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: 26
96
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 02:46 AM
link   
Noobfunn.

What happens if you retract space time! Space becomes smaller and smaller until space has a beginning or until time has a beginning.

What is space time expanding IN. Space time would need some kind of space to expand in would it NOT. If space time has no space to expand in. It would not expand.

If you ask me it is the matter within space that is expanding and not space.

What you say dont make sense.




posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 04:32 AM
link   
reply to post by EliteLegends
 


my applogies Elite

the websites moto is deny ignorance, and that doesnt just mean your own,

and a page and a half is short, trust me several of us have had to do similar over 3 or 4 pages to show how wrong the physics were so they went for a rethink



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 07:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by spy66
Noobfunn.

What happens if you retract space time!
you reverse the big bang


Space becomes smaller and smaller until space has a beginning or until time has a beginning.
yes its called a singularity

which is the origin of the big bang, we dont know if time existed before as we cant see past the initial expansion so time may have existed before but unlinked to space, so when people say time began with the bigbang what they really mean is recordable time began with the big bang we cant know before that so musing on it is pointless until possibly quantum gives us an ability to understand pre-singularity


What is space time expanding IN.
dunno we cant see past the edge of the universe as theres no light to see and we cant detect any radiation originating from outside the universe


Space time would need some kind of space to expand in would it NOT. If space time has no space to expand in. It would not expand.
your misusing the terms space as in cosmic space to also mean space as in anywhere there isnt a something

cosmic space is expanding, wether its expanding into a void or into limits of what ever contains it is its in a giant bubble like the quantum bublles we see when we get down to the very small


What you say dont make sense.
maybe if you read up on the subject from reputable sources it would start to make sense



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 04:34 AM
link   
Ah, the age-old argument between creation and evolution. Haven't you guys realised how pointless this is? Neither will convince the other (even after 100s of pages of discussion on this forum).

I just want to point out a few things:
1. There's a difference between macro- and micro-evolution (aka natural selection). Natural selection is EVIDENCE for macro-evolution but not PROOF. Many different species of lizards evolving from one is acceptable in "creation science".

2. Someone mentioned the most damning proof against macro-evolution (lack of transitional fossils) and someone actually said something about tectonic drift or something like that. That is laughable. What's the probability of that removing ALL transitional fossils compared to the probability of a series of creation-events (my belief)? Which is most preposterous?



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 04:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lannock

I just want to point out a few things:
1. There's a difference between macro- and micro-evolution (aka natural selection). Natural selection is EVIDENCE for macro-evolution but not PROOF. Many different species of lizards evolving from one is acceptable in "creation science".


yes there is a differance

micro- variation within species
macro variation between species

natural slection is a mechanism that drives(and resists depending on the enviroment) macro evolution but isnt macro evolution its self, speciation is macro evolution and weve seen that so many times weve had to name the 4 different types of speciation so we can keep track of them

and that depends which version of creation science (
) your talking about, hovind says no AIG say yes, infact they have super evolution to explain it, they would have things splinting in too 2 new specie every 6 hours from leaving noahs ark to some time in the 18th century when linneaus started calssifying them for the variation we now have

creationsim isnt science and they cant even get a basic concensus going, when they are all running around disavowing each other or trying to do outdo each other and none of them doing ANY science its a joke

at least science agrees on the fundamentals of evolution and its the intricate workings that are bieng explored, the only creationists can agree on was a flood

i missed the comment on the transitionals, theres not any problem with a lack theres enough for us to to go hunting for specific forms in several lines based purley on the fossil record, and you dont even need to use the fossil record to show evolution is active and working

but i agree tectonic drift will not destroy most of them thats done by erosion if they were lucky enough to get fossalised in the first place

and isnt multipul creation events a religeous twist on mass extinction events?



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by slank
 





No. 6


I dont think that I quoted your text correctly. Regardless, I commend you Slank for your rather dispassionate and thoughtful remarks. I agree with most of what you said. However, it seems you too are throwing up your hands when it comes to life and entropy. "Life persists, however, because a system (a living organism) can be ordered at the expense of disordering its surroundings to an even greater extent." Fundamentals of Biochemistry - Voet For example, all of the O2 that we breath in follows entropy in being oxidized into CO2 and the same for all complex molecules which we degrade into CO2 releasing heat/disorder in the process therefore increasing the amount of disorder in the universe with every breath and meal.



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 05:39 AM
link   



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 06:02 AM
link   





Need I say more?



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 02:19 AM
link   
This is the best defense of evolution I've ever read. Why didn't you add another point: "anything I can't conceive of is impossible"?



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 03:59 PM
link   



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 07:26 PM
link   
This website is now a laughing stock to everyone coming across it for the first time.

Delete the post seriously.



posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 06:10 AM
link   



posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 04:16 PM
link   
quoting you:

"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."

That is incorrect. XX = female, XY = male.



posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 02:03 PM
link   
Why even bother debating Creation V. Evolution any longer. Creationists, by the nature of their belief system, aren`t rational people. No amount of evidence or sound scientific proof is going to sway them.

God done it, end of discussion. I say, let them remain wilfully ignorant.



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 08:59 PM
link   
I agree with this. It makes a good point that science can not support evolution.



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 02:26 AM
link   
Darwin is stupid. scince is stupid. If you dont beleive the bible you are stupid to!!!!! You are a monkey and I am from GOD! GOD hates you. you are going to hell and I will be fishin with JESUS in HEAVEN!!!



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 04:51 AM
link   

post by Monger
Why even bother debating Creation V. Evolution any longer. Creationists, by the nature of their belief system, aren`t rational people. No amount of evidence or sound scientific proof is going to sway them.

