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: 4
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 09:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 


Winner Winner! Chicken Dinner! Who had Page 3? Me? I win!!!!!




posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 09:13 PM
link   
a couple of things from me for my stance against this evolution theory.

1. it is a theory, not a science. and has never ever been proven.
2. where are the transitional animals? ie. (in between changing animals)
3. Carbon Dating IS inaccurate by a large margin.
4. why arent monkeys still changing into people?

lastly, there is no missing link. neanderthals were a different species completely seperate from humans as was proven in dna tests a couple of months back.



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz

I regret that you do not see the evidence that has been given. The carbon dating, entropy, data writing itself, ect. I, however, find it mildly amusing that you would bring up me trying to see what i want to see, when evolutionists refuse to use carbon dating when it doesn't fit their preconsieved notion.


Because you use carbon dating in reference to dinosaurs. When the fact of the matter is carbon dating doesn't work and wouldn't work for something that old. You use basic geological principles and radiometric dating of the surrounding rock. You don't date the bones themselves.

It's not that evolutionist refuse to use carbon dating on dinosaurs because it proves them wong and YEC right. it's because the Carbon doesn't last long enough for them to measure with it so you have to use other means. IOW it won't give an accurate date, so you have to look to other means end of story.



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 09:18 PM
link   
Such a dreadful thing to have no hope of closure (and I mean all of you champions).
Alas, I am in the middle; noncommital. More or less indifferent, I am afraid.
Seems the moral of the story is :
If you do't want your dogs all evolving and sh-t... keep 'em on a tight leash.
Not a Micro.



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 09:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by darthbogan2
a couple of things from me for my stance against this evolution theory.

1. it is a theory, not a science. and has never ever been proven.
2. where are the transitional animals? ie. (in between changing animals)
3. Carbon Dating IS inaccurate by a large margin.
4. why arent monkeys still changing into people?

lastly, there is no missing link. neanderthals were a different species completely seperate from humans as was proven in dna tests a couple of months back.


1. There is plenty of evidence supporting it and several case studies of animals, genetics, simple population and ecological studies.

2. Simple every animal is a transitional animal, a gradual change. A dinosaur didn't one day lay an egg and have a seagull pop out. Sometimes due to dramatic changes in a variety of natural stresses you can get variation rather quickly. Sometimes a lack in changes, such as certain areas of the oceans allows for some species to find an ecological niche and the family of species to survive, though perhaps not in large quantities.

3. Only if used improperly.

4. Your final comment answers that question. Two seperate species, capable of intelligent thought, arose from a common ancestor. It has happened twice now unfortunately neaderthals went extinct. Actually chimps in their own right are rather smart. Who's to say it can't happen again. As for a missing link, thats just a stupid concept. Every time a new set of fossils are found that supposedly closes a missing link it always opens up two more gaps. There will always be a missing link, several of them infact. It was merely used prior to discoveries of homo erectus and such stating there should be some fossils out there that show transitional features from primitive apes to man.



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
I do believe that humans and dinosaurs lived together at the same period, its not that hard to believe.

Cleary it is not hard for someone like you to believe.


..and I'm guessing you believe T-rex was on noah's ark too yes? You might want to wait till people stop laughing before trying to convince us this actually happened.


As for the forementioned bs, its obvious that it is true. The fact is that evolution is taught in schools WITHOUT the children being taught or told that there is a counter theory that even has more evidence.

There is no counter theory.

The wedge document failed miserably in it's evil attempt to indoctrinate other people's children into their backward version of creationist christianity. Calling it an 'alternative theory' after they lost is just deperate.

I do not see how my credibility is at stake for the actions of another, you of all people should know, being an evolutionist, that science speaks for itself.

..and "dr Dino" is not a scientist.. nor is he even a doctor. Nor are any of the things he says scientific. He is a fraud who spreads falsehoods and lies. He is also a criminal.

And btw, the carbon dating that was done on the allasaurus was done by a lab that supported evolution, yet if they were told what the bones were, they would not have allowed the test to be done, because it would defy evolution, and that is unacceptable in their minds.

I already said you have no credibilty.. neither does the information you referenced. You seem like you are trying to 'teach' me yet I'd get more facts from Dr Seuss than your dr dino.


edit for typos

[edit on 1-7-2008 by riley]



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bigwhammy

Originally posted by Evil Genius
Anyone want to start a pool to see how long until BigWhammy and Ashley D show up?

"Form arms and legs!"

"Form body!"

"And I'll form the head!"

"Now form Voltron!"



Conclusive Proof Evolution is False!

[edit on 7/1/2008 by Bigwhammy]



HA HA HA nice one whammy, took a while to download but worth the wait. Check out Bob Sholtz posts, while you're here, impressive stuff he writes. I was going to respond to the Darwinists responding to my posts with ther usual evolutionary alibi of the week as I am always amused at the new meanings they have for words that used to make Science such a precise practice.

Seems I don't have to now,, I can just sit back and watch Bob, the one man wrecking crew, crush the so called "Science" community arguments using something Darwinists haven't used in hundreds of years,,


The truth.

