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: 32
96
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 27 2010 @ 05:57 AM
link   
Hi and thanks for the read.

I sincerely apologize for keeping this post going. It was actually a great debate. However I am neither pro-creationist or pro-evolutionist. In fact I never really choose a "side". After all debates are something I really like to read.

I actually believe that there are many factors to consider outside the box. I mean nobody has ever mentioned once that perhaps there is a chance God created earth and had planned evolution. I really don't understand enough of both "sides" to really debate with you all. But as a human being, I too have a right to an opinion.

I also don't pick "sides" simply because a theory is a theory. Unless you can give me scientific evidence or facts and not stuff other people either made up, tampered with, or misunderstood, I really don't care. I will only believe things based on facts and that is what a scientist is. Theories are for theorists.

Anyway to be more on topic, you all had good arguments. I believe, with respects towards those who believe it, that evolution is bogus. TO A POINT. It would make sense for things to evolve. But I don't think they evolve THAT drastically. Maybe simple things such as intelligence. That has definitely evolved.

Earlier a poster had made a comment on how a bird with short wings wouldn't sit around and wait for evolution to happen. I'm sure with their mental capacity they wouldn't even think that far at all. As a matter of fact a bird with short wings would probably find a way to adapt to their wings. It's not a genetic defect or abnormality if that is the way it was born into the world and there is no other bird with short wings. That makes it normal. And even if it was a birth defect, it would most likely do the same thing a bird with no defect would do. Adapt for it's own survival.

Let's make an example:
Fred is a short-winged bird. He's the first of his kind/He's had a genetic defect(Whichever). Fred walks around the forest because he can't fly. Nor does he understand flying since he has never done this. He's also not a very fast runner.

One day Fred was walking around looking for food. As he kept his guard up, aware of his surrounding, he spotted a hungry tomcat. The cat was watching him with a ferocious look in it's eyes. Fred immediately ran as fast as he could away from the cat. As he ran, he realized the cat was much faster and agile. Fred was frightened and began to flap his short wings. He suddenly realized that the wings gave him increased speed. So he kept running trying to keep up with his new speed and noticed a hollow log on the ground going upwards. He climbed inside the hollow log with help from his wings.

I know this part is stupid but seriously now. Saying a bird would wait for evolution is profound. This story is to simulate the idea of adaptation. Not evolution.

Sorry for the horrible story. I winged it.


I wanted to mention one more opinion. The questions "what created matter" and "what created god" are horrible questions to ask. They don't mean anything. What you should be asking for is what is space. What is the universe. We all know it's made of matter but that does not mean that matter needs an origin just by looking at matter. You need to open your eyes and look at the broader more brain crushing aspect of this whole thing. Your questions are just as easy (and practically the same) as asking "How was life created/constructed?" Simply put when it comes to the mysterious, unknown, or theoretical things, you need to work around the answer you're looking for to find that answer. There is an answer for everything, but like everything, the answer lies in other answers.




posted on May, 27 2010 @ 01:13 PM
link   
I nearly fell on the floor laughing after reading your story.


Don't worry about it it was a positive laugh and I got the idea.



I think undid the damage at the end. You ask some really profound question. I totally agree with your reasoning.



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 01:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist

We would know that Darwinian theory would be in trouble. Since this has not happened it shows that evolution is due to slow changes, not the sort of abrupt change you claim has not happened.



This is simply ridiculous... The Earth is supposed to be 4.5 billion years old, which means it took billions of years to get here. Which means up until this very day and the next and the next, we are billions of years into the Evolution (life) of this planet... and in several billion years we cannot, nor has man ever in all recorded history, viewed one kind of creature giving birth to something other then its kind. It has never ever been observed in over 4.5 billion years. If the theory of evolution is true, then that is completely impossible, if the theory were true... Which means in order to account for this horrific discrepancy, either… evolution is over, it never happened, or the theory is DEAD WRONG and needs to evolve to a more truthful answer!


Science cannot say it only happens in secret, but that is what science says we must all believe. That is pure nonsense... The Earth is 4.5 billion years old, its been at least 62 million years since the last time science says most of the life on this planet was completely destroyed. How in the hell can evolution not be shown to happen in our time??? We cannot witness evolution once in 4.5 billion years in all of human history? I mean, how much time does it take? That's the point.


Science is trying to have its cake and eat it too. I personally don't know if evolution is true or not, but I know for a fact the theory is dead wrong. It's proven every single day. I didn't make up the theory of evolution, I can only follow its logic and right now there is no way in hell I can support that theory. Its flawed on so many levels, but the only one people need to focus on is, never, and I mean never ever in all of recorded human history has one kind of animal ever given birth to another kind of animal... 4.5 billion years of "evolution" and its never been observed, except, in science's imagination. That to is the point.


To suggest otherwise is the straw mans argument. Just sayin!!!


