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.

 

Where do people on ATS stand on this?

page: 12
7
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 04:18 PM
link   
methusela,
Please prove creationism is true.

thank you.




posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 05:27 PM
link   
neither does evolution.

and im not here to prove what is right. im here to prove what is not true and supported by flawed logic.

Creation is religious so is evolution, both are based on assumptions. both are opposites, both require faith. the only type of evolution that has been observed and is indeed scientific is Micro Evolution. change in species over time. but that change does not turn a hamster into a human over millions of years of natural selection. both evolution and creation are supportive to this fact, that is the only common ground.

thats all I have to say

[edit on 27-7-2007 by Methuselah]



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 05:36 PM
link   
sorry methusela but your logic is flawed at every turn.

You keep talking about how evolution is wrong and creationism is right. So, prove creationism is right.

Evolution is not based on faith but scientifically validated evidence. The fact that you dispute truth does not change the truth.


To quote the mythbusters
"I deny your reality and choose to insert my own".



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 05:45 PM
link   
www.evolution-facts.org...

take a look at the information on this site.
the information and links you gave me was bogus.



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 06:01 PM
link   
Just reading the titles to the chapters amuses me. This site is a creationist site with an agenda to hide the truth by using creationist babble so middle of the road intellects buy into the creationist hogwash.



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 06:20 PM
link   
Regarding the evolution handbook.
I just read part of a chapter and I think I see a few little problems.

The book is quoting people from 1940's, 1950's, 1960's.

I believe we may have come up with some new stuff since then.

This is incredibly outdated.



posted on Jul, 28 2007 @ 12:10 PM
link   
so what you are saying is that old stuff can always be replaced?
I believe that our forefathers had instated some laws of physics... anything new since then?

you got anything better than that website? or anything to prove their statements wrong?



posted on Jul, 28 2007 @ 12:25 PM
link   

so what you are saying is that old stuff can always be replaced?

What I'm saying is the information is outdated. For example in the 60's, we had no fossil evidence of any "missing links". We now do.
If you look at a history book from the 60's and compare it with one written in 2007 you may notice a few changes.
If you look at a physics book from the 60's and compare it with one written in 2007 you may notice a few changes.
If you look at an astronomy book from the 60's and compare it with one written in 2007 you may notice a few changes.


I believe that our forefathers had instated some laws of physics... anything new since then?
YES. Physics has advanced tremendously in the last 50 years. I am a bit shocked you don't know that.


you got anything better than that website? or anything to prove their statements wrong?

I or you can easily find factual information around the web, at your local library, in scientific magazines, etc... showing proof examples of evolution.

The problem is, no matter what proof you are shown, you will refuse to believe it because it would interfere with your beliefs. This is where all evolution vs creationism discussions hit a brick wall. If you refuse to believe something is true, when it is, how can I convince you it is? Obviously your beliefs are more important then facts and there is nothing I can do to change that for you.



posted on Jul, 28 2007 @ 12:51 PM
link   
This is the problem in a nutshell jfj.

Creationists believe that knowledge never changes, which is why they cling to the Old Testament, despite its messages supposedly being supplanted by the word of their Jesus.

They assume science is the same way because they refuse to learn about it and prefer to remain ignorant.

Trying to discuss science with a creationist is like trying to tell the emperor he has no clothes on. They have their fingers in their metaphorical ears and are singing LALALALALA for all they're worth. If science can change and grow, if science is a fluid and living system, then their bible is a lump of stone. And they just can't handle it.



posted on Jul, 28 2007 @ 01:41 PM
link   
hm lets try something a little different since you all want to stick with your definition of evolution, ill give you the definition as its stated in the dictionary.

ev·o·lu·tion (ěv'ə-lōō'shən, ē'və-) Pronunciation Key
n.

1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See Synonyms at development.
2.
a. The process of developing.
b. Gradual development.
c. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
d. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.
3. Biology
a. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
b. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.
4. A movement that is part of a set of ordered movements.
5. Mathematics The extraction of a root of a quantity.


First id like to point out that their are no missing links. ive sen many a times where evolutionist scientists have admitted to them as being fake or discredited.
Second, Fossils do not count as evidence, just because you find a bone in the ground does mean you know that it had kids. doesnt mean that the order they are presented in represents the change in species over time. this is slanted!

as for def #1. we have never seen it happen by itself in nature.


For the first def. we have never seen that happen.
as for 2.c and 3a we have never seen that either. it is assumed to have happened.
and as for 3b. difference species today were never once related.

humans and horses did not have common ancestor. and oh, didnt evolution used to proclaim that humans came from monkeys? but since they couldnt prove that, they had to state something that was a little more legit being that it could be disproved. no one knows if it could happen or not.

