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.

 

Evolution Proven False

page: 2
1
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 12 2005 @ 05:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
it still doesnt work, many things have been tested with known age and the results come out to be very incorrect with an error greater than 75% most of the time.

EC,
I see old habbits die hard. What was the 'known age' of these many things? Could you please post an unbiased, scientific source for this please? thanks.




posted on Nov, 12 2005 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
it still doesnt work, many things have been tested with known age and the results come out to be very incorrect with an error greater than 75% most of the time.


What? Lol.


www.mnsu.edu...
The accuracy of radiocoarbon dating was tested on objects with dates that were already known through historical records such as parts of the dead sea scrolls and some wood from an Egyptian tomb. Based on the results of the Carbon 14 test the analysis showed that C14 agreed very closely with the historical information.


Maybe in Evolution Cruncher Land, on Made Up Numbers Island, the results are different, I dunno.


Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
maybe they used drawings as text, kinda like chinese and japanese characters.


Oh, maybe you can provide me an example of this astonishing find.

Oldest writing found in Pakistan to be 5500 years old.

Zip



posted on Nov, 12 2005 @ 01:00 PM
link   
Wow, this dumb thread is still going? Thanks Evolution Cruncher 8)

In all honesty, I made this post out of boredom and curiosity. I honestly thought the first response to my post would be some one correcting my wrong spelling of Cro-Magnon man which I spelled Cromagnum. Well, that doesn't matter much, overall a few people corrected me on my crazy theory and I had good laughs.

Only one post was about my bogus title for the above top stupidity theory with twisted facts of evolution. I figured the crazy title would catch a few a eyeballs and might make the second post.

Overall, if anyone has read this whole post, it should proove that the highschool text books ARE suprisingly accurate with the whole idea IMO. The Bering Strait "land bridge" does look like it could have very well been a bridge at one time considering all the islands in that sea and how close it brings Europe and North America. I also think carbon dating is more accurate than people think. I would say give or take 500 years max. I don't like to debate evolution to people often though, there are too many facts that can be twisted around.

The thing about this is, I have been hearing a lot of evolution debates lately and this was one of the craziest ideas I could think of. The whole thing with Robertson condeming that whole town to the wraith of God because of what the school did gave me a good laugh. I would probably guess that the school teachers were preaching to the kids while they were teaching them the evolution theory in the school book. That would justify being fired IMO. But that is another debate for another time.

One thing I think a lot of people will realise is that it seems our culture is going through a change in beliefs. In all honesty I believe in God. I also think if there is an advance society of beings, I think they would believe in God too. God for me being a universal spirit. This doesn't mean I don't believe in evolution though. I think that is one thing a lot of fundamentalist Christian groups have mixed up. I believe some of them think you have to either believe in one or the other. I think they believe if you believe in evolution you don't believe in God. That is crazy to me.

One thing people should realise most though is that beliefs are dangerous but an idea can be changed.



posted on Nov, 12 2005 @ 08:44 PM
link   
Ah yes, then we get the denial.

Classic symptom of ridicule.



posted on Nov, 12 2005 @ 08:59 PM
link   
Believing in an ideology, a creator or and Intelligent being, has nothing to do with evolution and science these are personal options.

What the whole problem here in our nation is the holding on the ideology of a book and what it say, holding unto that ideology is the base of faith and the reason to fight against science.

Christianity entire base depend on the bible and its content, evolution and science is it greater treat, my believe in science doesn't take away from my spiritual believes because I do not allowed anybody to tell me how to believe and how to worship.



posted on Nov, 12 2005 @ 09:39 PM
link   


Ah yes, then we get the denial.


If I were denying anything I would have said that was my son that posted that theory. He snuck into my room and on my computer and wrote this crazy theory about evolution. I had nothing to do with it.



posted on Nov, 12 2005 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpilledBeans
As many "evolutionists" claim, we evolved on Earth from monkeys. This idea makes no since when you look at the whole picture. If all of us did evolve on this rock from a form of monkey, the races would be much more similar than they are to date.


I hate to be the one to break this to you, Beans, but evolutionists don't believe that man evolved from monkeys. Evolutionists believe that all primates and indeed all living things evolved from a common ancestor.

You should get your facts straight before you start shooting down theories. Google is a good place to begin.




The theory underlying the modern synthesis has three major aspects:

The common descent of all organisms from a single ancestor or ancestral gene pool.

The manifestation of novel traits in a lineage.

The mechanisms that cause some traits to persist while others perish.