--Charles Marcello



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 01:54 AM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


And another thing... (redux)


You can believe it happened one hundred million years ago if you want... But I refuse to be duped... I want just one creature after millions of years of creating only after its kind, to create something other then its kind... in our time. If evolution is even remotely true that is exactly what should be happening... Because if it happened millions of years ago, and its now millions of years later, if evolution is even remotely true... it must happen now... in our time... But its not! And that is a major flaw in the theory, major... Science is demanding everyone believe evolution was real… but now its stopped… it only happened way back then... And there is zero evidence that evolution has happened in our time… and oh by the way… won't start up again until we are all dead... Yet believing a God created everything is just silly, because evolution is pure science...


YET.... You are asking everyone to believe evolution only happens in secret, and when it did happen 100's of millions of year ago... That… just because it happened hundreds of millions of years ago... now people… that doesn't mean its happening now... Really??? You don't consider that broken logic? For me... the absolute fact that evolution is not happening proves the theory is completely wrong. And we need to start looking for real answers.


The FACT that not one creature has ever created another creature outside of its kind... in our time while the whole world is paying attention... to me means... evolution is dead wrong. It truly is that simple... and I do not see how any reasonable person doesn't feel the exact same way.


Everyone keeps saying the fossil records will prove it... yet the most obvious answer isn't in the fossil records, that's ridiculous... its been millions, even billions of years after the fact according to the theory and not one new creature has created anything outside of its kind in 150 years. Yet we are told we must ignore that very simple scientific fact.


If it happened hundreds of millions of years ago, and its hundreds of millions of years later, and no new anything from another kind has ever been observed... yet evolution is still true... then damn, it don't take hundreds of millions of years, it takes billions of years for life to continually evolve. Because its already been hundreds of millions of years later, hell according to the theory we are living billions of years after the fact... if evolution is true, it MUST be happening now… everywhere, all over the world... but its not... And your answer is, we just need more time... Wow... 4 billions years isn't enough time to create a new kind from another kind... in our time... even though you want everyone to believe it happened millions of times for billions of years before our time... And that's supposed to be science and not a belief system?


Remember I didn't create the theory of evolution, I'm only trying to follow the logic, and history proves evolution cannot be true... because if it were, we would see evolution happening... were one kind of something, creates another kind of something... it has never been observed... so we are only left with two options... either evolution is wrong, or evolution only happens in secret.


--Charles Marcello



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 02:50 AM
link   
reply to post by littlebunny
 


Of course we can observe evolution in action directly. Every new human being has about 100 new mutations, that is a fact.



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 02:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by littlebunny
 


Of course we can observe evolution in action directly. Every new human being has about 100 new mutations, that is a fact.



What is your definition of a mutation?


Do our bodies adapt sure, does that even remotely prove one kind of creature can give birth to a different type of creature, no it doesn't. Still I would really like to understand your definition of a mutation… an interesting, perhaps purposely misleading, word really… and how it relates to evolution and one kind of something giving birth to a different kind of something.


--Charles Marcello



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 02:59 AM
link   
reply to post by littlebunny
 


You should really catch up on the links posted in this thread, because your knowledge of evolution is lacking drastically



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 03:10 AM
link   
Reply to post by Maslo
 


I think what LittleBunny is saying is that no one has ever observed macro-evolution (which is one species changing into another) occurring.

Micro-evolution (a change WITHIN a species) is nothing special and happens all the time. This would explain the different "races" that exist around the earth. Its a change WITHIN the species.

So at the end of the day, no matter how bad we want it, we still have to confess that macro-evolution has never been observed, even in the fossil record.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 03:19 AM
link   
reply to post by littlebunny
 




You understanding of evolution is juvenile at best.

Do you think evolution works by one species just one day giving birth to something completely different ???

An evolution like that takes tens if not hundreds of thousands of years. God, I don't know if I can even simplify it enough for you.

Evolution is merely adaptation, over thousands and millions of years. Your not going to see a gorilla give birth to a chimpanzee ok.

Evolution is clearly evident in the fossil records, why do you think we have tailbones ?? cause it was godswill ?? or is there some story about Adam having a tail i missed ?? .... What, do you expect them to find every species that ever existed on earth and catelogue it ??? their still finding new species to this day that are still living !!

and yes, living cells have finally been created in a laboratory !!!


BOOOYA !!



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 03:22 AM
link   
reply to post by thehumbleone
 




I think what LittleBunny is saying is that no one has ever observed macro-evolution (which is one species changing into another) occurring.


Than LittleBunny would be wrong.

Speciation, the change from one species into another HAS BEEN DIRECTLY OBSERVED.

Speciation

The change from one species to another has been observed to take place. That wikipedia article lists quite a few of those observed instances.



