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: 18
96
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 12:47 PM
link   
I'd keep it down at fifth. The last Harry Potter is worth a read, likely better than Behe's stuff


Much of the stuff in Behe's old book has been shown to wrong already. In fact, much of the stuff in his new book has been shown to be wrong.

IC structures can evolve. It was suggested to be a consequence of evolution back in the first half of the 20th century.




posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 12:49 PM
link   
Harry Potter is not on my list....

Right now , "How we got the Bible" , Next is "The Theory of Almost Everything"

After that ..."The Biblical Cannon".......



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 06:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
Harry Potter is not on my list....


all the better. what about the god delusion? the ancestor's tale? any of dawkins' works?



Right now , "How we got the Bible" , Next is "The Theory of Almost Everything"

After that ..."The Biblical Cannon".......


you really should look into... expanding... your reading a bit



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 07:23 AM
link   
if evolution isnt true, then how do insects develop resistances to pesticides?

i coulda swore it evolved

i guess God misled me maliciously by creating phyiscal evidence purposely to mislead me agianst his creationist truth to purposely put me in hell cuz he knew i was a logical thinker (((end sarcasm)))

ya nice try, no cookie



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 07:35 AM
link   
Nah my reading is just fine, keeps me busy, Harry Potter is nothing that interests me...


You will find odd that I do wait for Sitchens newest to hit paperback...



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
Nah my reading is just fine, keeps me busy, Harry Potter is nothing that interests me...


oh, potter isn't my deal either.. i'm just saying maybe you should throw something else into the mix.



You will find odd that I do wait for Sitchens newest to hit paperback...


not that much.

anyway, insecticides, what do you say?



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 02:54 PM
link   
I do read many things, not just Biblical stuff. Right now though I am concentrating in specific areas while its all fresh.



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 03:28 PM
link   
Ed, you're overlooking something, I think, that is also a possible theory. I believe that everything has its own intelligence, according to its species. Their plan is to survive and to change if necessary, into a creature of their own species who will survive the changing earth conditions. The DNA has its own intelligence, as well, else how could it continue to be?
Now that is what I would call "Intelligent Design". Creatures with intelligence designing their species for survival.
How about that?



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 07:38 AM
link   
DNA is truly amazing and to think it was 'chance' evolution is absurd in my mind. The complexity is just more than we can even understand today.



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 07:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
DNA is truly amazing and to think it was 'chance' evolution is absurd in my mind. The complexity is just more than we can even understand today.


ahem: the formation of dna lies outside the realm of evolutionary theory. it lies in the realm of chemical abiogenesis



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 07:45 AM
link   
Ahem - well since evolution is how life supposedly arose, by chance and then slow mutation and change then I disagree. This was something that Darwin could not have known, but since evolution has taken on a whole new meaning.

DNA in itself should make one wonder just how this could have 'evolved'. Its mind boggling to say the least.



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
Ahem - well since evolution is how life supposedly arose, by chance and then slow mutation and change then I disagree. This was something that Darwin could not have known, but since evolution has taken on a whole new meaning.


incorrect, evolution isn't how life AROSE, it's how life ROSE UP. it's not the rise of life, it's how life rose once it got there.



DNA in itself should make one wonder just how this could have 'evolved'. Its mind boggling to say the least.


again, you're confusing sciences.



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 09:32 AM
link   
No I am not, life either evolved from amino acids to what we have today or it was created.



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
No I am not, life either evolved from amino acids to what we have today or it was created.


Probably better to say non-directed or directed. As there could be other pathways to replicators.

OK, lets say it was created. Evolutionary theory still stands. A disembodied telic entity made a few basic replicators and all life diversified from them. That's what the evidence would suggest.

Unless you think this disemodied telic entity used think n' poof to create new organisms every few million years.

This is where your fallacy is, Ed, and I keep trying to point this out - abiogenesis could have been natural or supernatural, and evolution would still be valid.

Evolutionary theory focuses on the diversification of life from earlier life.



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 11:25 AM
link   
Evolution says that single celled lifeforms evolved into what we have today. One can easily see that adaptation exists and even though that is related to evolution, it does not mean the same thing in my mind.

Evolution implies that life needed no creator, that given enough time, life could have sprang up on its own. Creationism says differently.

Could an animal that is isolated become different than its distant relatives? Of course, but taking evolution and its deep implications back far enough, you come to the point of whether its by chance or not. I say not.



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
Evolution implies that life needed no creator, that given enough time, life could have sprang up on its own.


It really doesn't.

The theory of evolution explains one thing - the diversification of life by a process of natural selection acting on random variations.



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
Could an animal that is isolated become different than its distant relatives? Of course, but taking evolution and its deep implications back far enough, you come to the point of whether its by chance or not. I say not.


Ed, here, I might agree with you. I believe it is possible for evolution to happen by plan not chance; however, it would be directed by the DNA maybe or some other organism that chooses one way over another in order to survive, not by some guy with a beard named God, who lives in the sky.
I don't think you really thought about what I was saying. DNA: what if it had its OWN intelligence? For all any of us knew, it has enough intelligence to direct evolution, as in the need to survive might be what that direction is.
If you think about it, every living thing has the urge to survive, it's probably the strongest urge living things have. Perhaps that is what drives evolution, not God, what about that?



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 12:24 PM
link   
Well DNA would function as we see it in adapting to surroundings, with this I have no real issue. What I am trying to say is that DNA is so complicated that it could not have evolved to any degree, the starting point was a design. Evolutionary theory has no explanation for this except given enough time it could have evolved.

Back in this thread I quoted the concept of irreducible complexity, when you get down to the smallest forms, there is no way for it to have evolved, it had a starting point.



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatoninThe theory of evolution explains one thing - the diversification of life by a process of natural selection acting on random variations.


Carefully inspected that could also be called adaptation. Red birds vs Blue birds. Still the Bird had to start somewhere.



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
Carefully inspected that could also be called adaptation. Red birds vs Blue birds. Still the Bird had to start somewhere.


Well, of course, I'm not surprised you say that. I disagree, ToE is more than just pure adaptation from pre-existing variation, but has the ability to produce new variations for selection to act on.

But, essentially, my point is that the theory of evolution can be separated from abiogenesis.

Even if abiogenesis was a telic process, it doesn't negate ToE.

Do you get that now?

[edit on 7-8-2007 by melatonin]



new topics

top topics



 
96
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join