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: 27
96
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 12:08 AM
link   
Consider a chimp in a contained environment. the chimp is isolated from any direct exposure to his keepers. He never sees the keepers or interacts with him.

Now, everyday, the chimp gets a bowl full of food. usually placed in his environment while he is sleeping, or perhaps when he's at the far end of his cage. He never sees how the food gets there, he just knows the the food gets there everyday.

A good scientific conclusion for the chimp to make is that his environment somehow "naturaly" produces this food. He has no obserbable data to convince him otherwise. Perhaps he takes note of the grass and sees that his environment can in fact "grow" things. ITs reasonable to assume that if the leaves on his trees, or the grass blades in his environment can grow, then so can his food. He also sees that more food only comes when he has eaten his previous food and is away from his "feeding place". Perhaps he can conclude that only so much of the food can exist within his environment at a given time. In fact, the Chimp could draw all kinds of conclusions. These would be good, sound scientific conclusions based on the observable evidence. That however doesn't make those conclusions "true".

Of course the anology isn't perfect. But just because there is good scientific evidence for something, does NOT in fact make that something true.

Having said all of this, I don't think there is very strong observable evidence for PURLEY natural evolution or the origin of life. And NO scientific observable evidence for the Origin of the universe.
But because a force that is not observable, and is outside our universe cannot really be considered in terms of science, most scientists are forced to accept a theory as true that has very little evidence in support of it, because it has the BEST observable evidence available.




posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 11:24 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 04:17 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 07:28 AM
link   
reply to post by JESUS is coming
 


so sarah palins the new mary? ... wonder who gets to be joseph

but thanks for the trolling



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 07:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by hulkbacker
Consider a chimp in a contained environment. the chimp is isolated from any direct exposure to his keepers. He never sees the keepers or interacts with him.

Now, everyday, the chimp gets a bowl full of food. usually placed in his environment while he is sleeping, or perhaps when he's at the far end of his cage. He never sees how the food gets there, he just knows the the food gets there everyday.

A good scientific conclusion for the chimp to make is that his environment somehow "naturaly" produces this food. He has no obserbable data to convince him otherwise. Perhaps he takes note of the grass and sees that his environment can in fact "grow" things. ITs reasonable to assume that if the leaves on his trees, or the grass blades in his environment can grow, then so can his food. He also sees that more food only comes when he has eaten his previous food and is away from his "feeding place". Perhaps he can conclude that only so much of the food can exist within his environment at a given time. In fact, the Chimp could draw all kinds of conclusions. These would be good, sound scientific conclusions based on the observable evidence. That however doesn't make those conclusions "true".

Of course the anology isn't perfect. But just because there is good scientific evidence for something, does NOT in fact make that something true.

Having said all of this, I don't think there is very strong observable evidence for PURLEY natural evolution or the origin of life. And NO scientific observable evidence for the Origin of the universe.
But because a force that is not observable, and is outside our universe cannot really be considered in terms of science, most scientists are forced to accept a theory as true that has very little evidence in support of it, because it has the BEST observable evidence available.


Yes, definitely this is a good analogy. I don't like the part where you picked the "chimp" as the analogy for "human" but, yea your theory has some weight to it.



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 07:38 AM
link   
Humans ,

thats just one example

we´ve evolved from being primate types with our sticks and stones to cars and computers ,

i guess you cant call it "biological" evolution but its human evolution non the less ,

the whole history of mankind is full of holes and deadend theories that has not brougth fouth anything scientific,

but when questioned " why is that sand red " and only replying because god wanted it that way,
your not bring forth any fact to the table,

its more a dodge when you cant give an answer

the theory of evolution is evolving to



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by zerbot565
 


which points are you responding to?



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 07:53 AM
link   
reply to post by edsinger
 


Each of your theories present more false belief than the very sections you question, you state fact and then on near each and every issue go onto state opinions.

I saw some theories that you point that have holes in, and a current lack of understanding. I guess had we still believed the world was flat a scientist claimed it's round! you would have been screaming it's impossible, you got a hole in your theory here so it makes it a fact your wrong!

Why can the cathoclic church say almost as much as 'you can have the body but we're keping the soul' yet some still ignore obvious comprehension for the sake of saving blind belief. Religion and evolutionary theory can co-exist, as religion should evolve due to the fact god has never come down and told you what's what, so religion should surely be constantly looking to evolve the theory of their beliefs, evolve it around the small amount of facts we do know.

Evolutionary theory is not entirely blind in this day and age, our understanding has undisputably progressed. Unlike religion. BUT I don't want to knock religion, because I'm not like to average religious person who dislikes anything but their own theory.

