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, It's only a theory

page: 27
65
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 01:36 AM
link   
reply to post by littlebunny
 


You'll never get anywhere with these people.

They don't just say there is lots of evidence to support it.

They swear it is FACT (Which is the problem I have with it).

Anyway, good points.

Cheers.




posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 01:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kapyong
Gday,


Originally posted by B.A.C.
Again, you're spouting off misinformation.
Every fossil is transitional? You actually believe this? You're the only one then, because science doesn't agree with you.


Wrong.
Science DOES agree with me,
as you would know if you ever cracked a science book.

This is probably the single most common creationist mis-conception - that there are TWO TYPES of fossils :
* transitional fossils
* normal, "full formed" fossils.

This is completely incorrect.
Evolution occurs as a continuous sequence of small transitions.

Every creature is transitional between itself and it's children.
YOU would be transitional between you parents and your children (if/when you ever had any.) As we ALL would be.
We are ALL mutants, we are ALL transitional.
This is a basic fact of evolution.
But you don't grasp it.


Originally posted by B.A.C.
Like I said earlier in this thread if there are thousands of transitional fossils, name 51 for me. Should be simple for you to do, no?


Short answer - every fossil is transtional.

Some specific examples can be found here
en.wikipedia.org...
Many more than 51.

(Now don't try pretending Wiki is not a reliable source - all these examples have links to the HARD SCIENCE that backs them up. Actual scientific papers which can be checked.)

Some good lists here :
www.holysmoke.org...

Longer answer - here are some specific examples of sequences of evolutionary transitions :
www.talkorigins.org...
All with scientific cites - evidence that can be CHECKED.


Originally posted by B.A.C.
Since you can't do that, quit claiming you're right.


I CAN do that.
I HAVE done that.
I AM right.

But let's face it - you will just find an excuse to ignore it all, again.


Kapyong


Wow! This has got to be one of the most disingenuous posts I have read in sometime! The whole part about every fossil is transitional is simply amazing... OR… You obviously have no idea what you are talking about! My fingernails don't grow at the same speed, some fingernails grow faster then some others... transitional evolutional proof on me hands.... Of course! You can't be serious, but if you are!

Wow Just WOW!

--Charles Marcello



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 01:49 AM
link   
Kapyong, you are right; you have nothing to say and keep repeating yourself trying to magically create a something, but just like evolution, nothing does not produce something. I would like to ignore you, but my 'ignore' is already previously used up. So I guess I will just learn to tolerate your rants.



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 01:50 AM
link   
reply to post by littlebunny
 


OK, bunny....you talked, now walk.

Please give examples of verifiable 'Evolutionary Frauds' within the last 30 years. Purty please?

You cannot simply drop a bomb, and hope it dangles out there as sudden 'proof' of Fraud, just because you say so!!!

Regardless.....IF you are attempting to make an argument for 'creationism', then I feel very sorry.

Because if you think that WE are the best thing that some all-powerful 'designer' could come up with, then I want my money back!



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 01:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by littlebunny
 


Sorry, bunny.....the 'eyes' have it!!! (pun...)

The eye is such a favorite of creationists, and it's ironic that it is one of the WORST arguments available to plead their case!

The eye adapts as far as it needs, via Natural Selection, to suit the need of the individual species.

Consider the modern Human eye: It has a very limited range of the EM spectrum visible to it. Why? Because, for the purpose of survival of our species, it's good enough.

felines can see much, much better in low-light conditions....owls too. because hunting in the dark has an advantage over their prey.

an eagle has an eye smaller than ours, but with MUCH better visual accuity at a distance...I daresay, so does a Hawk....and it continues. Name a species, and it has adapted to fill a particular niche....if the parameters change, than Natural Selection will, generation over generation, allow those who survive to breed the traits into their offspring that ALLOWED them to flourish long enough to mate.

I'm sick of needing corrective lenses for my eyes. I have needed glasses from childhood. If I had been an individual, in wild, I likely would have been culled, and my traits never passed down.

Humans, though have A) brains and B) community cooperation on their side.....plus, now, science. (hint: see 'brains')



That is simply not true, as a matter a fact, you saying that proves Evolutionist are trying to say they won the argument without having to have the disgussion in the first place.
Before the Eye, how did evolution even know to begin to search for something it had no concept of. IF you never had sight before, the species has no concept of it, then how do you know you need to see in order to survive in the first place?

What is the first process of growing a eye?

Because you don't know you need eyes, how do you know were to place them?

