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.
Originally posted by hippomchippo
Originally posted by littlebunny
Originally posted by hippomchippo
Evolution is gradual.
No, let me restate that, Evolution is astronomically gradual.
There wasn't just a day when a fish decided to get out of the water and grow some legs, it was amazingly gradual.
Ok, but you're still missing the point... If that is true, and it happened 50 million years ago, and its now... 50 million years later, where is it happening? If it happened then, then it must be happening now... but it doesn't happen, it has never ever been observed... That is monster huge! The Earth hasn't stopped aging, nor has life stopped existing on this planet... If evolution is true then it must be a continuous process that happens all the time… all the time... Yet it has never been observed.
Now 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 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 as 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
[edit on 7-3-2010 by littlebunny]
How long have we been actively monitoring animals?
Do you think that compares to 50 million years?
Originally posted by Nygdan
Originally posted by edsinger
Now before the Mods delete this,
Single Cell Complexity Proves Evolution is Wrong
The most modern laboratory is unable to create a living cell.
This is utterly irrelevant to how life, once it exists, does evolve.
Actually, no its not. Because even if someone were to create a living cell from nonliving chemicals in a laboratory setting, this would point to intelligence, not random chance.
Originally posted by followtheevidence
reply to post by PieKeeper
Actually, a scientific theory proper (or even a hypothesis for that matter) is both observable and testable. A theory can not be proven, but is either supported or falsified by experimentation. Neither creationism or evolutionary theory are testable, so in truth calling either a theory is really a misnomer.
Creation is not taking place now, so far as can be observed. Therefore, it was accomplished in the past and thus is inaccessible to the scientific method.
If evolution is taking place today, it operates too slowly to be measurable, and therefore, is outside the realm of empirical science.
The evolution of one kind of organism into a higher organism would presumably take millions of years and no team of scientists is equipped to make measurements on any such experiment.
Instead, creationism and evolution should be considered tentative scientific models. It is proposed that these two "models" be used as systems for predicting data, to see which one does so more effectively based on observation.
Ultimately however, since neither "model" can be tested, they are not verifiable using the scientific method which means that accepting either model as true requires an element of faith (belief in the absence of proof).
Originally posted by followtheevidence
Your question is misleading. Perhaps we have only been actively monitoring animals for a small amount of time comparatively, but we have studied millions of years worth of archeological evidence via the fossil record. What have we found?
1. The first is that the fossil record shows species originating abruptly. This contradicts the predictions of Darwin's hypothesis. His hypothesis calls for very many intermediate forms gradually grading from one species to another. But instead the record shows the opposite - species arise abruptly.
2. Secondly, the geologic record shows that species do not change significantly through time. For millions of years they remain constant - with only minor and random change. This also contradicts the predictions of the hypothesis of Darwin.
3. The "Cambrian explosion" represents a period in which most of the current phyla all appeared in a very short geological span of time. This also seriously contradicts the hypothesis of Darwin.
Originally posted by catwhoknows
reply to post by FredT
Tell me this - where did evolution come from, given that nothing can come from nothing?
Originally posted by followtheevidence
Actually, no its not. Because even if someone were to create a living cell from nonliving chemicals in a laboratory setting, this would point to intelligence, not random chance.
Originally posted by UofCinLA
There is no doubt science is only as good as the research that goes into it and for me at least the science is so far better than a "god" did it....
For example, if a god, especially the perfect one so often claimed by most of the fervent bible thumpers was behind it all how come the god does crappy work at best - to wit:
1. Unstable planet - Earth is geologically unstable and subject to wild temperature swings (warm periods/ice ages) and volcanism that often leads to wiping out the handiwork..??
2. Sun will go Red Giant in ~4.5 billion years, taking the Earth and all the handiwork with it..??
3. Galaxy will collide with M31 (Andromeda) kinda causing a mess of things..??
4. Gave the Earth and solar system with a cosmic pinball quality - comets and things tend to run into the handiwork..??
And those are just the biggies....
Believe what you want about evolution, but to throw down and worship that kind of craftsmanship is beyond crazy - it's just plain and simple brainwashing and without any critical thought.... Heck - I want a refund for the shoddy work or at least be able to file a warranty claim against the entity/god/alien. Anyone have that number or address..??
Your argument is only valid if you assert that the Creator is finished with His creation.
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
i've always been asked what's wrong with accepting the concept of a designer to explain something in science.
it leads to bad science.
there is no scientific evidence of a designer, and if you say ID is, then you're going in circles. you're saying we know the designer exists because we've seen what it designed.
accepting a designer means that we accept that a being outside our realm of understanding (due to the fact that it did not need to be designed itself, unless you want to keep going on like that forever) and therefore outside of science, is part of science.
it's a way to bring religion into a classroom, and nothing more.
Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by followtheevidence
Your argument is only valid if you assert that the Creator is finished with His creation.
That makes no sense to me. If the Earth is a place where a creator places individuals and it is so unstable that it destroys man by hundreds of thousands via earthquakes and storms and volcanic eruptions and droughts what difference does it make if the creator is not done?
Are you suggesting that, "oops, there goes another 200K in Haiti" is part of process? Why does the creator need to get a learner's permit in universe making? Why not get it right the first time instead of allowing the brutal deaths of millions per decade?
Making excuses for a creator seems well - awkward.
Because if there were no possibility of pain, destruction, and death there would be no platform for free will.
Originally posted by melatonin
Originally posted by undo
A few random and very simple thoughts of my own:
1. Why did different sexes evolve and what came first, the female or the male?
If the female, then how did she give birth to a male without a male? If hermaphroditic, then why the need for separation of the hermaphrodite into 2 distinct donors of one set of information, when the the higher form of evolution would be that both sets of information are maintained hermaphroditically and different sexes are not necessary as they waste energy?
Sexual dimorpism allows greater variation in offspring compared to "cloners". This enables a better response to environmental threats such as parasites/disease.
Maintaining hermaphroditism may be more costly than having sexually dimorphism - but some species are hermaphrodites, so obviously it works for their situation. Some species have the ability to change sex according to social cues, again it works for them.
I have a question (not a challenge). Evolution doesn't have foresight...so how could the process of sexual dimorphism develop gradually? Said organism had an efficient process for reproduction, so to abandon this process for a more wasteful one seems dubious. Sure now its clear that such a change has proven advantageous, but what if it hadn't? Hmmm. I really am struggling with the wording in this one. Sorry.
Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by followtheevidence
Because if there were no possibility of pain, destruction, and death there would be no platform for free will.
So you are saying that the creator had to produce a world purposely killing off people in large chunks of the population at once? So destruction such as Tangshan and Haiti and Krakatoa and the Indonesian tsunami are purposeful actions of the creator to allow free will?
Aren't these situations a bit extreme for free will?
You need to rework your statement to read:
Because if there were no possibility of large scale horrific pain, large scale horrific destruction, and large scale horrific death there would be no platform for free will.
I simply don't buy your argument. The events are way beyond anything required for your claim.
And I think it's reasonable to believe that evolution is directed, after all, gravity on earth directs objects down.
I'll agree, I was being to unspecific, natural selection can provide 'direction', unitelligently.