Top Ten Scientific Facts : Evolution is False and Impossible.

First of all...how to say this... Oh! You ain't got yourself no theory causin you don't be a knowin what is a theory! How's that?
Why is it you fubdamentalists hate evolution so? Is it because secretly you know that if evolution be so...(and the jury is in on that one...it is so!) then your make-believe version of how thangs be a happinin be poppy-cock. Did I remember to say poppycock?
skep

Well Mr. seeker of truth i had relagated myself to ignoring you. However since you called me a coward in another thread, i have to make sure to not give you that impression again. Don't get me wrong, i don't mind the debate but when you start out belittling people who don't share your world-view or pretend to be something you're not i usually go the other way. I was civil and courteous with my posts prior to dealing with you, or so i thought, but you went on the attack..., so here we are.
(maybe have only one glass of Hater-ade in the morning with your cheerios...just a thought, unless you're usually foaming at the mouth?)

Originally posted by truthseeka
First off, your tree doesn't include dogs anywhere in it. It also doesn't include the canines that artificial selection on foxes will give rise to (a team of researchers has attempted to reproduce the artificial selection that produced dogs from wolves using foxes. After many generations, they have produced descendants of foxes that, similar to dogs, exhibit pedomorphism, exhibit phenotypic variation not seen in wild foxes, exhibit tail curling, which is also not seen in wild foxes. Thus, these organisms (fogs, I guess:lol

are showing traits similar to that in the domestic dog.

First off it's not my tree but, whatever let's see what the site i linked too has to say about the common ancestry of dogs. Of course i'm sure you didn't go ranting without checking the source. I mean how ridiculously ignorant would that be? Not you, not a "truthseeka", i just can't believe that. Let's go check eh.

To reiterate, all non ATS quotes will be from the source i originally linked (u.n.o.) for the poster who was looking for an example of evolution in creationism...(it's their "tree" after all, but you knew that obviously)

Ok dogs(canines), what do "they" say:

Within the mammalian families, such as the canine, you have sub-groups of species called genus. There are many species of fox, many species of wolves, and many of coyotes. Microevolution is the small changes which occur within a fox population, and even fox speciation. However, it is macroevolution which is used to define the long term development that eventually produces groups of uniquely canine species. For our purposes; macroevolution is the entire evolutionary history of any kind.

Even gave ya a pic ('cause Lord knows you won't check the source for yourself), perhaps you misunderstood what you were looking at, i hope i've cleared that up for you. That site, nwcreation.net and yes even Rren, believe that dogs and wolves share a comon ancestry.... let's move on shall we?

Moreover, the jackal branch should be placed near the wolf and coyote branch, as these are wolf-like canids.

"near" the wolf and coyote branch", got a link or a pic or can you elucidate on what you mean by "near"(that makes the "tree" i posted inaccurate). I looked through the canine phylogenetic trees online (non-creationist sources) and well l'm not following you here or seeing your point, could be me though...admittedly.

And, the most laughable part is that hyenas are even included. They're more closely related to cats than dogs.

I thought that DNA studies showed that dogs "branched" off from wild canids like hyenas, coyotes, jackals, wolves etc. I'm no expert so i'm not arguing here but asking, are you saying that hyenas and coyotes do not share a common ancestry? (perhaps lineage is a better term there).

My fault, but don't post ridiculous phylogenetic trees like that. My bad, that's not even a phylogenetic tree; it looks like a tree some creationist made up...

You really come across as a tool guy...just FYI you might want to work on your people skills. I didn't write that phylogenetic tree nor would i pretend that i could. The poster asked about evolution from a Biblical standpoint and i used that source to show him/her that.

- If that's what you need to do in order to make a point or make yourself feel intelligent, you may want to consider the myprepubecentmusings.com forum boards if there is such a place. Either way i'm done with ya...good day sir.

Oh i see skep is doing another hit and run on an origins thread. Skep meet truthseeka i have a feeling you guys will become fast friends.

Originally posted by Rren
Oh i see skep is doing another hit and run on an origins thread. Skep meet truthseeka i have a feeling you guys will become fast friends.

ROTFLMAO....

i find the title of this thread somewhat misleading.

i was expecting facts to lead to logical conclusions, not disbelief resulting in the immediate response of "god did it"

those weren't exactly facts anyway...

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
i find the title of this thread somewhat misleading.

i was expecting facts to lead to logical conclusions, not disbelief resulting in the immediate response of "god did it"

those weren't exactly facts anyway...

Which 'facts' were responded to with "God did it?"