Denying the argument exists doesn't mean you won the argument! I'm just sayin!

___________________

***** From Dr. Alan Hayward (a British physicist), Creation and Evolution: Rethinking the Evidence from Science and the Bible, Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany House Publishers, Bethany House Edition, 1995, pp. 38-39:

When I first came across the title of a book, Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, I assumed it was a piece of creationist propaganda. But I could hardly have been more wrong. It was the proceedings of a high-level international conference, where some of the world's greatest Darwinists and a number of mathematicians met to discuss whether Darwinism made mathematical sense.

The mathematicians present were not merely eminent in their own fields. They were invited because of their specialist knowledge of biology, many of them having done mathematical research related to one of the life sciences. Even so, the conference proceedings make rather sad reading. The two groups seemed unable to find much common ground: instead, they kept restating their opposing points of view.

A good illustration of this occurs on p. 29. Dr. S. M. Ulam had just given a paper where he showed, mathematically, that it seemed virtually impossible for the eye to have evolved in a Darwinian fashion. Now he was facing a barrage of criticism from the evolutionists. One of these, Sir Peter Medawar, complained:

___________________

Continue next Post

[edit on 4-3-2009 by littlebunny]



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 01:56 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


I think the way you have treated this is a curious inversion of what would normally be a scientific process of reasoning. It is, indeed, a fact that the eye has evolved; and, as Waddington says, the fact that is had done so shows that this [Ulam's] formulation is, I think, a mistaken one.
This remark is pure Alice Through the Looking Glass. Ulam had produced mathematical evidence that the eye could not have evolved by random mutations and natural selection. Medawar retorted that it was a fact that the eye had evolved, and therefore Ulam simply must have got his sums wrong!

The extraordinary thing is that the evolutionist Medawar even accused Ulam of "a curious inversion of what would normally be a scientific process of reasoning." Medawar's reaction was like that of a man who had been standing on his head for so long that he thought the rest of the world was the wrong way up.

Another prominent evolutionist, Dr. Ernst Mayr, was equally irrational. He dismissed Ulam's mathematics by saying:

Somehow or other by adjusting these figures we will come out all right. We are comforted by knowing that evolution has occurred. (Page 30)
"Knowing," indeed!

Throughout the conference this sort of situation recurred. The Darwinists took as their starting point that their opinion was fact. "Please don't confuse us with your evidence," was their entrenched attitude.

Perhaps the most impressive argument of all was that raised by Professor Murray Eden, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, on page 9. He pointed out that the human genes contain about a billion nucleotides. (A nucleotide is the smallest unit of information in our genes --like a letter in a chemical alphabet. Groups of nucleotides convey messages to the developing embryo: messages such as "This white rat shall have pink eyes" or "This child shall be left-handed like its Dad.") He went on to show that, however you made the calculations, you ended up with the same conclusion: the length of time life has been on earth was not nearly long enough for all those nucleotides--all that information--to have been generated by chance mutations.



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 02:04 AM
link   
reply to post by littlebunny
 


Finger nails
!!!!!

Really?

Now I am tired of silliness!!

Some people's cancers grow faster than others', too....but, how is ANY of that relevant? AND their hair...and skin.....again, relevance?

WoW! just wow!

Evolutionary difference in skin color, eyelid shapes, body hair distribution....just in the Human species.....these things don't occur overnight. But, fingernails? Wow.....mine all grow at the same rate, so does that mean I'm a mutant?



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 02:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by littlebunny
 


OK, bunny....you talked, now walk.

Please give examples of verifiable 'Evolutionary Frauds' within the last 30 years. Purty please?

You cannot simply drop a bomb,


***It was actually a land mind and you stepped right on it****

Hook, line, and sinker...

Please read below and do a Google search for the related articles!


_________________________

Archaeoraptor Liaoningensis:
Fake Dinosaur-bird ancestor

The most recent and perhaps the most infamous evolution frauds was committed in China and published in 1999 in the journal National Geographic 196:98-107, November 1999. Dinosaur bones were put together with the bones of a newer species of bird and they tried to pass it off as a very important new evolutionary intermediate.

