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: 9
96
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 28 2006 @ 09:32 AM
link   
That talks alot about brain size differences. There is a huge difference between the modern human brain and that of 'the hobbit' for example.. it is apparently very similar to the chimp yet they were highly intelligent. I see nothing there that really challenges the evolution theory.

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.

So?

[edit on 28-1-2006 by riley]




posted on Jan, 28 2006 @ 10:25 AM
link   
bigpappadiaz: You really ought to actually research things before you post about how "ignorant" they seem. Junk DNA isn't literally junk, it's a colloquialism. Junk DNA is storage of old genes from ancestors, for fetal genes that get turned off prior to birth, and also serves a very important structural purpose in the process of cell division and chromatid formation. Now, remind me again why junk DNA disproves microevolution and why scientists are ignorant for believing in junk DNA?

Ciao,
~MFP



posted on Jan, 28 2006 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by riley
That talks alot about brain size differences. There is a huge difference between the modern human brain and that of 'the hobbit' for example.. it is apparently very similar to the chimp yet they were highly intelligent. I see nothing there that really challenges the evolution theory.

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.

So?

[edit on 28-1-2006 by riley]

Did you read the all that was said. Admittedly it was technical.
"Actually, when you take into consideration the indels the simularity is more like 95%. When you are looking at the protein coding genes they are only 29% identical."
Well moving back the common ancestor would mess around with current accepted views of the history of human evolution, causing scientists again to overhaul the huamn evolution timeline.



posted on Jan, 28 2006 @ 05:57 PM
link   
Evolution is a nice simple thought. Just like there is one God and he loves us and all the nice thoughts of early Christianity. It's a gross oversimplification of zillions of complicated processes that could not have all happened by chance
The idea that life spontaneously creates itself is stupid because our history and it's related conspiracies all point in a different direction. But I guess you know more about what was going on back in the day than these guys, huh? Because you read it in a history book written thousands of years later.

Believe what you want to believe and when this apocalypse kicks off and you realize that we're doomed because we were stupid and never wised up you'll feel stupid for helping keep everyone dumb. We were created, became a liability, and now are being destroyed. We maybe could have avoided this, but no, those who try to warn others have to spend their time running around in circles while those who destroy continue their work unchallenged.

When people begin breaking out with horrible diseases while they're starving, they can thank their ignorance for attracting them to all the pollutants and chemicals they thought their bodies could handle. We can thank those such as yourself for always defending these stupid things.

False progress sucks



posted on Jan, 28 2006 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigpappadiaz
Evolution is a nice simple thought. Just like there is one God and he loves us and all the nice thoughts of early Christianity. It's a gross oversimplification of zillions of complicated processes that could not have all happened by chance
The idea that life spontaneously creates itself is stupid because our history and it's related conspiracies all point in a different direction. But I guess you know more about what was going on back in the day than these guys, huh? Because you read it in a history book written thousands of years later.

Believe what you want to believe and when this apocalypse kicks off and you realize that we're doomed because we were stupid and never wised up you'll feel stupid for helping keep everyone dumb. We were created, became a liability, and now are being destroyed. We maybe could have avoided this, but no, those who try to warn others have to spend their time running around in circles while those who destroy continue their work unchallenged.

When people begin breaking out with horrible diseases while they're starving, they can thank their ignorance for attracting them to all the pollutants and chemicals they thought their bodies could handle. We can thank those such as yourself for always defending these stupid things.

False progress sucks


....

what?

i thought this was about evolution and why it's false, and you're bringing up things that should be in the Faith and Theology forum.

the idea that life spontaneosly generated after several billion years may seem unlikely, but it is somewhat more likely than a being like god, that can't be proved to exist, created everything as it is now.

and zillions? pull out a thesaurus



posted on Jan, 28 2006 @ 07:54 PM
link   
ok, I only read 80% of this cause I'm lazy.
Yep, the lazy american.
lol

Anyways, what we have here is the chicken and egg theory.

If the chicken came from the egg, who created or what evolved into the egg.

