Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Evolution is Science, Creationists Delusional

page: 23
22
<< 20  21  22    24 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 18 2012 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fromabove
Evolution simply cannot work because of the randomness and the fact that any organism doing one thing would have no knowledge of needing to pass it on to the next generation, nor would any following organism know the need to keep it. So math is on my side by far. And math alone condemns evolution to to rubbish heap of ideas.

Life is far too complex to be a chance event with spontaneous knowledge and understanding.


How can you say the math is on your side when you haven't provided the equations you are using to figure those odds? What about the SCIENCE, that is CLEARLY in favor of evolution? Again, genetic mutations can be observed and studied. Natural selection can be observed and studied. 1+1=2. You need to provide sources or science experiments that show evolution is wrong, or creation is accurate. Oh wait, you don't have any of that, yet you know more than a scientist about a field you don't even know the very basics about. Carry on. Nothing to see here.




posted on May, 20 2012 @ 02:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs
reply to post by radkrish
 


So the author is a dentist and had no schooling in biology or evolution, and hasn't done a single experiment or research project about evolution. Just wanted to make sure because it sounds like he has no idea about anatomy whatsoever. The heart evolved long before the longs, and the very first organisms had neither. It's not like one day we had a single celled organism and then the next we suddenly have a a creature with lungs and heart that breathes oxygen and has B- blood type. All of that guy's "20 questions" are very easily answered, and pretty much prove he doesn't have a clue of what he's talking about. Funny website, although you have to be REALLY gullible to believe any of that horse dung.
edit on 17-5-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)


Not many agree with this. We still don't know how it all evolved without any direction or guidance. And these are genuine questions that he asked which does not need one to be an evolutionary biologist. He mentioned in his website that simply questioning his credentials does not mean his questions are all wrong.

Time this and Time that- we get complex organisms?! Why and how does Time and Nature have to assume and create something when it itself is not self-conscious?
edit on 20-5-2012 by radkrish because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2012 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by radkrish
Not many agree with this. We still don't know how it all evolved without any direction or guidance.

How does 99% of scientists sound? The points you brought up weren't suggesting evolution was guided, they were suggesting it was impossible.


And these are genuine questions that he asked which does not need one to be an evolutionary biologist. He mentioned in his website that simply questioning his credentials does not mean his questions are all wrong.
Questions can never be wrong. They are questions and they can be answered. I'm saying that his questions clearly demonstrate his lack of knowledge on the subject. If they are merely questions, that he's asking because of genuine interest in the subject, why is his website called evillusion.com?


Time this and Time that- we get complex organisms?! Why and how does Time and Nature have to assume and create something when it itself is not self-conscious?


When does nature assume? Science = how, faith / religion = why. So when a tree spreads its seed and it grows into a new tree, thus creating another tree with similar genetics to the first one, it consciously chose to do that? There's no need for that, because we know exactly how trees distribute their seeds. Now if you're actually falling back on the "evolution is guided" argument instead of what that web site suggests, then I'll simply say that's your opinion, and there's no evidence to suggest that is true. You're welcome to believe that as your faith, but pretty much all of those questions brought up are easily answered, and simply saying "oh, science can't explain THIS!" is not showing evidence of a designer or evolution guider", it's essentially saying we don't know the answer yet.

edit on 20-5-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2012 @ 10:30 AM
link   
As much as I appreciate the OP's historical presentation, I must admit it's far too morphologically based. We need more genetics.



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 04:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2

1) Which came first - the rock layers or the organic remains (i.e.humanoid and animal remains - like bones)?

I'm sure you'll agree with me the rock layers since the earth is around 4 byo (depending of course on recycle times and the amount of radioactive isotopes in them).


I read this some time ago and now that I've made an account I have a chance to ask...

