Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Top Ten Scientific Facts : Evolution is False and Impossible.

page: 8
95
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Evolution may exist today, but only with the tools that are already at our disposal.


???????

This is quite disturbing...you think the only evolution that occurs today is what occurs in the laboratory? That is very sad that you can't see natural selection taking place everywhere.




posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 03:14 PM
link   
I'm sorry, you've heard me use "tools" in a different sense. I meant when we were created, we were also given the ability to adapt. In this sense, I'm using "tools" to mean everything in our bodies that allows us to adapt, and I use the word "tools" because I believe they're advanced nature alludes to their creation.

What's sad, to me, is that you're going to fall back on your language barrier as an excuse for coming to some very obviously false conclusions.



posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 03:41 PM
link   

I'm sorry, you've heard me use "tools" in a different sense. I meant when we were created, we were also given the ability to adapt. In this sense, I'm using "tools" to mean everything in our bodies that allows us to adapt, and I use the word "tools" because I believe they're advanced nature alludes to their creation.

What's sad, to me, is that you're going to fall back on your language barrier as an excuse for coming to some very obviously false conclusions.


First off, I am not falling back on a language barrier in any sense, you are using the word "tool" in a very ambiguous way.

Secondly, you think that the ability to adapt is not an example of evolution? Do you fully understand what evolution is? Do you ever wonder why people who live near the equator have darker skin, allowing them to block the excess UV light that is present at the equator, and do you ever wonder why, as you slowly move north of the equator, people's skin gets progressively lighter? That's an example of evolution. Do you ever wonder why infants born with trisomy are rendered sterile by nature? It is so that they cannot reproduce and thus spread their damaged DNA structure. THAT is evolution. Survival of the fittest, natural selection at it's finest. Strength is defined as the ability to successfully reproduce and see the offspring to sexual maturity

Ciao,
~MFP



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 08:14 PM
link   
Please reread my last post, over and over, until you finally get it.



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigpappadiaz
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.

Why isn't 2 billion years enough time for something simple to become complex? You've acknowledged evolution exists.. at what point in history did it become improbable? Were we still in trees then? We weren't even human at that stage [and all the other ones].


[edit on 11-1-2006 by riley]



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 10:14 AM
link   
2 billion years is very hard for anyone to imagine. That's the only reason I can think of that people would find it hard to believe that complex organisms took that amount time to evolve.



posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 09:28 PM
link   
I think mistake that everyone makes is that everyone they talk to is as dumb as them. Sure 2 billion years is hard to comprehend, but from what I understand all these numbers and lengths of time are just estimates and pure fabrications of someone else's imagination. They think they understand how the world works, and then WHOP up some figures, and the people eat them up because the dude's a scientist. I'm sure you all loved The Elegant Universe, and can't wait for part 2. Why can't evolution aaaand creation go hand in hand?

I try and look at everything, because I know everything that's gone down, is going down, and will go down is directly related to who we are and where we came from. There's a lot of crazy # going on, pointing in the direction of God's and the misinformation they give the people who serve them; battles between these God's of the past on our planets and those elsewhere; the struggle to keep the masses unaware of the truth, with as little understanding of the world as necessary. Like those poor saps of south america whose Gods had to take off in a hurry, but were told to expect a white dude in European-looking armor. It was known that the world was round long before we started being told it was flat, so why? Must...keep...them stupid a little longer!

And here humanity lies set up for something that'll either get us back into this feudalism, or destroy the planet. Either way, it's some pretty advanced stuff.



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 05:33 PM
link   
2 billion years is hardly a wild guess based on someone's imagination

ages of things that go into the billions are normally based on concrete, scientific analysis.



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 10:23 PM
link   
time for a new theory guys. i'm for genetic manipulation by aliens.....


[edit on 20-1-2006 by exsmokingman]



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 10:39 PM
link   

evolution is rubbish but creation is even sillier....

time for a new theory guys. i'm for genetic manipulation by aliens.....


I'm assuming you have some, if any, evidence to support this?

Ciao,
~MFP



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by exsmokingman
time for a new theory guys. i'm for genetic manipulation by aliens.....


.... more commonly known as.... Intelligent Design.


BTW, if evolution is 'rubbish' what genetic material is available for the aliens to manipulate?