And if the Egg came from a chicken, who created or what evolved into the chicken?

with evolution...we go back and back and back until you're at The Photon, the Tacheon and it's offspring and who created them thus going back and back and back to the big bang and who or what made that....forverer actually. the eternal search for the creator.

or we have "God did it."

lol

I'm not too interesed in my meat actually. if the earth is a zillion years old or 7000, my meat is just here for about 60-80 years as a male. Even in a small creation period that amount to not much at all.

My question I guess would be why do I reason? As much as I'd love to side with darwin and I AM personally agnostic perhaps border aethiest.....why am I the only thing on this planet that can think and reason?

there are what? billions of species on this planet? Why can I learn another dialect, speak to children before they can speak with sign language, and generally do things for "Leisure" when everything else is just trying to stay alive.

My brain and how I think has nothing to do with Darwins theory. Only the strong survive. because me watching TV or if I am getting any sex tonight is really not related to the survival of my species. Heck, I can call and have sex delivered if I like...lol.

the answer is definatly 42.

So long and thanks for all the fish.

-DT



posted on Jan, 28 2006 @ 07:59 PM
link   
oh and as a side note, I used zillion as well I think. it's just habbit, saying a google sounds like a promotion to the search site and infinity is SO over used....

A zillion = a humungous number.

-DT

on a side note, for fun I DID do a web search....

Definitions of zillion on the Web:

million: a very large indefinite number (usually hyperbole); "there were millions of flies"
very large indeterminate number; "a zillion people were there"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Following the pattern of naming large multiples of ten (as in million, billion, trillion, etc.), zillion, bajillion, squillion, gazillion, jillion, kajillion, etc. are indefinite and fictitious large numbers, or units of imprecise measurement, used in exaggeration. The size is dependant upon the context to which it is used, but can typically be considered large enough to be unfathomable by the average human mind.


or to sum it up :
zil·lion (zĭl'yon)
n. Informal.
An indeterminately huge number.

-DT



posted on Jan, 28 2006 @ 09:13 PM
link   

The idea that life spontaneously creates itself is stupid because our history and it's related conspiracies all point in a different direction. But I guess you know more about what was going on back in the day than these guys, huh?


First off, who are "these guys" and what history/conspiracies are you talking about?

Secondly, your quote "the idea that life spontaneously creates itself is stupid" is reason enough for everyone here to just ignore you. I mean, that's almost as good an argument as "Nuh-uh!" or throwing poo, if you are of the chimpanzee persuasion.

Ciao,
~MFP



posted on Jan, 28 2006 @ 09:34 PM
link   
wow, I'm drunk and this is fun. reminds me of the terminator."Great stuff. I could make a career out of this guy. See how clever it is? It doesn't require a shred of proof." lol

Can someone explain the domesticated Ferret just for kicks?

no, it can't breed with it's distant cousin the black footed ferret um, or the uh, black footed ferret that was created as well.

closest thing it can breed with is an english pole cat.

but, it's not really a pole cat. in fact out of the presumed 4 million ferrets in the U.S., know how many can survive without human intervention?

RIGHT! NONE.
zero, zip,zilch.

darwin screwed this one all up.

Or maybe WE did...heh.

Damn you AquaScum!

-DT



posted on Jan, 28 2006 @ 11:24 PM
link   

bsl4doc sed:
Secondly, your quote "the idea that life spontaneously creates itself is stupid" is reason enough for everyone here to just ignore you.


And the crap you spew is reason enough for stupid people to continue not caring. Life is complex and our world is so obviously designed. And these old guys who are trying to keep us stupid and use people like you to help keep us stupid don't want us finding out that we're about to get screwed.

It's almost time for us to do something about it, or our planet's ability to sustain life will crap out. And what's happened? In the past 100 years our population has gone from under a billion to almost 6.5, we've done more damage to the ecosystem than every before, built up large amounts of pollutants in our bodies, our climate is about to collapse, we're on the verge of economic ruin, and everyone is pissed off at each other. They're rushing the technology and keeping it secret because they don't want us becoming too aware of the complexities and awareness that comes with this knowledge.

