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.

 

proof against evolution

page: 1
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 04:48 AM
link   
"Unique in the animal kingdom, with a saga steeped in science and popular imagination, the fabulous Coelacanth ("see-la-kanth"), that 400 million year old "living fossil" fish, swims on! Pre-dating the dinosaurs by millions of years and once thought to have gone extinct with them, 65 million years ago, the Coelacanth was "discovered" alive and well in 1938. In these up to the minute pages, the riveting story of the coelacanth is revealed as never before- in words, pictures, and video clips. Welcome to award winning Dinofish.com...and beware the addictive curse of the coelacanth!"

As stated, this fish is supposedly 400million years old. Yet when compared to the fish that is alive and swimming today, there is no change.
400million years is time enough for something to evolve, wouldn't you say?

Moreover, carbon dating, (the measured decomposition of carbon), is not accurate past a few thousand years.
"At Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Scientists dated dinosaur bones using the Carbon dating method. The age they came back with was only a few thousand years old."-(www.angelfire.com... **)

Dinosaur bones are never carbon dated because the dates that are the product do not fit the preconseived notions of evolutionists. In its stead, they use potassium or argon. Normally, the difference between using the two is around 150 MILLION years.

"I have documentation of an Allosaurus bone that was sent to The University of Arizona to be carbon dated. The results were 9,890 +/- 60 years and 16,120 +/- 220 years.
"We didn't tell them that the bones they were dating were dinosaur bones. The result was sample B at 16,120 years. The Allosaurus dinosaur was supposed to be around 140,000,000 years. The samples of bone were blind samples."
This test was done on August 10, 1990"- (**)

Everyone claims that evolution is the scientific answer, when in actuality, it defies all evidence.

Is this information shown in schools, no. Is it ever mentioned, no.
Logic dictates that just this amount of information overthrows the theory.

Our dna is a code, just like a computer language. When the code is corrupted, errors occur(exmpl: cancer). No matter how long you let a computer sit somewhere, its code will never improve itself. Basically, if evolution was possible, and the universe could work that way, then a computer with a very high processor (and i say this because its increased processing power would nullify years, like human years to computer years, it would take less time to evolve), would start to improve itself, if you told any programmer this, he would laugh in your face. Our bodies are no different.

Where would the original code come from? No matter how long you leave a fully working computer, (minus all of its programming), it will never develop programming to run, or any programs at all.

Furthermore, almost every culture has a flood story, but i dont think any have a story about a huge meteorite crashing down and destroying dinosaurs.

Out of all the "changes" that happened to us to become human, or of any animal for that matter, there are no between-stage evolutionary remains anywhere. You could list a couple like lucy or some such, but right after lucy was found (and she was the only body there), the scientists who found her proclaimed that it was a village where two different-staged evolutionary prehumans lived together. How do they know that when there was only one body that is woefully incomplete?

The biggest proof that lucy was a prehuman was her skull and mandibals.
They looked more apelike, or so they say. Well... dentists have reported that the human face is growing flatter. Why? not out of evolutionary reasons, but because the different races are mixing more and more and bones are shaped differently to avoid physical complications.

Entropy rules our universe, it is obvious everywhere, the slow decay of everything, evolution would break this rule if it were true




posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 05:31 AM
link   
The only answer i can give in response to your post is to look at Viruses and bacteria, They are able to evolve very quickly to become immune to anti-biotics
etc. So if evolution is true for those then why not all life.

And maybe in the case of the Coelacanth is it has never been put under any pressure to evolve.....Meaning it is able to efficiently survive today just as it did 65 million years ago, I think the same is true of the crocodillians.

Sorry i'm no expert and this is just my understanding of things.



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 05:44 AM
link   
Firstly, Carbon 14 dating is accurate to about 40,000 to 50,000 years ago, after that other forms of radioactive dating need to implemented. It is likely that the fossils which were dated to a mere 16,000 or so years were contaminated by foriegn sunstances, like bacteria.

Secondly, one blind study of radio carbon dating does not disprove evolution as thousands of blind studies support it.

If a creationist wanted to prove creation, find a rabbit skeleton in the pre-Cambrian era, or conduct a blind study on fossils from different layers of sediment, if they come back all muddled up, then you can use the findings to win a nobel prize. Unfortunately this is not going to happen. Every time a test is made in this way, it comes back how we would expect if evolution is right.

