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: 45
65
<< 42  43  44    46  47  48 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker

B.A.C. really, this is simple: Either the entire Universe (and us, on earth) were 'created' somew 6,000 years ago, and ALL of what science has helped us to learn, and study, and understand is some grand 'deception'....or, what we've learned, through science and understanding is gradually allowing us to inch our way toward truth...maybe science will FIND 'god'?

I happen to think that science IS a divine argument....it should be embraced. Along with reason.


We don't have to FIND God in spite of how much Science tries to hide him from us he always finds US we don't find him. I don't think science is looking for God but even if it were, I would suggest they first quit insulting the very idea such a being exists and quit denying all the proof their is one making up silly social constructs they want to believe is fact.

You know when ya have the truth, the last thing you do is keep looking for one and while the fable of evolution keeps evolving to find ways to fit it the theory, the creation story is stable and constant and Science keeps affirming it more now than ever before.




posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by andre18
 


I provided evidence of a younger earth. You can post someone's negative opinion all you want, but I saw no evidence in that article to refute the evidence I posted for a much younger earth.

Like I said, a million years ago the sun was large enough to fry the earth.
That means the conspiracy of evolution is debunked. Facts are facts, and the sun is shrinking. It's been observed shrinking and measured for a few hundred centuries. My estimates were very conservative at a shrinkage rate of a few meters per year. It's much more than that. It's an observed fact, and the sun would have been larger and therefore too close to earth for life just one million years ago.

Sorry, evolutionists loose.

I declare this thread useless and redundant.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 02:03 PM
link   
For anyone intersted in reviewing some of the young earth evidences here is the link.

www.earthage.org...




[edit on 6/3/09 by John Matrix]



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Aermacchi
 


The main idea that was posted by Darwin still stands...and new molecular sciences have provided a mechanism...this wasn't my question though.
Now please, don't move the target and answer my earlier question. If you want to bring down a theory, and I am perfectly fine with it, please propose a new one...propose new mechanism of heredity, chemistry, biochemistry, etc. I do have to admit that some ID'ers have put out interesting things out there...which were later disproved. Again, that's the spirit of science: observe, propose a hypothesis and test it. Where does creationism stand in this scheme?

Thanks,



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aermacchi

You know when ya have the truth, the last thing you do is keep looking for one and while the fable of evolution keeps evolving to find ways to fit it the theory, the creation story is stable and constant and Science keeps affirming it more now than ever before.


Right on! A liar always changes his story. Satan was a liar from the beginning. His biggest story is evolution, and the story is still evolving.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by matiascs
Where does creationism stand in this scheme?

Thanks,


There was no life on earth 1 million years ago because the sun was larger and therefore closer to the earth. Too large and too close for life to exist.
The shrinkage rate has been observed for centuries so it stands as proof that evolution is debunked.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by matiascs
reply to post by Aermacchi
 


If you want to bring down a theory, and I am perfectly fine with it, please propose a new one...propose new mechanism of heredity, chemistry, biochemistry, etc.

Still waiting...but I don't expect any real answer...don't worry about it. I've observed this over and over again...move the target...jump into other discussions.

I thought this forum had some educated interchanges...all the contrary.

Goodbye.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by John Matrix

Originally posted by jimmyx
evolution has been observed on the galapogos islands, in fact they even put it out on an hour long science channel show. as i remember it, a long beaked bird became extinct because it was unable to survive cracking open a scarse food source contained in a hard shelled seed, only a few short and strong billed birds survived, because they were able to crack open the seed pods. and those short and strong billed birds are what survives today.

hence, observed, documented, factual evolution.

[edit on 6-3-2009 by jimmyx]


Wrong! To observe evolution would require one to observe transmutations of species from one form to another. No one has observed that and the fossil records are filled with thousands upon thousands of huge gaps and thus a serious lack of transitional fossils.

All you saw was data and heard someone's speculations concerning the data.


uhmm...that's how evolution works, slowly, and alittle at a time.

data was in the form of actual movie clips over decades, and the "someone" were scientists.

and now you come back with your own set of actual qualifications and rules that evolutionists have to follow for you to be convinced. what if they meet your rules...i suppose then you would say they were wrong, and you would make up some other hoops to jump through. i believe no amount of proof will convince you, so your "debate" is specious at best.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 02:29 PM
link   
The Facts:


A fact used to be a fact but it seems a fact is no longer a fact and that's a FACT! lol





- JC



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by John Matrix
reply to post by andre18
 


Like I said, a million years ago the sun was large enough to fry the earth.
That means the conspiracy of evolution is debunked.