"Feathers For T-Rex?", Christopher P. Sloan, National Geographic Magazine, Vol. 196, No. 5, November, 1999, pp.99,100,105

Interesting Quote - "National Geographic has reached an all-time low for engaging in sensationalistic, unsubstantiated, tabloid journalism" Storrs L. Olson, Smithsonian Institution

Archaeoraptor Liaoningensis Creationary Links

Adventist Scientist Comments on Retraction of Evolutionary "Missing Link" Claim
And now: Feathered Dinosaur Link
Another Evolution Fraud By Tim Friend, USA TODAY
Another Fossil Flub
Another Hoax by Owen D. Olbricht
Another ‘Missing Link’ Takes Flight
Another "OOOPS" For Science
Archaeoraptor Flight Aborted by John Morris
Archaeopteryx, Archaeoraptor, and the "Dinosaurs-To-Birds" Theory ...
Archaeoraptor: Feathered Dinosaur from National Geographic Doesn’t Fly ... IMPACT No. 321 by Steven A. Austin, Ph.D
Archaeoraptor Hoax Update — National Geographic Recants!
Archaeoraptor: National Geographic's Biggest Embarassment by Craig McClarren
Archaeoraptor: Phony ‘feathered’ fossil by Jonathan Sarfati
Archaeoraptor: Some interesting points about this particular hoax
Crying Fowl: Tale of 'Missing Link' Embarrasses Scientists
'Dragon' fossils seized
EVOLUTION COVER-UP
Evolution Hoax The Archaeoraptor Fraud
Evolution: The Fraud That Shapes The Worldview of Our Kids By Bob Harsh and Chuck Colson. Origins Insights March 2000 Newsletter by the Creation Science Fellowship
"Feathered Dinosaur" Claim Apparently a Fake
National Geographic backs down – sort of! By Carl Wieland
National Geographic Gets a Black Eye
National Geographic Eats Crow
National Geographic retracts boast of dinosaur-to-bird 'missing link'
Smithsonian criticizes National Geographic’s Dino-to-Bird Claims revealing the lack of consensus on the matter among scientists, despite National Geographic’s sensationalistic “propagandizing”.
Smithsonian critiques National Geographic in open letter archaeoraptor
The Missing Link That Wasn’t ... National Geographic’s Bird Dinosaur Flew Again the Facts by Nancy Pearcey,. Access Research Network
The Archaeoraptor Fraud – by Charles Colson
The Archaeoraptor Fraud: National Geographic
The Latest Fraud!
The Missing Link that Wasn't: National Geographic's 'Bird Dinosaur' Flew Against the Facts
The Piltdown Chicken
Well, Folks…It Happened Again!
News Articles Published on The Archaeoraptor Liaoningensis Discovery

Second Piece of Fossil Forgery Identified Scientific American 11/21/02

----That was just one story and all the articles that were written debunking that FRAUD! Would you like me to go get more?????----



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 02:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by littlebunny
 


OK, bunny....you talked, now walk.

Please give examples of verifiable 'Evolutionary Frauds' within the last 30 years. Purty please?

You cannot simply drop a bomb, and hope it dangles out there as sudden 'proof' of Fraud, just because you say so!!!

Regardless.....IF you are attempting to make an argument for 'creationism', then I feel very sorry.

Because if you think that WE are the best thing that some all-powerful 'designer' could come up with, then I want my money back!


Why does arguing against a theory mean you support another theory? ie; evolution vs creationism

You keep bringing up creationism like it proves someone wrong.

Argue the theory on it's on merits.

You're completely missing the point, if I disagree with evolution I MUST support creationism? Wrong.

We disagree with the theory because it is not complete, yet you are presenting it as fact.

It's that simple.



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 02:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by littlebunny
 


Finger nails
!!!!!

Really?

Now I am tired of silliness!!

Some people's cancers grow faster than others', too....but, how is ANY of that relevant? AND their hair...and skin.....again, relevance?

WoW! just wow!

Evolutionary difference in skin color, eyelid shapes, body hair distribution....just in the Human species.....these things don't occur overnight. But, fingernails? Wow.....mine all grow at the same rate, so does that mean I'm a mutant?


I am tired of silliness too, that was the freaken point of my response to that absurd statement that all fossils are transitional! And, with a name like weedwacker, you most assuredly are a mutant!
:



Its been awhile since I had a convo with a Evolutionist that went longer then two or three posts... But bedtime fast approaches!

--Charles Marcello

[edit on 4-3-2009 by littlebunny]



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 02:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.
reply to post by littlebunny
 


You'll never get anywhere with these people.

They don't just say there is lots of evidence to support it.

They swear it is FACT (Which is the problem I have with it).

Anyway, good points.

Cheers.


Thanks, you made some good points too!

I know, its like arguing with a kitten.