Edit; the thinking of evolution has evolved the idea how life was started, I doubt anybody can deny the huge possibility that religion is merely a primitive form of attempting to answer the same questions.

why so many religious people feel they can discredit evolutionary theory is beyond me, atleast when they say... 'you have no facts' (which is bs, we have facts but a lack of knowledge in some areas)... do religions have any facts???

So much time has passed and still we're pulled back to our old ways due to the most varied and excellent books ever written. One fact is, if any religion is true only one religion can be.

[edit on 14-3-2009 by MrAnonUK]



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by noobfun
reply to post by JESUS is coming
 


so sarah palins the new mary? ... wonder who gets to be joseph

but thanks for the trolling

The Bible proves that darwin is a phony!!
Read it yourself:
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. -Genesis 1:27



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by MrAnonUK
 


Not necessarily so Anon, some religions are compatible. The 3 major religions all have Abraham as their founder.

Also, the Origin of Life in Science is Abiogenesis, not Evolutionary Theory.

Just clearing up a few points Bro, before someone jumps on you.



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 03:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by JESUS is coming
The Bible proves that darwin is a phony!!
Read it yourself:
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. -Genesis 1:27


Now you need to prove the bible. There's a tall order.



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by JESUS is coming
The Bible proves that darwin is a phony!!
Read it yourself:
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. -Genesis 1:27


Modern archeology would tend to disagree.

berkeley.edu...

160,000 year old human (Homo sapien) skull.

Now, combine that with the fact that the Bible gives a genealogy from Adam to Jesus which (if they were all supermen, being extremely generous) could in no way be more than 8,000 years time (I don't wish to do the math but of course the general consensus is roughly 4,000).

So,
Bible: First human, Adam, created less than 10,000 years ago
Modern Archeology: Humans existed at least 160,000 years ago.


Hmm... methinks the numbers don't quiet match up
.

And that's just Homo Sapien...

Here, have some Homo antecessor, dated 1.1 - 1.2 millions years old:
archaeology.about.com...



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by TruthParadox

Originally posted by JESUS is coming
The Bible proves that darwin is a phony!!
Read it yourself:
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. -Genesis 1:27


Modern archeology would tend to disagree.

berkeley.edu...

160,000 year old human (Homo sapien) skull.

Now, combine that with the fact that the Bible gives a genealogy from Adam to Jesus which (if they were all supermen, being extremely generous) could in no way be more than 8,000 years time (I don't wish to do the math but of course the general consensus is roughly 4,000).

So,
Bible: First human, Adam, created less than 10,000 years ago
Modern Archeology: Humans existed at least 160,000 years ago.


Hmm... methinks the numbers don't quiet match up
.

And that's just Homo Sapien...

Here, have some Homo antecessor, dated 1.1 - 1.2 millions years old:
archaeology.about.com...


All depends if you agree with the way they arrive at their dates. Datings like this not only rely on Radiometric or other methods but also on the Stratigraphic Principles or Chronostratigraphy, they use one to help date the other and vice versa. Not a very good method IMO. It depends on one being right to make the other accurate.

[edit on 18-3-2009 by B.A.C.]



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.
All depends if you agree with the way they arrive at their dates. Datings like this not only rely on Radiometric or other methods but also on the Stratigraphic Principles or Chronostratigraphy, they use one to help date the other and vice versa. Not a very good method IMO. It depends on one being right to make the other accurate.


Ah yes... Of course it's the dating method and not the Bible which is wrong...
I should have known
.



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 02:51 PM
link   
When did science really prove that one kind turned into an other.

What evidence does science have that a DNA from one Kind changed and became another Kind.

They can't. They can only take a DNA structure from one kind and match it with another. And make a theory of it.

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by spy66
When did science really prove that one kind turned into an other.

What evidence does science have that a DNA from one Kind changed and became another Kind.

They can't. They can only take a DNA structure from one kind and match it with another. And make a theory of it.


"Kind" is not a scientific term so you'll need to define it.



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 10:16 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 10:58 PM
link   
And yet again another “true believer” pulls out the same old logical fallacies and misconceptions about what evolution is and “proves” it to be false on the basis of facts that are either not understood correctly or just plain made up. Oh and I say “true believer” since the link that he/she uses is (surprise surprise) www.biblelife.org.

I normally keep my mouth shut about these things but tonight I have a cold and I am really cranky so... this is for you OP.

