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: 55
65
<< 52  53  54    56  57  58 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 08:04 PM
link   
double post removed

[edit on 9-3-2009 by Aermacchi]




posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aermacchi
Originally posted by jfj123

Yes we all make mistakes.
My bad.
Just like the mistake you just made with your post.
Any mistake I've made was accidental. Your rudeness is on purpose.

[edit on 9-3-2009 by jfj123]



Of Course they were, now what mistakes would that be?

I don't know, whatever mistakes you were referring to. It's not worth arguing about and removing the post you weren't happy with was simple enough.


My rudness? I haven't said a word to you until I saw you mis quoting me and as far as your suggesting rudeness, care to have me cite some of your own? You have misquoted me and i busted you for it before that you were asking questions for me to answer then answering them for me then ridiculing the answer, then you ask why I don't respond to you.

1. You can keep telling me that I misquoted you but I've already removed the post you weren't happy with so now you're just being arugmentative.
2. You agreed that my assumptions were correct so there's no reason for you to bring up that again except unless of course you want to argue just to argue.


You have proven my point again, that darwinists are never wrong,

Are you slow or what? I said, "MY BAD" several times. Would you like my first born as proper compensation?


it's always an accident when they are busted and why I do not trust them anymore.

I could care less if you trust me or not. People like you who refuse to accept science as reality have no place in the real world anyway.


They have NO sense of right and wrong and continue calling evolution a fact when it is NOT.

Let me post the definition of evolution for about the 15th time. Not that you have the ability to understand it this time but here goes anyway.

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.

Some people think that in science, you have a theory, and once it's proven, it becomes a law. That's not how it works. In science, we collect facts, or observations, we use laws to describe them, and a theory to explain them. You don't promote a theory to a law by proving it. A theory never becomes a law.

This bears repeating. A theory never becomes a law. In fact, if there was a hierarchy of science, theories would be higher than laws. There is nothing higher, or better, than a theory. Laws describe things, theories explain them. An example will help you to understand this. There's a law of gravity, which is the description of gravity. It basically says that if you let go of something it'll fall. It doesn't say why. Then there's the theory of gravity, which is an attempt to explain why. Actually, Newton's Theory of Gravity did a pretty good job, but Einstein's Theory of Relativity does a better job of explaining it. These explanations are called theories, and will always be theories. They can't be changed into laws, because laws are different things. Laws describe, and theories explain.

Just because it's called a theory of gravity, doesn't mean that it's just a guess. It's been tested. All our observations are supported by it, as well as its predictions that we've tested. Also, gravity is real! You can observe it for yourself. Just because it's real doesn't mean that the explanation is a law. The explanation, in scientific terms, is called a theory.

www.notjustatheory.com...


I would have believed it if it happened only once but three times now?

Don't care, don't care, don't care, don't care, don't care, don't care if you believe me or not. I don't care. GET IT? I said, "MY BAD". Yes I made a mistake. If you don't want to accept that, frankly I don't give a crap. So like I said, I REALLY DON'T CARE WHETHER YOU BELIEVE ME OR NOT. Better yet, assume I'm lying and it's part of the scientology conspiracy to disprove the existence of god. Long live Lord Xenu !!!


How does one keep pasting "originally posted by Aermacchi" on quotes I never made?

Accident? Pfffft

yeah riiight


We of the galactic council have found your intelligence to be superior to those of mere mortals and thus we have decided you are a threat to our plans of galactic domination. We have taken the opportunity to pretend to accidentally misquote you a couple of times, according to you, on a minor thread, on some conspiracy site. Yes this is actually part of our master plan to revive lord xenu... HALE XENU !!! Your part in our master plan is still unfolding. Soon all will be revealed.
or
accept the apology and get on with your life
Whatever works for you



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Evolutionists at one time were claiming that we were only .2% different in our DNA compared to a Chimp. Sounds really close don't it? What if I told you that every .1% is actually 3 million base pair difference? Now the truth gets put into prospective. You can study this more here: evolution.berkeley.edu...



Recently, evolutionist have been trying to push a new number that says we are 99.9% the same as chimps in our DNA. There is one problem with this. We are also 99.9% the same to one another. So this new claim is saying that there are some chimps running around with 100% of our DNA. What a joke.

When the Encode project (link) started to release their results the human chimp DNA difference increased to 5% or if you are an evolutionist that would be 95% similar. However, if you include the major hiostocompatibility complex (MHC) that figure decreases to 86.7% similarity or increases to 13.7% difference. Also since they are finding that "junk DNA" is really not junk after all, and further studies are being done on them, this difference will increase even further.

When scientists compared 77,461 bacterial artificial chromosome (BAC) from chimps to that humans there was only 48.6% that matched.

All this is proving what Creationists already know the 99% similar figure given in the 1970's was very misleading.
Here is a video example of how evolutionist try and make our DNA sound so close to a chimp's.