They flood the world with disinfo like "Tornadoes are caused by low pressure and cold high pressure colliding blah blah." But our country is just about the only place you'll ever find them, and in tornadoe alley mainly. I mean what the HELL is up with THAT? Shouldn't the rest of the world see them if they're just wind and air? Hurricanes are the same thing tornadoes are, just bigger, over water so the process is a little different, and a whole lot bigger I'm sure. Or how our climate is changing but they say it's a "cycle." Well what causes the damn cycle? Damn I mean "it's a cycle" is as close to saying nothing as I can imagine.

I see how we've been prepared for it, from the church back in the day saying the world was flat, the south americans being told to wait for some white, coquistador-looking guy named Quetzacoatl, the Egyptian's vs. Jew's God bout, Mars and its recent devastation, how Asia, Europe and Africa were plagued while the other side of the world was left untouched, all the way to our present day situation. Old guys here on Earth are getting ready for it, all these years have been in preparation. They were in the position to work their way to the leadership positions because they understood all the concepts of modernization and technology. Everyone else didn't have a clue or any sense of direction.

All religions have been a way of controlling the people, and making sure they never wonder too much about technology and the secrets of the damn universe and how to become like the Gods. These are masterful manipulators and servants to these Gods who had to leave this planet, I see this Apocalypse fixing to go down live, and that's one reason why I believe in creationism.



posted on Jan, 28 2006 @ 11:36 PM
link   

All religions have been a way of controlling the people, and making sure they never wonder too much about technology and the secrets of the damn universe and how to become like the Gods. These are masterful manipulators and servants to these Gods who had to leave this planet, I see this Apocalypse fixing to go down live, and that's one reason why I believe in creationism.


That's great, and I admire you for having faith, but does that really justify you calling people who disagree with you stupid? I would think that would make you as bad as the people you are accusing, no?

Ciao,
~MFP



posted on Jan, 28 2006 @ 11:46 PM
link   
GrandefatherDiaz, you are on post ban - again.

Why come around if you are just going to make it to where you can't interact? the recidivism rate when regard to you is horrendous. Go to councilling before returning, huh?



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 07:30 AM
link   
Let me go back to the starting point of Number 6:



Scientific Fact No. 6 - Chaos From Organization Proves Evolution is Wrong

The second law of thermodynamics proves that organization cannot flow from chaos. Complex live organisms cannot rearrange themselves into an organism of a higher form as claimed by evolutionists. This is scientifically backwards according to the second law of thermodynamics that has never been proven wrong. Scientists cannot have it both ways. The second law of thermodynamics is proven to be correct. Evolution lacks any scientific proof. Evolution is simply an empty theory.


In recent years, computers have evolved vastly and, since their conception, the motor car has evolved to an amazing extent. What Darwin postulated, with random changes and Natural Selection is not evolution as we use the term but diffusion; random movement, influenced by a 'concentration gradient'. When we use the term evolution in normal parlance, we mean an intentional, guided development. In terms of scientific theory, the relatively young Intelligent Design Theory is the best fit with what most people intuitively understand to be the way things work. (If we can get away from the attempts of the Neo-Darwinists to tar it with the same brush as literal biblical creationism.)

Science is the attempt to find patterns in the world around us; to "reverse-engineer" our world and produce as elegant as possible a description, preferably an equation. We see similarities between animals and paterns at all levels of biology; Darwinists conclude that this is due to common ancestry, others conclude a common source that provided the pattern by a different mechanism than decent with random variation.

This argument based on the entropy of the system is not watertight but needs to be answered more thoroughly by the Darwinianists. Evolution (as commonly understood) may be able able to produce development but [Darwinian] diffusion cannot.



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 07:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hehe
Did you read the all that was said. Admittedly it was technical.

I did.. I also read the replies. Why would I bother expending time on giving 'technical answers' that have already been given? In my response I gave an explanation in regards to human brains being too complex to share a common ancestor with chimps.. yet you ignored it. This brain difference is used as evidence to support this 'protein dna' theory so I chose to address that point specifically.
BTW it's kind of bad form to advertise other forums here.