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 03:30 AM
link   
reply to post by thehumbleone
 


Thank you thehumbleone, how refreshing it is to have someone not be purposely obtuse. Its because of the comments made before your post and after your post I almost never talk about this online… People can be purposely dishonest when they believe all they’re arguing against is words on a screen. In person everyone I know cannot deny the simple point, because its undeniable, while online… talking about that truth is simply a giant waste of time because its grossly ignored so people can bring things up that have nothing to do with that truth…

Seriously, thank you, you are a diamond in the rough, a god among men, a fresh of breath air, etc etc!!!!!


--Charles Marcello


[edit on 29-5-2010 by littlebunny]



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 03:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by thehumbleone
 




I think what LittleBunny is saying is that no one has ever observed macro-evolution (which is one species changing into another) occurring.


Than LittleBunny would be wrong.

Speciation, the change from one species into another HAS BEEN DIRECTLY OBSERVED.

Speciation

The change from one species to another has been observed to take place. That wikipedia article lists quite a few of those observed instances.




I just read that article.. a new kind gave birth to a different kind? Where in that article does it say that? You said it has been observed, where in that article does it say that... that it was witnessed… one species giving birth to another kind? Everything I read in that article is talking about what they believe must've happened, and how a fly seems to be adapting, I don't know how that's giving birth to something other then a fly...

I know we are forcing creation of different kind of animals, but where does has it happened in nature? Where has it been observed? It hasn't and that article doesn't prove or show that its ever happened.


--Charles Marcello



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 04:02 AM
link   
reply to post by littlebunny
 



The criticism is rejected by the scientific community, which holds that there is ample evidence that macroevolution has occurred in the past.[5][11] The terms macroevolution and microevolution as used in mainstream science relate to the same processes operating at different scales, but creationist claims misuse the terms in a vaguely defined way which does not accurately reflect scientific usage, acknowledging well observed evolution as "microevolution" and denying that "macroevolution" takes place.

Macro-evolution

I hate to say it, but I just defended evolution.


It's okay, learning is growing.
I still believe in God for what it's worth so make it as painless as possible my faithful Christians!

You can be a Christian and believe in evolution/science. You may necessarily not agree with everything but to say it doesn't occur at all; on any scale, micro or macro, would be just denying the inevitable. You let your pride get in the way. If I remember correctly that's one of the seven deadly sins.


[edit on 29-5-2010 by novastrike81]



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 04:06 AM
link   
reply to post by littlebunny
 





I just read that article.. a new kind gave birth to a different kind?


The word kind is entirely meaningless Creationist jargon. Species is the term used. It was observed in numerous cases that after generations of genetic change an offspring can be so different from its ancestors that it can no longer breed with them. It has become a new species with a genetic code unique enough to prevent interbreeding.

It is not one kind giving birth to another kind, EVOLUTION DOES NOT AND WOULD NOT PERMIT THAT at least not in the commonly held Creationist sense (ie Crocoduck type stuff doesn't work in evolution.)

Genetic changes over the course of a great many generations lead to Speciation, the divergence of one species into another. This new species might be quite similar to its ancestors but as it within its own populations evolves it will eventually diverge as well. These gradual steps of one species into another, over a great deal of time are what lead to the macro-evolution of fish into land dwelling amphibians and other transitions we see evident in the fossil record.




You said it has been observed, where in that article does it say that.


Its right there under each type of Speciation they list OBSERVED INSTANCES, if you didn't see that than you weren't actually reading the article. The evidence is all out there, I'm not here to baby sit you.



I know we are forcing creation of different kind of animals, but where does has it happened in nature? Where has it been observed? It hasn't and that article doesn't prove or show that its ever happened.


The article mentions quite a few times that it has happened in nature. The first example it gives is that of Darwin's Finches. So even in Darwin's day we had evidence of speciation, here were 15 species of birds who were all quite similar but each had adapted to different islands, different environments. This wasn't micro-evolution though because they were SEPARATE species. Again I'm not going to spoon-feed you, do some research.

Even if speciation wasn't observed the genetic similarities between organisms, the strength of the transitional fossils in the fossil record and the fact that we witness smaller genetic changes would still be enough to prove evolution in favor of any other theory.

There is no other theory that explains bio-diversity and while evolution is not perfect it is more soundly proven than many other scientific theories.

Any scientific evidence based theory is better than assuming it was done via supernatural or magical means. Science is not allowed to give up all its evidence and scrap evolution in favor of magical beings.

Edit to Add: Don't want to admit something you've read, how about something you've watched:



This video lays it on the line and in it, the user DonExodus2, lays out how speciation works and gives examples of observed instances. Also note the amount of PEER REVIEWED scientific work he references in the Description box just south of the video window.

[edit on 29-5-2010 by Titen-Sxull]

[edit on 29-5-2010 by Titen-Sxull]



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 05:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull

The word kind is entirely meaningless Creationist jargon.


