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.

 

creationism, where is the evidence???!!! i see none

page: 4
5
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by ppkjjkpp
Even if life did appear 3.6 billion years ago thats still a positive mutation occuring in a matter of minutes. Even in high school evolutionist textbooks it is stated that mutations happen in small incremental changes over the course of generations. You are talking about thousands of mutations per hour.


I don't think I am. You'll have to clarify what you mean here.


We have not observed a single positive mutation with no side effects in humans for thousands of years even with vast populations.


I'm really quite perplexed now. It might make sense to read the thread.


Melatonin you are speaking of 'what if's' but you can't prove anything because evolution takes a giant leap of faith.


It does require the ability to read and comprehend. But faith? No. It requires evidence, which is the opposite of that needed for faith.


Evolution is based on nothing else besides sheer accident.


No, it's not. It's reliant on natural selection, which is most definitely non-random.


Don't extrapolate micro evolution to the rest of evolution.


You don't even understand evolution, so how can you make any such claims?

I can't believe this thread has gone this way....well, I can actually, heh.

Mama, if you ever wanted evidence these dudes and dudettes have nothing, this is it. It ranges from 'oh it's all so complex, therefore magical creation', to 'eviluzion sucks, therefore magical creation'. They have nada, zilch, nothing but arguments from incredulity.

[edit on 1-1-2008 by melatonin]




posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 03:34 PM
link   
evidence for creation:
earth's magnetic field is young
th human brain
the human eye
the grand canyon
fossil record
radio halos
helium content in earth's atmosphere

Just to name a few...



posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
It ranges from 'oh it's all so complex, therefore magical creation', to 'eviluzion sucks, therefore magical creation'. They have nada, zilch, nothing but arguments from incredulity.



You have no evidence that thousands of mutations happened per day billions of years ago
For micro evolution (also known as natural selection) to happen first their has to be cosmic evolution then chemical evolution then stellar evolution then organic evolution then macro evolution. There is no proof of any of this. All you talk about is mutations happening in the same kind of species. Creationists believe the same thing. When I said, "We have not observed a single positive mutation with no side effects in humans for thousands of years even with vast populations." I was pointing out that we are still humans not another animal. This is micro evolution. Creationists don't have a problem with that.
Any proof against evolution proves creation because they are completely opposite.

[edit on 1-1-2008 by ppkjjkpp]

-----------------------------------
trimmed BIG quote

Please read ABOUT ATS: Warnings for excessive quoting, and how to quote

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 1/1/08 by masqua]



posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 03:37 PM
link   
I guess your a hovindling.

Maybe you can outline how that evidence is actually supposed to support creationism...

ABE:


You have no evidence that thousands of mutations happened per day billions of years ago


I think it's only you who requires this. Why would we need such a rate of mutation?

[edit on 1-1-2008 by melatonin]



posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
I guess your a hovindling.

Maybe you can outline how that evidence is actually supposed to support creationism...

ABE:


You have no evidence that thousands of mutations happened per day billions of years ago


I think it's only you who requires this. Why would we need such a rate of mutation?

[edit on 1-1-2008 by melatonin]


for the connections in the human brain to form. Ok not days, thousands per week, still I high rate of mutations. What difference does a day make in a time scale of billions of years?



posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by ppkjjkpp
for the connections in the human brain to form. Ok not days, thousands per week, still I high rate of mutations. What difference does a day make in a time scale of billions of years?


Hmmm, one or two mutations might suffice for billions of new neurons. Indeed, the research earlier focuses on two recent mutations that underpin brain evolution. Genetic mutations of these now common genes leads to microcepahly. I could find out brain size for microcephalics, but I'm sure just two recessive mutations knocks out billions of neurons. And in reverse, the two mutations probably led to an increase of billions of neurons during human evolution. Each neuron has on average 1000 connections.

You're well off target here. One mutation doesn't need to lead to one new connection, one mutation could result in billions of new neurons.

