Top Ten Scientific Facts : Evolution is False and Impossible.

page: 54
92
<< 51  52  53    55  56  57 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 12:37 AM
link   
Shortest lifespans
Gastrotrich: The average life span of a gastrotrich is about three days (look it up)




posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 10:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Engafan
 


The mayfly does not live 1 day. It lives like most insects close to a year. It has an adult phase which is short. That does not mean that the organism lives 1 day.

The Gastrotrich lives more than 3 days. It reaches sexual maturity in 3 days. This phylum is a much better match to the 1 day claim than a mayfly.

Thanks for the help in showing that the 1 day claim is incorrect although the marvelous Gastrotrichs are close.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 

You still on that mayfly thing? It lives for one day. It's not a mayfly until that day. It might have lived for a year as a drone, but it's not a mayfly yet. Or do you measure the lifespan of a chicken from when it's an egg? It has a lifespan of a day. Live with it. And to support this, note the bold part:


Mayflies might just have the saddest, most perfectly evolved existence of any species
Mayflies spend a year awaiting their birth, and then most die after living just one day.

----------------------------------------

Mayflies spend an entire year in freshwater in what's known as a nymph stage, in which the insects already look much like their adult forms but don't actually do anything. After that year, the insects fly off to find a mate, lay some eggs, and promptly die.

Source
edit on 23-2-2012 by vasaga because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 09:44 PM
link   
reply to post by vasaga
 



You still on that mayfly thing? It lives for one day. It's not a mayfly until that day.

That's wrong. You might want to look up life cycles of insects. There are many variations.


It might have lived for a year as a drone, but it's not a mayfly yet.

Like I suggest, you might want to learn a little about the life cycle of insects.

I'm not sure whether to shake my head in wonder or laugh.

Mayflies live for about a year. For a day they live as an adult insect.

The link you provided says

Mayflies spend a year awaiting their birth, and then most die after living just one day.

So they live for a year and then for 1 day they are an adult and die.

The animals live for a year, not a day.

They are not an egg for a year. They are active self sufficient feeders for a year as larva.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by vasaga
 


Let me guess, next you'll be saying that when a butterfly is a caterpillar, it doesn't count as part of his lifespan.

Don't pro life advocates claim life begins at fertilization?

And even if it was proven the creature only lived for a day, then what's the difference? It doesn't prove anything. If a species can reproduce quicker than it dies, the species will thrive. That's the bottom line.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 08:03 PM
link   
reply to post by edsinger
 




Birds Prove Natural Selection is Naturally Wrong


Imagine that after the cyanobacteria led to an Oxygen-rich atmosphere and lots of things started living on land, several-celled animals... imagine that some of those needed wind to move and reproduce. Say the ones that travelled furthest, because they developed flatter cells on the sides, reproduced more often.

One mistake people opposed to Evolution make is basing Evolution only on large animals like monkeys and birds saying one can't turn into another.... those two species could have separated when they were mere dozens of cells each, billions of years before they became those things.



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 09:39 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 

Îgnoring bold part on purpose are we? Whatever..



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 11:20 PM
link   
reply to post by vasaga
 


I checked the source and saw that you purposely misrepresented the source. Not surprised by that.



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 10:18 AM
link   
Well Done


The reason I strongly agree with the evolution being false is because I ascribe to the Ancient Alien Theory.

By far, it is the most scientifically plausible:

Ancient Astronaut’ theorists believe that a race of intelligent extraterrestrial beings visited and/or colonized Earth in the remote past, whereupon they upgraded the primitive hominid Homo erectus by means of genetic engineering to create the human race as we know it: Homo sapiens.

Evidence for this idea is found,

in the improbability of Homo sapiens emerging so suddenly, according to the principles of orthodox Darwinism

in the myths of ancient civilizations which describe human-like gods coming down from the heavens and creating mankind ‘in their own image’

Homo sapiens is thus regarded as a hybrid being, incorporating a mix of terrestrial genes from Homo erectus and extraterrestrial genes from an ascribed “race of the gods“.



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by infojunkie2
 


So wait...if scientists lack a certain knowledge, your auto-response is "god"?


You should really look up the definition of "god of the gaps" as your answer is a prime example of that.

And just fyi, scientists have been creating artificial cells since the 60s, and now they can grow spare body parts like ears on the backs of mice.


'God' in a sense that the word god is what ancient civilizations called the more advanced extraterrestrials that were here on our planet...

not the 'magic wand' god.

Those aliens were in fact using science:

1. Genetic engineering (Genesis 1:26)
2. Artificial Insemination ( the impregnation of Mary)
3. Weapons of Mass Destruction ( Soddam and Gomorrah-nuclear)
4. HAARP (Gilgamesh- the epic flood)
5. Submarines (Jonah's 'whale)
6. Rockets/ space craft- (chariots of fire/ fire breathing dragons)

and so on....