BTW, the only 'fact' of fossil evidence is that the remains of an organism were dug up. Everything else is speculation, whether or not it's based on evidence is irrelevant. These are not facts; they're inferences. It's important to understand the difference. In many ways, origins science doesn't lend itself to 'facts,' it leads to inferences based on facts.

What people don't realize is that the Creation Scientists, IDTists, and Evolutionary Theorists, all work with same 'facts' but evolve different inferences and theories based on their presuppositions. This isn't my opinion, but happens to be the 'facts' of the matter... ie: the ICR doesn't deny that 'Lucy' exists, they simply have a different interpretation. Whether or not you agree with anyone's interpretation is up to you, but understand when we're talking about things that happened thousands to millions of years ago, we cease speaking about facts, and begin speculating based on the facts. Big difference.

what i meant was the conclusion of the facts was divine intervention, my post was worded horribly.

OK, Rren, my bad for offending you.

When I said "your tree," I didn't mean that you created the tree yourself. See, I'm not as dumb as you might think I am. I meant "your tree" in the sense that you posted it. Of course you didn't create it, so I don't know why you got off on that tangent.

I'm not arguing that dogs and wolves don't share a common ancestry. Wait a minute...yes I am! For them to share a common ancestor, dogs would have split from the common ancestor, like the jackals did. Instead, wolves ARE ancestral to dogs. They didn't diverge from a common ancestor, like jackals and wolves; jackals and wolves diverged, THEN wolves gave rise to dogs through artificial selection.

See the difference yet? I guess, in a strict sense, dogs and wolves share a common ancestor, but in the usual sense they do not. If they did, you would see the dog branch meet at the same node that the wolf and jackal branch meet on the tree. The way you're saying it is like "Homo and Australopithecus have a common ancestor," but the author you cite seems to be saying "all breeds of dog have a common ancestor."

And, I choose to decline your offer to "play" with skep. I'll leave the "playing" to you and your bbuddy mattison. Have fun.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
what i meant was the conclusion of the facts was divine intervention, my post was worded horribly.

I personally don't appreciate the title of this thread either. What in particular is troubling to you about this conclusion? Some people evaluate evidence and come to one conclusion, others reach another conclusion. Why should this bother you? My opinion is not really relevant to your opinion. I'm more than happy to share why I believe what I believe with you, but I don't think it should necessarily affect you on a personal level. Because Kent Hovind calls himself a Ph.D. does nothing to belittle my Ph.D. What specifically is so troubling to you about the concept of design?

Edsinger,

I think that if you intend to make a valid point based on evidence, it's better to not include so much loaded language surrounding it. It seriously seems like half of what you said was loaded and purely opinion. And that brings up the next thing, try including less opinion and more evidence to back what you claim. In no way shape or form is what you say objective, and therefore you'll have a MUCH harder time trying to convince anyone of anything.

The fact is that one species of animals changing into another species HAS NOT been proven possible. Yes, species can adapt to their surroundings but they are stlil the same species.

Evelution is the real thing. Darwin has right. no dam god maked us. open your eyes, is the most logic thing

Originally posted by k4rupt
The fact is that one species of animals changing into another species HAS NOT been proven possible.

Observed Instances of Speciation
Some More Observed Speciation Events

Yes, species can adapt to their surroundings but they are stlil the same species.

Adaptation is what is the key. If species can adapt to their environment, then it doesn't matter if we call it speciation or not, really. Speciation does occur, but even if we ignore it, its the existence of adaptation that is the really stunning part. If a population can change to adapt to its environment, then it can change radically. Thus a ferret can become a dog, or a reptile can become a bird, or a chimp can become a man. If you accept that adaptation occurs, then speciation is a 'little hurdle', the big hurdle, really, is adaptation.

hdd09
Evelution is the real thing. Darwin has right. no dam god maked us. open your eyes, is the most logic thing

Making statements isn't helping anyone. What are the evidences that have convinced you? What is the logic that your eyes are open to?

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.

No... Evolutio has not yet been "proven". Species evolving from one species to another has not yet been proven. Evolution is not science because of one reason: the results cannot be reproduced. If the results of evolution cannot be reproduced, then it is not science but rather it is based on "faith" as creationism is based upon.

Originally posted by k4rupt
No... Evolutio has not yet been "proven". Species evolving from one species to another has not yet been proven. Evolution is not science because of one reason: the results cannot be reproduced. If the results of evolution cannot be reproduced, then it is not science but rather it is based on "faith" as creationism is based upon.

