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: 21
96
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 12 2008 @ 03:31 AM
link   
reply to post by JungianQueen
 


Apart from the evolution witnessed in laboratory settings, the best example I can find for recent speciation is the London Underground mosquito. The London Underground is the world's oldest, started in 1863. In its deeper tunnels (which were built in the early 1930s), a species of mosquito can be found which can't be found anywhere else on Earth. Either God is still creating new animals, or he had these guys in storage waiting for James Greathead to invent the machinery needed to dig said tunnels. Either way, they didn't exist when God created the world. And if that's the case, it seems a bit inaccurate calling that act "Creation", when he didn't create everything.




posted on Aug, 12 2008 @ 07:46 AM
link   
Let's take the two arguements and turn them into libraries.

In one you have millions of books. You have maps, computers, chem labs. You have people studying and learning and writing new books. You have the sick being healed, the dumb being taught. There is a large globe hanging from the ceiling.

In one you have really old men raping and sodomizing little boys while eating babies screaming "I'm a God!" while women are being burnt at the stake. As you look past the stacked bodies of Native Americans, or as these people call them "Savages", you see a book waaaaaay off in the distance. After walking around the heads of Jews piled up next to a map of Earth that "proves" it is flat and through the tools of torture used to "prove" someone is a witch you reach this book. Next to it are people dying of easily cured diseases but instead of taking medicine or other treatment are praying for a cure. You go to read it but another really old men throws things at you screaming in a lanuage you don't understand. As you run away you trip over the body of a former African Slave worked to death after being told the book "proved" he was less then the men raping little boys and eating babies and deserved to be slaves.

Hmmm, which one am I going to follow?

Also, in the first one, they have fossils lined on the walls the prove Macroevolution with Bears into Whales and Fish into Salamanders.

[edit on 12-8-2008 by Krieger]



posted on Aug, 12 2008 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by dave420
 


Dave, it's amazing to watch. It really is.



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 05:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Krieger
 


The bible does not condone any such things. People have always used religion to justify crimes even when they are in complete contradiction with what the bible actually says. You don't need to be religious to be murderous low life. plenty of crimes are commited by atheists equally as bad.

fossils show no such thing as macroevotution. they should complete species according to their kinds. there is no imbetween species linking any of the major types of animals. why is it that there are millions of each type of animal on earth today and not one living transition? surely there should be millions of living transitions linking everything together. but there isn't.



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 05:47 AM
link   
reply to post by dave420
 


it is still a mosquito. not a new life form. show us a new life form that has evolved from another. you can't get anything but mosquitos from mosquitos, if you could then the scientist that did it would have told the world by now. different varieties of a type of animal in no way proves that one type of animal came from another.



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by edsinger
 



You copied and pasted all of your information from biblelife.org/evolution.



posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 10:23 PM
link   



posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 08:42 PM
link   


The female egg contains the X-chromosome and the male sperm contains either an X-chromosome for the reproduction of a male or a Y-chromosome for the reproduction of a female.

OSHI-
Since when are males XX and females XY? Did our sex chromosomes get changed!?



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by FredT
 


well how could they evolve from a common ancestor then???? The ancestor can't just multiply its chromosomes and make a human.



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by dave420
 


It is impossible for us to have found every single species that has ever existed and still exists on the earth. So, plenty of species could have existed at the time of Creation. Just because we haven't found evidence of their existence in ancient times doesn't mean they weren't there.



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Krieger
Let's take the two arguements and turn them into libraries.

In one you have millions of books. You have maps, computers, chem labs. You have people studying and learning and writing new books. You have the sick being healed, the dumb being taught. There is a large globe hanging from the ceiling.

In one you have really old men raping and sodomizing little boys while eating babies screaming "I'm a God!" while women are being burnt at the stake. As you look past the stacked bodies of Native Americans, or as these people call them "Savages", you see a book waaaaaay off in the distance. After walking around the heads of Jews piled up next to a map of Earth that "proves" it is flat and through the tools of torture used to "prove" someone is a witch you reach this book. Next to it are people dying of easily cured diseases but instead of taking medicine or other treatment are praying for a cure. You go to read it but another really old men throws things at you screaming in a lanuage you don't understand. As you run away you trip over the body of a former African Slave worked to death after being told the book "proved" he was less then the men raping little boys and eating babies and deserved to be slaves.

Hmmm, which one am I going to follow?

