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: 37
65
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by B.A.C.

Originally posted by ExistenceUnknown
reply to post by andre18
 


In other words Scientific Theory is the Politically correct way of saying "Fact". That's the beauty of science. It will not claim anything a fact if there is a .000000001 chance that something could prove it wrong.



I don't agree.

Many theories are touted as fact, yet they are being constantly revised.

Example:
How many elements are there in the periodic table? 20 years ago it was touted as fact that there were 109. Now we've discovered 6 more.

There are 118 elements I believe. We used to know of less then 118. That doesn't mean that since we've found more elements, the old elements no longer exist.
www.webelements.com...


The first mammals were said as a fact to have evolved 155 million years ago. Now science claims it was more like 200 million years ago.


The Mammal-like Reptiles, or Therapsids first appeared about 285 million years ago near the begiining of the Permian which is well before the dinosaurs. They evolved quickly and many different groups arose. They were very successful until about the end of the Permian, about 245 million years ago, when something catastrophic affected the earth and nearly all of the species then living died out. New species evolved rapidly to fill this empty habitat, among them the first dinosaurs and a few million years later the first mammals.

The first mammal may never be known, but the Genus Morganucodon and in particular Morganucodon watsoni, a 2-3 cm (1 inch) long weasel-like animal whose fossils were first found in caves in Wales and around Bristol (UK), but later unearthed in China, India , North America, South Africa and Western Europe is a possible contender. It is believed to be between 200 MYA and 210 MYA. However Gondwanadon tapani reported from India on the basis of a single tooth in 1994 may be an earlier contender for the title, with a claimed date of 225 MYA.

www.earthlife.net...

But if you'll notice and by your own admission, the only thing changed is the date as it was REFINED. Refining something does not invalidate it completely.



I've already addressed this on an earlier post.

Here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Some of the elements are indeed questioned as fact by SCIENTISTS.




posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by ExistenceUnknown
 



You forgot the evidence which provides reasonable grounds to assume the earth was 30 percent smaller and has grown. This is an alternative to continental drift. There is a thread on the growing earth and some good YouTube videos about it....and it makes perfect sense.

There are many things we don't know.

PS: The talking snakes comment was ignorant and deliberately demeaning to creationists. Why do you resort to that?

There is a reasonable explanation for every alleged inconsistency you have mentioned. I'm not going to research it for you. You will have to do it yourself.


[edit on 5/3/09 by John Matrix]



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aermacchi
]Originally posted by jfj123

There's also the creationist museum that believes dinosaurs were on noah's ark?



And your point?

Just because creation scientists
say something is true, doesn't make it true unless they can provide evidence to support their hypothesis, which they NEVER do.


And dinosaurs were on the ark? Do YOU believe that?



You're asking a person that believe's in God that question, you DO know that do you not?

Yes, so do you believe dinosaurs were on the ark?


[edit on 5-3-2009 by jfj123]



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by John Matrix
 


Like I said those were not my words, my intention is not to offend you. I will look into the videos you reference and get back to you.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aermacchi

And what do you suppose YOU have done in these threads besides accuse people of trolling? Just what do you suppose YOUR posts are?

The alternative?


Pffft

Actually I've posted plenty of factual data

How about you?



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by Aermacchi
]Originally posted by jfj123

There's also the creationist museum that believes dinosaurs were on noah's ark?



And your point?

Just because creation scientists
say something is true, doesn't make it true unless they can provide evidence to support their hypothesis, which they NEVER do.


And dinosaurs were on the ark? Do YOU believe that?



You're asking a person that believe's in God that question, you DO know that do you not?

Yes, so do you believe dinosaurs were on the ark?


[edit on 5-3-2009 by jfj123]


Do ALL scientists believe the same thing? No.

Why do you think ALL creationists believe the same thing?

I'm a creationist, yet I don't believe the dinosaurs were on the ark.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aermacchi
Originally posted by jfj123

Although we may not have every little piece of evidence surrounding evolution, we still know that evolution is correct.




No you still BELIEVE evolution is correct

Their is not much more than speculation surrounding evolution much of which your interpretation of the evidence wants to believe is true and Belief is what faith is all about


How many people have to post factual evidence supporting evolution before you actually read it ? It's all over this thread. We can't force you to read it nor understand it but it's there nonetheless.
The fact that you don't believe in evolution doesn't make it any less real.

