It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 23
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 03:18 PM
reply to post by edsinger

Hey I don't really have a favorite or specific fact that I liked but there were a few that I didn't really understand like "Scientific Fact No. 5 - DNA Error Checking Proves Evolution is Wrong", "Scientific Fact No. 8 - Origin of Matter and Stars Proves Evolution is Wrong", "Scientific Fact No. 9 - Lack of Life on Mars Proves Evolution is Wrong", "Scientific Fact No. 10 - Radio Silence from Space Proves Evolution is Wrong". Can you please explain those a little bit better? And thanks for the facts I was writing a persuasive paper on "Should Evolution be Taught In Public Schools" and I accidently stumbled across "Top Ten Scientific Facts : Evolution is False and Impossible." and it really helped me on my paper. Thanks!

posted on Oct, 16 2008 @ 01:31 AM
I have not read the entirety of this thread so I am unsure if this question has already been posed:

To adapt, one must retain the information gathered from the environment and change for the next time around, correct?

Example (I made this up), there is an animal living in a climate that was usually mildly warm. Then, over a period of time, the climate becomes increasingly cooler. The animal (meaning the species, not indivual) dies because it cannot cope with the cooler conditions. So the animals genes/DNA recognizes that a change needs to occur, I. E grow some fur.

My question is, how do you suppose the information is transfered?

How do the genes know to change to include more fur in the next generations?

posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 03:42 PM
second law of thermo dynamics says that ENTROPY always increases this is chaos and complexity the idea of organisation is not organised as in complicated but organised as in spread out evenly. as entropy increases the molecules join together making it more complex and more random and chaotic,

research it before you talk.

Scientists have a very accurate theory of how the wing evolved and everything else you explained. i advise you read more before attacking this theory

posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 04:14 PM
reply to post by Anonymous ATS

They don't. Evolution is a blind 'trial and error' mechanism. The gene pool of that species will have genetic information for fur or hair with varying properties like thickness, length colour etc. So the varieties that help the organism live in the cooler environment will become more common because those who have those special fur genes wont die as easily.

On the other hand, if the species doesn't have genes that code for fur or hair then the species will ether migrate to a warmer area or utilise fat allot more.

posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 09:43 PM
Haven t read all the replies so my statement might already have popped up.

Well with regards to the 'chromosome number count' point you made. Yes I agree that in most species a change in chromosome count doesn't produce fertile offspring and this could potentially inhibit evolution. However, this isn't true with all organisms. Trees for example undergo chromosomal changes frequently, and this results in minor variations such as taste of the fruit.

Also, I agree there is a self correcting mechanism that is active during DNA replication, and once again it could potentially inhibit evolution. However, we still get cases of humans with various genetic disorders and they could pass on the genetic "defect (or potential evolutionary advantage)" as they are fertile. A great example is ofcourse sickle cells. Although under the usual circumstances it would be deemed a disadvantage, back in Africa they had a better chance of survival than the unaffected people. And if left long enough; through natural selection only the affected people would live to breed.

As with the earth's origins and the point you made at #12. Yes once again I do agree it is very unclear as scientist still haven't been able to make granite under lab conditions. But then again 100s of years ago a similar claim could have been made for diamond which occurs naturally, but scientists couldn't make it under lab conditions. It just proves that it really is a matter of time.

And lastly of course science isn't a finished product, so there is no reason to expect it to provide a definite explanation. What I dislike about anti-science groups is that they knit-pick some instances science has failed to prove their claims..and the odd thing is these errors are normally in no relation to the matter at hand (e.g. the big bang and the theory of evolution). There are scientific theories, and they are called theories for a reason - in that they could be wrong, but it doesn't in anyway suggest that the religious path is the definite answer (it could be right). As a Christian I know that even religion doesn't provide a clear view of the past. How did god create something from nothing? who is god? Who created God? If god existed before us and time began with us then is there another spacial dimension to where God lives?- The key to religion is Faith (which really is a nicer word for the term ' taking a risk') - what if you are wrong?

Anyway sorry this sounds a bit like an essay - hopefully doesn't put you off from reading it.


posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 10:28 PM
reply to post by Anonymous ATS


I know good wolf explained you the basis of the evolution theory, But I thought I would add to it by relating it more to your example by comparing it with a real known evolutionary advantage in humans. Although evolution is a "trial and error mechanism", the main key is natural selection which is far more systematic. Lets go back to your example -
1.) the same animal you were considering (but i would like to treat it as an individual from a specific species). I am going to compare your animal with a native African human.

2.)Natural selection is triggered by environmental pressure. You selected change in climate - my selection for the African human is disease (more specifically malaria).

3.) If the animal doesn't have fur it dies as it can not stand the environmental pressure. So would the African man as he can not naturally fight off the disease.