Sounds convincing don't it? The trick is: He left out the part about the .1% difference. .1% equals 3 million base pairs difference. He also left out the other parts of the DNA (MHC) that would bring the percentage of similarity down to 86.7%. Now does that sound like we are so much alike as this guy would try and say that we are? The other assumption is that he claims that some chromosomes fused themselves together, and that this "proves" evolution. My question is: Can he even prove that they were ever apart? Without the evidence, this claim becomes an assumption. And to believe in an assumption, you have to have faith. Faith makes evolution a religion. Is it okay to have faith in science?


Evolutionists so quick to brag about us taking all the creature comforts science has brought us fail to admit they ride on the coat tails of REAL science. Their obsession to prove evolution as fact may have cost us immeasurably and some theorize brought the AIDS Virus to us and I for one am looking closely into this very real possibility. See Below:

The evils of evolution: WE HAVE EUGENICS AND COMMUNISM AND NOW AIDS




So what caused the aids virus in humans? Here is my theory of this.

Ever heard of Xenotransplantation? This is where science transplants either organs, or tissue, from an animal into a human. This was popular back in the early 60's, because science was really working on proving evolution (our relationship with the chimps, apes, babbons, etc...). If the transplants would have worked, they would have used this as evidence for evolution and our relation to chimps through evolution of DNA. Here is a history of how many times this was attempted. Keep in mind that the first recognised cases of AIDS occurred in the USA in the early 1980s. 20 years after the first experiments with Xenotransplantation, which is more than enough time for a quick mutating virus like aids to adapt to the new human systems..

1963-1964
Dr. Keith Reemtsma, a surgeon at Tulane University in New Orleans, transplants thirteen chimpanzee kidneys into humans. Twelve of the patients survive between nine and sixty days. One patient, however, survives for nine months on primitive immunosuppression drugs with no signs of rejection.

1964
While at the University of Colorado, Dr. Thomas Starzl transplants six baboon kidneys into humans. Survival rates range between nineteen and 98 days, with most patients dying of infections.

1977
Dr. Christian Barnard, the South African surgeon who had performed the first human heart allotransplant in 1967, attempts to use chimpanzee and baboon hearts as bridge organs in patients who had undergone unsuccessful open heart surgery. The recipient of the baboon heart dies after six hours, while the recipient of the chimpanzee heart survives for four days before it is rejected.

1984
Dr. Leonard Bailey leads a group of surgeons who transplant a baboon heart into a newborn infant, known as "Baby Fae," who was born with a poorly developed left side of her heart. She is treated with cyclosporine, an immunosuppressive drug that greatly increased survival rates in allotransplants, and survives for twenty days before the heart is rejected. Some have speculated that blood type incompatibility between Baby Fae and the donor baboon may have played a role in the rejection process.



Baby Fae, a lesson unlearned.

1992
Dr. Thomas Starzl, now at the University of Pittsburgh, transplants a baboon kidney into a patient with AIDS and hepatitis B, because it is believed baboons are resistant to hepatitis B. The patient survives for 70 days, with no evidence of rejection. He dies of an infection his body could not fight off due to heavy immunosuppression. In the fall of 1999 it is discovered that archived blood and tissue samples of the patient contained baboon cytomegalovirus. It remains undetermined whether the virus had infected human cells or whether baboon cells had migrated from the liver into other tissues.

A Polish surgeon transplants a pig heart into a human patient, who survives for less than 24 hours. The cause of death is attributed to the small size of the heart, which could not support the body's circulatory system.

On Christmas Eve, scientists at Imutran deliver the first transgenic pig, which they name Astrid. The group of scientists, led by Dr. David White, had inserted a small amount of human DNA into a fertilized pig egg, in an attempt to create pig organs that would not be rejected by humans.

1993
Dr. Thomas Starzl again attempts transplanting a baboon liver into a patient suffering from hepatitis B. This patient never regains consciousness after the operation, and dies of infection under heavy immunosuppression. Starzl, who had received permission for several more xenotransplant operations, halts his program to perform further research regarding transplant rejection.

1995
Scientists at Diacrin, Inc. receive FDA permission to begin clinical trials using fetal pig neurons to treat patients suffering from Parkinson's disease. These Phase 1 trials when concluded show efficacy and no safety problems, leading to Phase 2 trials in the late 1990s.

In May, scientists from Nextran announce that they have developed transgenic pig hearts that survive as long as 30 hours inside baboons, as compared to the 60 to 90 minute survival time for regular pig hearts. In July, the FDA approves Nextran's proposal to use transgenic pig livers as bridge organs on up to ten patients.

