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: 20
96
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 06:52 PM
link   
I'm not a scientist,geologist,priest,archaeologist,or anything even close.just a guy that loved archaeology as a kid(and later
) and also am a Christian.i remember seeing all those charts in the science books showing the evolution of elephants,man,tigers,etc. and never really had an explanation as to how the two could ever co-exist.i basically just took the middle road and figured the "gaps"were where God "helped"things along.
Then as i got older getting more into the technical aspects of each(believe me ,nowhere near where you guys are!)and saw how much of evolution was using "a toe bone" or 3 or four pieces of bone to reconstruct a whole skull,i surmised there was more mans hand in evolution than natures.From the arguments it just seems like each just picks at holes in each others theories to the point in just turns into a mud slinging contest.
It reminds me of something that had happened at work one time.the next week when it was brought up(it was accident related) everyone had a different story as to what had happened.it had been caught on a security camera and no one was totally right.and this was something that had only happened a week ago,and multiple people were present! now try this with something(or things)that happened thousands,millions,billions,gagillions(however you translate the "facts"at hand) of years ago,with sparse clues that can be translated different ways,by people that are by no means perfect or without flaw even when trying to be objective.Let alone when egos,character,credibility and status skew judgement at the least and purposely falsify findings(or create them,Piltdown man,Nebraska man, Orce man) at the most.People will put the "proper "spin on things to support their own ideas especially when there are personal things at stake.
All things considered it seems to take a degree of"faith" no matter which side you take.But in the end ,either way, the dinosaurs were here.Which is cool.How they got here,i have my theories,you have yours and i guess we'll all find out who's right when the world goes kaputt.

And when they find out that the dinosaurs were actually beings from other planets planted here by an alien race,remember,I TOLD YOU SO! JK!LOL.


God Bless (or alla,or nature,or karma,or whatever you think is in charge)

Tig1




posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


Eh? We can all witness 4 dimensions just by opening our eyes for the smallest fraction of time.

We're hard pressed to answer questions about the divine because it's all bunk. Just as it's impossible to answer questions about the massive space goat that lives in another universe, and who likes eating toffees and doing smack.



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 09:46 PM
link   
Aw, this thread is still alive.

And sadly singer misunderstood some of how DNA works.
Though lots of stuff is still valid.



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 11:21 AM
link   
then why do our fetus cycle stages show us a tail , how bout 2% genetic difference between humans and chimps ,they trace genes back to amphibians and other water animals. if we did not evolve why share similar DNA ,if not a monkey why have 985 of its genes



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 05:10 PM
link   
I have a question. What are the odds that all vertebrate life forms would develop 4 major appendages, and a tail? Has anyone ever calculated it?

Doesn't anyone find it odd that we don't have any 3, 5, 6, or 8 legged animals? Why is this? Does anyone else find this extremely odd?

[edit on 11-6-2008 by sir_chancealot]



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by sir_chancealot
 


We do have creatures with 6 (Insects) and 8 (Arachnids and in some cases Crabs aswell if you discount their pincers otherwise it would be 10) legs. We even have a few critters with 0 legs (Slow Worms and Snakes). Though there could be a five legged species if you count Star Fish. Though things like Centipedes and Millipedes have loads more.

[edit on 11-6-2008 by Marshall Ormus]



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by sir_chancealot
 


4 limbs is a great compromise for land-based animals. It's not really that weird, especially when you consider all mammals are related, and a creature with 4 pentadactyl limbs was our common ancestor.



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 04:59 AM
link   
reply to post by sir_chancealot
 


um....fish don't have four major appendages, and, last time i checked, they're vertebrates...



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 02:17 PM
link   
I agree with the poster WHOLE-Heatedly. It's amazing how it's easy to believe man came from ONE being one APE. Yet it's hard for people to believe (who include Atheists, but for some reason who are hypo-critical in that they still celebrate RELIGIOUS holidays, but that a rant for another time.) Yet no one can believe that we all came from two people?

Doesn't anyone know there are GAPS upon endless GAPS in the way species changed? There would be one species then all of a sudden BAM a different one WITH NO FOSSIL evidence to support the fact of slow mutation, or evolution.

100% of the drawings done of ape man are FALSE. I am being brave to say this as what did we have, a piece of nose?? Then an artist came up with a rendition of the rest of the head and called this our pre-ancestor. Bet you all didn't know that, that 100% the ape-man drawings are ALL ARTIST RENDITIONS BASED ON ONE PIECE OF BONE."

Evolution is A THEORY and was started by Darwin and Gollupigus(SP) Island, from looking at a bird with one beak longer then the other.. EVEN DARWIN HIMSELF disproved his THEORY.