K4rupt, while I won't comment here with respect to your specific arguments, I will take the time to state that arguing 'evolution isn't science' is not likely to go over well in this forum without some sort of explanation and supporting documentation. Most here are familiar with the 'based on faith' arguments etc. The 'flavor' of ATS in general tends to be 'pro-evolution,' and those who offer an opposing viewpoint had better have their homework done. Please don't take this as discouragement. In fact, the opposite is true. If you really don't believe evolution is science, then by all means, read, research, and post with some traceable information. You're likely to be taken much more seriously then. I would refer you to the postings of Rren. Do a member search, and search for posts. He has some good posts written from a laymen's perspective, and even the pro-evolution crowd will have to agree that his posts are well thought out. Good luck.

Ahh thanks for the awesome tip mattison.

The thing is, I actually do prefer believing evolution rather than creationism but I've been hearing many arguments about how creationism is not science because it cannot be reproduced. Growing up in a Christian School, they taught me that evolution, is not proven NOR can it be reproduced... so why is it taught as a science?

I hope no one takes me as an evolution-basher, I am not. I'm just on a quest for intellectual enlightenment. I've gone to a Christian school my whole life and they taught me about how evolution is all wrong and basically, without outside info, I have accepted all their teachings blindly. Now, 3 years later, I have learned that alot of the stuff they teach are EXTREMELY biased. I love history, and looking back at my old history textbooks, I see MANY MANY flaws and errors in that book (literally errors). You see, Science is not my strong point and therefore I don't know much about evolution, so hopefully I can be enlightened here

Originally posted by k4rupt
Ahh thanks for the awesome tip mattison.

No problemo.

The thing is, I actually do prefer believing evolution rather than creationism but I've been hearing many arguments about how creationism is not science because it cannot be reproduced.

IMO, Creationism isn't true science as the answers are a given to a certain extent. It does meet certain criteria to be a science, ie: you can form testable hypotheses, etc. but IMO, the presupposition that Genesis is a literal history, makes it less than science.

Growing up in a Christian School, they taught me that evolution, is not proven NOR can it be reproduced... so why is it taught as a science?

It's an interesting conundrum. I wouldn't get hung up on the term 'proven.' Evolution will never be proven. However, overall, the findings of science, for the most part, adhere to certain postulates set forth by evolutionary theory, and do offer support for many of the hypotheses and predictions described by evolutionary theory. Furthermore, evolutionary theory, grew up, so to speak in the mainstream science community. For those reasons, and others I've likely not mentioned, evolution is categorized as a science.

I hope no one takes me as an evolution-basher, I am not. I'm just on a quest for intellectual enlightenment.

Good for you

I've gone to a Christian school my whole life and they taught me about how evolution is all wrong and basically, without outside info, I have accepted all their teachings blindly. Now, 3 years later, I have learned that alot of the stuff they teach are EXTREMELY biased. I love history, and looking back at my old history textbooks, I see MANY MANY flaws and errors in that book (literally errors). You see, Science is not my strong point and therefore I don't know much about evolution, so hopefully I can be enlightened here

Well you certainly can get enlightened here. Just FYI, mainstream science texts are filled with errors too. It bugs the crap out of me. I really hate having to tell my classes that the book is wrong, and I'm right, but it does happen.

In terms of getting up to speed on evolutionary theory, and origins science in general, I suggest the following threads:

www.abovetopsecret.com...'

www.abovetopsecret.com...'

www.abovetopsecret.com...'

www.abovetopsecret.com...'

If you really want to believe in evolution, I suggest checking out the TO Archive. That site will likely convince you in a hurry that evolution is true. Study up on that site, read some of the threads I've suggested, and then come back and refute my posts. There's not much action around here lately... Just kidding... sort of. But there hasn't been much action in this forum lately.

this is just an example. when the Bird-flue start to contagion from a Human to another Human.. Thats an Evolution. thats your proof.
Okeey??


can you proof that a God create us?
or that inteligence designe right???

[edit on 7-1-2006 by HDD09]

another thing

''Scientific Fact No. 10 - Radio Silence from Space Proves Evolution is Wrong

Mars is not the only place that shows no signs of life. The entire universe lacks any sign of life. There are no radio signals that can be related to intelligent life forms. None of the billions of galaxies has been found to emit any intelligent radio signals. Scientists have been pointing every type of radio telescope possible into space for several decades in hopes of finding an intelligent signal. No signs of life beyond Earth have been found. We are alone''

What??? you have to be kidding me. thats no a proof for evolution is wrong. we have onely lisen to a small Area of the galaxy for like 50 years
and we have unlimet of stars left to lisen to.

After thinking long and hard about our present situation, the complexities everywhere, EVERYTHING; I got to go with the creation story. Evolution may exist today, but only with the tools that are already at our disposal.