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by ButterCookie
 



The reason I strongly agree with the evolution being false is because I ascribe to the Ancient Alien Theory.

By far, it is the most scientifically plausible:

That's really funny since there is no evidence for this at all.
1. The emergence time is not improbable.
2. Most ancient gods are a mix of animal and human parts. I do not see that today. Where are people with bull, jackal, jaguar, etc heads? Myths are not history.

There you have it - no evidence.

What is the probability that aliens would appear that looked enough like us that they would have to do only minor tinkering with primates to get them to look like the aliens?



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by ButterCookie
 


Again you resort to myths as history.

If there had been nuke strikes int he Middle East in ancient times those events would have left tell tale signatures. No nuke evidence exist. I think you need to conjure up a new fairy tale.

There has been no global flood. No evidence for it. So why claim that a local flood was not a natural event? Again you are concocting a fairy tale to pretend evidence exists.

Inf act, none of your claims require any technologies. You are just inventing stories.



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


Emergence in time not probabale?

The problem with the theory of evolution is time. The scientific establishment has tried to make it appear that the theory of evolution has had 600 million years to 1 billion years, since the first complex animal. That is not enough time. Even 600 trillion trillion trillion trillion years is not enough time.

For example:

Could you win 3,000 "consecutive lotteries" in 660 million years, where the probability of each lottery was 10‑100? Such a belief would be mathematical and scientific nonsense. It is virtually impossible you could win 3 "consecutive lotteries" in 660 million years.

But even the problem of winning 3,000 "consecutive lotteries" is just a small tip of the iceberg for the theory of evolution.

Winning 3,000 "consecutive lotteries" is just for human DNA. How about the DNA of millions of other unique species and the "consecutive lotteries" each of them needed to have "won," which did not include any duplication of ancestor species.

You also have problems with the male and female issue. Both the male and female have to have DNA which aligns with each other in order to have offspring. Thus, each must have the same impossible mutations in their germ cells, and the male and female must live in the same geographical area and same time period. This alone generates insane probabilities.

And if you like math:

the gene complexes of human DNA are huge compared to the gene complexes of the "first living cell" or even the first complex animal which was an ancestor species of humans (assuming evolution), plus human DNA would have to be far, far more complex. So we can ignore the "first living cell" DNA or the DNA of the first complex ancestor of humans. Thus, for all practical purposes, we need to build 30,000 gene complexes from scratch, even if we start with the first complex animal.

Assuming there are 3,000 unique species between the DNA of the first complex animal (which is an ancestor of humans), and human DNA, the average "ancestor species" (i.e. a species which is on our evolutionary tree) would have 10 unique gene complexes (30,000 divided by 3,000).

In summary, we will make these assumptions in our next calculation:

1) The average "gene complex" of a complex species is 5,000 nucleotides.

2) The probability of a randomly generated sequence of 5,000 nucleotides being able to form a single, viable gene complex for a specific species: 10‑10

3) Each unique species, of our ancestor species, has an average of 10 unique gene complexes.

With these generous assumptions, the probability of a new species "evolving" by random mutations of nucleotides (which is the only way that the theory of evolution can work) is:

10(‑10x10) = 10‑100

This probability is for one new species using randomly generated and modified nucleotides from an existing species.

This probability applies to every one of the unique species which have lived, and do live, on this earth. In other words, for every complex species which has ever lived on this earth (including extinct species), there is a probability of 10‑100 that this species was derived by random mutations of nucleotides (actually this is an average).

And even this probability is very, very generous to the theory of evolution.



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by ButterCookie
 



Could you win 3,000 "consecutive lotteries" in 660 million years, where the probability of each lottery was 10‑100? Such a belief would be mathematical and scientific nonsense. It is virtually impossible you could win 3 "consecutive lotteries" in 660 million years.

Using bad math, i.e. comparing apples to oranges, shows a lack of understanding of math.


You also have problems with the male and female issue. Both the male and female have to have DNA which aligns with each other in order to have offspring. Thus, each must have the same impossible mutations in their germ cells, and the male and female must live in the same geographical area and same time period. This alone generates insane probabilities.

Not understanding biology is also a problem.

Your basic problem with the math is that you assume that the events are independent. That is not the case. That makes your math inapplicable. It is a common misrepresentation by the creationist weenies I have heard lecture. They use it to hoax the audience. My assumption of course is that these people are smart enough to know that they are telling lies to the audience. I could be wrong. Maybe the lecturers are not smart enough to know they are spouting lies.



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 12:59 PM
link   
evolution may have a few facts that dont add up 100% but it still explains a hell of a lot more than creationism......



