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: 3
1
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 02:09 PM
link   
Hey look at this, twisting words. You are using my comments on the KT Barrier which is around the 60million year area, which proves the Earth is 60million+ years, not 6,000. Of course can't comment on that part can you? Just twist my words like that old song from the 60's.


EDIT: Here it is, where I say the fact that the KT Barrier is at the 60million year range proves the Earth is older then 6,000 years old. Not that it is 60million years old, but that the 6,000 year old idiots are wrong since the KT Barrier is at the 60million range, therefore the Earth is at least 60million+. The whole + sign is there for a reason. I know you believe in flat earth and giants and talking snakes and all that othar Bible BS but hey, don't twist other people's words when you are wrong. Also where do I say the Earth is 60millions years old? I say the KT Barrier is at the 60million+ year range, that is 10,000 times more then the 6,000 christians use, I never say the Earth is 60million years old. Damn it there is a WATS button but no "Der der der" Awards button.(From Carlos Mencia)


Isn't creation based on a 6,000 year old earth? So that right there makes it false. Only idiots think the Earth is only 6,000 years old, the rest of us have an education past the 3rd grade. ANyone know of the KT Barrier? The sediment of rock that appears at the time the dinosaurs went extinct? It is high in some material not commonly found on Earth, but found alot in astroids, supporting the Asteroid vs Earth theory of why dino's went bye bye. Anyways, it is about 60million+ years old, that right there is what, 10,000 times older then the idiots who say the Earth is 6,000 years old?(Ha I did the math in my head then checked it on a calculator and it was right!)

[edit on 18-11-2005 by UfoofU]




posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

Have you ever read anything beyond "Dick and Jane,"


I got as far as Spot, but the plot elluded me. I ended up loosing interest.



posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by UfoofU
Hey look at this, twisting words. You are using my comments on the KT Barrier which is around the 60million year area, which proves the Earth is 60million+ years, not 6,000. Of course can't comment on that part can you? Just twist my words like that old song from the 60's.

Hey, you know, you're right... apparently I misread your original post. I apologize for misrepresenting your statements in both threads.

Irrespective of my mistake, your 'communication' skills leave a lot to be desired.

[edit on 18-11-2005 by mattison0922]



posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 02:40 PM
link   
I got one thing to say. lol l Evolution proven false yeah right, ok god creat os sure. an alien rase creat us, that another question,
Evolution is the real thing. the most logic thing, its Proven Right, we se that all the time on our one time, when a virus muntated from not infect the human to infect human, then a evolution have happen.
or spreding by Spit to become air born then a evolution have happen,
muntated=Evolution,

mod edit, bad words


[edit on 18-11-2005 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by FallenOne
If you want to prove evolutionists wrong (stupid goal in life anyway), find the bones of adam and eve and have them dated to 6000 years. Hahaha.


Carbon dating is only accurate to about 6000 years back anyway!

YAHVEH created the Universe and everything in it. Hahaha.

get over it!



posted on Nov, 19 2005 @ 05:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by seawater999
Carbon dating is only accurate to about 6000 years back anyway!

I think it's after apx 6000 years that carbon dating is more accurate. In any case to prove Adam and Eve existed you would have to go back a couple of million years to find the very first homo sapien.. however this would conflict with the bible's [literal] account so it's probably best that 'young earthers' ignore science completely so they can continue to feel confident believing in mythology.


YAHVEH created the Universe and everything in it.


When?

[edit on 19-11-2005 by riley]



posted on Nov, 19 2005 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by seawater999
Carbon dating is only accurate to about 6000 years back anyway!

This is completely incorrect, why are you saying this?



posted on Nov, 21 2005 @ 12:51 PM
link   
dude, the ratio they compare to is not constant and always growing. the amount of carbon 14 in the atmostphere is constantly increasing. you cant date something if the ratio in the atmosphere is constantly changing. the amougnt of carbon 14 in the atmosphere proves to any true scientist that the earth is definately less than 30,000 years old.

EC



posted on Nov, 21 2005 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
the amougnt of carbon 14 in the atmosphere proves to any true scientist that the earth is definately less than 30,000 years old.