- Con



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 10:00 PM
link   
I see monkeys fly out of creationist asses every day around here!

All the rest of us want are the bones of the Nephilim. Is that too much to ask? We have been waiting over 6,000 years, what's your problem? They have the audacity to demand all the fossils of everything that ever lived to be found and identified in 150 years?



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 10:07 PM
link   
LOL what a Phunny post


First I'd like to say who ever carbon dated dinosaur bones should be fired as it cannot be done. I MEAN REALLY..Today's knowledge of fossil ages comes primarily from radiometric dating. To do this you need an Element. Atoms are unstable and decay into stable particles. The elements Half life is the time it takes half of its unstable Atoms to decay into stable ones. Carbon-14 dating does not work as it's half life is only a little over 5000 years.

Now uranium-235 and potassium-40, have a half life of more than 1 million years. Unfortunately these are not found in dinosaur bones. Each of them typically exists in igneous rock (or cooled lava). Since such conditions would destroy bone & the fact that Dinosaur bones are found in sedimentary rock we calculate the age of a fossil in this manner.

We date the the igneous rock layer under the sedimentary rock where the dinosaurs were found and then date the igneous rock layer above it. Which gives us an idea of how old the bones really are.

Per radiometric dating the oldest known rocks on Earth are about 3.5 billion years old. However zircon crystals have been found that are 4.3 billion years old, which leads us to believe the Earth is over 4 Billion years old.


Wow as for your other two points, I must say I just do not know how to respond? I love a good argument, there just is not one here.....

Uh, there are many prehistoric animals still alive today with few changes as they are currently perfectly adapted to their current environment???? Some examples are, The Coelacanth, The horseshoe crab, Cyads & Ginko's (trees), Dawn Redwood, Okapi (African mammal), Army Ants, Cockroaches, Dragonfly, The Nautilus, The Sturgeon even Salamanders and crocodiles!!! Before you start NO THIS DOES NOT PROVE YOU RIGHT.

You compare Dna to computer code???? Ever heard of a virus Bub??
DNA is FREQUENTLY altered. It can fail to copy correctly (happens all the time) or it can be affected by outside influences such as chemicals, radiation & sub atomic particles from space. When the body attempts to repair it, a perfect job is not always the result. This is a scientific FACT.

I do not feel that Scientific fact is far reaching. It surely is not reaching as far as trying to understand all the contradictions in that hodgepodge, edited and reedited scrapbook they call the bible. It's great to be religious, but a story is just a story. Tell ya what, I'll give you your book, but since science is so flawed give me back your Ipod, car, stereo, air conditioning , all of the vaccines you've had ,dental work you have done and throw in your church organ too
......

Also if carbon dating is wrong WHY DID YOUR PEOPLE USE IT TO TRY AND DATE THE SHROUD OF TURIN??????????? Oh thats right its good for 50,000.00 years or so.........(5,370 half-life)

Take this with a grain of salt. LMFAO


~Hypno



[edit on 1-7-2008 by HypnoAsp]



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz

I, however, find it mildly amusing that you would bring up me trying to see what i want to see, when evolutionists refuse to use carbon dating when it doesn't fit their preconsieved notion.


I'm not quite sure how that would amuse you exactly. Since I wasn't talking about anyone else's fallacies beyond your own. Creationists and Evolutionists on ATS have spouted plenty of half truths, this is not true for all members of either group but there are a few, but that does not mean that it is perfectly fine for you to do the same thing. I respect that you are of the opinion that there was some type of ID behind creation, but please refrain from using the word proof unless your evidence is absolutely definitive. From what you have shown so far, your evidence is very far from definitive. There is a god; there isn't a god: I for one would like some definitive proof one way or the other, but what you have provided isn't proof of anything.



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cyprus

It's not that evolutionist refuse to use carbon dating on dinosaurs because it proves them wong and YEC right. it's because the Carbon doesn't last long enough for them to measure with it so you have to use other means. IOW it won't give an accurate date, so you have to look to other means end of story.


If the carbon doesn't last long enough then neither do the bones that are comprised of carbon hence the reason below:



when evolutionists refuse to use carbon dating when it doesn't fit their preconsieved notion.


Like I said, things like punctuated equilibrium, phrases like "Given enough time" etc;. Alibi's lol,, all alibi's.

to cover up the ever lieing illusion

of evolution

- Con



[edit on 1-7-2008 by Conspiriology]



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Conspiriology
If the carbon doesn't last long enough then neither do the bones that are comprised of carbon hence the reason below:


...clearly you don't understand the concept of fossilization...



Like I said, things like punctuated equilibrium, phrases like "Given enough time" etc;. Alibi's lol,, all alibi's.

to cover up the ever lieing illusion

of evolution


statements like this are made to show that you actively disagree with a concept that you don't truly understand.

punctuated equilibrium is just one of the few ideas people have about how evolution works

seeing as it is a science, it's constantly shifting based on evidence.
just like we aren't sure where gravity comes from, we can't be 100% sure on every detail on evolution

but it's a science. the same process that gave us the technology we're using to discuss the issue is the process being used to further our understanding of evolution, so it's kind of ironic that you'd question one without the other.