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


No.

Put simply, there has not been enough time for an evolution from primates to modern man.

At the rate of evolution, we should still be primitive and primate.



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by ButterCookie
 


Your math was completely wrong and now all you can say that there was not enough time. Your biology is laughable. It would appear to completely exclude conception.

There has been more than sufficient time. The molecular clock even tell us the rate at which changes have occurred.



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 02:58 PM
link   
The only reason I can see for making an alien intervention claim is to make creationism look respectable.



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 03:19 PM
link   
Can I play?

Ok I will post 3 good arguments and then you can discuss them...
(Prefix arg so you know that this is different number from OP nums.)

Arg 1)
Why do humans all have different faces when no other form of life has different faces including apes?

And if you say that it is due to sexual selection or natural selection you need to make a sound argument and show how such a modification of the genetic code could be possible to account for this major difference. For instance one mutation is not even close to good enough to accomplish this.


Arg 2) Why are there elongated skulls in Peru which have no fontanel? In fact their skulls are not plated in the same way homo sapiens are, In fact then, they are not homo sapiens. Not even close. So where did they come from and what is the evolutionary argument regarding them?

And if you say these are skulls that have been modified by planking etc as per common practices of South American Indians that is not true. Those skulls are easily identified.

Arg 3) This will be divided into facts A, B and C.

Fact A) The Royal Society, held a special exhibition, in 2005, at the British Museum, displaying footprints in lava discovered in central Mexico of modern man. And I quote...

Adds to the global archive of human prints.
The presence of ancient human and animal prints is a rare occurrence in nature, because it requires special conditions for their preservation. The Valsequillo Basin footprints add to this literature and reflect specific environmental conditions for their preservation within this area of Central Mexico.

(Quoted from their Mexican Footprints Exhibition webpage from the Research link on the main page.)

Fact B) From the presitigious journal Nature Dec 1 2005

Paul R. Renne[1],[2], Joshua M. Feinberg[2], Michael R. Waters[3], Joaquin Arroyo-Cabrales[4], Patricia Ochoa-Castillo[5], Mario Perez-Campa[6] and Kim B. Knight[2]


Here we show by 40Ar/39Ar dating and corroborating palaeomagnetic data that the basaltic tuff on which the purported footprints are found is 1.30plusminus0.03 million years old.



  1. Berkeley Geochronology Center, Berkeley, California 94709, USA
  2. Department of Earth and Planetary Science, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720, USA
  3. Departments of Anthropology and Geography, and Center for the Study of the First Americans, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843-4352, USA
  4. Laboratório de Arqueozoología, Subdirección de Laboratórios y Apoyo Académico, Instituto Nacionál de Antropología e Historia, CP 06060, México
  5. Subdirección de Arqueología, Museo Nacional de Antropología, Reforma y Gandhi s/n, CP 11560, México
  6. Proyecto Cuicuilco, Instituto Nacionál de Antropología e Historia, CP 06700, México


For those not familiar with the Royal Society, Charles Darwin was elected a member of the Royal Society on Jan. 4 1839

For those not familiar with Paul Renne his publication record would be too large to post. To say he is the leading expert on lava dating in the world would be an understatement. He is currently a professor at Berkely.
link to accreditation

And fact C) The lava was also examined as to whether or not it was sediment, or fresh when the footprints were placed in it, and it was determined that the grains were magnetically aligned, hence the prints were placed while the lava was fresh, at the time of the volcanic eruption. As stated also in the journal Nature.

If you try to discount this evidence I am presenting by quoting articles from Evolution magazine, I will quote Bible passages as a reply. Otherwise you may do your best. Scientific approaches only please.



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


Actually, I am in NO way religious and was dead-set against creationism.

However, I am a rational person. When I became atheist, I wanted to be sure that the bible was indeed all fairytales. But I could not discredit the many civilizations all talking about 'gods' with similar backgrounds visiting Earth from the heavens.

I had to pick that bible back up.

See, that is the problem with atheist/evolutionist. They are not willing to pick the bible back up; after all, they have spent a long time discounting it. They have become convinced that humans are the pinnacle of the universe, both physically and figuratively, and that any other living thing in the universe must be primitive and inferior to them.

Pure arrogance at its best.

Since I am a lover of astrophysics, and cosmology, it wasn't very hard for me to see that, with the incredible vastness of space, humans may not even rate on this side of the universe.

Funny how when I talk to my fellow atheist friends ( who do not subscribe to the AAT) they get uncomfortable when discussing the vastness of the cosmos and extraterrestrial life.....

So, you see, its evolutionists who discount the AAT because they are no longer interested in the bible.





top topics
 
92
<< 51  52  53    55  56  57 >>

log in

join