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 Cannot be Proven

page: 11
2
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by the_watcher

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
Not to mention that evolution is not "believed in", it is an ongoing scientific discussion.


Yes and no. Today many, many, scientific articles are written with the assumption that Evolution is true. Not all, mind you, but many.

It's absurd to allow such an unsubstantiated lie to become the most popular scientific belief. I thought these guys were supposed to using science...

[edit on 18-9-2008 by the_watcher]


Exactly! You nailed it WATCHER. These scientists are not even following their own rules.




posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by jpm1602
I KNEW there was a good reason I liked Bananas in pajamas as a kid.

Seriously though. If you really got down and dirty with scientific genetics and species evolution I think you would change your tune.


But explain why all the information is already encoded for all these different adaptations into the genetic material. If it was evolution it should be starting from nothing and becoming more and more complex, i.e. adding information.
That is not what we see at all.



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 09:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by the_watcher

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
Throughout history religion has tried to catch up with science and try to incorporate it into its dogma so as not to look foolish.


That is not quite the case. Religion has never tried to catch up with science. Back when everyone thought the world was flat, that was purely observational. No one had traveled into space to look down at their home planet and maps were nothing but a joke! Have you seen the first map of the world? Laughable!

No religion is not responsible. The truth is that people simply did not know better. How could they? They could only know what they could obsreve and study. I would argue the method and tools were at fault. I also think human nature had a role to play. Why did they think monsters roamed the sea? Mostly because it was a vast unknown and humans are scared of what they are not familiar with.

Don't blame religion for scientific mistakes, even back then. Science is constantly growing. All fields are constantly discovering new things. Some of the beliefs we hold today could be wrong, not that they are, but I'm not going to rule it out.


As many science books written 50+years ago are no longer used, could it be they were wrong? Gee what books will we be using in another 50+ years, I doubt it will be the ones we are using today. So does that mean we are likely wrong today...YES.
Science continues to "evolve"....our genes are not.



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by BUYthepeopleFOREthepeople
But explain why all the information is already encoded for all these different adaptations into the genetic material. If it was evolution it should be starting from nothing and becoming more and more complex, i.e. adding information.
That is not what we see at all.


Complexity is not the "goal" of evolution. In fact, there is no goal. More complex species are not always better suited to their environment.

The idea of evolution is not increased complexity... rather, it is the alteration of allele frequency in the gene pool based on who survives to reproduce. This can eventually change populations to the point at which they are unable to interbreed with other populations (or, if they do, they encounter post-zygotic barriers which keep the hybrids from reproducing).

I've seen it demonstrated time and time again: creationists do not understand evolutionary theory. They don't even understand the basics. They use the same rehashed, debunked arguments over and over again with the hope that eventually something will change and some tiny bit of evidence will support their ideas.

Currently, though, the bottom line is that there is no evidence supporting creationism or ID, and there is a massive body of evidence supporting evolutionary theory.

To deny this is to be willfully ignorant.

[edit on 25-9-2008 by SamuraiDrifter]



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 10:24 PM
link   
Ugh.. the sheer ignorance posing as knowledge.

I wonder how many creationists try to second guess their Doctors.

Modern Germ Theory is after all contrary to Biblical teachings.

You do know Biology is the basis of medicine right?

And you do know Doctors have to work with the evolution of viruses and bacteria right?



Apart from that.. What exactly are you doing on a computer?

That's a complete creation of nasty modern Science.

[edit on 25-9-2008 by kegs]



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 10:38 PM
link   
I don't believe any Gods exists. I don't believe witchcraft is real. I don't believe there's a boogeyman under your bed. I don't believe in demon possession or voodoo.

I don't believe in astrology or horoscopes. I don't believe I can tell your future through tea leaves. I don't believe in physics or mediums.

I don't believe in luck from black cats, walking under a ladder or that the number 13 has any significance.

I don't believe you can back up any superstition without appealing to the absurd.



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hot_Wings
Do not defend or attack evolutionary theory. Creationism and evolutionary theory are not contradictory. For GOD so created the world, but he only gave us a very brief description of how he chose to do so.

GOD stated that he created the world in 7 days, yes this is true. But you forget who GOD was talking to. GOD does not talk over someone’s head. GOD does not tell someone any more or less than they need to hear, for GOD is perfect.

GOD was relating the story of creation to Adam, the first human that he created. God told the story of creation to a man who did not understand physics and astronomy. GOD did not sit down with Adam, whip out a text book and start giving a speech like a college professor would. The conversation did "NOT" go like this.

GOD: “Ok Adam, uh, well first off, we have little things called strings that operate off of what we call quantum physics and, uh, are you getting this so far?”

Adam: (holding olive leaf over his privates) “GOD, uh, what’s Physics?”