AIDS patient Jeff Getty receives a transplant of baboon bone marrow cells at San Francisco General Hospital, performed by Dr. Suzanne Ilstaad. Because baboon stem cells are resistant to AIDS, the hope was that they would help Getty's bone marrow produce AIDS-fighting immune cells. The baboon cells do not take; they remain in Getty's system for only two weeks after the transplant. He is still alive and blood tests so far have not revealed any baboon viruses in his system.

1997
Professor Robin Weiss discovers that viruses embedded in every pig cell -- known as porcine endogenous retroviruses (PERV) -- can infect human cells in culture. In the journal Nature he reports that each pig cell carries approximately 50 copies of the PERV virus, and that up to three of them are capable of infecting human cells. As a result, in October the FDA halts all clinical trials until researchers can prove they have developed procedures to detect low levels of PERV virus infection. The moratorium is lifted in January 1998.

1998
Professor Fritz Bach of Harvard Medical School and colleagues call for a moratorium on human clinical xenotransplant trials until the public has debated the risk.

1999
The FDA effectively bans use of nonhuman primates in xenotransplants, citing the risk of cross-species infection.

A study of 160 people who had received various pig tissues and/or cells reveals that none had been infected with the PERV virus. The study was conducted by researchers at Imutran, in collaboration with the CDC and reported in the journal Nature science.

2000
Scientists at PPL Therapeutics in Scotland announce in the journal Nature that they have cloned five piglets for the first time. A team of Japanese scientists announces in the journal Science that they have also cloned a piglet using a different method

Scientists at Infigin announce in the journal Nature Biotechnology that they have produced two litters of transgenic, cloned pigs.

In the journal Nature, Dr. Daniel Salomon of the Scripps Research Institute announces the results of a study which found transmission of the PERV virus during a transplant of pig pancreatic cells into heavily immunosuppressed diabetic mice. This finding is the first evidence of cross-species transmission of a retrovirus during a transplant. Salomon found that the mice developed PERV infections that lasted for as long as two months before going dormant.

The British animal rights organization Uncaged Campaigns receives leaked documents of an Imutran study of the survivability of pig organs in primates over a five-year period. The study showed the average survival time was thirteen days, with a quarter of the primates dying within two days.

The International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation issues a report which advises that clinical xenotransplantation trials should not be undertaken until authorities have determined a minimal virus risk, and until 60% of pig organs survive in non-human primates for a minimum of three months. However, they conclude "Xenotransplantation has the potential to solve the problem of donor organ supply, and therefore research in this field should be actively encouraged and supported."

2001
The United Kingdom Xenotransplantation Regulatory Authority (UKXIRA) publishes its third annual report, which states "Although alternative therapies are in development, xenotransplantation may still offer the prospect of a viable treatment within a worthwhile time frame. However, on the basis of current evidence, whole-organ xenotransplantation, as a solution to the ongoing shortage of organs for transplant, appears to be some way off." They conclude that they do not support a moratorium on xenotransplantation, and that until the infection risk is understood, they will assess particular procedures on a case-by-case basis.

2001, March
Preliminary analysis of Phase 2 controlled trials treating Parkinson's disease patients with injected pig neuro cells indicate a setback. Although there were improvements, the study found no difference in the improvements between the patients who had been treated with the pig cells and those who had a placebo treatment.

Reference: Front Line.

Could this be a cause of the aids virus?

In February 1999 it was announced that a group of researchers from the University of Alabama had studied frozen tissue from a chimpanzee and found that the simian virus it carried (SIVcpz) was almost identical to HIV-1. The chimpanzee came from a sub-group of chimpanzees known as Pan troglodytes troglodytes, which were once common in west-central Africa.

It is claimed by the researchers that this shows that these chimpanzees were the source of HIV-1, and that the virus at some point crossed species from chimpanzees to human. However, it was not necessarily clear that chimpanzees were the original reservoir for HIV-1 because chimpanzees are only rarely infected with SIVcpz.

The findings of this 10-year long research into the origin and evolution of HIV by Paul Sharp of Nottingham University and Beatrice Hahn of the University of Alabama were published in 2003. They concluded that wild chimps became infected simultaneously with two simian immunodeficiency viruses (SIVs) which had "viral sex" to form a third virus capable of infecting humans and causing AIDS.

Professor Sharp and his colleagues discovered that the chimp virus was an amalgam of the SIV infecting red-capped mangabeys and the virus found in greater spot-nosed monkeys. They believe that the hybridisation took place inside chimps that had become infected with both strains of SIV after hunting and killing the two smaller species of monkey.

Reference.

Other things to research:

cmr.asm.org...
www.mrmcmed.org...
www.organicconsumers.org...

Google: www.google.com...






[edit on 9-3-2009 by Aermacchi]



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123



Just because it's called a theory of gravity, doesn't mean that it's just a guess. It's been tested. All our observations are supported by it, as well as its predictions that we've tested. Also, gravity is real! You can observe it for yourself. Just because it's real doesn't mean that the explanation is a law. The explanation, in scientific terms, is called a theory.

www.notjustatheory.com...