The real funny thing about the detractors such as yourself is that you've not produced ONE BIT of evidence to suggest the theory of evolution is wrong.
Can you ?



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by Aermacchi

And what do you suppose YOU have done in these threads besides accuse people of trolling? Just what do you suppose YOUR posts are?

The alternative?


Pffft

Actually I've posted plenty of factual data

How about you?


Are you saying you've went and researched the data that we've provided to you?

No you haven't.

If we're guilty of it, you're just as guilty.

I bet I know more about evolution than you know about creationism.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by John Matrix
 


No offense but all your questions have answers. Frankly I'm tired of doing others homework. Look up all the answers yourself and post them here for our reading enjoyment for a change.

The questions you've asked, prove you've never looked into those questions but parroted them from a creationist website. Think for yourself my friend and deny ignorance.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

It's not sciences job to debunk your faith only to further science. We have no interest in your faith.


Hey YOU keep bringing it up I didn't. If you read my posts I keep having to ask what religion has to do with this



What delusions? Please be specific and be specific as to why they are delusions.


The delusion you have the we think Science and Religion are the same for one


Again, I don't care about your personal faith one way or the other.


Which is why I corrected you explaining what faith is because YOU brought it up I didn't and when you did YOU GOT IT WRONG!
The least you could do is admit it .



That's your person faith and you welcome to it as long as it does not interfere with evidence supported science.


YOU KEEP USING IT INTERFERE with this discussion pal. Before you brought it up show me ONE post in this thread where I brought it into the discussion just ONE!



People are posting factual, scientific data on every thread. Your failure to read it doesn't make it any less valid. We can't make you read or understand science, that's up to you my friend.


I am only concerned with this thread and so far all you have shown me is the typical tactics for getting off the subject Darwinists often use. Since most of them do this ALL the time, I just add em to my ignore list and get weed them out for the ones that actually DO engage in intelligent discussion. This I can already tell is impossible for you to fathom




The pontiff, speaking as he was concluding his holiday in northern Italy, also said that while there is much scientific proof to support evolution, the theory could not exclude a role by God.

www.msnbc.msn.com...



There you go again bringing religion into it when I'm not even Catholic.

I see you are to into religious bigotry to have any honest objectivity

so welcome to my ignore list, your posts are a waste of my time


Next.

[edit on 5-3-2009 by Aermacchi]



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by Aermacchi

And what do you suppose YOU have done in these threads besides accuse people of trolling? Just what do you suppose YOUR posts are?

The alternative?


Pffft

Actually I've posted plenty of factual data

How about you?


You make it seem all that stuff you copy pasted was a lot of work and such a big contribution LOL c'mon guy gimme a break



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 04:23 PM
link   
It violates reason and common sense that one species could develop from primordial slime and lighting, and then evolve into a higher and higher life form. Thousands of species developing in thousands of parallel evolutions all happening at the same time can only be the result of millions and millions of micro and macro miracles.

I believe in miracles, but there seems to be a conservation of miracles throughout history, unless you count each visit from the tooth fairy as being a miracle too. But even then, still not the millions and millions of micro and macro miracles needed for evolution to happen.

Sorry, I am unconvinced. The evidence for a young earth is overwhelming. I don't know how young, but I doubt it is even one million years old, let along 4.6 billion years old.

Both sides examine the evidence and both sides have a hypothesis from which they get their theories and neither side can prove they are correct.

The best we can do is look at the evidence from both sides with equal unbiased and impartial attention, and decide which is more reasonable.

Intelligent design, common designer, law of cause and effect, entropy of matter, etc. all tells me it is more reasonable to believe in a much younger earth and a Creator of the material Universe, as well as the Spiritual Universe, from whence materiality has it's birth(matter which was created from nothing).



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by ExistenceUnknown
reply to post by John Matrix
 


Like I said those were not my words, my intention is not to offend you. I will look into the videos you reference and get back to you.


OK, I decided I won't be offended. You summed things up fairly well, but as my previous response indicates, I am not convinced that evolution is the most reasonable explanation for all the evidence.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aermacchi



darwinwasright.homestead.com...

