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: 36
96
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 05:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by followtheevidence

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.


My opinion - I think people often confuse the evidence for intelligent design with the implications of intelligent design.


We have NO EVIDENCE when it comes to intelligent design / creationism




posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 06:01 AM
link   
They don't PROVE it wrong, they bring up questions to investigate. I'm sure someone with more time than I have could explain all of your points to you.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 


Evolution and creationism can't coexist. Creationist claim evolution cannot happen. Evolutionists explain how the many life forms came to be through evolution and not some form of magic.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 02:04 PM
link   
Can any Darwinists here explain this?

Why does nearly every living creature on Earth have two eyes, one mouth, one nose, and two ears? How can that be a coincidence?



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by WWu777
 


Because all the species that do, have a common ancestor. Even if it was way down the line.
edit on 9/1/11 by Lebowski achiever because: added something.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by WWu777
Can any Darwinists here explain this?

Why does nearly every living creature on Earth have two eyes, one mouth, one nose, and two ears? How can that be a coincidence?


Common ancestry.

And I wouldn't say nearly every creature. Most living organisms are microorganisms.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by edsinger
 


Actually self replicating molecules disprove your thread. many of these molecules are the building blocks of life. If you have a faith that is fine but why attack evolution?



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 02:31 PM
link   
Thanks op for this most interesting thread! Although I am not religious in the Biblical sense, and I have absolutely no use for organized religion of any kind, I do believe in a Creator. My problem is however, just where did this Creator or God come from? Who created God? Who created the creator who created the creator of God?Saying that "God was always there" still doesn't give us an answer to where the heck this all started.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by WWu777

Why does nearly every living creature on Earth have two eyes, one mouth, one nose, and two ears? How can that be a coincidence?


God only had one casting mould. He is a flawed watchmaker. luckily for us the mould is adjustable as we would look stupid woith the eyes of a blue wale. Actuallly blue wales have no external ears. We are screwed as are spiders and paramecia.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by WWu777
Can any Darwinists here explain this?

Why does nearly every living creature on Earth have two eyes, one mouth, one nose, and two ears? How can that be a coincidence?


Common ancestry...yet more evidence to support Darwin's theory



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 09:30 AM
link   
Wow! Awesome post(s) edsinger
Lots of logical/detailed principles mentioned in the original post(s), its too bad most of them were sidestepped and the obviously misconstrued and misunderstood topics were attacked with the straw man technique.

its very sad to see everyone screaming "deny ignorance" yet here we are watching all who shouted deny their own montra to protect their individual ideal of freedom from an absolute power.

reply to post by stereologist
 


Creationists dont claim that evolution doesnt happen, we just dont agree that is occurs to the level evolutionists claim it does.
We have no issue with "Decent with Modification ::: Micro Evolution (if you will)
This does not contradict Genesis in any way and is indeed scientific since we can study, observe, test and demonstrate. this is the only common ground for the two.

reply to post by MrXYZ
 


You mean to tell me that if you stumbled upon complex-self replicating information that you would not assume it was put together by a designer or composer of some sort? thats what i call deliberate ignorance/denial.

---

I see many people just throwing out their counterargument without the support or facts to back it up - or if they do have support, its based on the flawed misunderstanding of the original argument. *shakes head*

reply to post by FredT
 


just because they teach this stuff at Berkley University doesnt make it fact. there is absolutely no scientific study that will support the charts on this post - even with the insects - and insects are testable since their life spans are so short compared to most living things. there are a few out there that live for a few years, and even up to 17 years... but that is rare. most inspects live up to a few weeks give or take.

reply to post by Zaphod58
 


The Nene goose - just from what you described - fits perfectly in support of Genesis.
Let me guess it shares a common ancestor with the Canadian Goose? no disagreement there.
Very good observations from reading that this goose is indeed different and perhaps a different species entirely.
but the conclusion you came up with for the creationist is quite offensive.
The fact that this goose is different leans toward the principles of adaptation and mutation. This really doesnt support the evolution theory any more than is supports Genesis. Is is still a bird, and it is still a goose, just like Genesis predicted. how when it finally evolves into a mini dragon or something with leathery skin and produces reptilian offspring, then we have something to work with in the realm of evolution but as for now, this goose being used as evidence for evolution is based on the idea that the possibility exists and nothing scientific.

reply to post by Zaphod58
 


animals adapting to environment is not evolution, it is what it is... adaptation, it doesnt change what the animal is - like mentioned above its still a goose (proof of Genesis if anything) and thats as far as that train goes. anything beyond that is pure imagination/speculation an based on huge assumptions. (not very scientific)



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Methuselah
 





You mean to tell me that if you stumbled upon complex-self replicating information that you would not assume it was put together by a designer or composer of some sort? thats what i call deliberate ignorance/denial.



