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: 28
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 08:25 PM

Originally posted by b_rad513
I am a creationist.


I'll be blunt.

Who are you, and why should I care about YOUR definition of evolution?

Why not stick to the ACTUAL definition of evolution?

posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 08:27 PM

Originally posted by JESUS is coming

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

So what, the Bible is rife with inaccuracies, many tales seem to be from even older tales, it's got a great deal in common with the 4000+ year older hebrew Torah, it's be translated, retranslated and mistranslated hundreds of times throughout history, and for many people, it's as much fiction as any other book.

Saying God made it so can answer every question without answering any of them at all.

posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 06:51 PM
reply to post by vox2442

well I find it funny that you don't attack what I actually said. Umm, those are correct definitions, if you have a better one please share, but I was just doing that so it wouldn't be confusing in my Post.

Those are from Dr. Kent Hovind and nobody ever debated him on those definitions so I figured it was safe to say that.

An example where a problem would arise would be if I said evolution is true. And Evolution is not true. Obviously there is change over time, but the idea of macro Evolution (I believe) is not possible.

Thank you and please respond to what I actually said

Oh, and This may make you think less of me, but I'll be honest. I am a 16 year old male, with a biased opinion because I grew up in the Christian Faith. However, I am for truth and I definitely do NOT want Evolution to be proven false with faulty evidence.

[edit on 14-9-2009 by b_rad513]

posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 06:58 PM
reply to post by BaronVonGodzilla


Now the debate isn't whether or not the Bible is true, It's if Evolution is true. We can believe something stupid and theres nothing you can do about it. For example, if I said 2+2=5 (Evolutionists' perspective on Christianity) then I would be wrong. But that doesn't make me incapable of proving 4+4=9 (Evolutionists) is wrong. Sorry if that analogy was confusing but its the first thing that popped into my head.

And I agree, "God has a reason" can only be used against other Christians, not Evolutionists.

If anyone disagrees with what I said please tell me, but I think I got it right

posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 07:18 PM
I've got to ask if the OP just copied and pasted all that from somewhere else without reading through it.

The theory of Evolution isnt perfect, its probably not even 100% accurate but Evolution of Biological Life is a FACT, there can be no arguements about it because we watch it happen.

I'm not going to go through a debunk each point because if you werent able to figure out the relatively simple answers to the "debunking" I doubt me wasting my time typing them out here is going to do you any good.

posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 08:52 PM
reply to post by b_rad513

Now the debate isn't whether or not the Bible is true, It's if Evolution is true.

I think you're wrong because you seen to misunderstand the nature of science. Science is a self correcting, knowledge accumulating machine; if a hypothesis is wrong then evidence will arise to conflict with that hypothesis and the scientific community with alter the hypothesis to cover that evidence if that can be done or scrap it and start from scratch.

However, your responsibility as a creationist is to prove creationism, that is on your shoulders and if you're the type to believe what the bible says then that id your brief. Science doesn't need your help to criticise theories. Evolution-ism has been around for thousands of years first pitched in Alexandria and now we can see it happening, see the wheels of the machine turning and see traces of the past forms that things took.

posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 04:33 PM
reply to post by Welfhard

THIS debate is on ONLY Evolution...Because that's how the post was started, plain and simple. I do need to have reasons to believe my Christian views, but I don't have to prove them. You tell me why I am entitled to prove creationism. I don't have to. It's my BELIEF. It takes faith (even though there is evidence for it). The point is, is that I we just want to attack Evolution. There are so many forms of Creationism that we should just try to stick to the idea that there is an intelligent designer. You agree that you have to prove (reasonably) that Evolution is true for it to be taught in schools as fact. Even if we prove creationism to be 100% it still is not going to be taught in school due to separation of church and state. I don't see why I have to prove anything, if I want to believe in it. Of course, by disproving evolution, I am proving that there must be some sort of designer involved (unless there's another possible theory). I am not asking it to be taught in school. You are, thats the difference.

(Sorry if I was repetative)

[edit on 16-9-2009 by b_rad513]

posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 04:37 PM
reply to post by gYvMessanger

I don't know what the OP is, but I'm a real person just debating.