The modern synthesis, like its Mendelian and Darwinian antecedents, is a scientific theory. In plain English, people use the word "theory" to signify "conjecture", "speculation", or "opinion". In this popular sense, "theories" are opposed to "facts" — parts of the world, or claims about the world, that are real or true regardless of what people think.

In contrast, a scientific theory is a model of the world (or some portion of it) from which falsifiable hypotheses can be generated and tested through controlled experiments, or be verified through empirical observation.

In this scientific sense, "facts" are parts of theories — they are things, or relationships between things, that theories must take for granted in order to make predictions, or that theories predict. In other words, for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not stand in opposition, but rather exist in a reciprocal relationship — for example, it is a "fact" that an apple dropped on earth will fall towards the center of the planet in a straight line, and the "theory" which explains it is the current theory of gravitation.

In this same sense evolution is a fact and modern synthesis is currently the most powerful theory explaining evolution, variation and speciation. Within the science of biology, modern synthesis has completely replaced earlier accepted explanations for the origin of species, including Lamarckism and creationism.

In biology, the theory of universal common descent proposes that all organisms on Earth are descended from a common ancestor or ancestral gene pool (which is called having "common descent").

Evidence for common descent may be found in traits shared between all living organisms. In Darwin's day, the evidence of shared traits was based solely on visible observation of morphologic similarities, such as the fact that all birds — even those which do not fly — have wings. Today, the theory of evolution has been strongly confirmed by the science of DNA genetics. For example, every living thing makes use of nucleic acids as its genetic material, and uses the same twenty amino acids as the building blocks for proteins. All organisms use the same genetic code (with some extremely rare and minor deviations) to translate nucleic acid sequences into proteins. Because the selection of these traits is somewhat arbitrary, their universality strongly suggests common ancestry.

The evolutionary process can be exceedingly slow. Fossil evidence indicates that the diversity and complexity of modern life has developed over much of the age of the earth. Geological evidence indicates that the Earth is approximately 4.6 billion years old. (See Timeline of evolution.)

Studies on guppies [4] by the National Science Foundation, however, have shown that evolutionary rates in the wild can proceed 10 thousand to 10 million times faster than what is indicated in the fossil record.

en.wikipedia.org...


There, I got you started. See what else you can come up with.



posted on Nov, 12 2005 @ 11:08 PM
link   


I hate to be the one to break this to you, Beans, but evolutionists don't believe that man evolved from monkeys. Evolutionists believe that all primates and indeed all living things evolved from a common ancestor.


So are you refering to the idea that we all evolved from worms, bacteria, or trolls? Any of the three would fit fine for me. Yes i feel insignificant... anyone feel that way sometimes?



posted on Nov, 13 2005 @ 12:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpilledBeans
So are you refering to the idea that we all evolved from worms, bacteria, or trolls? Any of the three would fit fine for me. Yes i feel insignificant... anyone feel that way sometimes?


Have you ever read anything beyond "Dick and Jane," or are you descended from trolls.



posted on Nov, 13 2005 @ 12:19 AM
link   

Have you ever read anything beyond "Dick and Jane," or are you descended from trolls.


I'm sorry if you took that as offensive. I was actually referring to a theory that a scientist possed after he found fossils of trolls on an island. There was a whole clan of trolls on an island and many fossils were found, the scientist proposed a wild theory that we may have descended from this one island and not from Africa as has been suggested.

Island



posted on Nov, 13 2005 @ 12:25 AM
link   
This is not a link to a scientific find or theory, but a link to a fictional character. You should get serious and stop trolling. There are a lot of interesting topics to discuss here in a serious vein, even those with little substantiation.

en.wikipedia.org...'jin

[edit on 2005/11/13 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Nov, 13 2005 @ 12:28 AM
link   
Its in the same encyclopedia you referred me to. I thought it was reliable information. Well, I guess this prooves after all, you can't trust every source on the internet.



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 12:20 PM
link   

EC

it still doesnt work, many things have been tested with known age and the results come out to be very incorrect with an error greater than 75% most of the time.

Thats because if you use the technology improperly then you'll get improper results. Scientists know how to use the technology and don't use it in such horribly wrong ways. You can't carbon date living things, for example.

Also, carbon dating can be verified and calibrated by the tree ring records. Carbon Dating works, and it works very well.



maybe they used drawings as text, kinda like chinese and japanese characters.

The neanderthals? That would be interesting, I agree. I belevie that Cro Magnon is thought to have made most of the Cave Catherdral drawings tho, and usually these are illustrations, rather than say pictograms and the like.