Here is a snippet from an article:

"However, fossil evidence fails completely to tell us that life evolved the way scientists claim. The facts, the proofs, are missing.

The problem is not new for evolutionists. More than a century ago, the problem existed for Charles Darwin, the “father” of modern evolution. He disposed of the problem in the closing sentence of his Origin of Species by attributing life’s origin to God, saying that life was “originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or one.”

Decades passed. But the evidence refused to be forthcoming. Later, A. C. Seward admitted that the fossil record “tells us nothing of the origin of life.” And to this very day, the situation is the same. True, at times there are sensational announcements by journalists hungry for a headline that the creation of life in the laboratory is imminent. But even if that happened, it would only show that there had to be a Creator, that life does not come into existence by itself.

The fact is that the fossil record remains totally silent about the supposed evolution of microscopic life. A college textbook acknowledges: “We still know little of protozoan [one-celled] evolution.”

And another:

A “Burst” of Complex Life Forms

The fossil record’s first testimony that carries any conviction is in what geologists call the Cambrian layers of rock. Before that time the record of the rocks shows unaltered beds for untold ages. But in those older layers, any supposed fossils are rare. Indeed, their validity is hotly disputed among scientists themselves.

But with the Cambrian rocks, fossils burst forth in sudden profusion, in wide variety, highly specialized and very complex. Silent for so long, for most of the record in fact, their star witness, the fossil record, suddenly becomes a chatterbox! I have to ask myself: “Did it have laryngitis all that time previously, or was it that it had nothing to tell?” I think of the words of Simpson, who refers to this sudden “explosion” of myriads of fossils as “this major mystery of the history of life.”

But let us even grant evolutionists the “spontaneous generation” of life that they cannot establish in the fossil record, nor duplicate in laboratories. Grant them that first speck of life that they cannot trace. Grant them also the fantastic advances from that first microscopic life to the sudden bursting forth of thousands upon thousands of highly specialized forms of life in the Cambrian rocks. With all that granted to them, can they look at the fossil record and at least get some answers on how later forms of life supposedly evolved?

When land plants came into being, the fossil record was not silent but was chattering about them. Yet, the fossil record reveals absolutely no “primitive” types as their ancestors. As one authority suggested, evolution believers must simply believe that those supposed ancestors had existed."



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 02:44 PM
link   
Sorry if this has been mentioned i only read the first couple pages.

Isnt looking at yourself evidence enough of evolution? I mean think of your immune system, it evolves at a rate we can acctually witness right? or think of drugs and tolerance(note receptors aswell). Your body is constantly adapting and changing. Just because something changes to slowly to be witnessed by you it does not mean it isnt changing.

Just thinkin outloud!



posted on Aug, 5 2008 @ 07:49 AM
link   
Top Ten Scientific Facts : Evolution is False and Impossible. Real and possible


Scientific Fact No. 1 - Birds Prove Natural Selection is Naturally Wrong

external image
Help! I can't fly. My head is too big, and my wings are too small.


The idea of natural selection sounds great when considering deer. The deer that can sense danger the quickest and run the fastest are able to escape the predator on a more consistent basis. However, other examples on the evolutionary tree have many laughable flaws. One of the best is the thought that a bird began to evolve a wing. Why this would occur is not answered by evolutionists [yes it is en.wikipedia.org...] . 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? [it didn't] This is backwards from the evolutionary natural selection concept that birds adapt and change in order to survive better in their environment[yes they did en.wikipedia.org...]. 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? The theory of evolution is based on natural selection of the most adaptable member of a species. A bird with a useless wing is at a severe disadvantage and the opposite from natural selection. According to natural selection the members of the bird species with the smallest useless wing would be the most adaptable and most likely to survive in the largest numbers. According to the theory of natural selection birds could never evolve to fly. Evolution is simply nonsense. This is so funny. We are then led to believe that some birds got tired of carrying around a worthless half-size wing so they grew fingers on the end to help climb trees. The wings became arms and a new species was developed. Evolutionists actually believe this nonsense.

There's actually 3 theories on bird flight the above is just ill informed.

en.wikipedia.org...

current ealiest known bird:

en.wikipedia.org...

origins;

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Aug, 5 2008 @ 09:07 AM
link   
reply to post by TurnOnTuneInDropOut
 


Don't try to bring logic into this discussion! Those who don't understand evolution clearly either don't understand the logic that resulted in our understanding, or have some prior reason to eschew logic to uphold their existing beliefs. Logic can't get them out of this mess.



posted on Aug, 9 2008 @ 08:24 PM
link   
The problem here is nobody can explain or provide proof for either theory.
Some claim they can but they are foolish. How can we rely on the writings of other humans as the absolute knowledge of everything.