Are you trying to point out here that the minerals that replace the bones during the fossilization process are already much older than the bones? Therefore when the fossil (the minerals/rock) is dated you get a much older date (or younger is also possible if the minerals are relatively newly formed) than if you had been able to date the bones? In other words the fossilization process does not FORM new minerals but takes/absorbs already existing minerals from the surrounding rock so dating those minerals is useless in determining the date of something that isn't there anymore (cause the organic parts have been broken down and moved elsewhere, you'll need to find them first or anything left of the real specimen to get a real date, anything else is, considering the movement of rock layers, pure speculation).
edit on 20-7-2012 by whereislogic because: forgot reason for ressurrecting a dead topic



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by whereislogic

Originally posted by edmc^2

1) Which came first - the rock layers or the organic remains (i.e.humanoid and animal remains - like bones)?

I'm sure you'll agree with me the rock layers since the earth is around 4 byo (depending of course on recycle times and the amount of radioactive isotopes in them).


I read this some time ago and now that I've made an account I have a chance to ask...

Are you trying to point out here that the minerals that replace the bones during the fossilization process are already much older than the bones? Therefore when the fossil (the minerals/rock) is dated you get a much older date (or younger is also possible if the minerals are relatively newly formed) than if you had been able to date the bones? In other words the fossilization process does not FORM new minerals but takes/absorbs already existing minerals from the surrounding rock so dating those minerals is useless in determining the date of something that isn't there anymore (cause the organic parts have been broken down and moved elsewhere, you'll need to find them first or anything left of the real specimen to get a real date, anything else is, considering the movement of rock layers, pure speculation).
edit on 20-7-2012 by whereislogic because: forgot reason for ressurrecting a dead topic


If that's what he thinks, then he's scientifically wrong...



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 07:31 PM
link   
Here we go again, the evolutionists trying to claim the high ground from the get-go.

No, evolution is NOT science, that's a blatant lie - evolution is a scientific paradigm. Creationism if it involves research using the scientific method, is also a scientific paradigm. To claim otherwise is dishonest and delusional. We need to discuss the philosophy of science instead of bashing each other over the head with evidence which the other side will dismiss anyway.



posted on Jul, 21 2012 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lazarus Short
Here we go again, the evolutionists trying to claim the high ground from the get-go.

No, evolution is NOT science, that's a blatant lie - evolution is a scientific paradigm. Creationism if it involves research using the scientific method, is also a scientific paradigm. To claim otherwise is dishonest and delusional. We need to discuss the philosophy of science instead of bashing each other over the head with evidence which the other side will dismiss anyway.


Evolution is a Scientific Theory. Please show me where creationism utilizes the scientific method to reach its conclusions. Oh wait, that never happened. Philosophy and science are 2 very different things. Philosophy is not based on evidence like science is. This thread is about science and how it backs evolution. If you wish to argue that, you need more than philosophy. Perhaps you should make your own thread about the philosophy behind science and creationism, so you can get your voice out there and explain more about your position. I'm sure I won't be the only one interested.
edit on 21-7-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 21 2012 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 


If we don't discuss things like the philosophy of science, rules of evidence, and [oh yeah, that one] rules of debate, the two sides will never be on the same page and able to discuss the subject in an objective, fair debate with due consideration for the other side's position. Your bashing approach seems to be an ingrained habit. I have seen a number of evolution/creation debates, some of them live, and these professionals adhered to the rules of debate, and were polite to each other. In the case of the amateur self-appointed gatekeepers on these thread, guys, I am just embarrassed by you.

I can only assume that the bashing of every idea, and silence on every telling point, is just a ploy to stay on top of the debate. A real debater would call you on it.

edit on 21-7-2012 by Lazarus Short because: lah-de-dah



posted on Jul, 21 2012 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs



Evolution is a Scientific Theory.


You say "theory."

I say "paradigm."

BFD - anyway, you missed my point, as usual.
edit on 21-7-2012 by Lazarus Short because: lah-de-dah



posted on Jul, 21 2012 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by whereislogic

Originally posted by edmc^2

1) Which came first - the rock layers or the organic remains (i.e.humanoid and animal remains - like bones)?

I'm sure you'll agree with me the rock layers since the earth is around 4 byo (depending of course on recycle times and the amount of radioactive isotopes in them).


I read this some time ago and now that I've made an account I have a chance to ask...