Wow! A new theory, aliens manipulating life... that's is 'new,' certainly something we've never heard here on ATS.


Welcome to the O & C forum.


.... glad to read you kicked the habit, BTW.

[edit on 20-1-2006 by mattison0922]

[edit on 20-1-2006 by mattison0922]



posted on Jan, 21 2006 @ 01:43 AM
link   
also, that would bring up the question of where the aliens came from.

they had to be subject to some sort of process...



posted on Jan, 21 2006 @ 09:14 PM
link   
convincingly by anyone. a complete waste of time.



posted on Jan, 21 2006 @ 11:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by exsmokingman
convincingly by anyone. a complete waste of time.


which is why it isn't science..........................

wait, did we just prove that ID isn't a science in like 3 posts?



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 05:40 PM
link   
Taken from an article on scientists who believe in creationism:

Sir Ernest Chain, co-holder of the 1945 Nobel Prize for developing penicillin, stated bluntly:

"To postulate that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance mutations seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts. These classical evolutionary theories are a gross over-simplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest."

P. Lemoine, president of the Geological Society of France, editor of the Encyclopedie Francaise, and director of the Natural History Museum in Paris concluded:

"The theories of evolution, with which our studious youth have been deceived, constitute actually a dogma that all the world continues to teach: but each, in his specialty, the zoologist or the botanist, ascertains that none of the explanations furnished is adequate....It results from the summary, that the theory of evolution, is impossible."

Darwinists must be especially discomfited with the views expressed by Dr. Wernher von Braun, father of America’s space program, in a September 14, 1972 letter to the California State Board of Education, part of which is printed here.

"In response to your inquiry about my personal views concerning the ‘Case for DESIGN’ as a viable scientific theory for the origin of the universe, life and man, I am pleased to make the following observations.

For me, the idea of a creation is not conceivable without invoking the necessity of design. One cannot be exposed to the law and order of the universe without concluding that there must be design and purpose behind it all. In the world around us, we can behold the obvious manifestations of an ordered, structured plan or design. We can see the will of the species to live and propagate. And we are humbled by the powerful forces at work on a galactic scale, and the purposeful orderliness of nature that endows a tiny and ungainly seed with the ability to develop into a beautiful flower. The better we understand the intricacies of the universe and all it harbors, the more reason we have found to marvel at the inherent design upon which it is based. Many men who are intelligent and of good faith say they cannot visualize a Designer. Well, can a physicist visualize an electron? The electron is materially inconceivable and yet it is so perfectly known through its effects that we use it to illuminate our cities, guide our airlines through the night skies and take the most accurate measurements. What strange rationale makes some physicists accept the inconceivable electrons as real while refusing to accept the reality of a Designer on the ground that they cannot conceive Him? I am afraid that, although they really do not understand the electron either, they are ready to accept it because they managed to produce a rather clumsy mechanical model of it borrowed from rather limited experience in other fields, but they would not know how to begin building a model of God......."

Decades later, with technological advances creating ever more dilemmas for Darwinists, they perch precariously on their evolutionary "chair," as described by Scott Huse.

"As I was sitting in my chair, I knew it had no bottom there, No legs, or back, but I just sat, Ignoring little things like that."

Rocket scientist Werner von Braun oversaw the team of scientists that sent the first American into space and masterminded the moon landing. In a letter to the California State Board of Education, von Braun stated:

"There are those who argue that the universe evolved out of a random process, but what random process could produce the brain of man or the system of the human eye? ...To be forced to believe one conclusion – that everything in the universe happened by chance – would violate the very objectivity of science itself."

Von Braun also observed:

"Manned space flight is an amazing achievement, but it has opened for mankind thus far only a tiny door for viewing the awesome reaches of space. An outlook through this peephole at the vast mysteries of the universe should only confirm our belief in the certainty of its Creator. "

In 1959, Dr. T. N. Tahmisian, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, was even more blunt:

"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact."

Louis Bounoure, director of the Strasbourg Zoological Museum, then director of research at the French National Center of Scientific Research, stated in 1984:

"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless. "

Dr. Wolfgang Smith, science writer and teacher at MIT and UCLA, said in 1988:

"And yet the fact remains that there exists to this day not a shred of bona fide scientific evidence in support of the thesis that macroevolutionary transformation have ever occurred."