I have been skimming through a book about the origins of religion. We use to be fearful of natural spirits all around us. These evolved into different early religions. I like to think back before there was maybe a extensive vocal language, how would one percieve a thought or our subconcious? Did we always have a language, or understand certain things? Or is our history a rehabilitation of a past exsistence, where for some reason we forgot our knowledge and had to relearn to where we are today. In religion you have people that were spoken to by a higher being (god). I believe it was their own brains that for some reason expanded and you could say evolved. They were communicating with their own concious but didnt even know it. Just like they were fearful of the spirit in a tree or river. They feared this entity that spoke to them.



posted on Aug, 10 2008 @ 05:14 PM
link   
Macro evolution never happened. It's a failed idea propped up with evidence for micro evolutuion. The DNA code is digital not analog - there is a genetic wall for each kind. Here's a humorous example ( just 1 minute)

Great Moments in Evolutionary History




posted on Aug, 11 2008 @ 12:29 AM
link   
If we did not evolve, then please explain away why ontology recapitualtes phylogeny.

I find the arguments you made to counter evolution to be silly and ill considered. While I only believe 1/4 of what evolutionists claim. I believe none of what creationists have to say. They put the belief system before the facts. Evolutionists put the grant before the truth, but there is at least a small leakage of reality into their domain.



posted on Aug, 11 2008 @ 01:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Anonymous ATS
 


Hmm yes a half a wing is pretty useless......Unless your a fish eater like penguins etc, Half a wing will definitely propel you through water faster than limbs while chasing fish.
And then once it became able to fly underwater maybe then it evolved further to firstly glide and then to fly properly in the air.

And how about the flying fish isn't that proof of evolution....a fish that has found an alternative to outpacing its predators by leaping clear of the water and gliding to safety.

Evolution may not have all the answers for us yet, But to blinker yourself to all possibilities is just dumb and i can't understand the creationist view on this...I mean couldn't it be possible your creator created life that could evolve.

For me i'm open to all possibilities as long as i get the truth, And I think it would be a shame to base a life so solidly on something that could ultimately be a lie.



posted on Aug, 11 2008 @ 07:58 AM
link   



posted on Aug, 11 2008 @ 09:38 AM
link   
The following links quite easily shows evolution to be a load of rubbish. evolutionists cannot refute these arguments with anything other than their imagination.

www.newgeology.us...

www.realtruth.org...
www.realtruth.org...
www.realtruth.org...



posted on Aug, 11 2008 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Anonymous ATS
 


No - that's where you're wrong. DNA has been proven - that exists. We know that all living creatures on this earth are made from the same 4 bases - CGAT. Just in different combinations and amounts. We know that any part of DNA can be mutated, new parts can be accidentally made, and we know these changes are passed down from generation to generation.

There is absolute proof of evolution, it just happens to be at odds with your preconceived ideas about where life came from, so your cognitive dissonance rears its ignorant head and stops you from understanding.

Just because you can say "you can't prove either" doesn't make it the case. It just makes you look foolish. Really, really foolish.



posted on Aug, 12 2008 @ 02:26 AM
link   
On Wings and Penguins....

Perhaps they could fly at one time and are still in the process of evolving? Also, they use those there "flipper wings" to flip, and swim and maneuver.

Birds on the Galapagos Islands have evolved in our lifetime. Short billed bird genes went the way of the do do and the longer billed fellas kept the dream alive. Google it.

Mankind is the only "animal" to actively continue to pollute the gene pool. Mother rhinos will abandon a baby that begins to show signs of congenital defects and that animal will die, thus the chance of that baby producing more offspring with the same defect becomes nil. Human beings, on the other hand, continue to have children that have birth defects (from Down Syndrome to Spinabifida, etc.) Imagine if we did away with all babies that had defective genes? It would be horrific. Thus, we have, in a sense, stunted our own evolution. Our humanity still surpases our technology . . . at this point. What happens when that changes? This is one theory why we haven't seen our species evolve in HUGE ways (though I would say there is evidence we have in other, more subtle circumstances.)

Because scientists cannot prove where matter came from does not invalidate Evolution.

Mars could have harbored life at one point. We may find this out very soon. The conditions necessary for life to exist are pretty specific (as we know it.) Mars cannot support life as WE know it at present. The jump from this to a total denial of evolution is very very thin. It's reaching. So many of your other points are well thought out. Don't get lazy and grasp for straws.

The "no signals" from space idea isn't even worthy of comment. 99% of us are gonna know better on that one. See the grasping for staws comment above.

As for the link: Considering it's from "biblelife.org" it isn't going to ring any bells with me as far as being objective. No thanks.

My final words:

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." - Einstein




top topics



 
96
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join