Originally posted by iWork4NWO

Needs to be asked. Does anything point to the theory of evolution being wrong? The answer: Nope. Absolutely nothing points the theory of evolution being wrong. Some might say the Bible or some other holy fairy tale, but really - That's #ing retarded.

Why answer your own question?

The creationist science view uses the exact same evidence to demonstrate their view is a logical and rational explanation, and I see nothing that disproves their model either.

Originally posted by whiterabbit85

You fail to comprehend that .....

How do you know what I comprehend or fail to comprehend. I am the expert on me.


[edit on 10/3/09 by John Matrix]

Originally posted by Fundie
You can 'try' to rationalise every individual one separately.. though it was just a glimpse, not all 75

Would you like me to also write an essay on the subject while at it? I let you pick 5. I'll answer them in more detail. Tomorrow.. now I actually need to get some stuff done.

You said you have worked in a uni now for 5 years in the bioscience dept ...

No I didn't and that's besides the point anyways..

[edit on 10-3-2009 by iWork4NWO]

Do any of you "Einstein's" out there get the "fact" that it's a waste of your time to defend the "fallacy" that evolution is proven beyond anything but a theory?

The creation model cannot be proven either. But it just makes more sense and requires no secondary assumptions. All evidences that evolutionists use to support their model is also used by creation scientists to support the creation model.

Think about it. When animals die they are eaten and destroyed, usually within days. DO you think they lie around for a million years waiting to get buried into a layer of strata? The geologic column is nothing more than different types of minerals and materials settling during a world wide flood. Animals were buried quickly and preserved in different layers.

This has been proven to be a fact as geologists were able to observe this at Spirit Lake after the Mt.St. Helen's eruption in 1980. The layers of sediment formed a perfect geologic column in a few years. Uprooted trees floated on the lake and sunk down "roots first" at various levels in the sediment as different sized trees and different types planted themselves on the bottom of the lake. The reason was the roots still absorbed the water and made the trees bottom heavy. It looks just like the geologic column, which also shows trees growing through supposed millions of years of solid rock

Originally posted by B.A.C.
Yup, an animal learns how to walk on 2 legs, this is passed down to their children? Explain how? LMAO you can't because the theory is wrong.

Umm the parent taught the skill to its children? You kind of answered this question yourself with this:

Anything we learn isn't passed down to our children, unless we teach it to them. That simple.

This has nothing to do with evolution but that's what you asked so..

What if life started here, what if life started there, what if life started because you say so.

I have an answer for where life started that is just as rational as yours.

God = Abiogenesis

Show me a better answer that isn't a conjecture or a guess.

Will you get your answer from:

Evolutionary Theory v1.0 - Origin of Species

Evolutionary Theory v2.0 - Modern

Evolutionary Theory v3.0 - Post Modern

Why does the theory keep changing? Because it wasn't right in the first place.

The whole theory depends on Abiogenesis (which we have no answers for), without it the whole theory crumbles miserably.
[edit on 10-3-2009 by B.A.C.]

So electricity didn't exist until we observed it? I disagree with theory of evolution being dependant upon abiogenesis. You could say that scientific approach to life as we see it today depends on abiogenesis and evolution. Theory of evolution on the other hand does not. It's a scientific approach to life as we see it from the first cell on. There is a difference.

A better answer than yours is one that can be falsified. Theory of evolution is very easy to falsify. I've already told you how. You can either show that our planet and the Universe aren't billions of year old, or show me a fossilised rabbit that is half a billion years old. It's that easy. Abiogenesis I guess is a lot more difficult to disprove. If you ask me it's just a matter of time. One day you'll read (or your children will read or their children etc.) that ze scientists did it in a laboratory. Don't be afraid. There's still that one gap where God can live..

Now tell me how to disprove creation? We've pretty much already disproved the biblical version. Till then abiogenesis + evolution is a clear winner (unless disproved).

[edit on 10-3-2009 by iWork4NWO]

I'm curious about the answer to this one question: Has anyone on ATS ever changed their evolutionists beliefs to a creationists belief or the other way around?

I'm guessing not.
Time to agree to disagree like gentlemen maybe?

Originally posted by John Matrix

The creation model cannot be proven either. But it just makes more sense and requires no secondary assumptions.

Evolution model can be disproven and thus it wins (at least until disproved). Also it makes a lot more sense than the creation model and doesn't require the most unlikely event of them all, a birth of a creator - the most complex thing that ever was - out of nothing.