The reality is I keep looking for truth, sadly I haven't found it yet… Interesting concepts to ponder, but no truth! What is extremely funny to me is, these people (evolutionist) think its okay to believe in Evolution, and then its okay for them to dog creationism! That always makes me laugh... Both beliefs take just as much FAITH to believe in!

Cheers right back at ya!



--Charles Marcello



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 02:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by littlebunny

Originally posted by B.A.C.
reply to post by littlebunny
 


You'll never get anywhere with these people.

They don't just say there is lots of evidence to support it.

They swear it is FACT (Which is the problem I have with it).

Anyway, good points.

Cheers.


Thanks, you made some good points too!

I know, its like arguing with a kitten.

The reality is I keep looking for truth, sadly I haven't found it yet… Interesting concepts to ponder, but no truth! What is extremely funny to me is, these people (evolutionist) think its okay to believe in Evolution, and then its okay for them to dog creationism! That always makes me laugh... Both beliefs take just as much FAITH to believe in!

Cheers right back at ya!



--Charles Marcello


I don't think we'll ever completely find truth, it's the searching that is important.

I'm off to bed too 3:40 am here.

Gnite.



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 05:06 AM
link   
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


The arguement for Churchism, is pretty flawed in so many ways.

It basically says that Evolution does not exist.
Then each organism is at it is when it was created, and can not adapt
to a change in environments.

Every new generation is slightly different to the Parent, they are not
exact copies. It is these minor changes that is evolution.
All the pieces of evolution fit together like a jigsaw puzzle, there are
some pieces missing, they could be your backyard.

And according the Churchism, the Earth, Stars, Universe were created
by god 6,000 to 10,000 ago. This based on the bible being 3,000 years
old, real scientific like. And this is where church goes into no comment
mode when trying to quantify Ancient Egypt and the Myans because they
could not exist before god created them.



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 05:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by skeptic_al
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


The arguement for Churchism, is pretty flawed in so many ways.

It basically says that Evolution does not exist.
Then each organism is at it is when it was created, and can not adapt
to a change in environments.

Every new generation is slightly different to the Parent, they are not
exact copies. It is these minor changes that is evolution.
All the pieces of evolution fit together like a jigsaw puzzle, there are
some pieces missing, they could be your backyard.

And according the Churchism, the Earth, Stars, Universe were created
by god 6,000 to 10,000 ago. This based on the bible being 3,000 years
old, real scientific like. And this is where church goes into no comment
mode when trying to quantify Ancient Egypt and the Myans because they
could not exist before god created them.






Um yea, this post isn't even a coherent argument. I guess it's all you could come up with.

Your logic could be an argument against evolution. LOL

[edit on 4-3-2009 by B.A.C.]



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 05:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by littlebunny
I'm sorry, but your conclusion Evolution is a scientific theory/fact is absolutely ridiculous, because there is ZERO transitional evidence from this to thus in the archeological records... Just peoples beliefs and made up science… It truly is Amazing science gets to force this nonsense onto the world!

What's truely amazing is that you've decided to hop in this thread without at least skimming through it. Yes there are transitional fossils and the information has been posted here many times.


I mean using that logic then the Bible is absolute proof God created everything. I mean, the stories written within the Bible seem to support the archeological finds, let alone the historical documents. So therefore God has been proven!!! NO? HMM!

Interesting. Please post this evidence.


I know I'm not going to convince you your belief are absolutely wrong, just like I'm sure you’re aware I am absolutely convinced there is no evidence to even remotely prove evolution... The supposed/laughable, “evidence,” for Evolution is no more scientific proof then the stories that have been proven to be true in the Bible proves there is a God...

Then you either don't understand the scientific evidence or simply have not reviewed it.



If people were to learn the truth about the history of Evolution verse Intelligent Design they would learn I.D. does not have all the lies, forgeries, and hoaxes that have been force feed to children and adults time after time by people who claim to be objectionable scientist. It truly is laughable… Everything that was once hailed as proof of Evolution has been proven to be horrible fakes, hoaxes, and purposeful blatant lies.

OK show us. If you can't your statement is simply a list of baseless lies.


If you want a great laugh, I mean this stuff is hilarious, not to mention a continued embarrassment for Evolution, then read about the history of this pathetic wannabe science. The lies, hoaxes, and forgeries, each of those stains/disgraces towards science continue to plague Evolution from damn near its concept to present day.

Sounds like your sure based on science that evolution is wrong. Simply post your proof so we can see it.



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 05:14 AM
link   
Sorry for not reading the whole of this thread, I just wanted to respond to a few points made on page one that I've heard resonate from many people who do not yet understand evolution.