"Actually, when you take into consideration the indels the simularity is more like 95%. When you are looking at the protein coding genes they are only 29% identical."
Well moving back the common ancestor would mess around with current accepted views of the history of human evolution, causing scientists again to overhaul the huamn evolution timeline.

The primate evolutionary time line spans millions of years anyway.. I do not see any problem if scientists revise their ideas.

[edit on 29-1-2006 by riley]



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 02:02 PM
link   
Homo Flores. is a bit of a controversial topic for both sides of the fence and further investigation is pending. Although i dont quite see the relevancy here. According to various phylogenetic trees Homo and Pan split off about 7 mya ( www.origins.tv... ).
7 mya is a very small period of time for the brain size to have tripled (H. Flores is speculated to be an offshoot of H Erectus). The problem with that is according to the genetic variance between humans and chimps (although comparitively small) you would need mutation rates (benficial ones) to be ridiculously fast to account for the differences. Bear in mind harmful mutations far outnumber beneficial ones (beneficial mutations seem to be very elusive, i cant think of any documented ones).
So-called junk DNA has also baffled scientists as it was recenlty discovered to actually have a function although all the functions are not known (not remnants of shut-off genes from ancestors as predicted). Variation in "junk-DNA" between humans and chimps is also a perplexing problem.
Its not meant to disprove evolution, just to give a new perspective to all those pundits giving this 98% human/chimp similarity as the absolute proof that humans must have evolved. All this project has done is raise more questions to be answered.

[edit on 29-1-2006 by Hehe]

[edit on 29-1-2006 by Hehe]
Mod Edit: removed quote of previous post -- Quoting Etiquette – Please Review This Link.



[edit on 29-1-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 02:33 PM
link   
Hey ed,
A couple of guys in a garage trying to make gold from lead and some gold colored paint or dye…ain’t science. It’s called alchemy.
So anytime you and other true believers find some cockamamie idea (erroneously referred to as a “theory”) you ain’t actually proved nothing ceptin yur own vein attempts to cling to an idea that does not stand to scrutiny.
Neither you nor anyone else has found evolution, apparently the actual “antichrist”, to be false. Just because you hope that Mexicans aren’t really Americans that does not make them non American. Just because you fervently believe that the KJV is the “inerrant word of god” doesn’t make it so.
The best thing you guys can do is to quietly ignore evolution like you do so much other valid information and go about your own version of the known universe and stop trying to force misassumption on innocent people.
Now, let me hasten to add that those of us who don’t rely on Mesopotamian thought processes or their seventieth century English revisions for our view of the universe do not claim to be innocent of everything, just old, bad ideas held popular by those who don’t wish to do their own thinking.
skep



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hehe
Homo Flores. is a bit of a controversial topic for both sides of the fence and further investigation is pending. Although i dont quite see the relevancy here. According to various phylogenetic trees Homo and Pan split off about 7 mya ( www.origins.tv... ).
7 mya is a very small period of time for the brain size to have tripled (H. Flores is speculated to be an offshoot of H Erectus).

The point is relevent because it took a very small amount of time for the hobbit's brain to shrink.. this proves that evolution can ineed create drastic changes in the brain [smaller or larger] in a small amount of time.

The problem with that is according to the genetic variance between humans and chimps (although comparitively small) you would need mutation rates (benficial ones) to be ridiculously fast to account for the differences.

There is no rule to say that evolution doesn't take giant leaps. Again.. the hobbit shrunk 'ridiculously fast' in a very small amount of time to adapt to it's enviroment.

Bear in mind harmful mutations far outnumber beneficial ones (beneficial mutations seem to be very elusive, i cant think of any documented ones).

'Harmful' is relative. If someone grows another pair of arms it might be beneficial for climbing walls.. but would look ugly so would be harmful to breeding prospects. Caucasions were once dark skinned.. someone had a white mutation [fairer skin makes it easier to absorb certain vitamins from the sun in colder climates] and it obviouly was not considered a bad mutation and so was passed on.