ABE: missed your edit earlier:


For micro evolution (also known as natural selection)


This is clearly wrong. If you're gonna use such canards, you need to get them right. Natural selection is the basis of Darwin's theory, and a major process in evolution. Microevolution is the canard misused by creationists, which they generally take to mean variation of pre-existing traits (which would involve natural selection, drift, sexual selection etc).

[edit on 1-1-2008 by melatonin]



posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by ppkjjkpp
 


first of all its mamasita not mamista
it is apparent u know nothing about evolution or genetic mutations to actually grasp the whole aspect.
and a giant leap of faith u say? a giant leap of faith is believing a supernatural entity of magical powers created a land and animals for no particular reason and governs our every life.
yes we change our story - because we are always discovering new clues - we actually accept the fact that we do not know exactly how life was started - instead of being ignorantly bliss we ate the forbidden fruit of knowledge - and liked it!
some cults/religions/beliefs wateva you want to call it deny dinosaurs - you cant keep your stories straight. What happened to earth being the centre of the universe? if there was an almighty all knowing god then wouldnt he have told the real truth?
religion is yesterday - science is today



posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by ppkjjkpp
evidence for creation:
earth's magnetic field is young
th human brain
the human eye
the grand canyon
fossil record
radio halos
helium content in earth's atmosphere

Just to name a few...


and please explain why this is evidence



posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


Arguing about how many connections are made by one mutation is pointless. Like you said, one mutation "could" result in billions of connections. You don't know this, you can't prove this, you can't observe this. All you can do is believe that it happened using the anthropic principle which is, it must have happened because we are here today. I'm just saying it is improbable to happen by chance.
"And even if such a rate of evolving changes could be shown (and it can't), one is still left with the impossible hurdle of showing how the neurons of a brain accidentally created the non-physical code necessary to communicate between themselves.
Purkinje cells located in the cerebellum each receive 100,000 separate and distinct inputs from other cells, each receiving 100,000 separate electrical codes.
There are billions upon billions of Purkinje cells in a brain. Just imagine what a task it would be to organize and connect billions of Purkinje cells together for the purpose of creating thought."
You can can believe what you want and have faith in evolution if you want. Evolution is not science because it cannot be observed.

Natural selection did not come from Darwin.
"Charles Darwin is often portrayed as one of the greatest original thinkers of science on a par with the likes of Newton. While his book On The Origin of Species has probably had a greater impact on society than any other book -- except the Bible -- most of the evolutionary views he expressed in On The Origin of Species were neither original nor scientific, but rather had their roots in Pagan materialism. The essential "Darwinian" axiom of chance evolution by random change and "survival of the fittest" was broadly suggested by ancient Greek philosophers. Even the more refined concept of "natural selection," which is often viewed as a unique contribution of Darwin, was clearly expressed by many others as early as a 100 years before the 1859 publication of Origin of Species.
The French astronomer and mathematician Pierre de Maupertuis (1698-1759) is generally credited with being among the first to have developed an essentially modern theory of evolution which included a process of random change (mutation) and natural selection. In his book Essaie de Cosmologie he said: "Chance one might say, turned out a vast number of individuals; a small proportion of these were organized in such a manner that the animals organs could satisfy their needs. A much greater number showed neither adaptation nor order; These last have all perished -- thus the species which we see today are but a small part of all those that a blind destiny has produced." Maupertuis was a very outspoken atheist who used his evolutionary speculation involving "blind destiny" and "chance" in an attempt to refute the necessity for a sovereign God and purposeful design in nature."

And yes there is no other proof for evolution beyond extrapalating changes within one kind of animal. (micro evolution or whatever you call mutations).
I agree that animals adapt to their environments to survive but I don't believe the rest of unobservable evolution.



posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 06:11 PM
link   
We created ourselves and we evolved from within ourselves.



posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by mamasita

Originally posted by ppkjjkpp
evidence for creation:
earth's magnetic field is young
th human brain
the human eye
the grand canyon
fossil record
radio halos
helium content in earth's atmosphere

Just to name a few...


and please explain why this is evidence


umm... its obvious that some of these proofs prove the earth is young not billions of years old. some of the evidence overwhelmingly proves a creator. a creator provides the best explanation for life and is much more probable than evolution. Just because our minds can't see a God doesn't mean their isn't one. Prove to me there isn't a God. As far as it stands I am just as right as you are.