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

EC

it still doesnt work, many things have been tested with known age and the results come out to be very incorrect with an error greater than 75% most of the time.

Thats because if you use the technology improperly then you'll get improper results. Scientists know how to use the technology and don't use it in such horribly wrong ways. You can't carbon date living things, for example.


The 75% error statistic is entirely made up. As I mentioned earlier,

www.mnsu.edu...
The accuracy of radiocarbon dating was tested on objects with dates that were already known through historical records such as parts of the dead sea scrolls and some wood from an Egyptian tomb. Based on the results of the Carbon 14 test the analysis showed that C14 agreed very closely with the historical information.


Errors in radiocarbon dating arise from two situations - the first, as you mentioned, is due to human error (for example, completing a radiocarbon dating test on a piece of material that is incongruent with the intended target - i.e., dead material can still amass organic compounds in certain circumstances) and the second is due to the inherent liberal +/- ~150 year uncertainty index.

Zip



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 12:52 PM
link   
I always wondered why evolution is always framed around humans being related to apes or monkeys. In fact if you go back far enough aren't we all related to pond scum? If evolution is correct and I don't have any valid reasons to disagree, then we are the direct descendants of unicellular organisms. And so what!



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 01:27 PM
link   
Um, last I checked we didn't evolve from monkeys, but from a common ancestor, so will all christians stop saying we evolved from monkeys? Also don't all living things have Carbon in them, or something like that, the building blocks of life or whatever. I hate working 3rd shiftget up at 2:30 and then people act like you are an idiot because you aren't awake.



posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 12:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpilledBeans
There is the theory of the "supposed" ice land bridge that used to connect North America and Europe. Where is the land bridge now?
There was no global warming back then for a huge ice bridge to just melt away.
The indians were planeted where they were, just as the other three races were.


Have you ever heard of an Ice Age? There WAS a land bridge, it is proven and not up for debate to begin with. The bridge is under water now obviously.
Also, there are 3 types of natives in the Americas. The Asian, the Indian, and the African. Asians crossed mainly through the land bridge. Indians and some asians travelled across the pacific by island-hopping (many small islands dot the pacific, the islands were biggen back then) and eventually made it.
The African looking natives are thought to have crossed from north western Africa on boats. They became the Olmec civilization, and the reason they are regarded as African in origin is because of the facial structure/ features of the many carved statues that they made.



posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 12:54 PM
link   
Wow, this guy thinks that? Oooook he can go and worship that tree over there while we drive our cars and ride in planes and do other things because of science.

Anyways, they had a special on discovery on the Island Hopping, tiny canoes, thousands of miles. Amazing. Then they showed how the Phoenixians(sp?) the guys the Romans kept fighting with in Africa, had contact with the Indians in Brazil. Like wow, we got big fancy boats that sink while these guys who think the world is flat go thousands of miles through sea serpent and kraken infested waters.(According to them, not true, but they believed in them)



posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by UfoofU
Wow, this guy thinks that? Oooook he can go and worship that tree over there while we drive our cars and ride in planes and do other things because of science.

Anyways, they had a special on discovery on the Island Hopping, tiny canoes, thousands of miles. Amazing. Then they showed how the Phoenixians(sp?) the guys the Romans kept fighting with in Africa, had contact with the Indians in Brazil. Like wow, we got big fancy boats that sink while these guys who think the world is flat go thousands of miles through sea serpent and kraken infested waters.(According to them, not true, but they believed in them)


Man... you've got a lot of nerve... aren't you the completely misinformed individual I encountered in another thread who thinks science dates the Earth at 60 million years?

What's your game: jump on the threads, support popular opinions, and belittle things you obviously don't understand. Don't you get enough opportunity to do that between recess and lunch?



posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 02:08 PM
link   
Evolution Proven False

Evolution is God to some. And if you are willing to to try to take their God from them, you must be willing to have your God taken from you.

One purported definition of Atheist is one who does not acknowledge, worship, or hold reverence for any "higher" being or supreme power.

God fits perfectly into this definition if you believe in the first commandment.

Christians are trying to be like Christ.

Christians believe Christ was God manifested in man.

Christianity's goal is to convert atheists to Christians who are trying to be like Christ who is God, and God acknowledges there is nothing superior to God, fitting the definition of atheism.

Christianity and other monotheistic religions are converting atheists into atheists without them even knowing, primarily because they are not really paying attention to, nor living their respective faiths.

P.S. There is a God.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join