So-called junk DNA has also baffled scientists as it was recenlty discovered to actually have a function although all the functions are not known (not remnants of shut-off genes from ancestors as predicted). Variation in "junk-DNA" between humans and chimps is also a perplexing problem.

Evolution by nature makes a species more complex.. it seems unlikely to me that this genetic information would be dicarded as it's what new information builds on and from.

Its not meant to disprove evolution,

Yes it is. It's meant to disprove it in conjunction with other 'facts' [ex. 'the laws of thermo dynamics'] that are usually taken out of context to a create missleading conclusion. That forum you linked us to is a good example of this.

just to give a new perspective to all those pundits giving this 98% human/chimp similarity as the absolute proof that humans must have evolved. All this project has done is raise more questions to be answered.

If we didn't evolve.. why is it we share 98% dna with them? Nothing you have said suggests we do not share an ancestor. I'd also like to know how exactly humans got here if we didn't evolve?
You seem to like getting technical and have done your best to give the impression that you are a man/woman of science.. could you please provide a credible, scientific explanation that rivals the evolution theory and some evidence?

[edit on 30-1-2006 by riley]



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Caucasions were once dark skinned.. someone had a white mutation [fairer skin makes it easier to absorb certain vitamins from the sun in colder climates] and it obviouly was not considered a bad mutation and so was passed on.
[edit on 30-1-2006 by riley]



It is not that they absorb vitamins because of a lighter skin color, but that more UV radiation can pass thru the protective upper layers of the skin (where the pigaments are) down to the lower layers of the skin where there is a process that uses UV radiation to construct the vitamin D. As a note, I was at a local hospital and read a pamphlet that said when breast feeding became more popular recently, that there was an increase outbreak of ricketts(sp). This was due to the fact that our milk supply is fortified with vitamin D to prevent ricketts from occuring. As we can all see we have just turned a mutation in to a less beneficial or harmful mutation. (Harmful because you increase the risk of skin cancer since there is less pigment to protect against UV radiation. UV radiation causes damage to our DNA. We have a repair mechanism within our cells to counteract this damage. If too much damage occurs then we increase our chances of skin cancer.



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 08:52 PM
link   
It isn't much different than asking who created God. But, re: light skin and cold climates, how does that explain the Inuit, who live in the coldest climate, and have darker skin?
Just something to chew on. In ancient Rome, they believed that the pale skinned northern people were strong and brave, but kind of stupid, while the black skinned people were intelligent and agile, but timid and weak. So, of course, the middle ground, they themselves, were the ideal balance. This accounted for their dominance at the time.



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ibeuniquetoo
It is not that they absorb vitamins because of a lighter skin color, but that more UV radiation can pass thru the protective upper layers of the skin (where the pigaments are) down to the lower layers of the skin where there is a process that uses UV radiation to construct the vitamin D.

Thankyou. I couldn't remember the specifics.

As a note, I was at a local hospital and read a pamphlet that said when breast feeding became more popular recently, that there was an increase outbreak of ricketts(sp). This was due to the fact that our milk supply is fortified with vitamin D to prevent ricketts from occuring.

That would make sense if it became less popular.. could you elaborate on this please? Can too much ViD cause ricketts? Sounds interesting.

As we can all see we have just turned a mutation in to a less beneficial or harmful mutation. (Harmful because you increase the risk of skin cancer since there is less pigment to protect against UV radiation. UV radiation causes damage to our DNA. We have a repair mechanism within our cells to counteract this damage. If too much damage occurs then we increase our chances of skin cancer.

I agree.. this would have been a very beneficial mutation if. for example, my ancestors had not have moved to Australia the skin cancer capital of the world.. the only people it's really suited for is aboriginals. Had to trade the sunscreen for aloe vera after sunday.. sunscreen doesn't always do what it's promises..


[edit on 30-1-2006 by riley]



new topics

top topics



 
96
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join