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: 33
96
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 29 2010 @ 07:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


The only real way to argueing against ToE is to not understand it properly. Thats why you have people who say "why are there still mokeys then?".

It's not that they do not understamd that disturbs me but the fact that they do not want to understand. Some would rather go to religious propoganda sites that tell them the planet is only 6000 years old rather than go to actual science sites.




posted on May, 29 2010 @ 07:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


Thats strange I posted a reply and it's only showing up in my history and not the actual thread. Sorry mods this is just a test post.

edit. "new page glitch".

anyway.. someone mentioned hovind. Isn't he the same guy who said humans and dinosaurs co-existed?


[edit on 29-5-2010 by riley]



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 07:56 AM
link   
reply to post by littlebunny
 


Like others have mentioned, what you're asking for is NOT how evolution works. Elephants and rats are related...however, that doesn't mean a rat suddenly gave birth to a friggin' elephant. A species mutates over hundreds and thousands of generations until branches away far enough from its origin, that it's an entire new species.

You aren't even discussing evolution vs creationism, you are arguing creationism vs your flawed understanding of evolution.



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 09:00 AM
link   
reply to post by littlebunny
 


Your understanding of evolution is based on misconception.

The word "Kind" does not have any scientific meaning in terms of grouping animals. A "Kind" does not give birth to another "Kind" because that word has no meaning in the context that you're using it.



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 09:09 AM
link   
Im not sure if this thread is still going but this just seems like science versus religion, of course evoltion exists we see it every day, thats wht adaptation is, a smaller form of evolution, taking what you have and making it better according to the situation, and of course religous nuts are gonna try to disprove evolution, they think that there is only one creator and thats it.....and im not sure if anyone else got this but the OP got every fact he had from links titled "biblelife" CMON GUYS REALLY??? this is a iased view not offering any kind of constructive conversation just a debate one thats been going on for decades...believe what you want just dont try and cram it down other peoples throats, and use reputable sources next time....real sources not some mumbo jumbo from a fairy tale for grown-ups



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 09:39 AM
link   
reply to post by edsinger
 


Thought you might be interested in this. Funny when i came in here today just finished reading this article about artificial life being created in the lab.





It's the ultimate science experiment, really — taking a handful of chemicals, mixing them in just the right combination and presto — life!
And after nearly 15 years of such toiling in his labs in Rockville, Md., J. Craig Venter, co-mapper of the human genome, has done just that. Reporting in the journal Science, he describes a remarkable experiment in which he and the team at his eponymous institute have pieced together the entire genome of a bacterium and then inserted those genetic instructions into another bacterium. The cell booted up, and life — by nearly any definition — was created.


Read more: www.time.com...



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by novastrike81


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]


I am a Catholic and I agree with the Theory of evolution. And I still must say, macro evolution has never been observed in its entirety or essence, simply because our lifespan isn't long enough.

It's nothing you or anyone in the scientific community has to be ashamed of. It just is what it is.

[edit on 5/29/2010 by thehumbleone]



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by littlebunny
 



You too should post a link showing one kind of animal giving birth to something other then its kind, which would then prove evolution


That's not how evolution works so it would do NOTHING to prove evolution. Evolution does not permit one "kind" from giving birth to another "kind" but it does permit small genetic variations over the course of subsequent generations to result in offspring that are far different from their ancestors, so different as to be a separate SPECIES genetically. The word Kind, as I stated, is meaningless in this discussion and is not a scientific term (a quick thanks to Maslo for pointing out that Dogs are the same species). The reason Dogs are still the same species is because humans have interbred them and essentially controlled their evolution.


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…


If Kent Hovind is your big guns than you are truly a lost cause mired in immovable ignorance. Hovind is nothing but a fraud, a religiously biased and scientifically incompetent one at that. Your links, I am sure, would be nothing more than Creation biased nonsense with no scientific basis and likely riddled with lies and misconceptions. Your own ignorance about the way Evolution works is likely a result of following these people. Religious bias has no peer review, science on the other hand must be tested and peer reviewed by other colleagues in the field and be found to be accurate.


I think he’s a crazy mofo… but I love what he does to you people… its so worth the thousand bucks…


And what is it you think he does to us? If anything I find him good for a laugh, even funnier at times than Ray Banana Man Comfort and his companion Kirk Crocoduck Cameron. The only thing that truly bothers me is that there are people who actually follow these people's word, rather than doing any research for themselves they will listen to people with a preconceived bias toward LYING TO PROVE THEIR MYTHS.