4.) Another animal of the same species had it's offspring and one of the kids had a genetic mutation (potentially cancerous) in the dominant gene controlling fat production, so the kid has about 3-4 extra layers of fat. Under normal circumstance it would die due to over insulation,but due to the environmental pressure of being very cold it has a far better chance of survival. So it survives to breed on. Now my African man's kid has a similar genetic disorder too. His one makes some of his red blood cells malfunction by causing them to take the shape of a sickle rather than the normal biconcave shape. It's effect? the kid isn't as active - very lethargy etc.due to lack of oxygen..(almost definitely a disadvantage - or is it?..)

5.) In time most of the original animal you mentioned will die due to the cold..but the new fat mutant will carry on breeding. and in time the new mutant will go from (heterozygous fat to homozygous fat). this means that all the alleles coding for fat production will be of the new mutant type. (this happens because the mutants will be breeding with other mutants not the original animal, so only the mutant gene is passed on). Now this means the mutant can only produce another mutant but not the original animal. Now with the African man's kid..malaria hits his village..many people die as malaria travels in your red blood cells. But weird enough he seems fine (well better than others). why? - because most of his blood cells are like sickles so the malaria parasite can not enter. Wow who would have thought!..well no one as it was an accident really. Anyway the African kid would breed to produce more offspring with a similar defective gene..

AND ALSO we are ignoring the biggest possibility - They DON'T actually evolve in time which just means they will all just die resulting in -Extinction. Happens with many species even today right now as we speak. It is basically nature's way of saying 'keep up with my changes by changing..or die'.

by the way the disease is called sickled cell anemia if you didn't know. Also evolution occurs all the time. specially in small microbes. Why do you thing TB patients keep changing their medication. Because one little bacteria gets mutated making it resistant to the antibiotic..and within a matter of minutes that 1 little guy can become a colony of millions...


posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 02:17 AM

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
Also, I agree there is a self correcting mechanism that is active during DNA replication, and once again it could potentially inhibit evolution.

It's interesting that you bring that up Kasun, this a very important part of genetics and evolution. DNA does have a built in 'spell checker' however once one base out of a pair has been incorrectly coded, there is no way of retrieving information on what the base should be within the cell. So the spell checker makes a change to make the base pair fit so you have a 50|50 chance of the pair going back to what it was or changing completely.

posted on Nov, 8 2008 @ 12:54 AM
to number 9# it takes a long time for life to get to the multi cell stage, complex life in the sea existed for very long periods of time before life on land started. one proof of evolution, when the meteor hit the earth 65,000,000 years ago, only the small createurs servived, when horses first started to exist, they were very small.

posted on Nov, 8 2008 @ 10:23 PM
Ow, I think I actually hurt myself reading that. wow.

Let me first start off that the argument that "we don't see evidence" or "Well, if your idea is wrong, our idea is right!" or whatever logical fallacy you try to use is so ridiculous, enough on that.

Now let me adress the 2nd law of thermodynamic. Do you even know what it says? Let me try my best : In a closed system, the amount of chaos TENDS to increase. Few key words there:
closed-no new energy coming in
tends-general pattern

First, the earth is not a closed system, we have the sun, cosmic rays, meteors, whatever.

2nd- quantum mechanics says that although the chaos tends to increase, it can spontaneously organize itself. According to random chance, an infinate number of monkeys w/ typewriters blah blah.

Now, this is an aspect of this law that I came up with myself, its called "Entropic Displacement" What it means is that even though the chaos increase on a whole, we can push it out of the way to allow for some order over here, if that wasn't true, you couldn't clean your room. This is what happens with life.

So many breaks in logic in those examples of how an idea is wrong, Here's a though, what if creationism and evolutionism are BOTH RIGHT!

God is outside of time, he is in the constant now, time has no meaning, it all happening to him now. From his end, he created, is creating and will create the universe in an instant. From our end, it took 15 billion years to get here, guess how that part happened?

What makes you think that there is no extraterrestrial life? are we really that interesting that God only wants us in this INCREDIBLY VAST universe?

posted on Nov, 24 2008 @ 10:37 PM
*face palm*
I believe both evolution and creationism should be taught in schools, and I do believe there could very well be a god and, that one day, science could prove or disprove his existence. I'm not that ignorant that I would deny his existence. I just feel that it is unlikely, certainly not impossible.

More to the point of this... Do you actually know anything about science, or are you just splurting out random phrases in hopes that some of it might make sense?
You make a few very valid points, but mostly you sound like a kid who just wants to prove some other kid wrong.
Please study some basic Bio, there is allot you can learn to support and initiate what you have written here.

posted on Nov, 29 2008 @ 10:34 AM
Who cares if evolution is false or not? But everything points to it beeing true. And therefore it should continiue to be studied and researched by us.

To believe in something so obvious would not be crazy. The crazy thing would be to offer another easy solution by saying that a big supernatural beings came and made it all, or many other of the creation-stories that have been made up.. it just doesnt fit in.. how do you know? there nothing that points to the existance of them is there?

Nothing can be proved 100%, thats why we settle with the next best thing... a very, very high % pointing to it beeing real or true.

posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 09:33 PM
Put it this way.