Here is a bit of info from NASA

Because the Sun continues to 'burn' hydrogen into helium in its core, the core slowly collapses and heats up, causing the outer layers of the Sun to grow larger. This has been going on since soon after the Sun was formed 4.5 billion years ago. It is a very gradual process, and in the last 4 billion years, the Sun has barely grown by perhaps 20 percent at most. It will not grow by much more than another factor of a few for the next 6 billion years, but at that distant time, it will make a rapid transition to a red giant phase and its outer surface will expand by several hundred times to perhaps the orbit of Venus. Astronomers have searched for short term changes in the radius of the Sun, but have not been able to find much reliable evidence that the sun's diameter is changing, at least over times as short as the solar cycle. Longer timescales are hard to study historically because it is very hard to measure the diameter of the sun to 100-meter resolution at the distance of the Earth, and to do so over many decades! If the radius of the Sun were to double in a time as short as 1 billion years, you would need to be able to detect a 65 meter per year change which corresponds to an angular change in its radius of 0.0002 arcseconds! This is a factor of at least 100 times smaller that what long term accuracy one could hope to acheive. Perhaps the most sensitive test is the change in the brightness of the sun itself, and since the temperature of the earth during the last few million years has not systematically changed by more than a few degrees AT MOST...ignoring ice ages...this restricts any change in the radius of the Sun from historical records to less than a few percent or 10,000 kilometers. This is not a very interesting constraint, but at least it excluses any potential 'catastrophic' solar radius increases!!

image.gsfc.nasa.gov...

Bold in quote mine for emphasis.
Just thought I'd post some info from a well respected source-NASA.

[edit on 6-3-2009 by jfj123]



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 09:09 PM
link   
OK it's pretty obvious old earth creationism is the problem here. It seems i'm going to have to make another thread directly proving without a doubt how wrong it is - a true creationist debunking thread.

Now the main point i wanted to make with this thread which none of you are able to grasp, - whether you believe evolution is fact or not. The 'theory' of evolution is more then just an idea. Ceationists think that a scientific theory has no more ground then there own position has but that's simply not the case.

I think B.A.C has come to understand that and i hope some of you creationists out there have as well. If you understand what a scientific theory is and how much evidance supports the theory of evolution, (because it wouldn't be a theory is if there wasn't enough evidence to make it a theory is the first place) then you should be content accepting evolution as a fact. A fact which should be taught in schools where as creationism shouldn't because it's not a scientific theory nor a fact of any sort. It's not supported with enough evidence to even be a hypothesis.

[edit on 6-3-2009 by andre18]



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 09:53 PM
link   
reply to post by andre18
 


Kudos, Andre!!!

May I suggest incorporating the obviousness of nuclear theory, astronomical observations, carbon-dating technologies, etc, etc.

Or, just point out how stupid our current bodies' so-called "design" is!!!

Have fun!!!

WW



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 10:16 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


You trust NASA?
Check out this video from NASA:

www.youtube.com...



I don't believe a word they say.


Ya, ok, the video is a joke, but you get my point!!

[edit on 6/3/09 by John Matrix]



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 10:23 PM
link   
reply to post by andre18
 


All of the same evidence that evolutionists use to support thier theory is also used to support the creation model and without causing one to make up more and more unreasonable explanations for all the holes in the evidence and in the evolution theory itself.

It all fits much better into the creation model. Creation is a fact, evolution is a faith. Evolution requires a lot more faith than believing in God does.




posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by andre18
OK it's pretty obvious old earth creationism is the problem here. It seems i'm going to have to make another thread directly proving without a doubt how wrong it is - a true creationist debunking thread.

Now the main point i wanted to make with this thread which none of you are able to grasp, - whether you believe evolution is fact or not. The 'theory' of evolution is more then just an idea. Ceationists think that a scientific theory has no more ground then there own position has but that's simply not the case.

I think B.A.C has come to understand that and i hope some of you creationists out there have as well. If you understand what a scientific theory is and how much evidance supports the theory of evolution, (because it wouldn't be a theory is if there wasn't enough evidence to make it a theory is the first place) then you should be content accepting evolution as a fact. A fact which should be taught in schools where as creationism shouldn't because it's not a scientific theory nor a fact of any sort. It's not supported with enough evidence to even be a hypothesis.

[edit on 6-3-2009 by andre18]


What are ya going to do Andre!! O my we are done for now!


Lemme guess Andre, you're going to debunk the creation model by talking to another "Tour Guide" like you did when you tried debunking the 2012'ers that time???



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

Bold in quote mine for emphasis.
Just thought I'd post some info from a well respected source-NASA.







NASA?? Pffft!

C'mon you can't BE SERIOUS just do a google NASA's lies. They have ALMOST as many hoax's fraudulent ongoing schemes as Darwitts do desperately trying to prove evolution.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 10:49 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


The sun might eventually begin to grow assuming our sun is the same as other suns which expand as they are dying out. But for the last 300 years or more it has been observed shrinking, not expanding. Also, check out my previous post with other facts and proofs for creation.


www.abovetopsecret.com...




posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aermacchi

NASA?? Pffft!

C'mon you can't BE SERIOUS just do a google NASA's lies. They have ALMOST as many hoax's fraudulent ongoing schemes as Darwitts do desperately trying to prove evolution.


Darwitts.....LOL...good name for evolutionists. I wish I had come up with that label for them.


[edit on 6/3/09 by John Matrix]



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 11:09 PM
link   
reply to post by John Matrix
 


Matix.....oh dear, oh dear!