GOD told Adam the story of creation in a way that he could understand. Adam slept under the stars and held a leaf over his privates at first. He had just ate from the tree of knowledge and was not grossed in the modern education that we have today. Adam knew that the sun came up and then the sun went away. Adam also knew that work had to be done during the day because that was when the sun was up and when measuring how long it took to do anything, it was appropriate to say it took “so many days”.

The ancient word for day meant many things, but first and foremost it meant a measure of time that did not necessarily meant a 24 hour period of time. A “day” was a way of telling Adam the process of creation in 7 steps more importantly than how long in measurable hours it might have taken. When GOD told Adam how many days it took for GOD to create the earth he said days so that the story of creation would create our week, not that the actual process of creation took so many hours to happen.

GOD was setting up our calendar system and using the story of creation to do it. GOD did not lie to Adam, for the word Day also meant a step in a process. To say that something took so many days was to say that it took so many steps to complete, regardless of how many hours or literal days it might have taken.

So you see, GOD related the story of creation to Adam in days so that Adam would live his life according to the calendar that GOD told him to live. He was not trying to say that the creation of the universe only toot 7 24 hour periods of time.

Evolution and creation can coexist. Science can never disprove GOD, for GOD made science as well.


[edit on 18-9-2008 by Hot_Wings]




So true. We have no idea what time meant to "God" he gave some clues that it is not the same as our Earth based system.


If a fair maiden kisses a frog which instantly changes into a handsome prince we would call it a fairy tale.
But if the frog takes 40 million years to turn into a prince we call it evolution.



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 10:57 PM
link   



Currently, though, the bottom line is that there is no evidence supporting creationism or ID, and there is a massive body of evidence supporting evolutionary theory.

To deny this is to be willfully ignorant.

[edit on 25-9-2008 by SamuraiDrifter]


Supporting evidence is not the same as proof my friend.
The Scientific method is not that flimsy, it has rules.
If the rules are not obeyed then you might as well call it a belief.



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 11:08 PM
link   
reply to post by BUYthepeopleFOREthepeople
 


Firstly 400 million years might be more like it.

And secondly, I'm not even sure you've even gone looking for evidence. I could easily show you examples of evolution is lab studies, and transitional fossils and everything, but the fact that you so brassly claim that it doesn't happen without a hint of a basic understanding of the theory really pisses me off.



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 11:19 PM
link   
Prove evolution.

Make something living from dead matter.



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 11:23 PM
link   
reply to post by BUYthepeopleFOREthepeople
 


Prove creationism, make a universe in 6 days.



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by BUYthepeopleFOREthepeople
Make something living from dead matter.


That's not evolution, you tool. Go do some research!



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by BUYthepeopleFOREthepeople
Prove evolution.

Make something living from dead matter.


That. Is. Not. Evolution.

You do not understand evolutionary theory. Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, only with its divergence from a common ancestor. Abiogenesis is a totally separate subject.

Science never claims to prove any theory, only to decide which of many possibilities is the most likely based on evidence. We can be reasonably sure of our theories, but are fully willing to alter them based on new, valid evidence.

I think it's pretty funny how creationists ignore evidence, demand proof, and provide neither to back up their own viewpoint.



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 11:39 PM
link   
reply to post by SamuraiDrifter
 


You noticed that too?? The fact is that to believe in Creationism, you cannot have any scientific background, because if you did, you wouldn't be a Creationist! Show me just one modern Biologist who does not have a degree from a Christian University that believes in Creationism. I would kill to have the Biology textbooks from, lets say, Oral Roberts University! I can only imagine the pseudo-science in that one!!!



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 11:45 PM
link   
There's not much point wasting time on those that don't even grasp the basics of Evolution.

As Darwin himself said;

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge."


You usually end up arguing with the equivalent of people that want to dissect Shakespeare but don't even know the English alphabet.


Edit: might as well put the full quote.



“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.”

- Charles Darwin



[edit on 25-9-2008 by kegs]



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 11:56 PM
link   
"I could easily show you examples of evolution is lab studies"

But you won't. If it was that easy you would have posted them. Those studies will only reinforce the fact that what is called evolution is in fact survival of the fittest and or adaptation.

Show me one species evolving into another. (not a couple bones which someone says came from some other bones)

Like I've already stated the only evolution going on is with these theories.


I hear it time and time again how diseases, bacteria and viruses are evolving to become drug resistant. WRONG. The ones that live are the ones that are ALREADY drug resistant. Your just thinning the heard not changing anything.

True evolution would require adding genes into the genetic code from an outside source. That can be done in a lab where a technician splices genes into the DNA strand to get something completely different like a glowing sheep. But that is not a natural process and thus not really evolution.

So yeah bring on your faulty science experiments, ignored rules, mislabeled terms, and wrong conclusions...I need a good laugh.