Originally posted by iWork4NWO
Evolution model can be disproven and thus it wins (at least until disproved). Also it makes a lot more sense than the creation model and doesn't require the most unlikely event of them all, a birth of a creator - the most complex thing that ever was - out of nothing.

The Creator idea isn't as complex as FrankenCell which is what the whole theory is based on.

This single cell supposedly contained ALL the DNA information for ALL the species on earth in one cell. Sounds like you're idea is more complex.

Each to their own I guess.

I agree with John, let's just agree to disagree.

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

Originally posted by B.A.C.

Darwin's Theory HAS been disproven. Almost all aspects of it. You will find very little of Darwin's theory in the Post-Modern Theory of Evolution.

How about you make a small summary of things that have changed. I'm not saying that Darwin was infallible. No one is. I know he got one particular (and quite central thing of the theory) horribly wrong, but I reckon he noticed it even himself and said it out loud. I personally haven't read "On the Origin of Species" so I really don't know that much about all this. I bought it recently thou so I guess soon that'll change.

Did any thing with Electromagnetic Theory change? Nope, facts were added, but you can still open up a 1959's textbook and confirm the theory.

There's the difference. Evolutionary Theory is like Wikipedia, one day the information is there, the next day they've replaced it with new information.
Good Theory

Electromagnetic theory I suppose covers quite a simple phenomenon. Theory of Evolution - the central idea is simple but the mechanisms involved are plenty. It's a brilliant theory thou. I think we've mostly gotten it right already

Originally posted by B.A.C.

The Creator isn't as complex as FrankenCell which is what the whole theory is based on.

This single cell supposedly contained ALL the DNA information for ALL the species on earth in one cell. Sounds like you're idea is more complex.

I really hate it when people go about shouting theory of evolution is wrong even thou they clearly haven't even studied the friggin' theory.

"This single cell supposedly contained ALL the DNA information for ALL the species on earth in one cell"

I mean please. You're not even trying to understand. But let's live in Imaginationland and say it was like that. That amount of information is nothing compared to the amount of information that the supposed creator has. The supposed creator that didn't evolve but came out of nothing. Yeah that's not complex at all. A being that creates the friggin' Universe out of nothing and life and everything comes out of nothing as is. Really good explanation! Makes perfect sense. A+


[edit on 10-3-2009 by iWork4NWO]

Originally posted by iWork4NWO
How about you make a small summary of things that have changed. I'm not saying that Darwin was infallible. No one is. I know he got one particular (and quite central thing of the theory) horribly wrong, but I reckon he noticed it even himself and said it out loud. I personally haven't read "On the Origin of Species" so I really don't know that much about all this. I bought it recently thou so I guess soon that'll change.

I only need to show one thing that changed, because that's what Darwin's whole Theory was based on.

Darwin's Theory was built on the notion that climate, diet, and exercise cause inheritable changes that are filtered by natural selection, resulting in a gradual progression from one species to another. It had to be abandoned when subsequent studies of genetics showed that acquired characteristics are not inherited.

Enjoy.

Ok.. The one thing I don't really get is that people actually quote Darwin, of all people, when they criticize evolution. The thing is, Darwin invented entire concept allright, but most of the details wrong.

Then came other scientists who thought that the concept (idea that there is evolution) is right, although they had different opinion about details. They proved to be right, and Darwing wrong. In details, but concept is still the same.

So it does not really make any sense to quote Darwin on details, but on concept only.

Originally posted by iWork4NWO
.....doesn't require the most unlikely event of them all, a birth of a creator - the most complex thing that ever was - out of nothing.

It's difficult to comprehend an infinate creator from the perspective of a finite human, but just because you can't grasp the concept does not mean God did not create the finite universe from nothing. I see the universe as a weak outbirth of the infinate spirit realm.

Originally posted by iWork4NWO

Originally posted by B.A.C.

I only need to show one thing that changed, because that's what Darwin's whole Theory was based on.

Darwin's Theory was built on the notion that climate, diet, and exercise cause inheritable changes that are filtered by natural selection, resulting in a gradual progression from one species to another. It had to be abandoned when subsequent studies of genetics showed that acquired characteristics are not inherited.

Enjoy.

Are you #ing kidding me? Did you ever go to school?

[edit on 10-3-2009 by iWork4NWO]

Did you? You admit you haven't even looked into Darwin's Theory.

Climate, diet, or excercise does NOT cause inheritable changes. Genetics proved it.

Did you even read what I wrote?

You're clearly wrong, ask any Evolutionist if you don't believe me.

Next time, maybe YOU should do some reading and be schooled on your own school of thought. Instead of posting comic book pictures.

Unbelievable.


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