[edit on 1-1-2008 by ppkjjkpp]



posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by mamasita
reply to post by ppkjjkpp
 


discovering new clues - we actually accept the fact that we do not know exactly how life was started - instead of being ignorantly bliss we ate the forbidden fruit of knowledge - and liked it!


So you accept that you don't know how life started and yet you argue that evolution is a scientific fact. Either way there had to be a beginning. Two choices: God or a dot the size of a period on this page that accidently exploded. According to evolutionists parallel universe theory, dots are exploding throughout the universe even today. Is this theory science or a leap of faith?

[edit on 1-1-2008 by ppkjjkpp]



posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


thanks melatonin its exactly the response i expected too. no evidence just continuing to unjustifiably disprove evolution once again.



posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by menguard

We created ourselves and we evolved from within ourselves.


ok...How did we create ourselves? If you believe in evolution random chance created you. And even so, there may be a God who caused the dot to explode.



posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by mamasita
reply to post by melatonin
 


thanks melatonin its exactly the response i expected too. no evidence just continuing to unjustifiably disprove evolution once again.


Which reply are you exactly referring too?
If evolution is disproven then creation is the only way unless you are an atheist that only believes in evolution because you don't believe in God. There is no science behind evolution only faith.
I gave you some evidence which you are ignoring.
[edit on 1-1-2008 by ppkjjkpp]

[edit on 1-1-2008 by ppkjjkpp]

[edit on 1-1-2008 by ppkjjkpp]



posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by ppkjjkpp

Originally posted by mamasita

Originally posted by ppkjjkpp
evidence for creation:
earth's magnetic field is young
th human brain
the human eye
the grand canyon
fossil record
radio halos
helium content in earth's atmosphere

Just to name a few...


and please explain why this is evidence


umm... its obvious that some of these proofs prove the earth is young not billions of years old. some of the evidence overwhelmingly proves a creator. a creator provides the best explanation for life and is much more probable than evolution. Just because our minds can't see a God doesn't mean their isn't one. Prove to me there isn't a God. As far as it stands I am just as right as you are.

[edit on 1-1-2008 by ppkjjkpp]


but you are not backing up your claims - how does those words prove anything? if you make a list - explain why each pointer is absolute proof!



posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by ppkjjkpp

Originally posted by mamasita
reply to post by melatonin
 


thanks melatonin its exactly the response i expected too. no evidence just continuing to unjustifiably disprove evolution once again.


Which reply are you exactly referring too?
If evolution is disproven then creation is the only way unless you are an atheist that only believes in evolution because you don't believe in God. There is no science behind evolution only faith.
I gave you some evidence which you are ignoring.
[edit on 1-1-2008 by ppkjjkpp]

[edit on 1-1-2008 by ppkjjkpp]


I am hardly ignoring the evidence - how can i debate anything if all you have given me were some topics - no explanation as to how they prove creationism at all - please! and that is not the only theory - some believe our race was started by aliens - as unbelievable as that is - its got more crediblity then some "spirit" made us
and dont go there - there are so many religious people that believe in evolution - actually i only know of one person that believes in creationism - everyone else agrees it is stupid and outdated. most people now believe in evolution because of all the evidence that we have. how can you say we dont have evidence when you obviously have none for your belief - this whole thread was started - not to fight but to give you all a chance to give us some evidence - and i have seen none.



posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by mamasita

Originally posted by ppkjjkpp

Originally posted by mamasita
reply to post by melatonin
 


thanks melatonin its exactly the response i expected too. no evidence just continuing to unjustifiably disprove evolution once again.