God done it, end of discussion. I say, let them remain wilfully ignorant.


You're absolutely right. QED:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by JESUS is coming
Darwin is stupid. scince is stupid. If you dont beleive the bible you are stupid to!!!!! You are a monkey and I am from GOD! GOD hates you. you are going to hell and I will be fishin with JESUS in HEAVEN!!!


thats an interesting vision of an all loving all forgiving merciful god you have there .......

im sure jesu ha a few choice wors in the biblke about bieng humble and not calling a man a fool .. somthing about the calling it him make you a greater fool then he ...

all i can say i may the light of Allah shine upon you and lead you from hatred into his loving mercy

[edit on 5/3/09 by noobfun]



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 09:59 PM
link   
One might think all the theorists are right and religion is wrong, while religionists think their interpretation (or opinions they have heard from some other religionary) of their holy book is correct and irrefutable. What would tip the scales in favor of either side?

When it comes to Darwin religion loses hands down. Why? Look at the reason that religion claims as its main reason to be, to protect and heed the Word of God. Then define what the Word of God is. (It's dreams and visions showing the future in or by prophecies... and sometimes limited to their favorite holy book, but that denies the Source as being a Living God that speaks to everyone, and a big fault of religion).

Then identify the importance of prophets to religion. Most of the world's faiths are built around the ability of a prophet to foresee. How they saw the future is not in dispute, they all used dreams and/or visions. Why make this point? Because Darwin was a prophet. He used his dreams to come up with his Theory of Evolution. So what occurs is that religionists ignorantly disparage the Creator when they deny the use of dreams and visions for any constructive or creative purpose. They don't need to see that the use of dreams fits in with any specific event or application, only that the guidance to the achievement was in fact supplied by the same Source (there is only one). Most of the creationists are unable to look that far due to the fact religion's opinions have hampered or ruined their ability to come to that realization.

So we can safely equate religion with bastions of ignorant opinion and denial of the very Source they profess to serve. The Theory of Evolution was developed over years of research and guidance from Above. The whole story is not unfolded, and may never be. Science continued developing the reasons behind Darwin's theory into something the Creator started with him. Look where it has gone. Now we have DNA as a tool to substantiate the Origin of Species, and all lines of species fit into Darwin's God-guided work. All organisms share DNA with ones which preceded it, back to a point where it divided into more than one line.

So you religious hangers-on, get a grip, become armed with the Living Word, not with opinions. Get to know the Lord your God, so maybe you too can become famous for something your dreams have Guided you to find, like Darwin, Einstein, Edison and thousands of others. Take a look at the number of Nobel Prize winners who mention their dreams as a source of inspiration too.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 11:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by XyZeR
I'dd love to see someone who believes this creationism theory" explain this to me:

if SOMETHING intelligently designed all life, then who or what designed that something ? (and don't tell me, it's god, he's always been there...)


sorry had to post this, i know this is not the place to be funny but...it's so appropriate:

[bill hicks]Ever noticed how people who believe in creationism look realy unevolved ?[/bil hicks]


I'll give it a shot.

1)Everything doesn't have to have a beginning.
2)Only things that at some point begin to exist must have a beginning.
3) Another way to word it is, "every effect must have a cause", but there is no rule that says everything that is, is actually an effect.
4)Therefore, only things that we have concluded to have a beginning require a cause.
5)Conversly, anything that is without a beginning does not require a cause.
6)Current observable data suggests that life has a beginning.
7)Hence life is an effect, and thus requires a cause.
8)Furthermore, the best observable evidence suggests that the universe had a beginning.
9)Thus the universe is an effect, which in turn requires a cuase.
10) God would only require a cause if it was determined that He had a beginning.

Many scientists realize that points 8&9 force us to conclude a supernatural (or extra natural) origin for existence. Certianly they are working hard to put forth theories that would get around those points. Of course, no actual evidence for any of these theories can or have been produced. The reason should be obvious. The only evidence available to explain the cause of the universe would have to come from outside our universe. Which by definition makes it unobservable to us, and Therefore Non scientific. Any explaination for the origin of the universe is therefore not scientific because its not observable (but that doesn't necessarily mean that the explaination is not true.) This is why God can't be scientifically proven or disproven.

Now, in regards to origin of Life and evolution. We have already seen that God would not require a beginning. Hence there is no requirment for a designer of God. By contrast, we are reasonably certian that life does have a starting point. So long as the origin of life is within the realm of our universe, we must conclude that life had a starting point if for no other reason than that we have concluded that he universe has a starting point.
If life started outside of our universe, then by definition it is supernatural (outside of nature) and therefore unobservable to us. Again by definition making any such explaination non scientific. (but not necessarily wrong).
Notice, a distinction here is made between "scientific explainations" and "true explainations." A scientific explaination is based upon observable (and hopefully testable) phenomenom. However, not all things are obserbable to us. Especially anything that *might* exist outside of our universe (making it by definition unobservable). Therefore, A "scientific" explaination may or may not be "true". A "true" explaination may or may not be "scientific."
In order to remain scientific we must look at the observable evidence. Does the observable evidence lead us to a conclusion that is not obserbable and thus non scientific? When it comes to the origin of the universe, I would say "yes" emphatically.
When it comes to the origin and formation of life, especially intelligent life, I believe we can come up with good natural and observable explainations, hence making good scientific explainations. It, however, DOES NOT have to logically follow that those explainations are "true".
Remember, scientific explainations can only be derived from what can be observed. We cannot assume anything outside of our observation exists or plays a role. But we can't "know" the truth or falseness of this assumpton.

[edit on 6-3-2009 by hulkbacker]




top topics



 
96
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join