Original Article



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 11:30 PM
link   
I would just like to point out, bigpappadiaz, that Chain, Von Braun, and in fact all those people you quoted, said those things prior to the human genome project, the rat genome project, and, in the case of Chain and Von Braun, before the structure of DNA was even discovered. Wow, I'm really going to take the word of these men who said these things against genetic evolution at a time when DNA wasn't even partially understood. I'm glad I believe the 13th century Christians, too and know that the world is flat.

Ciao,
~MFP



posted on Jan, 28 2006 @ 12:08 AM
link   
Of course BS, it was the Christians who tried convincing everyone the world was flat. I guess you would think that though, since I'm sure you also believe every aspect of history as written in the classroom textbooks.

When did the human genome project prove macroevolution? I must of missed that announcement. If anything I'm sure these scientists would have been pleased by these discoveries, as it would show we're even more complex than we had thought and thus the stupid idea that we "evolved" from nothing is even more remote.

I would also like to point out that you sound like the type of guy who would be denying the earth was round back in the days when the people were reconvinced it was flat, since they knew it was round long before the 13th century. Why anyone would waste their time trying to convince the people it's flat is not beyond me to figure out since I'm the Sheeple's Champ, but that's not for this thread.



posted on Jan, 28 2006 @ 01:43 AM
link   

Of course BS, it was the Christians who tried convincing everyone the world was flat. I guess you would think that though, since I'm sure you also believe every aspect of history as written in the classroom textbooks.

When did the human genome project prove macroevolution? I must of missed that announcement. If anything I'm sure these scientists would have been pleased by these discoveries, as it would show we're even more complex than we had thought and thus the stupid idea that we "evolved" from nothing is even more remote.

I would also like to point out that you sound like the type of guy who would be denying the earth was round back in the days when the people were reconvinced it was flat, since they knew it was round long before the 13th century. Why anyone would waste their time trying to convince the people it's flat is not beyond me to figure out since I'm the Sheeple's Champ, but that's not for this thread.


Wow, I honestly don't know where to begin on this one. The reason I referenced the Christians about the world being flat was because I can walk across town to the Museo Scienza di Firenze and see an original manuscript on the shape of the globe from Galileo to the Vatican that helped earn his condemnation. Just to make sure you get what I'm saying, the Vatican is the home of Catholicism, which is a branch of Christianity. Get it now?

As for the human genome project: first off, you are using the wrong term. Macroevolution refers to evolution at or above the level of species. MICROevolution refers to a genetic evolutionary step. Now that we've got that cleared up, the human genome project made leaps and bounds in the field of microevolution. It allowed us to see that about 70% of the human genome is junk DNA, possibly deactivated genes from ancestors, and it allowed us to see genes that were identical in ourselves and other species (these are called homologues). Now, can you disprove the fact that the human genome project furthered our understanding of microevolution due to the new found ability to compare genetic sequences in multiple organisms? I'd really like to see you try.

Ciao,
~MFP



posted on Jan, 28 2006 @ 03:18 AM
link   
Yeah, my proof that they suck is that they say 70% of our DNA is junk. The egg and the sperm made copies of all this "junk" for a damn reason. Our bodies copy it and spend time maintaining it, I'm sure it has a reason. Damn this is stupidest thing I've ever heard anyone say, and I'm surprised that other leading scientists aren't stepping forward and speaking up at this supreme example of ignorance.

As for your Catholic reference, YEEEES, I realize catholicism is a branch of christianity. I went to a catholic school. But I believe it's all been a sham, and these guys at the head of the church during these older times wanted to keep us ignorant. They wanted to make sure we kept believing the world was flat.



posted on Jan, 28 2006 @ 09:08 AM
link   
For those of you who think that the human, chimp comparison "proves" macro-evolution, here is a nice discussion on the topic. Doesn't disprove macro-evolution but it raises the bar for scientists to invent a plausible mechanism for the genetic basis of macro-evolution (ie micro-evolution through beneficial mutations) . It would seem that the human/chimp genome project pushes the common ancestor back a few million years to give grace for the amount mutations that caused the differences in our genomes.
www.evolutionfairytale.com...

The website sounds... fundamental, but some good science is being discussed.

[edit on 28-1-2006 by Hehe]

[edit on 28-1-2006 by Hehe]









 
95
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join