Which reply are you exactly referring too?
If evolution is disproven then creation is the only way unless you are an atheist that only believes in evolution because you don't believe in God. There is no science behind evolution only faith.
I gave you some evidence which you are ignoring.
[edit on 1-1-2008 by ppkjjkpp]

[edit on 1-1-2008 by ppkjjkpp]


I am hardly ignoring the evidence - how can i debate anything if all you have given me were some topics - no explanation as to how they prove creationism at all - please! and that is not the only theory - some believe our race was started by aliens - as unbelievable as that is - its got more crediblity then some "spirit" made us
and dont go there - there are so many religious people that believe in evolution - actually i only know of one person that believes in creationism - everyone else agrees it is stupid and outdated. most people now believe in evolution because of all the evidence that we have. how can you say we dont have evidence when you obviously have none for your belief - this whole thread was started - not to fight but to give you all a chance to give us some evidence - and i have seen none.


My evidence is pretty much self explanatory and you either don't want to or can't refute it. For example, there are no intermediate fossils, missing links evolutionists are looking for. There should be millions. This proves that creation had to happen.

[edit on 1-1-2008 by ppkjjkpp]



posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 07:36 PM
link   
My evidence is pretty much self explanatory and you either don't want to or can't refute it. For example, there are no intermediate fossils, missing links evolutionists are looking for. There should be millions. This proves that creation had to happen.

[edit on 1-1-2008 by ppkjjkpp]

no it is not self explanatory! yet again i'm asking you to tell me why they are proof - u cant just say human eye and say thats proof! you have to tell me why you think that is proof.
as for fossils - do you have any idea how rare fossils are?! do you know how little archeologists get paid?! you try digging all day to find bones and fossils - its hard work! finding gold is easier but i'm not rich! you can hardly say anything about missing links - we have found enough evidence to support the theory of our evolutionary ladder. thats probally the reason why scientists accept evolution - i watch documentaries all the time and evolution is on all the time - based as a fact not a theory - i dont see anything about creationism - thats because its no longer accepted



posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by ppkjjkpp
Arguing about how many connections are made by one mutation is pointless. Like you said, one mutation "could" result in billions of connections. You don't know this, you can't prove this, you can't observe this. All you can do is believe that it happened using the anthropic principle which is, it must have happened because we are here today.


Eh? I think the anthropic principle is something else entirely.

We have evidence that mutations on two genes underpinned brain development during human evolution. I'm sure others are yet to be found. But these two genes have been shown to have undergone rapid change in our recent evolutionary past. Mutations of these genes now leads to a small brain with a lower number of neurons. Pretty simple really.


I'm just saying it is improbable to happen by chance.


The mutations would have been 'chance', but their selection would not.


There are billions upon billions of Purkinje cells in a brain. Just imagine what a task it would be to organize and connect billions of Purkinje cells together for the purpose of creating thought."


I'm guessing this quote is not your words, if so, you should make it an external quote and provide some form of link or reference.

Ultimately, this is another argument from incredulity. The brain would have developed over time from a few neurons to billions.


Evolution is not science because it cannot be observed.


It can be.


Natural selection did not come from Darwin.


It is a part of Darwin's original theory. I don't see why you're being a predant over this. Darwin formalised his theory presenting evidence and predictions and all that other scientific stuff, natural selection is a basic process within this theory.

I think you also have another quote, please do use external tags with a source reference of some sort.


And yes there is no other proof for evolution beyond extrapalating changes within one kind of animal. (micro evolution or whatever you call mutations).
I agree that animals adapt to their environments to survive but I don't believe the rest of unobservable evolution.


No, there's lots of evidence of common descent. Just because we can't observe a population of rats evolve into cats doesn't mean we don't have evidence. Many processes are unobservable for various reasons, but we can still assess their effects by other forms of observation.

[edit on 1-1-2008 by melatonin]




top topics



 
5
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join