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: 15
2
<< 12  13  14   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 03:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Deaf Alien
 


Ah but you need not stop there. For if the one instance of random chance then you must also include the same multiple chances of the said life being destroyed by equal chances.
i.e. you lose the ticket.




posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 03:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by BUYthepeopleFOREthepeople
reply to post by Deaf Alien
 


Ah but you need not stop there. For if the one instance of random chance then you must also include the same multiple chances of the said life being destroyed by equal chances.
i.e. you lose the ticket.


Two words- Mass Extinctions. I believe the count is up to five now.



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 04:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
reply to post by BUYthepeopleFOREthepeople
 


So let me get this right, you just quoted something from wikipedia that supports evolution, otherwise how did we get present day frogs, to support your anti-evolution arguement?!?!?


It's not my theory....it's yours and I just used it against you.
I used the "evolutionary time line" of frogs to show how little your friend knows about his own theory.
Sorry you lose, thank you come again.
The "it just needs more time for macroevolution" time line just keeps getting shorter and shorter.
Its not looking good for you and yours.



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 04:29 AM
link   
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 


Wow you can count! That is marvelous.
Too bad you can't keep on task and PROVE EVOLUTION.
Wonder why...here's a hint (its not a law of science or biology)



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 05:04 AM
link   
Where did all the evolutionist go???

I guess they evolved a brain and figured out they were wrong....or perhaps they are out hunting for intermediate species in the "fossil record"


More likely they figured out this is a useless debate like a couple blind people arguing over the color of the car that just hit them....it doesn't matter.
Neither side can be proven right.
Evidence just does not exist to prove evolution as a fact of science by scientific methods. The same goes for religious beliefs.
Where the biblical argument wins out though is because it is faith based and does not necessarily need to be proven.
Evolution is science based and does need to be proven.
Till that time kids have fun with a no win situation



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 05:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by BUYthepeopleFOREthepeople
Where did all the evolutionist go???

I guess they evolved a brain and figured out they were wrong....or perhaps they are out hunting for intermediate species in the "fossil record"


More likely they figured out this is a useless debate like a couple blind people arguing over the color of the car that just hit them....it doesn't matter.
Neither side can be proven right.
Evidence just does not exist to prove evolution as a fact of science by scientific methods. The same goes for religious beliefs.
Where the biblical argument wins out though is because it is faith based and does not necessarily need to be proven.
Evolution is science based and does need to be proven.
Till that time kids have fun with a no win situation


Or perhaps they all went to bed? Don't worry, they will come back full force. Do not think you have won.
I'm still here but I usually watch the debate, helping "evolutionists" here and there.
Just to clarify a few things out:
Gravity is a fact. Gravity Theory and General Relativity are theories to explain the fact.
Evolution is a fact. Evolution theory that explain the evolution.



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 06:11 AM
link   
reply to post by BUYthepeopleFOREthepeople
 


Clearly you don't understand how science works. Nothing can be proven by science. Science never 'scores a line' under a theory and upgrades it to proven. You want proof? Go speak to a mathematician - mathematics is the only field in which proof exists.

As it stands, there is not one shred of evidence that suggest the current theory of evolution is incorrect. Everything ties in nicely. Sure there are some areas that need further investigation, which is currently happening, but that doesn't invalidate the entire theory. Considering Darwin didn't know about DNA, he pretty much guessed it existed. Then it was discovered, and the rest is history.

Instead of blabbering on about transitional fossils, read this and get back to us. Also, learn about DNA, learn about observed speciation ('macroevolution') in labs, learn about the new species that have come into existence recently. It will help you. It won't help your point, but it will help you learn.



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by BUYthepeopleFOREthepeople
It's not my theory....it's yours and I just used it against you.
I used the "evolutionary time line" of frogs to show how little your friend knows about his own theory.
Sorry you lose, thank you come again.
The "it just needs more time for macroevolution" time line just keeps getting shorter and shorter.
Its not looking good for you and yours.

I see you still are too much of a coward to respond to my posts, and instead are rambling on about how little someone knows about his own theory (irony!).

Everyone can see your ignorance and your total lack of any coherent, logical argument. At this point we might as well be arguing with a brick wall.

[edit on 26-9-2008 by SamuraiDrifter]



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by BUYthepeopleFOREthepeople
Where did all the evolutionist go???


To bed. It was 5:00 am, and I already lost too much sleep dealing with your ingnorant 'evidence'.


Evidence just does not exist to prove evolution as a fact of science by scientific methods.


I think that was addressed by dave420:


Originally posted by dave420
Clearly you don't understand how science works. Nothing can be proven by science. Science never 'scores a line' under a theory and upgrades it to proven. You want proof? Go speak to a mathematician - mathematics is the only field in which proof exists.


