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.

 

Don't let them tell you that "The Theory of Evolution" is a fact.

page: 33
14
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 06:10 PM
link   
reply to post by whiterabbit85
 


I'm not the one who claims to be related to apes. Your theory can't be proven, but I will accept the existence of evolutionists as proof for their own theory.

There is plenty of evidence to support creation. In fact, it's the same evidence used by evolutionists to support their theory. Note: I say support, not prove. The only thing that has been proven to me is the evolution theory is unreasonable. It appeals to self arrogating man because it takes power away from God, and supports man's belief that there is no God.




posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


I don't hear anyone saying the "Fact of Evolution"



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by B.A.C.
 





I bet 90% of Evolutionists and Scientists say The Theory of Evolution is fact. This is proof of the conspiracy.


I still dont know were you heard that, so far i havent found any good source that says the same.. in fact i cant seem to find a poor source even. Perhaps you can provide a reasonable link.


The reason people may say "the theory of evolution is a fact" is when evolutionists answer those who think evolution (the fact) realy IS only theory.

This makes for misunderstandings since the evolutionist hears:
"evolution is not a fact" ..when someone like a creationist say: "the theory of evolution is not a fact".

This happens because the unbeliever calls the fact theory, while the scientist realy means "yes, the evolution is fact"

THATS IT.. no more.. Scientists DO NOT say that the theory of biological evolution is a scientific fact! They say evolution is a scientific fact.

[edit on 11-3-2009 by Daniem]



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by helster83
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


I don't hear anyone saying the "Fact of Evolution"



Me either, it's a given. Evolution is a fact. I prefer to call it Adaptation though, but I digress.

Lot's say "The Theory of Evolution is fact".

Read here:www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.
Lot's say "The Theory of Evolution is fact".

Read here:www.abovetopsecret.com...


Do those people mean what i say in my last post? Or do they seriously mean that theory is actualy a scientific fact?

Do you understand that they might mean something else? (as i point out in my last post) You gotta understand that, if you dont, then im sure you are beeing difficult.. cause you seem to have some intelligence.

[edit on 11-3-2009 by Daniem]



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Daniem
 


Daniem, throughout history (past and present) there has been a problem with teaching Theories as Facts.

What I am saying is that they know what the word "Theory" means, of course they do! Yet they won't make it clear, lest it puts doubt in someones mind. That's why they came up with the Evolution is fact AND theory. Now you can't even make a distinction if they are talking fact or theory, unless you analyze the context. Which you and I can do, but what about my 10 and 12 year old sons?

If I say "The Theory of Evolution" is just a theory, what kind of reaction can I expect? Yet it is just a theory, even though people have been conditioned to accept it as fact.


Here's a few links to verify this:

ncseweb.org...

www.associatedcontent.com...

catholicism.suite101.com...

www-english.tamu.edu...

I'm against ANY theory being taught as fact.

Also, I don't agree with this dual meaning. Evolution is a fact AND a theory. Wrong.

Let's say "Evolutionary Theory" = cup
Let's say "Evolution" the facts = coffee

Is "Evolution" the cup AND the coffee?

"Evolution" is a very politically, religiously, scientifically charged word. This was thought up to stop the naysayers in their tracks.

This isn't about me being a Creationist. If YOU allow them to start using this subtle word play, what's next? Economy means Economy AND Recession? The Economy is booming!!! Well, you know what I mean. hehe

[edit on 11-3-2009 by B.A.C.]



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by John Matrix
reply to post by Welfhard
 

So you were around 13.7 billion years ago to witness the Universe coming into existance?


Didn't have to be, just like a detective doesn't have to be around during a crime to be able to solve it. Taking the evidence and applying inductive and deductive reasoning, we can piece together an image of an event. There is light/background radiation arriving here now from places 13.7 billion light years away- meaning it's been en transit for 13.7 billion years. The fingerprints of the Big Bang have been studied for a long long time.

You're starting to take on science more than just the ToE- the backbone of biology. Which means you're advocating more than just creationism but anti-intellectualism too.


There is plenty of evidence to suggest a much younger earth. I suggest you give it a little of your time to study it.


To which I counter with the entire field of geology which gives a unanimous 4.5 billion years.


I'm not going to do the work for those who insist their ancestors were neanderthals. If you don't want to study it, remain in ignorance.


How many times do you have to hear it?! "Evolutionists" do not claim Neanderthals are our ancestors, but the evolutionary equivalent of a cousin or a sister species.


Homo neanderthalensis

In 1997, Dr. Mark Stoneking, then an associate professor of anthropology at Pennsylvania State University, stated: "These results [based on mitochondrial DNA extracted from Neanderthal bone] indicate that Neanderthals did not contribute mitochondrial DNA to modern humans… Neanderthals are not our ancestors." Subsequent investigation of a second source of Neanderthal DNA supported these findings.

en.wikipedia.org...

I already said this.


I'm not the one who claims to be related to apes.


You're not just related to apes, you are an ape buy definition of ape. One category of ape is 'Great Ape' which humans are a part of along with chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans. It's no coincidence that humans are chimps are 96-98% genetically identical.

[edit on 11-3-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 08:39 PM
link   
If you go to the Fossil Record you will find your proof. Simple lifeforms are found in the earliest geological strata and progress to more complex ones in more recent rocks.



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 08:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Circle
 


Not to mention individuals spread over the record that are different. Without evolution, there is no explanation for so many species of organisms appearing and disappearing over the aeons. If life comes from life, where commest these totally new organisms, and why do the disappear? And the individuals who are similar to other earlier or later individuals suggesting, oh I don't know, gradual change or something.