A living cell is so awesomely complex that its interdependent components stagger the imagination and defy evolutionary explanations. A minimal cell contains over 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations. The chance of this assemblage occurring by chance is 1 in 10^4,478,296. Quite a number isn't this? And yet, that's only for a single cell.

The human brain is the most complicated structure in the known universe. It contains over 100 billion cells, each with over 50,000 neuron connections to other brain cells. This structure receives over 100 million separate signals from the total human body every second. If we learned something new every second of our lives, it would take three million years to exhaust the capacity of the human brain. In addition to conscious thought, people can actually reason, anticipate consequences, and devise plans – all without knowing they are doing so.

So compare that single cell, to the brain. Quite staggering mathematical difference eh?

Starting with one "couple" just 41,000 years ago would give us a total population of 2 x 10^89 because of evolutionary time scales. I'm not saying this is the exact number, but it would be in that ballpark. The universe does not have space to hold so many bodies. And yet, we have a bit under 7 billion people? Is it just me, or is that a big difference?

posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 11:24 PM
Hey, im a highschool student and have only studied biology enough to understand what is being said here.
this is me admiting what i am saying can and most likely is wrong, but still its what i believe.
and science really is just theories backed up with evidence, it doesnt mean its always correct tho.

No. 5.
I found this one most interesting, because i find it most contradictory.
Human DNA, to my understanding, does hae the correctors that stop us suddenly finding out we no longer have the use of our arm or all of a sudden wake up with a mental condition.
but then, yet again, if DNA corrects itself, how can we evolve?
and we cannot say that we evolve because of the most suited to the environment reproduce, because almost everybody reproduces. nowadays its a personal choice for us to evolve or not, its not a 'strong will survive' thing.

I will be visiting this site every now and again, and am looking forward to any more theories or explainations anybody can offer me. or any comments, just whatever

posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 05:31 PM
If eveloution is true, which evolved first, the bees that need flowers to survive or the flowers that need bees to survive?

posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 08:47 PM

posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 05:12 AM
Darwin did not say that it is the animal or person that causes their evolution. He said it is the conditions that an animal etc finds themselves in. Yes it is the survival of the fittest but only in so much as they would be the one to survive in times of famine and drought and they adapt to their surroundings.
as the saying goes:
Big fleas have little fleas on their backs to bite them. The little fleas make bigger fleas and so infinitum!


posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 05:47 AM
A question I allways wanted to ask : if the Earth is 6000 years and the flood was lets say 4500 years ago, how do you explain so much biological diversity and endemic species - like the ones in New Zealand or any remote island on paciffic. Do you know for example there are animals would NOT survie if feed with something else than let us say a local endemic plant?
Also , how do you explain 300 races of horses , dogs, cats etc . From one single pair? calculate the number of necessary mutations in order to obtain that ! then you will discover that the Young Earth creationists do believe in fast-track evolution!

And a last one: on the ark we have Noah with his kids. How in the world do we have recorded Chinesse history (5000 years!) and so on??? How do you explain the genetic human families that are older than your 5000 years and they were spread across the globe?

I have a response: the Earth is far far much older than 6000 years.


posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 05:51 AM
reply to post by Anonymous ATS

I guess that the Young Earth creationists forget that in the sub-atomic world we will not be able to apply the classical mechanical physiscs. If everything tend to get messy , how do you explain a very simple thing like an ice-flake ? perfect and beautiful simetry!

posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 06:40 AM
I have always wondered about how the dimension space was made.

I have always wondered if the dimension space apply to any roles.

I have always wondered about if matter has anything in common with the dimension space. You cant have matter without space. But you can have the dimension space with out matter. If you break down a matter to its very bases. It will still be inside the dimension space. It will always be in a 4th dimension state.

I believe that the dimension space dont apply to any roles. Therefore i believe that the dimension space is a infinite Zero. Space is the absolutely nothing.

I believe that everything inside the dimension space must be in a 4th dimension or it cant exist. All source and matter has a 4th dimension. All matter has these 4 dimensions = Height. Length. Width. and Depth.

These matters therefore cant be related to the dimension space. Therefor they must be finite. Meaning created somehow. But what created space for matter to be in! And what created the matter in a 4th dimension!
All matter inside space has a 4th dimension.

Any bright minds who can answer this one. How do we get something inside nothing! Meaning finite into the dimension space.

A big bang theory wont stick. So dont even try that one

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 07:21 AM

Originally posted by spy66

I believe that everything inside the dimension space must be in a 4th dimension or it cant exist. All source and matter has a 4th dimension. All matter has these 4 dimensions = Height. Length. Width. and Depth.

thats 3 dimensional space

width and depth are the same thing

and 3 dimensional space is embeded in 4 dimensional space

4 dimensional space is length width height and time

Any bright minds who can answer this one.

A big bang theory wont stick. So dont even try that one
any bright mind would see how flawed the thinking is

and wonder where the question is as you havnt asked one just stated what you believe

new topics

top topics

<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in