Instead of quoting bad science perhaps you should read a book or two...
say "What Evolution Is" by Ernst Mayr
Then find his logical errors in reasoning and where he oversteps even his own knowledge to get to a predisposed conclusion.

here are a few:

The fossil record

Recapitulation

Vestigial structures

Biogeography


Each one of these arguments has been refuted by the very scientific community which he subscribed to. So if these arguments are proven wrong (which they have been) then his whole argument comes unraveled. Funny Mayr also used terms like overwhelming evidence. But what he really was using was bad science and faulty logic....overwhelmingly bad!



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 11:59 PM
link   
reply to post by the_watcher
 




That is not quite the case. Religion has never tried to catch up with science. Back when everyone thought the world was flat, that was purely observational. No one had traveled into space to look down at their home planet and maps were nothing but a joke! Have you seen the first map of the world? Laughable! No religion is not responsible. The truth is that people simply did not know better. How could they? They could only know what they could obsreve and study. I would argue the method and tools were at fault. I also think human nature had a role to play. Why did they think monsters roamed the sea? Mostly because it was a vast unknown and humans are scared of what they are not familiar with.

Why is the myth that everyone believed in the flat earth so persistent? It's even taught in school today!
The ancient greeks KNEW the world wasn't flat. They even got the circumference almost right, very close in fact.

The modern belief that especially medieval Christianity believed in a flat earth has been referred to as The Myth of the Flat Earth.[1] In 1945, it was listed by the Historical Association (of Britain) as the second of 20 in a pamphlet on common errors in history.[2] Recent scholarship[3] has argued that "with extraordinary [sic] few exceptions no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the earth was flat" and that the prevailing view was of a spherical earth.[1] Jeffrey Russell states that the modern view that people of the Middle Ages believed that the Earth was flat is said to have entered the popular imagination in the 19th century, thanks largely to the publication of Washington Irving's fantasy The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus in 1828.[1] Although these writers reject the idea of a flat earth, others such as the Flat Earth Society accept or promote the hypothesis.

en.wikipedia.org...

Who or what pushed that myth of flat earth? Yeah, you got that right. Christianity.



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 12:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by BUYthepeopleFOREthepeople
"I could easily show you examples of evolution is lab studies"

But you won't. If it was that easy you would have posted them. Those studies will only reinforce the fact that what is called evolution is in fact survival of the fittest and or adaptation.

Show me one species evolving into another. (not a couple bones which someone says came from some other bones)

Like I've already stated the only evolution going on is with these theories.


I hear it time and time again how diseases, bacteria and viruses are evolving to become drug resistant. WRONG. The ones that live are the ones that are ALREADY drug resistant. Your just thinning the heard not changing anything.

True evolution would require adding genes into the genetic code from an outside source. That can be done in a lab where a technician splices genes into the DNA strand to get something completely different like a glowing sheep. But that is not a natural process and thus not really evolution.

So yeah bring on your faulty science experiments, ignored rules, mislabeled terms, and wrong conclusions...I need a good laugh.


Instead of quoting bad science perhaps you should read a book or two...
say "What Evolution Is" by Ernst Mayr
Then find his logical errors in reasoning and where he oversteps even his own knowledge to get to a predisposed conclusion.

here are a few:

The fossil record

Recapitulation

Vestigial structures

Biogeography


Each one of these arguments has been refuted by the very scientific community which he subscribed to. So if these arguments are proven wrong (which they have been) then his whole argument comes unraveled. Funny Mayr also used terms like overwhelming evidence. But what he really was using was bad science and faulty logic....overwhelmingly bad!


Your Creationist propaganda is nonsense.

All you need to do is look up a real science site.

Looking up creationist sites for facts on evolution is like me asking a Satanist for facts on your religion.



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 12:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Good Wolf
 


Hi there... You are correct.. Of course we are evolving. Face the Facts



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 12:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by BUYthepeopleFOREthepeople
True evolution would require adding genes into the genetic code from an outside source.


Hmm, let's look at the definition of evolution as it pertains to biology:


3. Biology. change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.


Dictionary.com

Nope. Not one mention of "adding genes into the genetic code from an outside source."

Now let's move on.


Instead of quoting bad science perhaps you should read a book or two...
say "What Evolution Is" by Ernst Mayr


What an excellent idea! So what can we learn about dear Mr. Mayr:


Neither Darwin nor anyone else in his time knew the answer to the species problem: how multiple species could evolve from a single common ancestor. Ernst Mayr approached the problem with a new definition for the concept species. In his book Systematics and the Origin of Species (1942) he wrote that a species is not just a group of morphologically similar individuals, but a group that can breed only among themselves, excluding all others. When populations of organisms get isolated, the sub-populations will start to differ by genetic drift and natural selection over a period of time, and thereby evolve into new species. The most significant and rapid genetic reorganization occurs in extremely small populations that have been isolated (as on islands).


wiki.com

Gee, that would explain the difference between horses and zebras, now wouldn't it. Yes, they can still mate, but the offspring are always sterile, and nobody thinks they are the same species, do they?




top topics



 
2
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join