BS baffles brains. You haven't explained yourself properly.. haven't provided a source [AS USUAL] to back up this 'true science' and then you start saying things like this expecting to be taken seriously? EC.. please.. if you are going to talk science don't start saying things like the planet is less than 30,000 years old.. you may as say that the sky being held up by pillars is scientific fact. These are foolish and ignorant beliefs that should not be promoted. As for the carbon thing.. I'm quite certain that that was answered the last time you were here.. [this same pre packaged creationalist arument is also answered at true origins] besides which they are used in conjuntion with other testing methods. For example.. the very fact that the aboriginies migrated to Australia at least forty thousand years ago indicates that the planet is much older that what you're claiming. I could use a hundred different examples to illustrate how wrong you are but you'll only ignore them as you are only here to attack scientific knowledge rather than trying to understand it. This has been made clear by your complete failure in actually providing any scientific proof yourself.. why is that? Anyone want to put up there hand? You. yep. Why doesn't EC provide scientific proof that the planet is less than thirty thousand years old? Because he can't. Why? Because it doesn't exist.

[DrDino does not count.]

Bleh.



posted on Nov, 21 2005 @ 05:01 PM
link   
*sigh* here we go again


I think I've ridden this carasol ride before. Eventually I might actually believe the world is spinning instead of me.


There are other ways to prove the Earth is over 6,000 years old. Simple geologic processes of sedimentary rock structure combined with igneous rock processes prove this. There is also no evidence of any flood and the YEC claims that are put forth to try and explain how one could have occured are innaccurate and often misrepresented data and research. This is the last I plan on adding on this topic since it goes no where but circles.

Peace,
Silent



posted on Nov, 21 2005 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
the amougnt of carbon 14 in the atmosphere proves to any true scientist that the earth is definately less than 30,000 years old.

No it doesn't. I think you are repeating a form of the 'equilibrium' arguement. Its fallicous. Interestingly, its an arguement Kent Hovind often advances.



posted on Nov, 24 2005 @ 08:26 PM
link   
This is in response to "SpilledBeans" post.
Beans, you do not have a theory. You may have an idea, AN OPINION, A FANTASY, A BELIEF, A MISASSUMPTION BUT YOU DO NOT HAVE A THEORY.
Sorry, my fingers are big and I hunt N peck. I was not yelling, I make typos.
Before ypu can have a theory you must first actually know what a theory is. Find out about that and then state your idea, belief, misassumption...whatever.
Have a nice day.
In any case, evolution is a proven fact and therefore sound theory and Dawrin;s theory ( also valid) just explained how it happens. Finally, I will begin your research for you, neither evolution nor Darwin says that man derived from monkeys. That assumption is based in ignorance, nothing more.
skep



posted on Nov, 24 2005 @ 09:12 PM
link   
UfoofU (neat palindrome,
The individual who misquoted or misread you seems to acknowledge his mistake. Just to put a finer point on your statement the KT Boundary is at 65 m yrs not 60. It's not a barrier but merely a dividing point in geologic time between the Mesozoic and the Cenozoic. It is simply the divider between when we find paleolithic remains of dinosaurs and when we can find none that existed at a later time. This boundary seperated the Cretaceous and the Tertiary referred to as the KT bevcause the geplogic time frame was obviously written about byGermans and the German for Cretaceous begins with a "K". The layer of clay laced with iriduim was discovered and identified by the now well known physicist Luis Alvarez (Nobel Lauriat) and his son, a geologist.
In any case the extinction effected the Dinasaurs and surfacxe plants most because the were exposed to the world wide destruction causede by the impact of a meteorite which scientists estimate at about 10 miles across, a very big rock obviously containing a fair amount if iridium.
This is, of course, available everywhere you look and you probably already knew this so maybe this is really for your religious friend. I can't remember how many extinction events have been identified but earth has experienced several such devastating events. I believe the KT event killed about 70 % if all life, plants and animals (including sea life), on earth. But then according to the KJV of the bible and one of thre two main flood stories, the flood killed all the fish. I don't think those who created that particular story bothered to explain how rain kills fish. lol
skep



posted on Nov, 24 2005 @ 10:06 PM
link   
Lol, so 65mil, I thought it was 60, and thanks for explaining the KT, I wondered why it wasn't CT.