Also, in the first one, they have fossils lined on the walls the prove Macroevolution with Bears into Whales and Fish into Salamanders.

[edit on 12-8-2008 by Krieger]


You just invalidated scientific evidence as well with your previous statements.



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by dave420
reply to post by JungianQueen
 


Apart from the evolution witnessed in laboratory settings, the best example I can find for recent speciation is the London Underground mosquito. The London Underground is the world's oldest, started in 1863. In its deeper tunnels (which were built in the early 1930s), a species of mosquito can be found which can't be found anywhere else on Earth. Either God is still creating new animals, or he had these guys in storage waiting for James Greathead to invent the machinery needed to dig said tunnels. Either way, they didn't exist when God created the world. And if that's the case, it seems a bit inaccurate calling that act "Creation", when he didn't create everything.


Were you there when He created the world? Do you know for a fact that these mosquitoes just appeared??? Who created them if it wasn't God????



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by TurnOnTuneInDropOut
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!


Yes there has to be soem sort of adaptation to survive in an environment, but that does not constitute full scale evolution. Obviously God intended to create us to adapt in some degree to our environment so that we could actually survive, but that does not necessarily prove the whole theory of evolution.



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

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


I would suggest the same to you. There are many converted Atheists. Philosophy disproves many atheistic arguments....Try A Case for Faith by Lee Strobel. He's a highly investigative atheist who interviewed experts in their field about Christianity. He wanted to be fully convinced of the validity of God and Christianity before he converted. And he was convinced. All non-Christians doubt Christianity. It is a natural human disposition because the world is Satan's dominion, despite what many believe.



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lightstorm
Gee, why don't they put sugar in a gas tank then when it doesn't run say cars don't work.

Why not put a piece of mud in a gun instead of bullets then when it doesn't fire say guns don't work.

Why not smash a TV with a hammer then say hammers don't work as remote controls?(They aren't supposed to be used as remote controls so being used wrong)

Of course, why spend time looking for anwsers when you can spend your time raping a 8 year old Altar Boy?


Catholic priests are mislead and unfaithful. Not all supposed "christians" are faithful.



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 04:34 PM
link   
LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL
:l ol:



WHATEVER!

NNN



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne

The very idea that religion has earned the right to comment on science is laughable, given religion's track record on such matters.


What gives science the right to comment on religion? I know that science "disproves" religion, but religion also disproves science. scientists say that the Bible is "manmade", but isn't science manmade??? How do we know that theories are "proven?" We have proved things in the past with science, but things change and can often be disproved. So how should an individual trust the validity of science? Yes there is so called "fact," and "evidence," but it's all perceived and interpreted upon discovery. How do we really know if carbon dating really goes back millions of years? No human has lived long enough to test it. As for DNA similarities, all species are similar, why? Due to the fact that they derived from a common creator. How do we explain the complexities of human thought, emotions, etc.??? Are they just biological functions?? Did we just evolve up from the mud and develop reason?? Why is it only us??? Why not other species??? Though they do show signs of intelligence, they do not come close to matching the complexities of the human life form.



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by no name needed
LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL
:l ol:



WHATEVER!

NNN

It may be better if you post a real and mature response....



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 05:39 AM
link   
reply to post by lexafunk
 


Are you seriously equating science with religion? One is the pursuit of knowledge, through a methodology that is self-correcting. The other is the continuation of an old set of teachings that must never, ever be changed, regardless of new information. The two are completely opposite.

Yes, science is man-made, but then so is religion. Scientific theories are never proven, merely demonstrated to be true by endless experiments and findings. The core of science is to create an experiment that anyone can reproduce, which will always give the same results. That means anyone can try the experiment, and get the same outcome. That means it is very easy to demonstrate to people that it's not making things up. Compare that to religion, which merely states "This is true. You can not doubt this, for it is the work of <insert deity here>". There is a vast world of difference. If a religion was even slightly incorrect at the time of its creation, it will always be incorrect. Science is self-correcting - you can't fool science, and any mistakes are easily spotted and encouraged to be fixed.

The rest of your questions can be solved by reading some biology textbooks. Clearly your religious stance is bolstered by your lack of understanding of the natural world. The "God of the gaps".



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 05:40 AM
link   
reply to post by lexafunk
 


And because we have no evidence of "them" doesn't mean we should assume they exist. Nothing can be said to exist without evidence - to do so is irrational.




top topics



 
96
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join