I like the equivocations Darwinists so often do. Here we see again the slick trickery of the darwinist speaking out both sides of their mouths again.

First it is the Law of gravity and totally differen't according to another evolutionist website. See Below:


Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to describe, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and univseral, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don’t really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.

Specifically, scientific laws must be simple, true, universal, and absolute. They represent the cornerstone of scientific discovery, because if a law ever did not apply, then all science based upon that law would collapse.


Some scientific laws, or laws of nature, include the law of gravity, Newton's laws of motion, the laws of thermodynamics, Boyle's law of gases, the law of conservation of mass and energy, and Hook’s law of elasticity.


This is why evolution is not the law of evolution and not the fact of evolution. See where he says "Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact" pertaining to law of gravity.

Interesting to note why this was neccessary to mention is just more of the way evolutionists confuse and conspire against other very good and very real areas of science.




Development of a Simple Theory by the Scientific Method:

Observation: Every swan I've ever seen is white.
Hypothesis: All swans must be white.

Test: A random sampling of swans from each continent where swans are indigenous produces only white swans.

Publication: "My global research has indicated that swans are always white, wherever they are observed."

Verification: Every swan any other scientist has ever observed in any country has always been white.

Theory: All swans are white.

Prediction: The next swan I see will be white.

Note, however, that although the prediction is useful, the theory does not absolutely prove that the next swan I see will be white. Thus it is said to be falsifiable. If anyone ever saw a black swan, the theory would have to be tweaked or thrown out. (And yes, there are really black swans. This example was just to illustrate the point.)

Real scientific theories must be falsifiable. So-called "theories" based on religion, such as creationism or intelligent design are, therefore, not scientific theories. They are not falsifiable and they do not follow the scientific method.


Just because they say it ain't so, doesn't mean it ain't so.

This we know for if macro evolution were ever subject to the scientific method, it would fail by tripping over the logical fallacy of assuming the consequent.

Also NOTE wher he says "the theory would have to be tweaked or thrown out."

We know evolutionist not only tweak it, Darwin himself wouldn't even recognize his own theory anymore it has been re-configured re-packaged, re-cut, and re nounced as BUNK so many times it is just sillyness anymore



[edit on 9-3-2009 by Aermacchi]



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 09:16 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


Here we see the same innuendo where if I reject evolution I reject "science" I was telling you the gentle reader about so often happens when dealing with Darwinists. We see here this should be used as the typical response of the Darwinist who just can't let things lay and must insult me now after accusing me of being rude he becomes just what he accuses and isn't that just what I have been saying in this thread would happen proving my point once again. Just read this "stuff" and tell me if this sounds like someone, a mature sensible adult in the so called science community. If you're honest and like most of us this would best be the kind of thing creationsist have learned to expect when evolutionist can't back up their bravado with anything more than ridicule *Yawn*


Save this link to show the typical actions we are so used to seeing by them www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


by the way,,

apology accepted



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 10:38 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 

Just because you can't comprehend the numerous posts placed here by him and others that have COMPLETELY debunked evolution doesn't mean they havent been posted,you seem to do that alot when it comes to scientifically,mathmatically,disproving your religion.Yes, your belief in evolution is based on faith since you've been unable to provide any evidence of it actually tacking place,i'm talking a tree into a cat,a cat into a horse,a horse into a turnip, turnip into a monkey,monkey into a man etc. Your inability or unwillingness to grasp the mathmatics that PROVE there simply is not enough time based on evolutionist own time frame for life to have evolved.Yet you blindly, faithfully,lovingly adhere to your faith in evolution,while at the same time acting as if the other posts to the contrary never happened.That makes you a religous zealot & that's fine,just open your eyes & recognize it & you may find a whole new universe opened up to you,Unicorns,Magic carpet rides,Puff the Magic dragon, even a government that truly has your best intrest at heart & is totally compliant to the will of it's governed.You will find,sadly that there is as much a chance of the later as there is of the former,& yet you will still believe,you have a truly amazing amount of faith,a bonafide zealot of the first degree no mater how ridiculous you sound.Congratulations, you have sucessfully completed the U.S. governments course of officially aproved religions & sciences. Well Done!



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 11:13 PM
link   
I'm having a real problem.

Obviously, I'vce nettled someone (as if I were slipping bamboo shoots under his/her fingernails)!!! Sheesh!

My problem is, in one word.....'rationality'.

Every post, BTW, scores more for the OP....which I have no problem with....

The very TITLE of this thread was tongue-in-cheek. Yet, look at the firestorm!!!!

I pride myself on being of a rational mind. If THAT means, because I find organised religion be 'irrational', do I deserve to be labeled a 'HATER'?