OF COURSE I wouldn't just assume a designer without having any sort of objective evidence to lead me to that conclusion. Automatically assuming something without having any sort of backup evidence is ignorance, not the other way around. Without knowing everything, and having all the facts...and by ignoring facts...you are basically being ignorant as no matter what, a designer is your conclusion. But it's not really a conclusion, as you decide on this without ever examining all the facts.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Methuselah
reply to post by FredT
 

there is absolutely no scientific study that will support the charts on this post

Really? Ever heard of comparative genomics studies? Ever heard of paleontology? Oh, look! I just named two scientific fields with thousands upon thousands of studies that support the pics. Somebody is being very ignorant. There's not a single scientific study that contradicts the pictures.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 


and they rely on a geologic column that apparently doesnt exist as mentioned earlier in this thread since we know it was destroyed over years of plate tectonic activity right?

we have the evidence but we dont... sounds like bait and switch to me...
throwing your interpretation on what you find does not make it fact.
paleontology know one thing for sure about the organisms they find in the ground... that they died - thats about it, they cant tell what kind of parent, sibling or child organisms were related to them by what they find so what makes you think they can give an explanation that states modern life forms share common heritage based on their findings?
genetic alterations happen all the time - as far as we know, its digressive in nature and sometimes just replicated information. it never changes at the magnitude nor does it ever reach the threshold the evolutionists talk about. its never been observed, tested or demonstrated. therefore not scientific. its really silly how these things sneak their way in.

again as for the genomics - you should really read up on the limited alteration that can be done to an organism when it comes to changing its genetic structure. too much change EVER will cause the organism to cease to exist. thats why species tend to go extinct and not "evolve" into something else like evolution would predict.

yes there are explanations to what we hope would be the answer to our questions, but the sidenotes/footnotes and offline comments made on the study made often admit that the theory isnt scientific or supported by its evidence.

reply to post by MrXYZ
 

based on the hypothesis of a designer, i would make predictions and see how accurate they are.
and as i mentioned before, there is a of predictions in Genesis as well as throughout scripture that science supports.


edit on 20-1-2011 by Methuselah because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Methuselah
 





based on the hypothesis of a designer, i would make predictions and see how accurate they are.
and as i mentioned before, there is a of predictions in Genesis as well as throughout scripture that science supports.



And what predictions would that be? In in what way can you prove they're correct, or that a deity even exists?

If your answer is "because the bible says so", then you don't really understand scientific method and the FACT that the bible isn't proof. Witness testimony (which the bible is) is the LOWEST FORM of evidence you can possibly have. That's why science doesn't rely on it, they use more OBJECTIVE methods to come to conclusions...



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Methuselah
 


Radiometric dating doesn't require the geologic column...and it isn't destroyed by tectonics. The geologic column is intact in many places. Geologists are able to determine whether or not a place is geologically consistent quite easily.



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 07:25 PM
link   
Scientific Fact No. 3 - Single Cell Complexity Proves Evolution is Wrong

I would like to refer people to the talk in the video below. Its been in the news recently but the first successes were back in 2003.

They have created life completely from scratch. They have even encoded their website's url into the genetic code. I think this kinda voids your point entirely.

www.ted.com...

If your not convinced then search for 'synthetic life' in google news.



posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 04:39 AM
link   
reply to post by hughht5
 





Scientific Fact No. 3 - Single Cell Complexity Proves Evolution is Wrong


No it doesn't


Creating synthetic life doesn't debunk evolution as it has NOTHING to do with it. They've build 2 out of the 4 building blocks artificially in labs by now, and all it means is that it would indeed be probable for life to form spontaneously based on chemistry...given enough time. And time is something that was available...4.5bil years of time


Regarding complexity, that's just a human expression to characterize something we consider hard to explain. If you walk up to a goat herder in Mongolia and show him the plans of the space shuttle, he'll call it complex...yet if you show the same plans to the engineer who developed large parts of it, he won't call it complex.



posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by hughht5
Scientific Fact No. 3 - Single Cell Complexity Proves Evolution is Wrong


The complexity of modern single cells proves that there isn't a change in allele frequency in gene pools over time? You do realize that nobody thinks that the original forms of life were as complex as the modern cells.

...the rest of the post is a red herring that does nothing which refers to the truth or validity of evolution, merely to modern attempts at creating synthetic life.

Or are you trying to address point three? Could you please clarify?



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 07:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by Akragon
 


Evolution and creationism can't coexist. Creationist claim evolution cannot happen. Evolutionists explain how the many life forms came to be through evolution and not some form of magic.
Tell that to this guy

www.youtube.com...
edit on 6-3-2011 by vasaga because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
96
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join