Originally posted by B.A.C.
The Missing Links, where are they? If evolution were true where are all these skeletons that are halfway through evolving? There are none.


This is a favourite argument of the non-understanders, and the simple answer to the question is that the 'missing-link' species are literally everywhere, not only in the fossil records we have, but living and thriving all over our planet today. The examples are too numerous to bother listing here, but to anyone having even the most remote doubts regarding the truth of this statement, I highly, highly recommend watching David Attenborough's Life in Cold Blood series, in particular the episode 'Sophisticated Serpents', which is basically about the thousands of species caught in environments where they became 'transition' species.


Even today, this world is filled with simple one-cell structured living organisms. Why didn't they evolve?


They did evolve, they evolved to perfectly suit their environment and went no further. Evolution does not occur without the pressures of environment.


Why don't we see new species emerging? There should be new species evolving before our very eyes, where are they? Instead we see the extinction of species. Has evolution now stopped?


We are seeing new species evolving. All the time. Here is a nice example of a new lizard species that was ushered into existence by forcing it to confront an alternative environment.


Answer these questions for me.


Pleasure


Please do yourself a favour and somehow get a copy of Attenborough's Life series. You will be left without a doubt as to the certainty of evolution as the process that has brought the abundance of living things to planet Earth.



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 05:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by The_Modulus
Sorry for not reading the whole of this thread, I just wanted to respond to a few points made on page one that I've heard resonate from many people who do not yet understand evolution.


Originally posted by B.A.C.
The Missing Links, where are they? If evolution were true where are all these skeletons that are halfway through evolving? There are none.


This is a favourite argument of the non-understanders, and the simple answer to the question is that the 'missing-link' species are literally everywhere, not only in the fossil records we have, but living and thriving all over our planet today. The examples are too numerous to bother listing here, but to anyone having even the most remote doubts regarding the truth of this statement, I highly, highly recommend watching David Attenborough's Life in Cold Blood series, in particular the episode 'Sophisticated Serpents', which is basically about the thousands of species caught in environments where they became 'transition' species.


Even today, this world is filled with simple one-cell structured living organisms. Why didn't they evolve?


They did evolve, they evolved to perfectly suit their environment and went no further. Evolution does not occur without the pressures of environment.


Why don't we see new species emerging? There should be new species evolving before our very eyes, where are they? Instead we see the extinction of species. Has evolution now stopped?


We are seeing new species evolving. All the time. Here is a nice example of a new lizard species that was ushered into existence by forcing it to confront an alternative environment.


Answer these questions for me.


Pleasure


Please do yourself a favour and somehow get a copy of Attenborough's Life series. You will be left without a doubt as to the certainty of evolution as the process that has brought the abundance of living things to planet Earth.


blah blah blah....maybe you should have read the thread. These arguments have already been dealt with.



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 05:21 AM
link   
This is my FINAL post on this thread. Quote me all you want. You won't get a response.

Some good points have been made on both sides. I'm not wasting my energy on this debate any longer.

Evolution is not fact. Plain and simple. Maybe a good theory, but not fact.

littlebunny burned this thread.

Later.

[edit on 4-3-2009 by B.A.C.]



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 05:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.
reply to post by andre18
 


Quit saying it's a fact, and I'll agree with your points.

To say it's a fact is just wrong, facts don't have gaps, facts don't say "Well MOST of the evidence proves this to be right" Facts don't say "Well do you have a better explanation?" Facts don't say "There are mountains of evidence to back this up". Facts are apparent, even to the uninformed.

Facts are facts, unless science has also redefined the word fact?

The ONLY problem I have with any of this are the people claiming that this is fact. That takes more faith than any creationist has.

Enough said.

Cheers.



I'll tell you what, from now on I'll do my best to always say
Scientific Theory and you'll know when I say that, the definition I mean is as follows:

In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations.2 It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions.
In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be.

Bold provided by me fore emphasis



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 05:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.
This is my FINAL post on this thread. Quote me all you want. You won't get a response.

Some good points have been made on both sides. I'm not wasting my energy on this debate any longer.

Evolution is not fact. Plain and simple. Maybe a good theory, but not fact.

littlebunny burned this thread.

Later.

[edit on 4-3-2009 by B.A.C.]


OMG

The god squad has done a proper job on you

Evolution is not Fact, goog one dude.
I must remember that one when I'm down at the
Improve Theatre.

You are just like all the others, unable to answer questions or
take critisism so you just run away.




top topics



 
65
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join