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: 17
96
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 28 2007 @ 06:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Clearskies
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.



no, evolution takes hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of years to do something like that. recorded history has been only a few thousand



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


that's just an idiotic myth. we didn't evolve from monkeys, we have a common ancestory with them.



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


there are no "evolutionists" there are people that understand SCIENCE. it doesn't take too long, you can see evolution happening all around you. you just don't notice it because we're talking geologic timescales, not human ones.




posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoulno, evolution takes hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of years to do something like that. recorded history has been only a few thousand


And yet there is no explanation via evolutionary theory to explain the suddenness of the Cambrian explosion.

Evolution is a religion whether the followers understand it as that or not. They claim it is science and yet even Darwin questioned it in Origin of the Species. The records he assumed would be found have not been, no matter what the evolutionists claim, they are still missing.

The explanations of evolution to explain the degree of even the simplest thing such as a cell, evolution can not explain..

For example: Cells require ATP (energy) to create proteins and amino acids, and yet you need these amino acids and proteins to manufacture ATP, what gives? Its DESIGNED to work that way, and life itself is Design.
That is not even getting into the detail of RNA and DNA, just how did that 'evolve'?

Believe what you wish, we all came from one celled creatures...whatever.

But the word creature is correct.



posted on Aug, 3 2007 @ 07:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
And yet there is no explanation via evolutionary theory to explain the suddenness of the Cambrian explosion.


yet. science is working on it. we admit we have no answer for the cambrian explosion yet... but we also don't have all the information pertaining to the event. we're working hard to understand it and eventually we probably will.



Evolution is a religion whether the followers understand it as that or not. They claim it is science and yet even Darwin questioned it in Origin of the Species. The records he assumed would be found have not been, no matter what the evolutionists claim, they are still missing.


um, darwin only questioned it as a rhetorical device. that, and because he knew nothing of the biology we know now. and again, we have found the records he said would be found, but not all of them because that's not how fossilization works



The explanations of evolution to explain the degree of even the simplest thing such as a cell, evolution can not explain..


um, the formation of the first cell is outside of the realm of evolutionary biology. you're looking for chemical abiogenesis, a branch of organic chemistry that overlaps with biology.



For example: Cells require ATP (energy) to create proteins and amino acids, and yet you need these amino acids and proteins to manufacture ATP, what gives? Its DESIGNED to work that way, and life itself is Design.
That is not even getting into the detail of RNA and DNA, just how did that 'evolve'?


again, that isn't evolution. evolution starts at the first living thing. you clearly misunderstand the theory and really have no place attacking it as false until you have a better understanding.



Believe what you wish, we all came from one celled creatures...whatever.

But the word creature is correct.


yes, i like believing in the stuff that can be proven with science.

here's a question for you. if everything was designed by a perfect intelligence why am i going to get prostate cancer if i live long enough?



posted on Aug, 3 2007 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
[
again, that isn't evolution. evolution starts at the first living thing. you clearly misunderstand the theory and really have no place attacking it as false until you have a better understanding.


here's a question for you. if everything was designed by a perfect intelligence why am i going to get prostate cancer if i live long enough?


Well to start, I think I understand the 'theory' well enough to know that the basis is that ALL life started by chance, with no inherent design to it. It was modified through slow changes and mutations that eventually became the many lifeforms we have today. My problem with it is, the further you dig the more you see inherent design, like I said above with ATP, its a chicken or egg showdown. The amazing complexity that even we in this modern age have yet begun to understand can not be explained away to chance in my opinion. Its the same no matter how far out in space in the universe we look nor how far inward to the Quantum level we look, its the same thing....design. That is not what Darwin claimed.

As for the fossil record showing what Darwin said it would, it does not. I just recently heard of some dinosaur finds in Madagascar in which the blood cells of a T-Rex were NOT fossilized? Think of the ramifications of that.

Evolution can not explain the complexity of the eye to me, nor the complexity of just how cellular biology works. Again the ATP that you have to have to make a cell work in the first place needs a cell to actually make it.

If one chooses to not believe in the God of the Bible that is their choice, no issues, but to believe that all of this that surrounds us is just the result of odds and chance really needs to be examined thoroughly.