Clearly you have absolutely no idea how science and mathematics really work. So let's move on...


The same goes for religious beliefs.
Where the biblical argument wins out though is because it is faith based and does not necessarily need to be proven.


It does if that is what you want to use to replace evolution. Several times you have been asked if you had a better theory and you have not once addressed that question, until now. If you are going to use the biblical account to explain the creation of the universe, a physical thing, then you do have to use science to prove your 'theory'! There is not one shred of credible scientific evidence to support the myth of creation. It does not even get the distinction of theory! Go visit the Why do people laugh at Creationists thread, because you sound exactly like the idiot kid in the first video in the link provided by the OP. I wouldn't be surprised if you are that idiot kid! Twisting science and pulling things out of context doesn't make you right, it makes you look stupid. You have not shown one single thing that disproves evolution. I also notice that you pick and choose which points to rebut, choosing only the one's that you think you can win. Of course, you have won none, except in your own narrow closed mind. Nice try, but no dice!


Evolution is science based and does need to be proven.


Again, refer back to dave420's post. You apparently have a very limited science and mathematics background and it shows everytime you let your fingers dance across the keyboard. This is a site for those willing to think 'outside of the box', but you are so securely taped inside yours that light does not even stand a chance of getting in. I actually feel sorry for you!



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by BUYthepeopleFOREthepeople
I used the "evolutionary time line" of frogs to show how little your friend knows about his own theory.


We weren't talking about the actual evolution of frogs! You postulated the idea of frogs evolving into man (this is stupidity on your part), and I gave you a time frame for that kind of change, not meaning how long frogs became frogs.

So stop taking my words out of context!


I also tore up your plagiarism, I don't see you taking that on though, no all you can do take my completely unrelated statements completely out of context. Some arguer you are.

[edit on 9/26/2008 by Good Wolf]



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by savagediver
 


Ah this made me laugh. A Ph.D is no guarantee of intelligence. Also, yes there is 'discrimination' against creationism in secular journals.. because it isn't a scientific theory. If there was actual evidence for it, don't you think it would be accepted widely in the scientific community?

You misconstrue science, there is no liberal secular agenda in science, only reason and logic. If there's supporting evidence for it, it is considered.



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 01:46 AM
link   



posted on Nov, 29 2008 @ 08:44 AM
link   
as soon as code is found such as dna any natural cause can be ruled out.......For information to originate from a non intelligent source or randomly has never been observed anywhere in the universe,luckily for evolution it only deals with change and not origin,,,,,,people argue that we share dna with animals but every creature on earth was created by god from earthly materials,,,,,,so naturally we would share some dna,,,,the big problem for evolution is the proof of complex info being stamped into each dna strand by non intelligent source and nothing creating something ,,,,,,,,,,is a big hurdle for evolution to survive in our modern world.......... since the finding of dna as the building blocks of life and coded with information,,,,,,,,it clearly points too intelligent design,,,,,without the beavers dna incoded to build a complex damm,,,,,,no workshop needed,,,,,,its hard to argue this ability to evolution and a fluke of nature,,,,,,,,this shows a very complex and intelligent trait.......stamped by god on the beavers dna,,,,,,,to say evolution was responsible,,,,,,,would be like throwing notes randomly on a peice of paper and having a masterpiece appear,,,,,,thats how complex the dam design is in nature,,,,,information to be considered info must have a intelligent origin,,,,,or its just noise kinda like space noise,,,



posted on Dec, 11 2008 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by the_watcher
 



"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."

Then maybe we should consider religion to be the great "sea monster of life." Humans were scared and unfamiliar with their existence and created a backstory to help put their minds at ease. Once science steps up and explains the why, religion becomes obsolete.

So thank you for helping to illustrate the fact that the bible was a stepping stone of man's creation to help him make sense of all that surrounds him.



posted on Dec, 17 2008 @ 10:05 AM
link   
Since we discovered the possibility that evolution is going on should christians not also believe that it is part of God's plan?
I come from a varied religious background heavily influenced by christian and pagan beliefs. Several times I've had discussions with religious leaders of various groups about this topic. This is my idea;
If you believe that God created everything and He rested on the seventh day (however you interpret that) what did God do after that? Stop? I don't think so and see no reason to believe otherwise. I believe that God continues to create and that is evolution, evidence of God being active in creation to this date. Why not? On a lighter note to my fellow religious leaders I added; since when does a man ever create something in his workshop and NOT continue to tinker with it? :-)



posted on Dec, 18 2008 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by deepvoid
 


There is quite an interesting point to be made here. Most "evolutionists" [a creationist label] are in fact christian and vice verse. Almost half of the worlds scientists are religious in some way, and all these people believe that evolution is a system of nature governed by the supreme being just like every other system in nature.

Theistic Evolution is what it's called.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 12  13  14   >>

log in

join