No.

IF 'rational thinking' is my so-called "faith"....then I will embrace it.

BUT, I will NOT call it "faith". Because, a 'rational' thinker will consider ALL possibilities.

The new word, to replace "faith" is.....'possibility'.

Many, many 'faiths'.....and, in deference to certain audience members....I'll begrudingly, maybe, include science into that category....

NO!!! I won't! Because, science is NOT a faith!!! Science is why your Refrigerator works! Your Air-Conditioner! Your Car!

Science is all around you, and taken for granted.....which, likely, is what fundamentaist religious people will also say....but, science is demonstrable, repeatable.....religious 'faith' is, in comparison....a truly personal outlook, that should remain personal.

My 'views' on religion, throughout Human History have nothing to do with 'hatred'.....it is what OTHERS have done, in the 'name' of these religions, where true evil lies.

Circles back, doesn't it? A so-called 'god' "created" the very being that is able to persecute others for having different beliefs.....THEN wants to be 'worshipped'???

Concept? = EPIC FAIL

-- rationality --



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 12:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
I'm having a real problem.

Obviously, I'vce nettled someone (as if I were slipping bamboo shoots under his/her fingernails)!!! Sheesh!

My problem is, in one word.....'rationality'.

Every post, BTW, scores more for the OP....which I have no problem with....

The very TITLE of this thread was tongue-in-cheek. Yet, look at the firestorm!!!!

I pride myself on being of a rational mind. If THAT means, because I find organised religion be 'irrational', do I deserve to be labeled a 'HATER'?

No.

IF 'rational thinking' is my so-called "faith"....then I will embrace it.

BUT, I will NOT call it "faith". Because, a 'rational' thinker will consider ALL possibilities.

The new word, to replace "faith" is.....'possibility'.

Many, many 'faiths'.....and, in deference to certain audience members....I'll begrudingly, maybe, include science into that category....

NO!!! I won't! Because, science is NOT a faith!!! Science is why your Refrigerator works! Your Air-Conditioner! Your Car!

Science is all around you, and taken for granted.....which, likely, is what fundamentaist religious people will also say....but, science is demonstrable, repeatable.....religious 'faith' is, in comparison....a truly personal outlook, that should remain personal.

My 'views' on religion, throughout Human History have nothing to do with 'hatred'.....it is what OTHERS have done, in the 'name' of these religions, where true evil lies.

Circles back, doesn't it? A so-called 'god' "created" the very being that is able to persecute others for having different beliefs.....THEN wants to be 'worshipped'???

Concept? = EPIC FAIL

-- rationality --




*yawn* yeah,, whatever, weedy, when you ever decide to get on topic and quit pontificating on your soapbox,,

let us know k thx



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 01:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Aermacchi
 


ermmmmm....this actually IS the topic, 'macchi'!!!

let's re-cap....."Origins and Creationism" Forum? Check!

Title....."Evolution, it's only a theory"...Check!

On topic? ...Check!

Seems only the nettled ones wish to argue.

and....."soapbox"???

that is rich!!!!!


It is sad, so sad, that a serie of folklore, and tales, handed down, eventually written down at some point, then argued over.....until finally being put into a 'book'.....then, of course, a 'revision' of that original 'book' will trump reason, rational thinking, and science.

And, I thought 'denying ignorance' was the point of ATS?



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 02:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Aermacchi
 


ermmmmm....this actually IS the topic, 'macchi'!!!

let's re-cap....."Origins and Creationism" Forum? Check!

Title....."Evolution, it's only a theory"...Check!

On topic? ...Check!

Seems only the nettled ones wish to argue.

and....."soapbox"???

that is rich!!!!!


It is sad, so sad, that a serie of folklore, and tales, handed down, eventually written down at some point, then argued over.....until finally being put into a 'book'.....then, of course, a 'revision' of that original 'book' will trump reason, rational thinking, and science.

And, I thought 'denying ignorance' was the point of ATS?


So evolution is just a theory is about the Bible?

Like I said weed since you and your Darwits got trumped by the facts of creationists and all the posts by Darwits have been debunked you do what all Darwits have done when they don't have anything substantive to say, they mock and ridicule a 2000 year old book that apparently had it right all along and it ain't even a science book.

Ha ha ha



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 02:32 AM
link   

The fact is they are all faux facts and deliberate frauds andre and their is NO excuse for it .

Who cares if mistakes are made in the way they got discovered as fakes when the FACT is THEY ARE FAKES PERIOD!


One thing, I’m guessing most of these fakes are motivated by people who are in it for the fame and money instead of proving evolution. Just a thought.


No one knows who did it either. And more importantly, why? Errors were already known and previously reported, but few ever suspected fraud because, what would be the motive? Nearly everyone who stood accused was a man of high reputation and credentials. Maybe that was the motive. Maybe Piltdown man was just a joke that had gone too far.