1. You have used a straw man logical fallacy. You clearly have no idea what evolution is, 'ceptin maybe what your pastor told you it is, or what you were told it is from some creationist website or pamphlet. Your argument against evolution would be a lot more effective if you actually knew what evolution as postulated today in 2009 is as opposed to a dim reinterpretation of 19th century Darwinism. You are kind of like the critic of quantum mechanics who only at best has a vague notion of Newtonian mechanics.

2. The “facts” you use use are wrong. Take a science course (if that's not a sin to do it at a real University and not a Christian one where the science is theologically pure) and get your facts straight before you try and use them in an argument.

3. You have no idea of what “proving” or “disproving” means. While you're taking that science course, try and work in a course on critical thinking. Jesus won't be mad at you. I promise.

So let me see, this is a post that attacks a non-existent theory using incorrect facts and faulty logic. Wonderful. I don't really see what more there is to add except:

1. I was not trying to disprove or prove anything so don't attack my logic. This was not a careful reasoned argument, just an expression of epistemological disgust.

2.In case you are considering an ad hominem reply (no, I will not explain that, take a course and find out for yourself), I am not an atheist nor a communist. I follow a very disciplined religious path that requires me to devote at least two hours daily to it's practice. Yes, I have read the bible, or bibles if you take into account the various different versions that are used in Christianity and many of the writings of the early church fathers like St. Augustine, and the writings of many significant Christians throughout the history.

Remember that Jesus said to go and feed the hungry and heal the sick, so that might be a more interesting use of your time. I'm sure that your are sincere in your attempt to save us, but this is not a way that will work,



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 07:01 AM
link   
Can somebody please point out that evolution is not random?

Oh, I just did.

Also, the origins of the universe have nothing to do with evolution. Neither do car insurance, breakfast cereals, or Bachman Turner Overdrive. But you don't hear creationists harping on about any of these, do you? The reason is their very existence doesn't threaten the biblical belief system.

Are there any non-religious creationists?



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 07:42 PM
link   
I am a creationist.

MY DEFINITIONS OF EVOLUTION (everybody should do this it is very important)

1. Cosmic: origin of time space matter energy
2. Chemical: origin of higher elements
3. Stellar: Formation of stars
4. Organic: Evolution or origin of life
5. macro: one kind of animal changing into another over time through many mutational changes
6. micro: Variations within a species. (the variations are only from information that ALREADY exists)
7. Lower case evolution: change over time.

Only the last two are true (well, what I believe)

I believe you have some good points but I'm not sure its totally convincing. The main reason evolution is not true is this...

1. Something cannot come from nothing/Something could not have always existed (dont bring God into this because he is supernatural...ONLY he can exist forever)

2. The second law of thermodynamics (SLT) does not allow planets or stars to form. Very simple.

3. The SLT does not apply to earth because it could get energy from other sources. (many times this is misquoted by creationists.) How ever life does not form from nonlife.

4. Lastly there is no scientific evidence that macro Evolution has occured. If there is, please tell me, but be ready for a debate. Micro Evolution does not lead to macro. Think of the peppered moth situation. Did the color of the moth really change? NO! only the population size. If the soot from the industrial age had been blue the moths would not have turned blue! (sorry if you don't know about the peppered moth but i assume most of you do and I am to lazy to type it all out. Its real simple just look it up). In other words, there was no Evolution taking place.

5. Even if you find a way for time, space, matter, and energy to have come from. Where did information come from? Information only comes from something that is already informed. An example is a computer. A computer only can hold and find information, because humans created it that way and programed information into it.

Watch Dr. Kent Hovind's debates. He does have sarcastic statements but he really knows what he's talking about.

Quick reply to the last post...Evolution is random, how can it not be? is there a mind behind it? NO. so please explain it...also Evolution HAS to talk about the origins of the universe. If it is impossible to have this universe exist without Evolution than it must have been created. THIS CONTRADICTS EVOLUTION. The theory of Evolution must line up with how the universe was formed otherwise it is not a coherent theory.

Oh and one more thing. We are not trying to prove creationism so much as we are trying to disprove Evolution. This is because we HAVE to ADMIT that it is mostly beliefs. Do you hear me, it is a belief. I am just showing you Evolutionists that Evolution is a belief also (because it could not have happened). However, by disproving Evolution we prove there must be a designer. Keep in mind this does not mean God, and most certainly doesn't mean any specific religion.

Thanks for reading and please respond

[edit on 13-9-2009 by b_rad513]

[edit on 13-9-2009 by b_rad513]

[edit on 13-9-2009 by b_rad513]



new topics

top topics



 
96
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join