Are you trying to point out here that the minerals that replace the bones during the fossilization process are already much older than the bones? Therefore when the fossil (the minerals/rock) is dated you get a much older date (or younger is also possible if the minerals are relatively newly formed) than if you had been able to date the bones? In other words the fossilization process does not FORM new minerals but takes/absorbs already existing minerals from the surrounding rock so dating those minerals is useless in determining the date of something that isn't there anymore (cause the organic parts have been broken down and moved elsewhere, you'll need to find them first or anything left of the real specimen to get a real date, anything else is, considering the movement of rock layers, pure speculation).
edit on 20-7-2012 by whereislogic because: forgot reason for ressurrecting a dead topic


exactly what I'm saying and exactly what's happening / happened.

I've already explained this in detail in another post but you've basically captured the point.

In addition what USUALLY is DATED ARE the surrounding rocks - this is called BRACKETING.

By using radiometric dating the radioactive isotopes in rocks are DATED. Now depending on the amount of radioactive isotopes present in the rocks - this will be USED as the date of the "fossil".

Therefore it's not unusual or even surprising to read reports like:

"160 million years old fossil found" because the radioactive isotopes was that old.

So it's the age of the rocks that is used as the date of the long gone decayed carbon life-form.

Evolutionists liked this idea because it seems to support their premise but of course we know that it DOES NOT.



edit on 21-7-2012 by edmc^2 because: DOES NOT



posted on Jul, 21 2012 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Indeed. The fatal flaw is in assuming you know the original state of the rock, an impossibility.
2nd
3rd
4th



posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lazarus Short
reply to post by Barcs
 


If we don't discuss things like the philosophy of science, rules of evidence, and [oh yeah, that one] rules of debate, the two sides will never be on the same page and able to discuss the subject in an objective, fair debate with due consideration for the other side's position.

I have no problem with this at all. If you wish to debate, feel free to establish ground rules. For example if you wish to discuss science, discuss science. You can't counter science with philosophy. That's not how it works. Both people can discuss philosophy or both can discuss science. It's the only fair way to stay on topic in a debate, IMO.


Your bashing approach seems to be an ingrained habit. I have seen a number of evolution/creation debates, some of them live, and these professionals adhered to the rules of debate, and were polite to each other. In the case of the amateur self-appointed gatekeepers on these thread, guys, I am just embarrassed by you.

I can only assume that the bashing of every idea, and silence on every telling point, is just a ploy to stay on top of the debate. A real debater would call you on it.


I don't recall bashing anybody. The only thing I've been trying to do is defend science, and if that means a nonsensical claim like "No, evolution is NOT science, that's a blatant lie" gets debunked, then it gets debunked. Please don't be upset with me, I'm just the messenger. The information is out there. You have to understand that I see these misunderstandings of science in this section, constantly, so if I seem a little quick to dismiss something its because I've already done it dozens of times. I'd be happy to provide a source for anything that I have said, just ask.


You say "theory."

I say "paradigm."

BFD - anyway, you missed my point, as usual.

You said that evolution wasn't science and I called you on it. I addressed your points, and asked you to show facts behind the statement that creationists use the scientific method to come up with their conclusions. Which point did I miss? I'm only being honest here. The appropriate term to describe evolution in science is scientific theory, since is has a substantial backing of facts. It is also a paradigm and a process, which has been verified by the scientific method. You can't say something is not science but it's a scientific paradigm. It is backed by facts, which is why it holds weight in science.
edit on 22-7-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 03:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
Here is a question for the OP. I'm convinced by the scientific evidence of how the Earth was made and the evolution process, but there is something that keeps bugging me...

At what time did a separation between plants and animals happen? is there any evidence of a plant/animal hybrid? This always puzzled me so please help me understand how the difference between plants and animals came to happen.


Green sea slug is a plant/animal ..



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 06:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2
Evolutionists liked this idea because it seems to support their premise but of course we know that it DOES NOT.

Radiometric dating - How does it work?.