I don't say how you can say Evolution is a fact, if it is still changing. It's a debatable issue, but thats not the point. The point is to argue what the Evidence points to and I say Intelligent Design. I would love to hear your points on what I orginally posted. Please do, so that we can have more to discuss that whether or not we should prove the Bible to be true or if Evolution is a fact. LETS START DEBATING THE EVIDENCE. I haven't read through all the posts, but you sound like you're sure about Evolution and have some good points to say, so you won't be wasting your time.

Oh, and yes evolution happens, but like I said you have to define your terms. If you mean change over time i agree with you. But If you mean all that exists is time, space, matter, and energy and that everything that exists came from nothing, then I disagree.

P.S. just wanted to edit something on the post below me, but couldn't.

[edit on 16-9-2009 by b_rad513]

[edit on 16-9-2009 by b_rad513]

[edit on 16-9-2009 by b_rad513]

posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 04:42 PM

Originally posted by b_rad513
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 or anything in the Universe as a whole to come to order.

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]

posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 04:53 PM
reply to post by b_rad513

Personally I believe in both Intelligent Design (not the theory of that name but the concept) and Evolution.

I believe the universe has a creator, that doesn't disclude the belief in evolution though. I think of it as the universe running on auto pilot to preset rules.

My job isn't to come on here and prove evolution to you, as I said the evolution of biological life is a fact, we breed desirable traits in animals, we have people who devote their lives to studying the manipulation of genetics, biological science is the basis for a wealth of disciplines, a VERY basic fact of which is that life adapts over generations based on both internal and external stimuli, that is evolution, it happens, if you need more proof get into animal husbandry its probably the easiest way to show you.

posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 08:10 PM
reply to post by gYvMessanger

Fair Enough

posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 03:44 AM
reply to post by b_rad513

Well since we're going down the 'teach in schools' alley of discussion..

It takes faith

Indeed it does, which exactly why creation is not scientific and can't be taught as science. Science denies the idea of faith - the belief without evidence - because evidence is the most important and fundamental factor of any piece of science.

Even if we prove creationism to be 100% it still is not going to be taught in school due to separation of church and state.

No, if creationism was proved to be 100% true it would be taught in science because it would be a matter of fact and there is no dissociation between science facts, every conclusion in science is empirically based on them.

However, evolution, or rather the Theory of Evolution is a product of the scientific method and is as such completely scientific. Evolution is taught to be true because we can see it happening and have utilised it for thousands of years, our understanding of it is taught not as true but as theory, therein lies the difference between fact and theory and we teach both as we should.

posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 04:28 AM
reply to post by edsinger

edsinger great thread , love your work.
darwin was wrong.only very minor changes to a species [in varied environments]can be observed.
some/most scientists are egocentric ,they like to pretend,
and get paid for it!!!
they should be in movies...
gods miracle of creation though,cannot be explained away!!!!
knowledge is not wisdom,but wisdom is knowledge,[correctly

posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 01:15 AM
1. Without telling me what type of bird you are referring to I must say some bird species do not have 'wings' for the purpose of flying. Penguins dont actually have 'wings' at all, they have flippers which help them swim, and balance...other birds that cannot fly, such as a turkey or chicken, do not have wings for the purpose of flying either, its a balance proportion. without these wings the animal may not have balance enough to walk. and the theory of evolution by natural selection doesnt mean that the species itself changed in order to survive, it proposes, that just as all humans are born different, animals are all born different. even in the same species..some people are dwarfs, some have shorter arms than others, some have webbed toes, ect... animals within a species are all different in their own way too, evolution just proposes that some of the differences the animals have make living in nature easier for them to survive, which in turn could mean these animals would have more offspring than the ones in that species that their differences make it more difficult to survive.

2. Im wondering if you just have peices of information these proposing scientists have tried to fully explain...they dont just 'line up' ape and monkey skeletons and compare them to each other. They show the close relationship between the characteristic traits, such as chromosome composure, organ systems, the way we all work, and yes, even similarities in skeleton composure as well as muscle and brain functions. But its not just monkeys we have compared ourselves to, in the kingdom, phylum class order family genus and species we compare homo-sapiens (humans) to other animals within the same family to show relations of the animals and ourselves. its only a theory that we came from monkeys nobody has ever said it was fact or not, and it doesnt seem like you have the facts to disprove it.