Am I biased? Well of course I am, but I am also an engineer by training and I understand some of the underlying complexity of odds and such. there is just not enough time for all of this to have happened and the Cambrian explosion is a great example, as it directly contradicts what evolution predicts and it is verified through the fossil record that Darwinists use to present the theory in the first place.

As for the Cancer, Good Question. Why then does the almighty let bad things happen to good people? Read Job.

One thing I think we are beginning to understand as science understands further, ageing is a process that is not static by any means. Could humans have lived 300 years or more at one time? It very well could be the case.

The Bible says that at one point, God regretting creating man and that should be an eye opener to all.

If he would have created a perfect world then Satan would have never rebelled and we would not have free will.... I can not answer this but only to say that He wants us to believe freely and not by force. Therefore the love is real.



posted on Aug, 3 2007 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
the basis is that ALL life started by chance, with no inherent design to it..


The basis of the theory of evolution is that lifeforms evolve by mutations and the beneficial ones are passed on through natural selection. evolution does not and isn't aimed at explaining the origins of life itself.

However, while there is no design, it did not start only by chance. But also due to the inherent properties of organic molecules to bind together and such. If the conditions are right, life will appear. Just like if the conditions are right, a bolt of lightning will hit the ground.


the Cambrian explosion is a great example, as it directly contradicts what evolution predicts and it is verified through the fossil record that Darwinists use to present the theory in the first place.


So god appeared in the sky and made the cambrian explosion happen?



posted on Aug, 3 2007 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
And yet there is no explanation via evolutionary theory to explain the suddenness of the Cambrian explosion.


What suddenness? It was over periods of millions of years, some suggest 5-10 million years, others 50 million years. Not really such a short time frame.

Phyla were present before, many appeared during, more appeared after. Major diversifications of life happen at other times as well. There was likely some major enivironmental chnages happening during the cambrian that aided diversification (e.g., atmospheric, climate, etc etc), like later periods.


Originally posted by edsinger
Well to start, I think I understand the 'theory' well enough to know that the basis is that ALL life started by chance, with no inherent design to it.
....

but to believe that all of this that surrounds us is just the result of odds and chance really needs to be examined thoroughly.


Obviously not. Chemistry and physics are not chance. And neither is evolution. They are nondirected though, in the sky-fairy making purposeful stuff sense.

Thus, it is not chance that stars come to make heavier elements from Hydrogen and helium. It is not chance that these heavier elements come to form more complex compounds over time, etc etc.

But, I am not surprised to hear you're an engineer though, Ed...

[edit on 3-8-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Aug, 3 2007 @ 11:21 AM
link   
Design -- The fundamental factors in science, the constants are exact and for a reason, these have to be as they are for life to exist.

Now one thing said I can agree with, the situation has to be right for life to form.... AGREED. Yet, these conditions are so EXACT that in my mind chance has no basis. Life was Designed. That being said, whom is the designer? That is the kicker, just who or what created a universe with the exact conditions in where life could survive.

Is it a physical universe or a metaphysical one? Combo?


I am reading a book on quantum mechanics and it is just amazing how in its infancy, some of the worlds best scientists were stumped and slowly through the late 1800's and early 20th century, light bulbs went off. Einstein,Pauli, Bohr just to name a few all knew but couldn't explain it.

And now in the 21st Century, we still really don't know much about it once we get into the level below 'quarks' and such. Its all energy, we are energy.

As far as stars forming heavier elements, of course they do, I agree. But what is stumping the evolutionists is the fact that the Big Bang (now considered a given) is inherent that we now have something from nothing, hence creation.



posted on Aug, 3 2007 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
....

As far as stars forming heavier elements, of course they do, I agree. But what is stumping the evolutionists is the fact that the Big Bang (now considered a given) is inherent that we now have something from nothing, hence creation.


I think some people find solace in the idea that the fundamental constants underyling the universe and physics are derived from an Acme 'Physical-lawitometer', Not really my style though. Certainly doesn't suggest a personal god, but a deist 'set the dials and run'-stylee of deity.