-creationists still portray both of these events, and many others, as if they were all part of some ridiculous unified international conspiracy intended to fool the world into believing evolution over creation ex-nihilo. These paranoid propagandists also commonly contend -based only on these exceptions- that each of the thousands of fossil hominids we’ve found and confirmed before and since were all proven to be fakes too




You know why we think it is a conspiracy? Because the United States Congress PROVED IT!

Because Haekels stupid asinine tweaked embryos are STILL published in text Books!


And if you went back to page 28 you would have seen the explanation I posted on that as well – you’re so quick to complain but when the reasonable evidence shows the reality of it all you seem to always be wrong!

So your good old United States Congress proved nothing. There is no conspiracy.


Originally posted by andre18

Haekel’s faked embryonic drawings


darwinwasright.homestead.com...


Ernst Haeckel was a pioneer zoologist and taxonomist whose numerous contributions to biology go largely unnoticed compared to a couple rather odd errors. First, he proposed that “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny", suggesting that embryonic development reflects the organism’s evolutionary ancestry. To illustrate this, he produced about a hundred drawings of embryos at various stages. But he later admitted that about a half-dozen of them were ‘falsified’ due to a lack of visual references. The fact that any of his drawings were admittedly without reference has disgraced Haeckel’s name in the annals of science.

Darwin wrote that embryology contained compelling evidence of evolution. Creationists dismiss this on the assumption that Darwin’s theory was inspired by Haeckel’s fraudulent drawings, and that consequently, evolution is a fraud. But of course the truth is the other way around. Darwin referred to real embryos; Haeckel’s drawings didn’t even exist until years after Darwin’s final publication.

What is especially sad about Haeckel’s “embellishments” was that they were unnecessary. Creationists adamantly complain that textbooks referred to his admittedly inaccurate drawings for so long. But for some reason, they continue to accuse those authors of fraud even when those books replace the drawings with microphotographs which still indicate those same evolutionary parallels which Haeckel envisioned. Now his original assumption that embryonic development would indicate adult species in an organism’s ancestral history was proven false by 1910. But the fact Darwin recognized, that embryology does provide testable confirmations and predictions of phylogeny was already evident before Haeckel ever picked up his pencil, and has recently began a new embryological study known as “evo devo”. Among other discoveries, this field revealed the evolutionary origin of the feather, as implied by transitional stages in the fossil record, and summarized in the formation of feathers in developing chickens.

It is no hoax that mammalian embryos temporarily have pharyngeal pouches, which are morphologically indistinguishable from the gill slits in modern fish embryos, and that the divergence of development from there matches what is indicated in the fossil record. This is fact, not fraud. And none of these facts should be true unless evolution were true also.



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 02:51 AM
link   
Hey Andre,

I'm gonna post some material, I wanna see if you have any answers for. Again, I'm against the theory as you are aware.

I'll start with this:


Evolutionists are laboring under the false impression that rock layers represent vastly different ages of time. When fossils of one species appear in widely-separated layers, but not the intervening ones, they have to concoct some explanation as to why that species existed in disconnected time frames. The three main explanations are the Lazarus taxon (the species did exist all along, but was so rare that no fossils have been found), the Elvis taxon (the species went extinct, but then a very similar imposter evolved later), and zombies (the fossils walked into another layer after they were dead). The real explanation is that they are just plain wrong about the different layers of rock representing vastly different periods of time.


And this:


Scientific American Evolution Issue 2009

Darwin was not only unable to say where variants came from, he did not explain how those new traits could spread in subsequent generations. He believed in blending inheritance, the idea that offspring take on characteristics intermediate between their parents. But even Darwin recognized that the theory was problematic because if traits truly blended, then any rare new variant would be progressively diluted by generations of breeding with the great mass of individuals that did not share the trait.


I'll post more after, I'm about to head to bed. This'll do for now.


[edit on 10-3-2009 by B.A.C.]



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 04:29 AM
link   
You were not thinking hard enough.

Originally posted by andre18


I apologize but after some thinking last night I've come to a realisation that evolution is not a ......... I do not think it is a "fact" - think of it like this...

There is a dead body (fact) with a knife in its back (fact) with another person's fingerprints on the knife (fact) and the body is badly bruised as if it has been kicked after the victim died (fact) and the head has been cut off (fact) and put on a pole (fact) with a note that says "That will teach you!" (fact) and there is a video tape of someone stabbing, kicking and beheading the victim. It looks like a murder but it could all have been faked to make it seem like murder.

