I tend to listen to what they say.


it's STILL a logical fallacy.



You are the one that keeps "alleging that the Christians are religious nuts that do not understand science" by pointing out the fact that some pH D's and not only that, but MIT pH D's even, believe in Creation and not Evolution it does support my argument.


no, i have no problem with christians. in fact, my best friend is a christian. i do have a problem with creationism. creationism isn't an inherent part of christianity, seeing as the majority of christians don't actually believe in it.

now, what does the MIT ph D have a doctorate in? is it some sort of biology? again, just because someone has a diploma doesn't mean they're qualified to answer a question on any issue.

creationism is a religious issue, it has NOTHING to do with science. there is one geologist, his name escapes me and the document containing his story is currently somewhere in the atlantic ocean in transit to my new home, who also believes in creationism. he believes the world is 6-10k years old. he believes that everything was created in 6 days... and even richard dawkins has stated that he's a brilliant geologist...
the tragic thing is that he believes what he believes IN SPITE OF THE EVIDENCE. he said something along the lines of "it would be clear to any non-christian scientist that the earth is billions of years old, but i trust the word of god"
even the creationist scientist there agrees that the EVIDENCE shows us that he is wrong.

and ed, would we have to teach islamic creationism alongside yours? what about FSM creationism, norse creationism, hindu creationism (they're actually closest on timescales, they put the universe at an age in the billions... even though they're still off by a few billion), last thursdayist creationism, shinto creationism, scientology creationism, etc?

[edit on 7/15/07 by madnessinmysoul]



posted on Jul, 16 2007 @ 04:20 PM
link   
No just that Evolution is still a theory and one that has many holes in it to boot. We could teach another possibility in that a Creator exists and created the universe so that people can believe in something that science can not answer. Remember Evolution along with creationism and Intelligent design are all theories, what makes yours correct and mine wrong?


BTW, is was a Biological PHD if I am not mistaken.

Plus at least some don't agree with the secularists


Creationism to get place in Wisconsin classes!

[edit on 16-7-2007 by edsinger]



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
No just that Evolution is still a theory


so is cellular biology.



and one that has many holes in it to boot.


name one.



We could teach another possibility in that a Creator exists and created the universe so that people can believe in something that science can not answer.


then teach it in... a church. it's called religion, keep it where it belongs.



Remember Evolution along with creationism and Intelligent design are all theories, what makes yours correct and mine wrong?


um, evolution is science, one isn't, and the other is just a trojan horse name for creationism.
creationism isn't a theory, it's actually a hypothesis as it has no supporting evidence and comes to a conclusion before gathering evidence.
and ID is creationism



BTW, is was a Biological PHD if I am not mistaken.

Plus at least some don't agree with the secularists
Creationism to get place in Wisconsin classes!


it's sad to see americans disagreeing with their founders...
and again, it doesn't matter if 100% of people believe something, it doesn't make it true.



posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 05:42 PM
link   
Well, there are scientific answers to the questions posted. There is just a lack of understanding which is leading you to believe these questions don't have answers.
For example, did you know a number of missing links in various species have been found and identified?

Evolution is a fact supported by an incredible amount of evidence. Sorry but true.



posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
No just that Evolution is still a theory


So is Gravity, jump off the EMpire State Building.
So are Atoms, call Japan and tell them it was God's wrath not Atmoic Bombs that wiped two cities off the Earth
So is the Earth being round, teach that it is flat in schools
So is the FACT we're alive. Can you prove we're alive? That we exist? What? You're there? Well things fall, things evolve, but that isn't enough proof to make Gravity or Evolution a fact.



posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 07:00 PM
link   
Originally posted by edsinger

No just that Evolution is still a theory


you're implying that because the word theory is used, evolution hasn't been proven. Anyone that says this obviously does not understand the definition of a scientific theory.

A brief definition of THEORY:
The most logical explanation of why things work the way they do. A theory is a former hypothesis that has been tested with repeated experiments and observations and found always to work.

A THEORY is the highest form of scientific acknowledgement.



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by edsinger

No just that Evolution is still a theory


you're implying that because the word theory is used, evolution hasn't been proven. Anyone that says this obviously does not understand the definition of a scientific theory.

A brief definition of THEORY:
The most logical explanation of why things work the way they do. A theory is a former hypothesis that has been tested with repeated experiments and observations and found always to work.

A THEORY is the highest form of scientific acknowledgement.



As I said, Gravity is Just A Theory yet how many Christians are willing to jump off the Empire State Building? None because they have, ahem, faith in Gravity.

So really Ed and Saint and all you other "Bible says selling your daughter into sex slavery is a good thing so it must be true!!!!!!!!" need to shut the hell up or jump off the Empire State Building, and live, without a parachute or other device to break your fall.



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 03:37 PM
link   
Scientific Fact No. 10 - Radio Silence from Space Proves Evolution is Wrong

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.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am sorry, but this is the most closed minded thing I have ever read.Take in this: Let's say you have a short-wave radio.Now you take it outside and try to watch a channel from Dish Network on your radio.Not gonna work too well. And if there was a signal,we may have "missed" they're use of radio signals as obsolete as ours.There is a few hundred or thousand years difference as you know. They may now be sending signals that we may not understand for a long time now. So don't dismiss this just because you haven't heard a signal.



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 03:44 PM
link   
Yes nero and know why that might be that we havent found anything yet?

Its because transmissions coming from inhabited planets might take millions of years to arrive here first, and then we have to be able to decipher them as well.

edit: and why radio waves? what if their using some other source not known to us


[edit on 26-7-2007 by Fett Pinkus]



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 04:07 PM
link   
In all the time that "evolution" has had, till now,(of written history) you would logically think that at least one lizard would have sprouted feathers.

Or maybe a monkey would become human.(without Dr. Frankenstien.

However evolutionists always say ,"It takes so long that you can't see it" What are they waiting for?







 
96
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join