Uranium-Lead dating provides a good example of this. Zircon (zirconium silicate (ZrSiO4) is a common mineral in igneous rocks such as granite. When magma cools and crystallizes, zircon crystals formed will often contain trace amounts of uranium in place of zirconium. Lead, however, will be strongly rejected by the crystallizing zircon, as has been demonstrated in laboratory experiments.

As uranium decays over millions of years, it eventually turns into lead. Uranium-238 decays to lead-206 with a half-life of 4.47 billion years, and uranium-235 decays to lead-207 with a half-life of 704 million years. Measuring the proportion of lead to uranium thus provides a very accurate date when the rock solidified. Since there are two uranium isotopes and two lead isotopes with two different half lives, this method of dating also checks itself, providing two calculable ages for each sample.


What you're, however, proposing is that the rock solidifies and then much later engulfs animal remains? Really? How exactly would that work? There's a beach in Portugal where you can see dinosaur bone remains inside gigantic stones. Are you saying that there's a way that these bones made it inside the stones millions of years after they solidified? You should go there someday to see with your own eyes. I don't really see the point of this line of argument anyway. Clearly you're not arguing for young Earth since you acknowledge that at least the rocks themselves are millions to billions of years old. Also, quite the coincidence that e.g. rocks from the Pompei ruins don't date to millions of years, huh?
edit on 23-7-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by edmc^2
Evolutionists liked this idea because it seems to support their premise but of course we know that it DOES NOT.

Radiometric dating - How does it work?.



Uranium-Lead dating provides a good example of this. Zircon (zirconium silicate (ZrSiO4) is a common mineral in igneous rocks such as granite. When magma cools and crystallizes, zircon crystals formed will often contain trace amounts of uranium in place of zirconium. Lead, however, will be strongly rejected by the crystallizing zircon, as has been demonstrated in laboratory experiments.

As uranium decays over millions of years, it eventually turns into lead. Uranium-238 decays to lead-206 with a half-life of 4.47 billion years, and uranium-235 decays to lead-207 with a half-life of 704 million years. Measuring the proportion of lead to uranium thus provides a very accurate date when the rock solidified. Since there are two uranium isotopes and two lead isotopes with two different half lives, this method of dating also checks itself, providing two calculable ages for each sample.


What you're, however, proposing is that the rock solidifies and then much later engulfs animal remains? Really? How exactly would that work? There's a beach in Portugal where you can see dinosaur bone remains inside gigantic stones. Are you saying that there's a way that these bones made it inside the stones millions of years after they solidified? You should go there someday to see with your own eyes. I don't really see the point of this line of argument anyway. Clearly you're not arguing for young Earth since you acknowledge that at least the rocks themselves are millions to billions of years old. Also, quite the coincidence that e.g. rocks from the Pompei ruins don't date to millions of years, huh?
edit on 23-7-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)


You should try actually studying fossilization before making a comment on what you want to believe is possible and isn't possible. And I don't think you have any formal education on these processes to which includes the formation of limestone, slate, and other rocks you find fossils in.. And pompei has more to do with volcanic ash deposits. So no, they don't have to be dated "millions of years old"..



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 


You can't defend science - it needs no defense. Only theories/paradigms need defense, and the trouble with that is that so few of us (none, really) have all the facts in front of them, and those who are called to the defense of any particular theory/paradigm are not apt to admit all the facts. And that is why we need the philosophy of science, rules of evidence, etc. I think you are still missing my point(s).



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Lazarus Short
 


Perhaps I am missing the point. Either way I'm interested in what kinds of rules and philosophies of science you are referring to. A new thread may be a good idea. Are you mostly referring to the terminology and categorizing? Theories vs hypothesis? I'd like to hear it.
edit on 23-7-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 08:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 


We begin to communicate! I will give this some thought, and may well start a thread on the subject. Thank you.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheJackelantern
You should try actually studying fossilization before making a comment on what you want to believe is possible and isn't possible.

So you are arguing that it is possible that a gigantic stone solidifies from lava/ash and then millions of years later animal remains somehow make it inside the stone and become mineralized?






top topics



 
22
<< 20  21  22    24 >>

log in

join