How do you know the "body" wasn't dead before hand, before the knife etc. How do you explain how the "body" got there, what circumstances surround the genesis of the body being there?. How do you know how many individuals were involved. How do you know? How do you know the finger prints belong to the person that put the knife there, after all they are just fingerprints on a knife? How do you know the "note" was put there as an explanation, and not to cover a suicide, to make it look like a murder? YOU HAVE TO ASSUME ALL THIS.
Questions, doubts, reconstructing a scenario from what would appear obvious. But, you just never know Andre, you just never know. I think your analogy is bad but the effort is there.


The theory of the detectives is that this is a murder. Notice that the word "murder" appears in the description of the events and it is the name of the "theory".It's kinda like that with evolution.
Yes it is, there are lots of assumptions.

The fossil record is a fact.
Yes it is a fact, but is the interpretation?

The DNA evidence is a fact.
Yes, and it argues with ET.

The observations by Darwin and the list of millions of observations made by countless scientists in the last hundred years are facts.
Yes, observations only of a couple of hundred years suddenly explains billions of years...umm...ok.

Rocks dated by separate laboritories in blind tests fit together fact.
Of rocks. Thats all. It doesn't prove the interpretations or the inference in parsimony and distance that tree lines are drawn from to show evolution..

The changes mankind can make to dogs, birds, cattle, via selective breeding are facts.
YEs, selectively weeding out characteristic, not generating whole new species.

Mutations are facts.
Yes the majority being nuetral, another mystery and point of arguement.95% in us is neutral, while 5% is missense, see disease. No % evolution, hang on, I'll give it a few years.

That modern animals do not appear in earlier rock strata are facts.
Go figure, I guess that is why they call them modern.LOL.

It looks a lot like over vast time evolution has taken place
WRONG, what about that it has happened in explosions and not a progressive and steady process, Early explosion up to the Archean, then Cambrian. Massive concentration of "beneficial evolutionary progression"....hang on I thought it required looooong periods of time.



but it could be an all-powerful God playing tricks on us so he can burn the most rational people, or just to be a jackass..
Could be, or perhaps that G.D has you for the jacka$$ bit. Who knows how it all started, perhaps it was dirty brown water with a few aminos in it that was hit by lightening. LOL. Urey and Miller crack me up.


The theory that makes the most sense to people who have studied these facts is evolution. The Theory is the explanation that explains the long list of facts.
Correct. Although as for making sense, it's missing gaps so I guess it will make sense when we can explain Abiogenesis and DNA, hoxgenes, photosynthesis. It will make sense when we can agree on what caused the cambrian, when we can know and not suggest that eukaryotes evolved from prokaryotes, further this would make even more sense when we can believe that these earliest evolutionary processes are heavily reliant on Wallin'/Margulis' SET theory on symbiosis(theory within theory) which is in direct arguement with Darwin's actual theory, which states a "survival of the fittest", or a persistent competition amongst individuals and groups of species. But anyway, I guess it all makes sense when you just accept and believe.



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 04:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by atlasastro
But anyway, I guess it all makes sense when you just accept and believe.


Must take a lot of faith to believe all that. Whew. I thought the Bible was difficult to understand.

This Theory almost sounds similar to a belief system.
Or maybe Anti - Belief system is a better description.

Good Points. Starred.


Originally posted by andre18
I apologize but after some thinking last night I've come to a realisation that evolution is not a ......... I do not think it is a "fact"


This comment is priceless after arguing with me about this for 3 days.




[edit on 10-3-2009 by B.A.C.]



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 05:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aermacchi
reply to post by jfj123
 


Here we see the same innuendo where if I reject evolution I reject "science" I was telling you the gentle reader about so often happens when dealing with Darwinists. We see here this should be used as the typical response of the Darwinist who just can't let things lay and must insult me now after accusing me of being rude he becomes just what he accuses and isn't that just what I have been saying in this thread would happen proving my point once again. Just read this "stuff" and tell me if this sounds like someone, a mature sensible adult in the so called science community. If you're honest and like most of us this would best be the kind of thing creationsist have learned to expect when evolutionist can't back up their bravado with anything more than ridicule *Yawn*


Save this link to show the typical actions we are so used to seeing by them www.abovetopsecret.com...

And just why did I respond to you with this attitude?
Oh yes, due to your absurd attitude throughout this thread AND
the fact that no matter how many times I apologized for accidentally misquoting you, you kept accusing me more and more saying it wasn't an accident.
I can't say your attitude annoys me as your not worth becoming angry at however having a discussion with you and a few others, is a bit like slamming my head into a brick wall over and over hoping to get a different result each time
The reality is that there is no getting through to you.



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 05:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by bootsnspurs33
reply to post by jfj123
 

Just because you can't comprehend the numerous posts placed here by him and others that have COMPLETELY debunked evolution

You must be reading a different thread as that has happened here. Pretending it has, doesn't change the fact that evolution is real and verifiable.


doesn't mean they havent been posted,you seem to do that alot when it comes to scientifically,mathmatically,disproving your religion.