[edit on 11-3-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 09:18 PM
link   

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

If I say "The Theory of Evolution" is just a theory, what kind of reaction can I expect?


Defenders of evolution, particularly on this site, hear the statement that "Evolution is just a theory" a lot, so when you, a creationist, come along and say ''tToE is 'just' a theory" what you are actually getting at (theory = theory & fact = fact) is not clear. It doesn't help by saying "just" which always has perceived subtext.



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 10:13 PM
link   
For every species on this earth there is supposed to be at least one intermediary species. Nevermind the fossil record, we should be seeing thousands of these intermediary species roaming around the earth. We don't though. I digress again, this is off topic.

Again, why do you keep trying to prove it? I don't need evidence to know that a theory isn't fact.

This thread isn't about debating Evolution vs. Creationism. There are a million other threads to do that on.

Also for the record I didn't say it was 'just" a theory. I said "what if" I said it was just a theory.

Get the facts straight.




[edit on 11-3-2009 by B.A.C.]



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 10:45 PM
link   
i love this thread although it's getting BIG! the lesson learned here: neither creationism nor evolution are entirely true. i'd say it's a combination of both.

13.7 bil years ago the universe was reset either through a "brane" collision or just because the big bang happened. in the billions of years that followed life appeared/organized in the form of energy "beings" maybe in the background radiation (just like the "Q" beings of star trek), maybe even in the cores of primitive stars. why not stars? as a non-scientist i could assume that all those quantum phenomena happening inside a star could somehow organize and become self aware. the probability that such a energy/star being to appear is probably greater than material life (us) to appear and evolve spontaneously.

then those beings for some reasons created material life which went on and seeded other planets... each of those races went extinct while passing on the "gift" of life.

so we as humans and life on earth in general "was evolved" step by step as opposed to spontaneously evolving through bad DNA copies... i mean it's quite ridiculous to assume that you can acquire or loose entire chromosomes and transform into a different species. radiation and chemicals usually lead to diseases and death of those individuals not to evolution!

our "god" (creator) is either a material species (many generations of them most likely) or maybe even one of those energy species who decided to experiment with earth. does that mean "god" cares about each and every one of us and listens to prayers? probably not - just as we don't quite care about each ant in that ant farm
but as long as the ant farm is interesting we care for it (and then just throw it away and let them survive on their own). can we communicate with each other? quite as likely as humans and ants exchanging messages with each other... well ok humans are intelligent and could potentially talk to a material species that created us. or build some communication device that would be able to somehow communicate very basic ideas with our "energy" species creators. it all comes down to how primitive our brains are compared to theirs.

is that enough of a middle ground to make peace between the evolutionists and creationists?


of course there's still unanswered stuff like who created the multiverse for those branes to collide in the first place...


anyway i think we should just accept that we were somehow brought into existence on this planet but we should stop worshiping the creators as "gods"


[edit on 11-3-2009 by DarkSecret]



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.
For every species on this earth there is supposed to be at least one intermediary species. Nevermind the fossil record, we should be seeing thousands of these intermediary species roaming around the earth. We don't though. I digress again, this is off topic.


Every species in an intermediary species.



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 11:49 PM
link   
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


The theory of evolution is a fact. The fact is that such a theory exists.

The theory is the result of many facts, itself. Facts about evolving life forms, species arising, prospering, and dying off. When enough facts are learned and a pattern emerges a theory is proposed. Then the theory is tested. If facts are inconsistent with the theory, it is changed or discarded and a new theory is considered. So far, no facts have contradicted the theory of evolution.
The theory is actually not inconsistent with any faith and is blindly rejected only by certain indivduals who don't understand what it says. Some are so closeminded that they may never accept reality but God will look after them, as the quote says.



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard
Every species in an intermediary species.


I knew you would say that. Just like all fossils are transitional, sure they are.

Why haven't we seen even ONE new species emerge in all of human history? They should be emerging all the time. Even if it takes millions of years, they should be emerging all the time. Yet, we see species going extinct, instead of emerging. Strange.

If all species are intermediary when will they finish this process? They should be finishing and emerging as new species. Weird.

Again, I digress. This argument should be done on a Creationism vs Evolution thread.



[edit on 11-3-2009 by B.A.C.]



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.
Why haven't we seen even ONE new species emerge in all of human history?


We do, only it wouldn't matter how many documented occurances there are, you'd just stick your fingers in your ears, say that they aren't new species and challenge the concept of "Species".

Ignoring all the lab speciations an example of a speciation event that is more apparent is the on going is the horse/donkey genetic divide. They are close enough to produce viable offspring, mules and jennys, but not enough so that those offspring are fertile (germ theory). Another that is not at that stage yet is the Tiger/Lion divide. Microevolution affecting the two geographically isolated populations is making them drift apart genetically.

But in for a more complete example there is a species of mosquito that lives in London's underground whose parent species was Culex pipiens. (1999)

Another one I like is the bacteria who could process nylon.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

[edit on 12-3-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 12:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Welfhard
 


There are plenty of threads to debate Creationism vs Evolution. This is far off topic. If you agree with the theory, great. I don't.



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 12:52 AM
link   
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


You asked the question, I just answered it.



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 12:56 AM
link   

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


You asked the question, I just answered it.


Yup, then I could refute your evidence, then you could refute mine. It goes on forever. I've only been on this forum for less than 2 weeks and I'm tired of arguing about Evolution already. It never ends and doesn't get either side anywhere.

Anyway, I must say you seem like a cool person. I just don't want to argue this circular argument anymore.



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 01:04 AM
link   
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


Yea well them's the breaks. However I've seen 3 creationists rethink their beliefs about evolution.



new topics




 
14
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join