3. the theory that lightning hit the ocean and created living cells may be a theory, but its deffinately not the only one, and for good enough reason. The theory I look at here states that the microscopic cells such as bacteria formed from gasses emitted from earth and the sun, liquid such as water from the earth, and possibly other forms of material. Think about it, all bacteria cells do is regenerate or reproduce, and take in energy for food they find.
the entire cell is surrounded by a gell-like liquid that contains water and other elements found in nature. obviously the nucleas formed first, then the other parts of the cell such as where it stores and processes food came to form so that it could take in energy (food) and emitt a different energy (the wasted material it spits out). with these obviously their needed to be tubes that open up to take this energy in and out of the cell. With time the bacteria cells would attempt to take more and more food as energy. this could cause the bacteria cells to grow into more complex systems, similar to how milk helps your bones. of course they didnt just make new organ-like structures just out of the blue and random. first they began to make more and more things that would store and process the food they take in and emit out. and I do believe that more than just one strand of cells were formed at once. There are millions of types of cells that would have been all different in some way. all these cells do is take in and emit energy. how the became more complex is still being looked into i do agree, so no its not 'proven' but your answer doesnt disprove anything either. look at a jellyfish, they do not have skin, or bone. they are in a perspective, similar to as well as different from, single cell organisms. they take in small fish and energy through a tube, 'digest', and emitt a new product from what they did not take in. take frogs as an example of how animals came onto dry land. other animals also came onto our land. there may have been many different strands of organisms that created the chain to other speices.

4. that theory doesnt state that the female makes these changes with her body, it states the environmental factors do. similar to things such as a sunburn, darkened skin from exposure to the sun, more hair on ones body from colder climates, ect. the female carrying the child does not make changes, the chromosome composure isnt affected by the changes the enviornment makes.

5. then explain downs syndrome and how it doesnt 'reverse' itself?

6. that was only one theory of evolution, and yes it may not be true that organisms can rearrange their composition but you look at it as if they speak of superhumans who can change themselves...they simply suggest that as time progesses things change, and that is a fact.

7. are you aware of the animal donkey? a hybrid from mating a horse with a mule? this fact blows your whole idea there out of the water.

8. scientists job is to discover...why would they ignore a fact or question? anyways, the origin of matter is a question trying to be solved. neutrons, protons, electrons all come together to create atoms, which is matter in the raw. elements are the beggining of matter, which they combine in many ways to create other compounds. think for a moment what a neutron and a proton is..they are attracted to each other while electrons simply rotate around it by what i think would be a magnetic chain reaction..the protons may attract the electron, as the neutron would repel it, or vice versa.

9. Mars was once in the habital zone of orbit around the sun, giving it opportunity to generate water and yes, even an atmosphere, but the atmosphere was faint on mars when their was one. its not a really active planet if you know, there are no strong magnetics within mars, possibly no tectonic plates as found on earth. all the necessaties of life were NOT found on mars, only some of them.

10. Ok theres a million things wrong with your idea here...first off, there are two exoplanets, which means a planet outside of our solar system, the star is called 581 and has three planets found so far to orbit it. 581 A is a gasplanet like jupiter, however 581 B holds water currently and has a land mass. 581 C is farther away and is mostly Ice at the moment, (ice age ring a bell?), but does hold some water in spaces. Secondly, radio signals dont travel at even half the speed of light. The stars out there are estimated at hundreds of millions possibly billions of light-years away, so the radio signals that are transported out may not have traveled this distance yet. ever think of that?

ok your little thoery here...number 12 you call it (dont know what happened to the number 11), Ill try to explain a little more about this. First off, are you aware many of our most abundunt elements found on earth are found in the sun as well? The sun is constantly in motion from its strong and large magnetic structures constantly attracting and repelling one another. is it not possible that many of our planets came from the sun as its known strong magnetic storms became so big that it broke? its known that the sun was once more powerful than it is now, so why then wouldnt the past magnetic storms have been strong enough to emitt large chunks of magnets (which would explain many asteroids) and magma created by friction heat from the magnets pulling and pushing? No, it would not emitt a spherical planet, but with time the orbit the planet has with the sun could help shape the planet into a sphere. the fact that the planet the sun could have possibly emitted wasnt as magnetically strong as the sun could mean the magnets didnt pull and push on each other like on the sun..this would also help explain how we are magnetically orbited. with the magnetstorm like problem out of the way the elements had a more stable place to produce chemical changes. This doesnt disprove your statments about granite or polonium, it simply gives you another point of view that in a sense takes your statements and things found by evolution together in a way. could you tell me facts that state what i said was wrong?

posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 03:08 PM
reply to post by radarloveguy

Not even close. Speciation has been observed in the lab. You can keep saying it hasn't, but that doesn't change anything. You are clearly wrong, and you refuse to be corrected.

posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 01:33 AM
reply to post by Welfhard

I just started looking over this post and this might be a little off topic, however...over 1/3 of the Bible is prophetic. Most of it has already come to pass.
Lets take a look at the book of Daniel. He interprets Nebuchadnezzar's dream which was a statue of a Head of gold, Chest and Arms of Silver, Belly and Thighs (Hips) of Brass, Legs of Iron, and the Feet of Iron and Clay.

Chapter 2:24, this dream is explained, the different body parts represent different kingdoms of the world. Head-Babylon (609-539 BC); Chest and Arms-Medo-Persia (539-331 BC); Belly and thighs-Greece (331-168 BC); Legs-Rome (168 BC - 476 AD) (First phase) and then you have the feet which will be the revived Roman Empire aka European Union. The 10 toes represent that this new revived empire will be divided among 10 kings or kingdoms, and is comprised partly of iron and clay because some of the kingdom will be strong and part of it will be brittle.

This is just one of the thousands of versus in the bible that have come to pass with amazing accuracy. Over 33 times is the nation of Israel referred to as the fig tree. God said that he would spread His people, the Jews, across all the Nations of the world, and there had not been a nation of Israel since 300 or something B.C (sorry im not spot on with my facts but you can look it up im sure) and in 1948, the Jews came together and Israel was "reformed" in 1948, just like God said it would, and 1967, also just like God said it would, They took over Jerusalem.

Like I said, there are tons of other prophetic versus in the Bible that go hand in hand with our current Events, one last example God said Israel would be blessed with finding oil, and what do you know, they just discovered oil in central Israel. I could go on and on.

posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 10:26 AM
reply to post by 100Grand

That is vague prophecy that has to be explained to make sense, which is not useful in any sense at all. If something has to be shoe-horned into prophecy for people to see the prophecy as true, then it's not prophecy but wishful thinking.

Nothing in the bible has been seen to come true. It's all allegory. There's no real evidence Jesus even existed, for crying out loud!

Please don't swamp this forum with your deceit, as we are here to learn, not to have our minds gummed up with the wishful thinking of believers too scared to realise their beliefs are based on guesswork.

posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 11:39 AM
If evolution is false, that does not mean creationism must be correct. There just might be other unexplored, unknown or undiscovered explanations.

It is also possible that both are true to some degree. Perhaps God created many things prior to man or tried many times to create life but never got it quite right until man and the animals of today. Perhaps we and our animal brothers appear similar to prehistoric mammals or dinosaurs because they were the original versions and we were modified slightly when God tried again.

I also think people can be considered ID'ers without having some link to creationists with hidden agenda's. I don't get why this is always assumed by evolutioists.

Perhaps we have not figured out the real timelines or correct interpretations mentioned in the bible, specifically genesis. Maybe Creationism and Evolution are both correct. Or perhaps both incorrect.

Abiogenesis should not neccessarily be lumped in with evolution. Evolution is an explanation for life after it already exists.

posted on Jan, 19 2010 @ 12:11 AM
reply to post by davesidious

You wouldn't have a clue because you havn't studied it. There is plenty of proof that Evolution is false and Jesus was the son of God. Of course you are goin gto deny this as fact but until you do watch

The case for christ, and the case for a creator by Lee Strobel, and other videos on Youtube by Lee Strobel. You may think has a biased opinion, even though he spent most of his life as an athiest, but give it a chance and watch.

The case for a creator vvv

If you really want any kind of evidence against me then watch this and then show me that he is wrong

posted on Jan, 19 2010 @ 12:15 AM
reply to post by 100Grand

There is plenty of proof that Evolution is false and Jesus was the son of God.

Nope, you got it wrong.

Zeus was son of Kronos. Get it right this time.

new topics

top topics

<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in