I haven't scientifically, mathematically disproved christianity. That would be a double negative and disproving a double negative is not possible. My religion is catholicism, evolution is a science based on evidence.


Yes, your belief in evolution is based on faith

No it's based on scientific evidence. Evolution couldn't be called a theory unless this was the case. Evidently you've chosen not to read any of this thread.

Many people have posted evidence here to support evolution. Your refusal to believe it, doesn't make it any less real. Your mentality is those of the salem witch trials. Logic and reason obviously has no place in your life as you've decided evolution is the enemy of your faith and the enemy must die regardless of whether it's guilty or innocent.



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 05:39 AM
link   
Aermacchi... whilst you have good points (yes, I concede you have good points! Scary isn't it?)... how do people with unknown motives, out to fool people, mean that ALL fossils must therefore be fake?

You also seem to show a basic misunderstanding of sickle cell anaemia and how it interacts with malaria, both of which overlap in the same areas. Yes, it's classified as a genetic disease, but having it (or rather, having the genetics for sickle cell and normal red cells) means that you have a better chance of survival against malaria. How is that not an advantage when you live around that area?

sickle.bwh.harvard.edu...

Sickle hemoglobin provides the best example of a change in the hemoglobin molecule that impairs malaria growth and development. The initial hints of a relationship between the two came with the realization that the geographical distribution of the gene for hemoglobin S and the distribution of malaria in Africa virtually overlap. A further hint came with the observation that peoples indigenous to the highland regions of the continent did not display the high expression of the sickle hemoglobin gene like their lowland neighbors in the malaria belts. Malaria does not occur in the cooler, drier climates of the highlands in the tropical and subtropical regions of the world. Neither does the gene for sickle hemoglobin.



Figure 2 is a schematic of the natural selection that occurs with the gene for sickle hemoglobin in areas endemic for P. falciparum malaria. The left-hand side of the panel shows the situation in people with two genes encoding normal hemoglobin A (designated by red). These people have a significant chance of dying of acute malarial infection in childhood. In contrast, people with two genes for sickle hemoglobin (shown in green) are likely to succumb to sickle cell disease at an early age, as shown in the right-hand side of the figure. In the center are people with sickle cell trait who possess one gene for normal hemoglobin and one gene for sickle hemoglobin. These children are more likely to survive their initial acute malarial attacks than are people with two genes for normal hemoglobin. Also, they suffer none of the morbidity and mortality of sickle cell disease. Therefore, the people with sickle cell trait are more likely to reach reproductive age and pass their genes on to the next generation (Ringelhann, et al., 1976).




The evils of evolution: WE HAVE EUGENICS AND COMMUNISM AND NOW AIDS


WTF? What does scientists doing experiments (getting them horribly, horribly wrong though) with animal organs to see if they could help with transpants have to do with evolution? You have eugenics? I thought that only happened in countries in europe.

What does Communism have to do with evolution?


[edit on 10-3-2009 by ShiningSabrewolf]

[edit on 10-3-2009 by ShiningSabrewolf]



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 09:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Aermacchi
 


Your post on page 54. Is that the best you've got out of all the thousands or whatever massive number of cases which you claim exist? Haeckel & T-rex blood, nothing else? Could you please list at least 10 cases where a fraud was clearly committed (with proper sources of course)? Shouldn't be too hard if the rate of fraud is/was massive like you claim. The things you put forth are really #ing vague. I have no desire to become a victim of excessive quoting from some brainless fundie propaganda website like yecheadquarters.org

Oh and prove that Haeckel committed an intentional fraud. Compare his drawings (if you can find them, I bet you've never even seen them) to mri images of embryos. Then consider when this guy lived. I'd say he did a fantastic job. And further he didn't draw those pictures as an effort to support the theory of evolution. Nope, it was an effort to support the theory of recapitulation. Sorry you fail!


Also explain the nature of the fraud committed in the t-rex blood case? Scientists can't (or couldn't, I'm not very up-to-date on this) yet explain with great certainty why they were able to isolate DNA from t-rex bones. Where's the fraud?


I think your post alone proves that you clearly lied. I mean seriously, is that the best case you can build from a massive number of cases? Well done sir! #ing epic fail!


[edit on 10-3-2009 by iWork4NWO]



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 11:54 AM
link   
One more post to support Haeckel and put your creationist propaganda site to shame.

Your fundie site talks about "Haeckel's fraud" and links to youtube, here's a screencap of the film in question:



Now this is what the actual actual chicken embryos look like (source):



So what do you think? How about that EphB3 for example? I'd say Haeckel's drawing is closer to the actual thing than the "actual" they provide in the film. And imagine how long ago he did it. This man was #ing brilliant! LOL creationists caught red handed.


[edit on 10-3-2009 by iWork4NWO]



new topics

top topics



 
65
<< 52  53  54    56  57  58 >>

log in

join