Also, how does rain kill fish? Easily, saltwater fish die in fresh, fresh die in salt, world flood mixes these waters so either the salt die or the fresh die polluting the water so badly that it can' sustain life. Wait, why am I defending the bible?



posted on Nov, 25 2005 @ 09:13 PM
link   
lol I didn't say the flood story that has the flood killing all life in the sea was logical. After all, there is not enough identified H2O in the Solar Syatem to produce enough water to cover even a smallish mountain let alone all the mountains on earth. lol Additionally, there are two flood stories depending on which bible you read, both of which were taken from countless Mesopotamian flood sagas the most famous of which is the Gilgamesh Saga. All these flood sagas most likely derive from the end of the last galciation period (circa 11 - 13,000 years ago). We are, of course, still in what most people erroneously refer to as the "last ice age. They are referring to the last glaciation period of the current ice age.
At that time, as the temperature began to rise and ice to melt, the barrier which we refer to as the Bosphorous breached allowing the Medeteranian to overflow the small fresh water lake which became the Black Sea. It is logical to extrapolate that all Western flood Sagas derive from this event.
Also, you are someone referred to Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon as two different life forms. They are just two different names for the same species, our immediate predecessor. This is not to imply that Homo Sapien Sapien derived from Homo Neanderthalensis. We are and were different branches on the Human Evolutionary Tree, essentially we made it and they didn’t. Their brain was actually larger then ours but our brain processes information differently and one can assume more efficiently.
skep



posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 08:49 PM
link   
Beans (may I call you "Beans"?)
Read kenshiro2012 who has attempted to explain two very important things to you, this is assuming, of course, that you are genuinely interested in your subject.
kenshiro mispplies the term "race" to our predeessor the hearty Neanderthal but he is correct that we co-existed with them. He also points out a very important bit of human knowledge namely, after smart people mapped the human genome the results was / is, among others, that there is but one human race and we are all members. Now this will upset stupid people, religious fanatics, racists and other uninformed peoples but there is but ONE race as kenshiro points out and it be us HUMANS. This includes not only all whites, blacks, yellows, browns, reds, republicans, democrates, smart people, dumb people, even...and I do not include this lightly, Baptiists.
So, forget you fantasy that there is something wrong with carbon dating and you can ignore the fundamentalists misunderstanding of the Second Law of Thermodynamics and move on to exposing yourself to some actual science.
It can be fun if you think about it. There is so much knowledge available to us, work done by others with the ability, dedication and unselfish willingness to share their work with anyone willing to make the effort to find it.
There is nothing wrong with your brain, it just needs some more information and it's there waiting for ya! Go find it and enjoy.
skep



posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by UfoofU
Lol, so 65mil, I thought it was 60, and thanks for explaining the KT, I wondered why it wasn't CT.

Also, how does rain kill fish? Easily, saltwater fish die in fresh, fresh die in salt, world flood mixes these waters so either the salt die or the fresh die polluting the water so badly that it can' sustain life. Wait, why am I defending the bible?


The geology of the Chicxulub impact site is a nasty one, don't forget. The rocks have a large amount of sulphur in them, so that a large amount of super-heated water vapour, powdered rock and sulphur would have been ejected by the impact into the atmosphere. All this stuff would have had to come down at some point, and a combination of water vapour and sulphur is enough to make sulphuric acid rain. That would have been very nasty for a lot of creatures/fish/plants in the oceans at the time. So that kind of rain can kill fish. Nasty.



posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
dude, the ratio they compare to is not constant and always growing. the amount of carbon 14 in the atmostphere is constantly increasing. you cant date something if the ratio in the atmosphere is constantly changing. the amougnt of carbon 14 in the atmosphere proves to any true scientist that the earth is definately less than 30,000 years old.

EC


I'm not intending to sound like a smart ass here, but (forgive me):

Can you seriously justify to yourself how the above quote is believable?
Do you honestly believe this?



posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 04:06 PM
link   
IF we did evolve from primates, why did the primates just stop evolving? IF there was a missing link i find it hard to beleive that they havnt found it yet. IF we evolved from primates and they evolve from whatever and they evolved from whatever where did it all start? for something to evolve it despretly needs that extra thing (organ, body part). as for the eye it is a complex part and every part individual and all works together as one, if you take a part away it is rendered useless. each part would have to evolve independantly and IF it was evolution that happened it would take along time for the eye to evolve and natural selection would not alow the eye to be formed as each part would be useless without the rest. thus having no meaning for being there



posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by carluk
IF we did evolve from primates, why did the primates just stop evolving?

:shk:
Are you saying human beings haven't evolved since we lived in caves?
We ARE primates.

as for the eye it is a complex part and every part individual and all works together as one, if you take a part away it is rendered useless. each part would have to evolve independantly and IF it was evolution that happened it would take along time for the eye to evolve

Life has been on this planet for two billion years. Is that long enough?



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join