The word species is meaningless. A Dog has several different species, but a dog has never given birth to anything other then a dog. Its the word Kind that has all the meaning. To suggest otherwise is nothing but evolutionist jargon



Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
It is not one kind giving birth to another kind, EVOLUTION DOES NOT AND WOULD NOT PERMIT THAT at least not in the commonly held Creationist sense (ie Crocoduck type stuff doesn't work in evolution.)


It most certainly is about one kind giving birth to another kind, because if its not, then as I keep saying, evolution should be happening all over the place, but its not... hey look we have a fruit fly learning to adapt... in 100 million years, the fly went to a new environment and learned to eat something else... who are you people trying to kid. I watch hornets eat dead bugs from car grills at gas stations… is that a new bred?

Humans are from monkeys remember??? If it happened millions of years ago, and its millions of years later, how come a monkey in our time hasn't given birth to what its ancestors gave birth to millions of years ago, or why hasn‘t a monkey given birth to something other then a monkey… a better monkey? I realize you guys want to control every aspect of this discussion, from Kind means nothing, species means everything. I realize you people believe we evolved from monkeys, which is a different Kind of animal, but there is zero proof… so now evolution is a series of slow upgrades... To whom? To all the animals at once? Are all the fruit flies changing the world over? Are all the fruit flies in that area changing… will the new fruit fly overtake the old? Worldwide? IS it anything other then a fruit fly??? Evolution demands it happened millions of years ago, and you believe the Earth has been evolving for billions of years, but for some reason… now that we are paying attention its slowed down… its so slow it appears to have stopped. Are you kiddening me, you people are trying to have your cake and eat it too… not only that, you’re trying to control the debate which is pure nonsense… we evolved from monkeys, yet nothing and I mean nothing has ever been proven or witnessed that one kind can give birth to any other kind… it never ever happens, and because that is a fact… people like you are still demanding that a dog will someday give birth to a Rhino if we give that species a few more million years to try… Only people blinded by faith could believe this nonsense... Which is why I try to stay away from this debate.

As I've said, I don't know what the truth is yet... I know the Earth has to be older then 6000 years... and I know evolution is wrong, the evidence simply isn't there... and I don't care how hard you believers attempt to prove otherwise. Give me just one, just one example of one Kind of animal/creature giving birth to another kind of animal and your version of evolution is correct and its science. Until then, its not science, its nothing more then a radical belief system. Case Closed… (see I too can control the conversation!)


--Charles Marcello



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 05:08 AM
link   
reply to post by littlebunny
 


One species of creature cannot give birth to a different species of creature. We agree on that.

Speciation happens when two populatons of creatures are isolated, so they dont interbreed. Their genetic codes will thus gradualy diverge, until they are unable to interbreed, even if brought together. This has been observed.



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 05:14 AM
link   
reply to post by littlebunny
 


No, the dog is only one species. Different varietes are called subspecies or breeds.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 06:28 AM
link   
reply to post by littlebunny
 


You too should read a lot of the evolution links in this thread, because you apparently have no clue about it



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 06:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by littlebunny
 


You too should read a lot of the evolution links in this thread, because you apparently have no clue about it



You too should post a link showing one kind of animal giving birth to something other then its kind, which would then prove evolution. Because without it, you have a belief system and nothing more... but apparently you have no clue you're being duped.



BTW I could post link after link showing how your evidence is no evidence at all… or perhaps I should bring out the big guns and post Hovind videos… I know how much you guys loved him… When he gets out of prison I’m going to send that man 1000 dollars to help get him up and running again. I think he’s a crazy mofo… but I love what he does to you people… its so worth the thousand bucks… just three or four years to go and … muuhahahahaha, it’s show time all over again!


And for the record, every time I click on one of your links… check my history with ATS this isn't my first rodeo with you peeps… you people always say it proves this but you never deliver, ever... the link I've talked about already in the last few posts, is like all the others, all hype and no bite. You people are like prostitutes claiming to have a tight hole only to find out its the grand canyon... I'm not falling for your lies... (gross analogy I know, but damn funny if you think about it.)


BTW I love how you people keep attacking me with the same nonsense... so now I must demand... post just one picture of a different kind giving birth to something other then its kinds... post it... you can't, I know it, you know it, so you deflect... here look, speciation has been observed... Wow, a fruit fly eating something different... Evolution is true... Do you realize just how stupid funny that is... I know you don't but I love saying that out loud in pub-lick.



--Charles Marcello


[edit on 29-5-2010 by littlebunny]



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 07:23 AM
link   
reply to post by littlebunny
 


Theory of evolution DOES NOT teach that one species of organism gives birth to different species of organism.
Organism gives birth to a slightly different organism, and during many generations these differences accumulate, and produce new species (observed).

You dont even understand evolution, how do you want to argue against it then?



new topics




 
96
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join