But, Ed, I don't think the big-bang theory suggest something from nothing. But something from something that came before.



posted on Aug, 3 2007 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

But, Ed, I don't think the big-bang theory suggest something from nothing. But something from something that came before.


You are so entitled, but I disagree. The singularity, even Hawking concedes that all known laws of Physics be they classical or Quantum are off the table.

Pure energy.......then........"Let there be Light".



posted on Aug, 3 2007 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
You are so entitled, but I disagree. The singularity, even Hawking concedes that all known laws of Physics be they classical or Quantum are off the table.


And the singularity is what came before.

A phenomena we have difficulty in understanding sufficiently with classical physics. I wouldn't say all known laws of physics are off the table. What the issue is is that general relativity breaks down at the singularity - i.e. classical physics.

Other hypotheses are still untested and standing, i.e. brane theories, including the cyclic model.

What you seem to want to do is say "well you can't explain now, therefore god". Not the best argument, just falling to your default.

But even if we did have a good explanation, it would make little difference to your position, methinks. You have difficulty accepting the scientific explanation for the evolution of eyes, nevermind more speculative cosmological models



posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 07:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
Design -- The fundamental factors in science, the constants are exact and for a reason, these have to be as they are for life to exist.

Now one thing said I can agree with, the situation has to be right for life to form.... AGREED. Yet, these conditions are so EXACT that in my mind chance has no basis. Life was Designed. That being said, whom is the designer? That is the kicker, just who or what created a universe with the exact conditions in where life could survive.

Is it a physical universe or a metaphysical one? Combo?


Take this possibility into account :

Our universe was fine tuned and spawned in another universe by sentient life. It would thus be a creation but there would be nothing metaphysical, no god and no afterlife. Life on earth wouldn't be directly designed but would have appeared because the conditions were right in the first place.

That or the conditions just happened to be right, if not we wouldn't be here discussing it



posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 05:07 PM
link   
Consider this, what proof is there for that line of thought?

I am not going to convince anyone that "God" as in the Father of the Christ exists, nor do I expect to. I do however wonder why so many will believe anything they can that is opposite to that line of thought.

Intelligent Design or Creationism, they are very similar, but I must concede that if ID was recognized as truth, then Creationism would be the next step.

Multi verses? Nah......The one we have is not yet explained, so why imagine more?



posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
Consider this, what proof is there for that line of thought?

I am not going to convince anyone that "God" as in the Father of the Christ exists, nor do I expect to. I do however wonder why so many will believe anything they can that is opposite to that line of thought.


The same proof for your line of thought, none.


The idea of Aliens in another universe creating this universe is as tenable as some magical omnipotent interdimensional god dude creating the universe. In fact, compared to some versions of god dudes, I think the Alien idea is more tenable.

But, the idea that people fall to the opposite of your position shows a bit of hubris really, Ed. It seems to say there are two positions - The judeo-christian god dude and everything else. There are numerous other explanations that have just as much evidence (i.e. none).

Some are scientific, some are not.

[edit on 4-8-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 07:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
Well to start, I think I understand the 'theory' well enough to know that the basis is that ALL life started by chance, with no inherent design to it. It was modified through slow changes and mutations that eventually became the many lifeforms we have today. My problem with it is, the further you dig the more you see inherent design, like I said above with ATP, its a chicken or egg showdown.


again, you're asking for pre-life to be explained away by a theory that deals with everything that happened once life began.



The amazing complexity that even we in this modern age have yet begun to understand can not be explained away to chance in my opinion.


evolution isn't about chance. it's the nonrandom selection of random mutations.



Its the same no matter how far out in space in the universe we look nor how far inward to the Quantum level we look, its the same thing....design. That is not what Darwin claimed.


quantum... designed...
ok, let's put it this way, look at the thread about someone seeing jesus in the clouds. it's clearly just a bunch of clouds. we have a psychological predisposition to look for design in places where there is none.



As for the fossil record showing what Darwin said it would, it does not. I just recently heard of some dinosaur finds in Madagascar in which the blood cells of a T-Rex were NOT fossilized? Think of the ramifications of that.


um... can you provide evidence of this "find"?