OK THIS IS JUST AWESOME !!!!
You sir ROCK for posting this

This is the best vid I've seen yet which sums up the FACTS, as the narrator puts it

I gave you a star just for posting this video
This is my special "evolved 8 thumbs up"



So you admit that ID science is different then creationism science.

We have been saying that for years

Just liked the video
Neither ID nor creationism has any evidence to support them.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
reply to post by John Matrix
 


No offense but all your questions have answers. Frankly I'm tired of doing others homework. Look up all the answers yourself and post them here for our reading enjoyment for a change.

The questions you've asked, prove you've never looked into those questions but parroted them from a creationist website. Think for yourself my friend and deny ignorance.


I LOL'd at this. You've been doing the ole' copy and paste thing for almost every post.

Again, you assume we are incapable of R&D.

We are able to admit we don't have all the answers about creationism.

Can you admit that about evolution?

Quit being a hypocrite.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.

Do ALL scientists believe the same thing? No.

Why do you think ALL creationists believe the same thing?

I'm a creationist, yet I don't believe the dinosaurs were on the ark.

It was a simple question that you answered. Thank you

Your answer was appreciated.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 04:34 PM
link   
What is the definition of time!

Can you have evolution without time! Isn't evolution quite related to time and matter. Evolution is a change in matter over time. Just like time is a change on the movment of the matter.

I think it is quite logic that you first have to have a creation so you can have time. Time to have changes.

Evolution is a part of a creation. Or a change in creation over time.



[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

You're asking a person that believe's in God that question, you DO know that do you not? - Aermacchi



Yes, so do you believe dinosaurs were on the ark?


I think that answered your question



Just because creation scientists
say something is true, doesn't make it true unless they can provide evidence to support their hypothesis, which they NEVER do.


What my truth is and what a fact is are two distinct and different things. If you and I are in a room and I say it is cold in the room, that is my truth. If you say it is warm, that is YOUR truth. The FACT is, that it is 78 degrees in the room.


And dinosaurs were on the ark? Do YOU believe that?



Yes, can I prove it? No.

Does Science have a theory to substantiate the Noah story? Yes there are several I have read but none of them boast of being a FACT they are just theory ,, you know,, like Evolution is JUST a Theory hehe



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.
Originally posted by jfj123
Originally posted by Aermacchi

And what do you suppose YOU have done in these threads besides accuse people of trolling? Just what do you suppose YOUR posts are?

The alternative?


Pffft


Actually I've posted plenty of factual data

How about you?



Are you saying you've went and researched the data that we've provided to you?

No you haven't.

If we're guilty of it, you're just as guilty.

I bet I know more about evolution than you know about creationism.


If you've posted the info here, I've read it. If you've posted a link, I probably haven't bothered looking at it-I'm not going to lie. There are reasons why I don't like it when people post links and say, "go read".

1. The discussion is on this thread and not on that link.
2. 9 times out of 10 the link isn't what the person said it was and I've just wasted my time.
3. If the person can't be bothered to post a summary of what is on the link to help other posters, I won't be bothered to go to that link to help the person posting the link. Give and take for fairness you know



[edit on 5-3-2009 by jfj123]



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 04:43 PM
link   
It is possible that some baby dinosaurs were on the ark. After the deluge they would not have lived as long and not grown as large, eventually, they would have become extinct due to climate change and their inability to cope. There are historical accounts of large "dragon" like creatures existing as late as the 1400's. There are living dinosaurs today. Crocodiles and alligators are living dinosaurs. They could easily have survived the flood by crawling onto large floating bogs. Birds and other animals would have done this as well, and it would explain the distribution of animals across the globe. Where the ark landed and when it landed was not the only place land would have appeared. Land would have appeared earlier and in many places around the world. The uplift could easily have been a miracle and the result of the weight of the oceans on a thin crust where the waters settled into....like a person stepping into a soft mud on a shoreline, do it and you will see uplift around the edges of your footprint.

We are talking about tremendous pressures by all this water being released, so it is perfectly reasonable that the earth would sink where it is weakest, and force up mountains around the edges of these new depressions.

[edit on 5/3/09 by John Matrix]



new topics

top topics



 
65
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join