There are no stories of a mass extinction asteriod as it would have been 65 million years ago when it happened, whereas the flood would have been a few thousand.

Evolution is tested all the time, everytime a fossil is found, a geological strata examined, genetic testing conducted. Each and every time, the theme of a 4.5 billion year old earth is found, common ancestry is higly probable and creationism becomes more unlikely.

Watch some of DonExodus2's videos on YouTube, i'll link the first of an enlightening series -



if embedding doesn't work, visit this link -

youtube.com...


Thirdly, transitional fossils are abundant, watch this -

youtube.com...



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 05:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
400million years is time enough for something to evolve, wouldn't you say?

Sure, it's enough time for it to evolve. But what reason would it have to evolve? If it's been around for 400 million years. It must be doing something right. Look at the shark . . . it's an amazing killing machine. It doesn't have much need to change, and it has a long track record to prove it.


Moreover, carbon dating, (the measured decomposition of carbon), is not accurate past a few thousand years. Scientists dated dinosaur bones using the Carbon dating method. The age they came back with was only a few thousand years old.

around 55,000 yrs is it's peek i believe. I wouldn't trust any findings based on carbon 14 dating . . . All kinds of things can go wrong.


but i don't think any have a story about a huge meteorite crashing down and destroying dinosaurs.

according to the fossil record, man and dinosaurs never co-existed. It would be pretty hard for ancient peoples to recount something that they did not witness


Entropy rules our universe, it is obvious everywhere, the slow decay of everything, evolution would break this rule if it were true.


I'm not sure that it would . . . but regardless; rules are meant to be broken.


reply to post by ken10
 

I'm no expert either, but im pretty sure that bacteria becoming immune to antibiotics is not evolution. It's environmental adaptation.

[edit on 7/1/2008 by JPhish]



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 06:10 AM
link   
I'm with JPhish on this one.
Why evolve if its doing just fine?

And BTW, 65MA is a geological estimate of when the dinosaurs died out. Rock is formed as layers of sediment build up, and based on known facts and figures (such as accumulation of sediment we can see in various parts of the world today -ie new rock forming), it is thought that the most recent layer of the Earth's crust where any evidence of dinosaurs is found is approximately 65 million years old.

And carbon dating is impossible on dinosaur bones, because they don't actually contain any organic carbon. It's been replaced, slowly, by various non-organic minerals.
I don't know if evolution is strictly true, but at the same time, would such a kind, loving God create a species where the most greedy come to dominate?



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 06:14 AM
link   
'I'm no expert either, but im pretty sure that bacteria becoming immune to antibiotics is not evolution. It's environmental adaptation.'


Well I can say with some confidence that environmental adaptation is called Mirco Evolution, now once you have many stages of micro evolution completed, Macro Evolution takes place (so many mutations it creates a large change). This is speciation and is rare. However, it has been observed.

I wrote a lot of information anonomously, but it didnt get posted, so I signed up to reply to this thread. I might give it a go when I have some more time.

I can discuss evolution 'till the cows come home. =)



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 06:18 AM
link   
Actually, there I am up a couple of posts with the cool goggles. My post did get posted!

woohoo!

Saves me some time writing it again.



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 06:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Unsane
 


i put the word "evolution" in bold letters so that there would be no confusion that i was talking about macro-evolution. It's ok though . . . welcome to ats


[edit on 7/1/2008 by JPhish]



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 06:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by ken10
And maybe in the case of the Coelacanth is it has never been put under any pressure to evolve.....


Like I said on at least 1 previous occasion these "debates" between evolutionists and the opposition is pointless due to hardheadedness


As for your argument, it is, um, ridiculous. The coelacanth's environment hasn't changed for what? 400 million years? Ice ages and other factors not withstanding. I believe evolution states that evolution occurs when a change of environment occurs. The chance of ALL coelacanths not evolving over 400 million years is well (see my other post regarding probability theory). Come on evolutionists you have to concede THIS. You CANNOT compare a shark to a coelacanth. It might be remotely possible for a shark to remain unchanged but a shark is a predator, coelacanths are targets for predators.

I agree with the t/o. This is undeniable proof against evolution.



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 06:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 


I think you will find that the modern Coelacanths are not the same as the ones found in fossil records and have evolved into the two living species we see today.