Evolution can not explain the complexity of the eye to me, nor the complexity of just how cellular biology works.


oh really?
www.youtube.com...
and again, cellular biology deals with something that bridges the gap



Again the ATP that you have to have to make a cell work in the first place needs a cell to actually make it.


and evolution deals with everything that happened after the formation of the first cell, so your point is not within the scope of the argument



If one chooses to not believe in the God of the Bible that is their choice, no issues, but to believe that all of this that surrounds us is just the result of odds and chance really needs to be examined thoroughly.


not really, give life improbable odds and billions of years... if there was a 1/1 billion chance of something happeneing and you gave it 3 billion chances, it's bound to happen.



Am I biased? Well of course I am, but I am also an engineer by training and I understand some of the underlying complexity of odds and such.


but you don't understand the timescales we're dealing with.



there is just not enough time for all of this to have happened


...4.54ish billion years isn't enough?



and the Cambrian explosion is a great example, as it directly contradicts what evolution predicts and it is verified through the fossil record that Darwinists use to present the theory in the first place.


someone else dealt with this



As for the Cancer, Good Question. Why then does the almighty let bad things happen to good people? Read Job.


no, this is "why did the almighty design an organ that will develop cancer if allowed to function long enough?"



One thing I think we are beginning to understand as science understands further, ageing is a process that is not static by any means. Could humans have lived 300 years or more at one time? It very well could be the case.


...no, they couldn't have. humans seem to have a cap of around 150... in the very most ideal conditions.



The Bible says that at one point, God regretting creating man and that should be an eye opener to all.


and the bible also says that fathers can sell their children into slavery, that should be an eye opener to you



If he would have created a perfect world then Satan would have never rebelled and we would not have free will.... I can not answer this but only to say that He wants us to believe freely and not by force. Therefore the love is real.


your myths play no part into science.
there is no love from this being, it doesn't exist... and if it DOES exist it has no proof.

honestly, how can anyone believe in anything so narrow and close minded as an all-powerful being?



posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 09:54 AM
link   
Easily, those that do not have hardened hearts.


As for the Proof, it was on NOVA last week and I only caught a little of it. I hope to catch the rerun.


As for Time, no 5 Billion years is NOT enough. Considering that 'life' started at the 1 billion point. The chances of the Amino Acids forming in just the right chains to have life is VERY small. Please do not say that the amino acids are built to only go together in one way and that it was inevitable. I would like to again state that the irreducible complexity comes into play here, you get down so far and this complicated life form can become no simpler, yet it lives.



posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
As for the Proof, it was on NOVA last week and I only caught a little of it. I hope to catch the rerun.


...ok, for now we'll disregard it until you can elaborate further.



As for Time, no 5 Billion years is NOT enough. Considering that 'life' started at the 1 billion point. The chances of the Amino Acids forming in just the right chains to have life is VERY small. Please do not say that the amino acids are built to only go together in one way and that it was inevitable.


um, that's why it took 3.5ish billion years.



I would like to again state that the irreducible complexity comes into play here, you get down so far and this complicated life form can become no simpler, yet it lives.


you can't prove that a lifeform wouldn't be able to function as a simpler being simply by saying it wouldn't function without one of its modern adaptations. by your logic humans are irreducibly complex because we couldn't survive without lungs. the argument falls apart because life went from less to more complex, it's clear that modern complex life would seem to be irreudicbly complex because the adaptations are now needed for survival...
that might seem somewhat incoherent... i'm not exactly in a coherent mood.



posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul


Originally posted by edsinger
As for the Proof, it was on NOVA last week and I only caught a little of it. I hope to catch the rerun.


...ok, for now we'll disregard it until you can elaborate further.



OK here:






Preserved soft tissue, including possible blood vessels and red blood cells, are turning up in dinosaur fossils.

See what Mary Schweitzer's team found within the primordial remains of everything from a mammoth to a Triceratops.


T Rex Blood




LINK to watch it...



posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 11:51 AM
link   
ok, so we're witnessing a new phenomenon in preservation. let's see the dating on the blood and tissue. it still doesn't throw out the hundreds of thousands... probably millions... of fossils that have been dated as 65+ million years old.



posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
ok, so we're witnessing a new phenomenon in preservation. let's see the dating on the blood and tissue. it still doesn't throw out the hundreds of thousands... probably millions... of fossils that have been dated as 65+ million years old.