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 10:41 PM
link   
The levels of ignorance shown here by those who think they understand, but simply do not, it astounding....nay, it's par for the course these days on ATS.
Learn2Science, people.
I'm not even going to enter this debate apart from these few words.
Fundamental misrepresentations of radiometric dating, lack of understanding about evolutionary theory (hell, I know a lot about religion, and specifically Christianity, because it aids me in my arguments against it) and a pseudo-religious agenda of returning us to some sort of dreamtime state where we all worship a flying spaghetti monster.

So much for deny ignorance.



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 10:49 PM
link   
The reason you do NOT do carbon 14 testing on fossilized dino bone is cause there ain't no carbon there! It is rock. The carbon has been replaced by silicon. SILICON!



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 10:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Conspiriology
 

Same old tired creationist "arguments" being trotted out in this thread...

The carbon that's used for radiocarbon dating is Carbon-14, a radioactive isotope.
The carbon that makes up all organic compounds is Carbon-12, a stable isotope.

So no, there's no relation between how long a fossil can "last" and the amount of time before radiocarbon dating becomes unusable.

Honestly, this isn't even a difference of opinion, it's just flat-out wrong.



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 10:53 PM
link   
EDIT: Problem solved via U2U. All is well with the world now.


[edit on 7/2/2008 by AshleyD]



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 11:07 PM
link   
Bwahhahahaha....

First a hatful of canards. When pointed out, another slice of entropy canard pie.

This is cute. Can I take him home and keep him? By the looks of the thread he won't be missed



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 11:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cyprus


Definition of species: source


"1. Biology
a. A fundamental category of taxonomic classification, ranking below a genus or subgenus and consisting of related organisms capable of interbreeding"


What are you giving me a link to the variety of meanings for the word "species" ? You think I used the wrong version of the word LOL
I know how bastardized the Science vernacular has got, what with all those word games Atheist / evolutionists play talking out both sides of their mouths but I assure you,, if you take it in the context of same species, differen't traits. I know you think it might mean species as FISH but I mean it is the same fish with the same name and looks just like the fossil finds in spite of mel trying to muddy the waters,, this was the fish Evolutionsts used to claim was our ancestor, that it walked out on land and millions of years later, became YOU.

As usual,, another transitional fraud passed off as Scientific fact,,

BUSTED!




Just because they are coelocanths means absolutely nothing if they cannot interbreed and continue circulating their respective genes through the population. You could have a hammerhead and great white sharks. Both are sharks but that doesn't make them the same species.


Ahh so you DID think I was using the word species to mean FISH and not coelocanths. Try not being so damn presumptuous smart guy.

Nice strawman but I was only talking about ONE "kind" of fish was I not?



Also you say micro evolution should occur? Then you say evolution occurs. Macroevolution and micro evolution are the same thing, the only difference is the scale. By stating micro evolution works = macroevolution works.


You are affirming the consequent guy,, sorry logical fallacy besides being a complete lie. Quit being dishonest



I don't understand the creationists veiwpoint of microevolution works but we are designed. Small changes can amass to large changes and rather quickly at that due to a very large variety of natural, behavioral, and genetic variables that can alter a population. If you have micro evolution then you have evoultion period not design.


Micro- evolution is part of our genetic design, anotherwords the changes we make are already inherant in our DNA. This is why after the weather stablized, Darwins finch beaks returned to there original size. Variation, hybridization and hereditary traits can get passed on but they don't ever and I mean ever, no, not ever, become the offspring of any other species then the one carrying the seed of its kind.

I get so tired of hearing about all this garbage dino to birds feathers to dino then six weeks later we find out it was a fake fossil or that evolutionists out to quit there silly speculation theory while teaching our children BUNK Science. I was talking to some kid the other day telling me all this garbage he learned about the velociraptor.

Science,, ha ha sheesh blogs.nature.com...

Turns out, it wasn't a transitional dino to bird either, it was just a BIRD and always was .

The horseshoe crab, looks primitive and leaves the ocean too walk on dry land but that, too, appearing about 425 million years ago remains unchanged.

As a matter of fact, as time goes on and we find more and more fossils of todays intact creatures, we will see that ALL of them are

The Same animal we see today. Evolution,,

dumbing down our kids

since 1859

- Con



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by furiousracer313
Here is a video that totally kills the evolution theory:

This is part 3/8
www.youtube.com...

I advise you to go back and watch all 8 parts. And its not a boring lecture because the guy is funny..


having watched the video (and a bit of two others) I have yet to hear the man give one single hint of evidence to support his position.



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 12:00 AM
link   
Lol, I went to reread this post not believing what I read before. Did anyone notice the posters mood??? "Devious". Just when I had about given up on the human race. He is fooling with us !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


BLAH HA HA



~Hypno




top topics



 
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join