G



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 07:02 AM
link   
Undeniable proof against evolution will come when an 'advanced' or modern organism like a rabbit or poodle is found in the same era as a trilobite.

Unfortunately for creationists, having something which hasn't evolved actually favours evolution, so we can measure more accurately environmental adaptation - it will help with research and PROGRESS our understanding, something creationism will not.



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 07:06 AM
link   
I was always wondering why there is subliminal evolution message on the can of the tuna fish:

Chicken of the sea



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 07:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lannock

Originally posted by ken10
And maybe in the case of the Coelacanth is it has never been put under any pressure to evolve.....


Like I said on at least 1 previous occasion these "debates" between evolutionists and the opposition is pointless due to hardheadedness


As for your argument, it is, um, ridiculous. The coelacanth's environment hasn't changed for what? 400 million years? Ice ages and other factors not withstanding. I believe evolution states that evolution occurs when a change of environment occurs. The chance of ALL coelacanths not evolving over 400 million years is well (see my other post regarding probability theory). Come on evolutionists you have to concede THIS. You CANNOT compare a shark to a coelacanth. It might be remotely possible for a shark to remain unchanged but a shark is a predator, coelacanths are targets for predators.

I agree with the t/o. This is undeniable proof against evolution.


No 'Im afraid not, that is one of the many tricks evolutionists like to play using the debunked theory of Lamarckism as evolution. You know the environment changes so the species adapts blah blah blah. Pasteur killed this theory and I would expect many pressures to initiate a change in that many millions of years, hell this thing was thought to be extinct. You are either going to use the rigth theory for the right mechanism ie: Lamarckism or random mutation which is the new excuse given by darwinists. There is the rub. Lamarckism has been debunked but it still makes a fast on your feet comeback packaged as Darwinian evolution for just this kind of rare discovery where random mutation happens over that time regardless.

- Con

[edit on 1-7-2008 by Conspiriology]



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 07:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by LannockYou CANNOT compare a shark to a coelacanth. It might be remotely possible for a shark to remain unchanged but a shark is a predator, coelacanths are targets for predators.

Some species are good at fighting.. others are good at fleeing. Maybe it could always swim and hide well.. no need to evolve.

Bob Sholtz.. what is the conspiracy? You've only posted creationist propoganda.. and it's not even good propoganda. The site you mention even talks about carbon dating live penguins and snails.. :shk:



..hang on a sec:


www.angelfire.com...
1) From a video Lecture by Dr. Kent Hovind




[edit on 1-7-2008 by riley]



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 07:40 AM
link   
ah, Kent Hovind. Now he really makes arguing against creationism easy.




edit: inserted 'against' to reduce confusion. (it was confusing me)

[edit on 1-7-2008 by Unsane]



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 07:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
As stated, this fish is supposedly 400million years old. Yet when compared to the fish that is alive and swimming today, there is no change.
400million years is time enough for something to evolve, wouldn't you say?


Heh. Unless the form found its niche. If there was no biological imperative to change, it probably wouldn't. But that is actually somewhat irrelevant...


"I have documentation of an Allosaurus bone that was sent to The University of Arizona to be carbon dated. The results were 9,890 +/- 60 years and 16,120 +/- 220 years.
"We didn't tell them that the bones they were dating were dinosaur bones. The result was sample B at 16,120 years. The Allosaurus dinosaur was supposed to be around 140,000,000 years. The samples of bone were blind samples."
This test was done on August 10, 1990"- (**)


Well... It turns out that there are ancient drawings that include dinosaurs and humans hunting them. So we might suspect that the carbon dating is accurate, and that we have been lied to...


Everyone claims that evolution is the scientific answer, when in actuality, it defies all evidence.

Is this information shown in schools, no. Is it ever mentioned, no.
Logic dictates that just this amount of information overthrows the theory.


Or it does not defy evidence, but that we have been gives false information...


Our dna is a code, just like a computer language. When the code is corrupted, errors occur(exmpl: cancer). No matter how long you let a computer sit somewhere, its code will never improve itself.


Whoa! You are comparing a static form to a dynamic one. Not only will a computer not improve its code, it will not replicate. In the scheme of a dynamic Universe, one might expect improvements with each generation - with each generation of computers we create, there ARE improvements in code and function...


Basically, if evolution was possible, and the universe could work that way, then a computer with a very high processor (and i say this because its increased processing power would nullify years, like human years to computer years, it would take less time to evolve), would start to improve itself, if you told any programmer this, he would laugh in your face. Our bodies are no different.