True but that does make you think doesn't it? Plus PBS is a secular programming network, so bias doesn't play into it...



posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 12:33 PM
link   
For those wondering, I will post a rather long portion but it should not be so long as to be deleted, its important to those following the thread.

'Irreducible Complexity'



The theory of Evolution was first widely popularised and given a plausible mechanism in Charles Darwin's 'Origin of Species' (1859). We can think of evolution as the mechanism by which all the different forms of life arose from non-living matter, by natural processes.

Over the past hundred and forty years, it has often been argued that evolution can explain the origins of life, including human life, without resorting to belief in a designer or creator. Thus the theory of evolution (which is supposedly a scientific theory capable of being proved or disproved by evidence) has often been co-opted as an argument against faith in God.

Michael Behe is professor of Biochemistry at Leigh University in the USA. His recent book, 'Darwin's Black Box' challenges received orthodoxy about evolution at the biochemical level. Behe uses 'black box' as a term for something that looks simple from the outside, but its inner workings - how it does what it does - are mysterious or unknown.

Behe says that in Darwin's day, the cell was a black box. The technology just did not exist then to answer questions about how life worked at the biochemical level.

He says that for more than a hundred years, the academic establishment has overwhelmingly accepted Darwin's proposal that life can be explained in terms of natural selection working on random variations, even though the basic mechanisms of life were a black box. However, in recent years, scientists have come to understand much more about how life works at the biochemical level, and the result is a challenge to Darwin's theory.

In the past, Behe says, scientists assumed that the biochemical basis of life was very simple. But the more they have discovered, the more complicated it proves to be. The result of discoveries in biochemistry since the 1950s is to show that life is based on complicated molecular machines. Behe says that for Darwin's theory of evolution to be true, it has to be able to account for the molecular structure of life - and the purpose of his book is to show that the theory can't do this.

Behe has identified a number of biochemical systems that he says are 'irreducibly complex'. An irreducibly complex system is one made of well matched interacting parts that all contribute to the basic function. Take any one of them away, and the whole system stops working. A mouse-trap is an example of an irreducibly complex system - if you take any single part away, the trap doesn't work, and the mouse escapes. Behe says that such irreducibly complex biochemical systems could not be formed by a series of small changes, because the intermediate systems wouldn't work.

In his book, Behe gives a number of examples worked out in detail, including the mechanism of blood clotting, cellular transport mechanisms, antibody defence against disease, and the cilium - a whip-like structure that some cells use to swim with.

How could such complex biochemical systems have been produced gradually? What are the intermediate stages by which they might have developed and how could they have moved from one stage to another? According to Behe, there are no answers. There is, he says, 'an eerie silence' in the scientific literature about how such biochemical machines developed. There are no academic papers showing how such complex biochemical systems could have evolved by a series of small random changes.

Behe's argument is that the existence of irreducibly complex systems is evidence for design in nature. The result of massive efforts by biochemists to investigate life at the molecular level is a loud, clear, piercing cry of 'design!' He goes on to say that the conclusion of intelligent design flows naturally from the data itself, and not from what he calls 'sacred books or sectarian beliefs.'

It is important to note that the argument from irreducible complexity is not the same as an argument that evolution does not happen. (Of course, Christians remain deeply divided between a literal 'Creationist' understanding of Genesis and a metaphorical 'theistic evolution' understanding.) Rather, this is an argument that whether or not evolution happens, intelligent design is needed to account for the way we are made. The irreducible complexity argument is an argument against the kind of un-directed, random evolution that has so often been used to rule out belief in a designer and creator.

It is also important to understand that, whereas the anthropic principle is widely recognised by cosmologists and physicists, the argument from irreducible complexity is largely the work of one man, and has not found wide acceptance by biologists and biochemists.


LINK


I think this should be taken seriously by those that follow evolution as fact. It has many holes in it, at least consider ID.


BTW I found "Darwin's Black Box" for $2.99, It is about 5th on my reading list now.....

[edit on 5-8-2007 by edsinger]







 
96
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join