Check the link again, it lists instances of Speciation starting with Darwin's Finches. We've seen speciation happen, it is a scientifically observed fact. Evolution has already been proven and no amount of ignorance or sticking your fingers in your years to block it out is going to help. The only thing that could prove it wrong is for a SCIENTIFIC theory to gain as much evidence as evolution has and overturn the theory - since Creationism is religiously based, has no evidence to back it up, and is not science based it cannot even hope to contend with the wealth of evidence for evolution.

What is the scientific alternative to Evolution? There is none. Even the religious scientists and biologists adapt their belief systems accordingly because the evidence points toward Evolution exclusively as the source of bio-diversity.

Here's a tip, do some research OUTSIDE the realm of religiously biased and deceptive sources. I'm not here to spoon-feed you or undo your ignorance and as you've stated this isn't your first rodeo - which means that your ignorance has apparently stood the test of time.

I leave you with this, it is an article about 10 genes discovered to exist in isolated populations in Tibet that allow them to live at very high altitudes. Here's Evolution at work IN US HUMANS. Try as you may to escape the truth - we're evolving right now.

Genes Explain why Tibetans Thrive

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

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



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by thehumbleone
And I still must say, macro evolution has never been observed in its entirety or essence, simply because our lifespan isn't long enough.
[edit on 5/29/2010 by thehumbleone]


"Macro-evolution" includes Speciation, which has been observed.



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by PieKeeper

Originally posted by thehumbleone
And I still must say, macro evolution has never been observed in its entirety or essence, simply because our lifespan isn't long enough.
[edit on 5/29/2010 by thehumbleone]


"Macro-evolution" includes Speciation, which has been observed.



Of course its impossible to keep up with all the lies that equals evolution... The less then truthful people who promote it… these people keep changing the rules… I mean its laughable… every time those people get bitched slapped with all the LIES they keep trying to force onto humanity, what do they do… they change the rules. Its laughable… Next thing you know, speciation will be called Macro-Evolution...

Ohh look!


I crack myself up… You guys really need to study the history of evolution and not just focus on all the lies you now believe. WILL ANY OF YOU BE HONEST AND POST ALL THE LIES EVOLUTION HAS BEEN CAUGHT PROMOTING???


--Charles Marcello



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 08:07 PM
link   
reply to post by littlebunny
 


You enjoy projecting the flaws of your own group, Creationists, upon those who support Evolution.

Science is evidence based, it is not allowed to have a bias towards any particular outcome. Evolution is accepted in the scientific community because it has been proven time and time again. The evidence points to evolution and only evolution and to deny such is to engage in lying, self-deception, or both.

Please go ahead and point out the flaws of Evolution. Science THRIVES on pointing out what's wrong with it, because only in questioning our conclusions and bringing them into proper line with the actual evidence does science move forward.

Creationists are biased to their myth.

Scientists are obligated to follow evidence.

Creationism is religion, not science, and it rejects any evidence that does not agree with its already existing conclusion.

Evolution is science, it takes into account all the evidence before reaching a conclusion.

The fossil evidence, genetic evidence, behavioral evidence, phylogenetic evidence, it all adds up and points to one conclusion: Evolution happens. The reason there is scientific consensus, even amongst scientists who are religious believers, is because the evidence points exclusively to evolution. If there is a God than denying Evolution is denying something which is evidently true in God's Universe.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, this does not constitute an argument:




posted on May, 29 2010 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by littlebunny
 


You enjoy projecting the flaws of your own group, Creationists, upon those who support Evolution.

Science is evidence based, it is not allowed to have a bias towards any particular outcome.


You mean like the unbiased science that says, Rocks date the Dinosaurs, but the Dinosaurs date the Rocks much better. Rocks date the Dino but the Dino dates the Rocks much better... the Rocks date the... yeah that's unbiased science… hell no, according to you that‘s real science and not a belief system… how inconsiderate of those who want to find what the real answers are, instead you zealots find that unacceptable... you believe all should just think and believe everything you evolutionist zealots believe... but it aint gonna happen in my lifetime... BTW, I'm not a creationist...


--Charles Marcello


[edit on 29-5-2010 by littlebunny]



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 10:16 PM
link   
reply to post by littlebunny
 


If the systems used to verify age in geology and paleontology were inaccurate, they wouldn't be used.