The bible says they will bring forth after their kind. a horse and a zebra are the same kind, and they can bring forth offspring. a horse and a human cannot! how is that not scientific?
variations do happen and sometimes end where the same kind cannot produce offspring, thats from a loss of information. but that doesnt disprove the bible at all.



posted on Jul, 28 2007 @ 02:12 PM
link   
methusela,
Lets approach this from a different direction.
What proof/evidence would need to presented to you for you to believe The Theory of Evolution is correct?



posted on Jul, 28 2007 @ 02:25 PM
link   
Proof of evolution IN OUR LIFETIME (in actuality over a six year span)



A team of international researchers has found that butterflies on a South Pacific island quickly developed genetic defences when they faced extinction from a parasitic bacteria.

www.abc.net.au...



If you prefer to hear it from somewhere academic, here's the UC Berkeley news:

www.berkeley.edu...

Evolution is real. Your sky fairy isn't.

Give in to the dark side, Luke ...



posted on Jul, 28 2007 @ 02:29 PM
link   
Well put M.M.
Good research !



posted on Jul, 28 2007 @ 02:47 PM
link   
I can't take credit for finding it, others on the board found it first, but thank you.

I just wanted to add, before I take my children out to play for the afternoon, one thing.

I do not want to hear a SINGLE word about how this example is microevolution and microevolution is not evolution.

If it wasn't evolution, it wouldn't have the word "evolution" in it.

No hair splitting please, this is actual evidence of evolution in our lifetime. Observable, observed, noted and concrete.

Clinging to creationism in the light of this information is futile.

Prepare to be assimilated.



posted on Jul, 28 2007 @ 03:42 PM
link   
Micro Evolution is scientific. but thats the only part thats scientific., but it doesnt prove a human came from a anything other than a human over time.

as for the study done.... its called an immune system.

[edit on 28-7-2007 by Methuselah]



posted on Jul, 28 2007 @ 03:58 PM
link   
methusela,
maybe you missed my last post. I would like to give you an opportunity to read it again and hopefully answer it.



posted on 28-7-2007 @ 02:12 PM

methusela,
Lets approach this from a different direction.
What proof/evidence would need to presented to you for you to believe The Theory of Evolution is correct?

thanks.



posted on Jul, 28 2007 @ 04:22 PM
link   

c. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations,


Why wouldn't the definition you hand picked out to post here, fit the butterfly ?



posted on Jul, 28 2007 @ 04:32 PM
link   


What proof/evidence would need to presented to you for you to believe The Theory of Evolution is correct?


show me proof that after breeding dogs year after year time after time, that you can get something other than a dog.
show me that for any kind of animal.

show me that life can just spontaneously generate!

there is argument from both sides, that it can and that it cant. both have there references and sources.

Fossils dont count, the geologic column is fake, and even if you did find bones that were in the order presented by the geologic column, all you would know is that it died.

show me proof, show me something and I want to watch it change. if its going to take millions of years to show me that, its a fairy tale.



posted on Jul, 28 2007 @ 04:54 PM
link   
Article from ABC news.


From chihuahuas to Saint Bernards, Swedish scientists say all modern dogs originate from a small number of female wolves living in East Asia some 15,000 years ago.

By analysing hair samples from more than 500 different breeds from all over the world, the scientists discovered all dogs share the same genetic pool but that East Asian dogs had a higher genetic variation.

"This makes it probable that dogs originated in East Asia and spread all over the world," a senior scientist at the Swedish Royal Institute of Technology, Peter Savolainen, said.

Mr Savolainen said the main reason why modern dog breeds look so different is the enormous interest in breeding that swept across Europe after the Middle Ages.

The few dogs which still look almost like their ancestors include the Mexican hairless dog, the Australian dingo and the greyhound, which has been found in the pyramids of Egypt.

In two articles due to be published in US journal Science, Mr Savolainen and his colleagues report the results of a four-year study of dogs' genetic codes.

The study looked at dogs' mitochondrial DNA, genes directly inherited from the mother which present a straight historical lineage.

Mr Savolainen says it was possible to see genes from at least five female wolves in today's dogs.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


So at first we have wolves who then turn into dogs. There ya go.



posted on Jul, 28 2007 @ 06:19 PM
link   
Microevolution is the engine whereby macroevolution is accomplished.

I really don't see how that is so difficult to understand.

Unless you personally are going to live a million years or more you'll only be able to see macroevolution in action by observing microevolution.

It's similar to when we age. It's done so slowly over time that you can't observe it daily with the naked eye. But you can see the end result at the end of a life.

If you can't grasp that, you need to quit arguing about it. Seriously. If that very simple concept escapes your grasp, you'll never be able to understand the subtleties and nuances of evolution and evolutionary biology and you might as well just stick your head back into the sand of mythology and keep it there until your time is up. It's only going to get more complex, and the god of the gaps is only going to get squeezed more and more tightly as we progress.

C'mon, join us in the 21st century. It's fun!



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join