The logic bus has left, and you didn't get on!!!

Our Sun is NOT shrinking!!! Where DO you get this nonsense?

Our Sun is a main-sequence, Type G very average star....lifespan (in this stage) of about 8-10 Billion years. AS it continues to burn, or really, 'fuse' the hydrogen atoms into progressively heavier elements within its core, it will merrily survive long after we're gone. Eventually, the balance of forces, that is the attractionn of gravity, and the pressure from the fusions, will change....and the star will swell into what we call a 'red giant'.

It will expand, increasing diameter, to likely encompass the Earth. This in about 5 Billion years, or so.

Look....Human Beings built hydrogen bombs....these people know their math, they understand how the atoms work....yes, of course, Atomic bombs are fission.....not fusion....but math is math!

John Matrix.....since you have a faith in a 'god', then use that piece of gray matter in your skull!!!!!

Is it logical to assume that 100 billion stars in our Galaxy were 'created' for just our amusement? Or, that there are another 100 billion other Galaxies out there, all unatainable, but for what reason? To taunt us?

This is the core fallacy of 'creationism'....it is the incredible height of hubris to think that ALL OF THIS is just for little ole' us!!!



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by andre18
OK it's pretty obvious old earth creationism is the problem here. It seems i'm going to have to make another thread directly proving without a doubt how wrong it is - a true creationist debunking thread.
Not for me. I don't use any creationists arguements, beliefs or philosophies in my criticism of ET. It is a problem for you, that is all.


Now the main point i wanted to make with this thread which none of you are able to grasp, - whether you believe evolution is fact or not. The 'theory' of evolution is more then just an idea. Ceationists think that a scientific theory has no more ground then there own position has but that's simply not the case.
I am able to grasp you high school debate. You think that this thread is some how ground breaking. The theory of evolution is a theory that is reverse engineered by making abservations FIRST and then coming up with a theory to explain that, not running test via a method formulated by hypothesis, observing the results and then formulating a conclusion, which is the scientific method. It is missing key componants IMHO.


I think B.A.C has come to understand that and i hope some of you creationists out there have as well. If you understand what a scientific theory is and how much evidance supports the theory of evolution, (because it wouldn't be a theory is if there wasn't enough evidence to make it a theory is the first place) then you should be content accepting evolution as a fact.
Creationist aside, if you want to accept ET as fact, cool, but my criteria is a little more stringent and I have specific questions yet to be answered, so I am not content to swallow an ever evolving and complex theory just because at the moment we don't know any better.


A fact which should be taught in schools where as creationism shouldn't because it's not a scientific theory nor a fact of any sort. It's not supported with enough evidence to even be a hypothesis.
Is this your arguement that proves ET right, just because creationists are wrong or don't have any supporting evidence it automatically validates ET as a fact.
I highlighted a section In a post for you a while back that pointed out that there are numerous theories that explain Photosynthesis, that ALL these theories have evidence supporting them. Are all these theories right, and fact purely because they have evidence?
If this is YOUR criteria, fine, but please stop preaching that this is the be all and end all of the topic.
The reason why people still argue this theory is because there are massive holes in it. Not because they just want to. That is why. If it is the fact you claim it is, we would not be having these discussion in pithy chats, public forums, schools, colleges and universities. Everywhere.

Its not just creationists that have problems with ET but also many scientists, biologists, mathmeticians, physicists, philosophers.
Wistar Institute? Got your stats ready.
McShea is one who has attacked ET progression for being reliant on theory and not empirical evidence, he criticises ET for collecting "Examples" to support itself and then suggesting a trend(which they do through parsimony and distance), that trend being Evolution. Whilst looking at Progression in ET we theorise that ET progresses see alteration and improvement via random mutation and selection. We do not observe that with any consistency. Photosynthesis has remained constant and was an early innovation. In fact it stops at 95% efficiency becuse if it was 100% efficient it would absorb the entire colour spectrum making all plants black. Go figure that into Et progression?
Darcey Thompson even accused ET of purely excreteing faith in this idea that things were constantly altered and improved via Evolutionary Progression.

Comparative Genomics is realizing that DNA has a larger role outside of GENES and the production of proteins.

The Human Genome project has hired linguists to help it understand the structure more. A language. DNA. Look for languages in nature. There is only one, DNA. All the other languages on earth were created.........by us. Created. Look to see if any languages evolved without a consciousness in nature on their own, via evolution. DNA and RNA are extremely complex and would need to be so early so as to record, transfer, preserve and all new mutations and innovations and correct any errors, this is essentially the system we have in us all, everything.

However, trying to find a pathway from the primordial soup of Oparin and Haldane, to the formation of DNA strands is not so easy. Scientists have proposed many theories for the early origins of life-- from Darwin's 'warm little pond' , to the currently popular 'RNA world' . But so far, nobody has described a full set of chemical steps capable of making the jump from chaos to living organisms.
www.evolutionofdna.com...



new topics

top topics



 
65
<< 42  43  44    46  47  48 >>

log in

join