You are arguing that a non-sentient, static object should be used as a measure of sentient, dynamic development... I'm just guessing that conclusions with that start will be erroneous.


Where would the original code come from? No matter how long you leave a fully working computer, (minus all of its programming), it will never develop programming to run, or any programs at all.


Again...


Furthermore, almost every culture has a flood story, but i dont think any have a story about a huge meteorite crashing down and destroying dinosaurs.


No... And this brings us to the fact that almost every culture has a story that either directly states that the "Gods" came from the stars, or has stories that can easily be recognised as such when viewed from that paradigm.


Out of all the "changes" that happened to us to become human, or of any animal for that matter, there are no between-stage evolutionary remains anywhere. You could list a couple like lucy or some such, but right after lucy was found (and she was the only body there), the scientists who found her proclaimed that it was a village where two different-staged evolutionary prehumans lived together. How do they know that when there was only one body that is woefully incomplete?


And of course, "Star God" genetic manipulation might address the lack of "in betweens..." As to how they know about who Lucy lived with, I cannot say.


Well... dentists have reported that the human face is growing flatter. Why? not out of evolutionary reasons, but because the different races are mixing more and more and bones are shaped differently to avoid physical complications.


Huh? And you can prove that it is the mixing of DNA and not an evolutionary thing how?


Entropy rules our universe, it is obvious everywhere, the slow decay of everything, evolution would break this rule if it were true


You really aren't up on negentropy, are you? Life itself breaks the entropy rule when viewed not at an individual level, but from the fact that it exists at all. And though things die and decay (entropy) they are also born and created (negentropy). The entropy lie has been foisted upon us.

Now, after all this, may I introduce you to the Terra Papers?

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by shihulud
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 


I think you will find that the modern Coelacanths are not the same as the ones found in fossil records and have evolved into the two living species we see today.


G


Look,, JPHISH said it once and now I am saying it again so listen up Darwinist's .

It doesn't matter that they micro evolved into two "sub species" jeez I would at least hope so but that in and of itself PROVES thewre were pressures so now we have Darwins Finchs for Coelacanths, we have proof they micro evolved due to the pressures damning Macro evolution to smithereens because they have had all the time and necessary environmetal pressures including evidence thereof but

what do we got as a new species??

JOHNSON!

they are still Coelacanths ! GET IT NOW???"

MACRO- Evo MACRO , MACRO, MACRO,

You know, that amoeba to man thing Darwinists have never once come even close to showing proof of but never run out of slick tricks and equivocations to use micro evoluton to substantiate macro.

It gets real OLD guys

Evolution, BUSTED

again

- Con

[edit on 1-7-2008 by Conspiriology]



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Unsane
ah, Kent Hovind. Now he really makes arguing against creationism easy.




edit: inserted 'against' to reduce confusion. (it was confusing me)

[edit on 1-7-2008 by Unsane]


I love the smug cheap shot,, he he you wanna dance?

You got a better theory?

Bring it.

- Con



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Conspiriology
It doesn't matter that they micro evolved into two "sub species" jeez I would at least hope so but that in and of itself PROVES thewre were pressures so now we have Darwins Finchs for Coelacanths, we have proof they micro evolved due to the pressures damning Macro evolution to smithereens because they have had all the time and necessary environmetal pressures including evidence thereof but


Prove that there were "necessary environmetal pressures including evidence thereof..." If you would, please.


what do we got as a new species??

JOHNSON!

they are still Coelacanths ! GET IT NOW???"


Um... Nope. What's your point?


MACRO- Evo MACRO , MACRO, MACRO,


Ohhhh. Well, I suspect that if a biological configuration has no...er...environmental pressures to change much... They're not going to change much. Macro is for macro pressures.


You know, that amoeba to man thing Darwinists have never once come even close to showing proof of but never run out of slick tricks and equivocations to use micro evoluton to substantiate macro.


Well... I think there's more evidence of evolution than for God... [shrug] And who's to say that evolution does not make leaps and not baby steps?

Still, I contend that the human species was genetically engineered...



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 03:43 PM
link   
Why does evolution have to be absent from creationism? I'm surprised more people of faith haven't embraced evolution, since it's such a beautifully designed system.

I'm not saying that I am a person of any particular faith, but this has always perplexed me.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join