Also, science is allowed to further define terms such as species when new information comes along. It was once thought that what we define as species could not interbreed, but we find species interbreeding quite often. Therefore a revision of the definition of species was in order.



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 10:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by PieKeeper
reply to post by littlebunny
 


If the systems used to verify age in geology and paleontology were inaccurate, they wouldn't be used.



That is pure nonsense... when you start something using a horrifically flawed system its still laughably flawed. I cannot believe you people do not understand this simple to grasp concept is pathetically flawed as hell... rocks give us the age of the dinosaurs, but dinosaurs give a better age for the rocks... that is pure stupidity run amuck and only liars and idiots cannot tell that is scam, in my most humbled, not so humbled, opinion.

Which proves you haven't studied how all this came to be, to believe in that nonsense, equals pure nonsense, which equals a blind follower, a sheple, and nothing more... ie, those who believe in that nonsense critical thinking skills are at zero.

I know, bubbles explain the only truth about air, but air explains the only truth about bubbles more correctly. And you wanna know what’s damn funny… most evolutionist will agree with that sentence as well…


--Charles Marcello



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 10:46 PM
link   
reply to post by littlebunny
 


How in the world do you know that I haven't studied the subjects? You haven't even made clear reference as to what you are talking about, nor have you made citations for your claims.

Put your money where your mouth is or get lost.



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 10:57 PM
link   
reply to post by littlebunny
 


And once again you criticize scientific method without apparently having the slightest clue about it. If you doubt carbon dating, you might just as well doubt electricity and the light bulb


READ

Also, you posting here "OMGOMGOMG, evolution is so wrong" while not providing any concrete evidence for your claims makes you (a bit) of a troll. And an uneducated at that


[edit on 29-5-2010 by MrXYZ]



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by littlebunny

Originally posted by PieKeeper

Originally posted by thehumbleone
And I still must say, macro evolution has never been observed in its entirety or essence, simply because our lifespan isn't long enough.
[edit on 5/29/2010 by thehumbleone]


"Macro-evolution" includes Speciation, which has been observed.



Of course its impossible to keep up with all the lies that equals evolution... The less then truthful people who promote it… these people keep changing the rules… I mean its laughable… every time those people get bitched slapped with all the LIES they keep trying to force onto humanity, what do they do… they change the rules. Its laughable… Next thing you know, speciation will be called Macro-Evolution...

Ohh look!


I crack myself up… You guys really need to study the history of evolution and not just focus on all the lies you now believe. WILL ANY OF YOU BE HONEST AND POST ALL THE LIES EVOLUTION HAS BEEN CAUGHT PROMOTING???


--Charles Marcello

We have observed speciation in several types of plants, I'm sure you'll make up some sort of excuse for this though, and it won't be good enough to appease the ever hungry need for evidence creationists seem to need for evolution, if only they applied the same vigor to their own beliefs.



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 01:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by littlebunny
 


And once again you criticize scientific method without apparently having the slightest clue about it. If you doubt carbon dating,READ



Wow, carbon dating can now go back millions of years... oh wait, that's not what that link says... but so what, evolution is true simply because you say so... how ridiculous you would even bring up carbon dating as a way to prove evolution... how sadly pathetic... once again, the rocks date the dino's and yet dino's date the rocks much better... that too is sadly pathetic! And OMG, why would I need to keep bringing up all the old crap we've all linked before, what the hell is the point... this is simply a battle of words... grow up!


--Charles Marcello


[edit on 30-5-2010 by littlebunny]



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 01:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by littlebunny

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by littlebunny
 


And once again you criticize scientific method without apparently having the slightest clue about it. If you doubt carbon dating,READ



Wow, carbon dating can now go back millions of years... oh wait, that's not what that link says... but so what, evolution is true simply because you say so... how ridiculous you would even bring up carbon dating as a way to prove evolution... how sadly pathetic... once again, the rocks date the dino's and yet dino's date the rocks much better... that too is sadly pathetic! And OMG, why would I need to keep bringing up all the old crap we've all linked before, what the hell is the point... this is simply a battle of words... grow up!


--Charles Marcello


[edit on 30-5-2010 by littlebunny]

Explain to me how carbon dating is wrong.
It just seems like you don't understand something and so you cast it out of your life prematurely.



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 05:41 AM
link   
There are quite a few radiometric dating methods, not just carbon dating. They give consistent results. And that is just radiometric dating, there are many other methods. It is scientificaly impossible for Earth to be just thousands of years old.

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...
ating_methods



new topics

top topics



 
96
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join