What they won't say about Evolution., page 1
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 3 times
Topic started on 3-5-2004 @ 04:12 PM by flyby
Did you know that Evolution has more flaws in it than MCI? Let us Look at the
facts carefully. What most professional evolutionists will admit only in private
is there is no scientific evidence for evolution!

>Flaws in the Assumptions of Evolutions
Sediment Dating
Georges Cuvier assumed that each layer of sediment occurs one at a time.
>Flaws:
The Mississippi Delta grows by 300 ft/year. How can evolutionists explain this.
Radioactive Carbon Dating
>Flaws
Groundwater seeps through the Earth carrying with the radioactive elements. Of all
known radioactive elements, only C14 does not dilute with water.
Even recent eruptions have been tested and found to vary a couple of million years.
Mount Ngauruhoe is a good example.
Were the continents molten?
>Flaws
No. The Earth's oceans only have 15 million years of settlements How can evolutionists
explain this?
Biology
Where is the Primordial Soup Evolutionists claim exist.
The probabilities for life to come from randonmess is so small that it would be
easier to violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics. 1 in 10^4,478,296
If junk DNA exists, why does it then produce necessary activities for life?
How easy is it to make a 100 amino acid by chance. (1/20)^100 This will turn
out to be in 10 with 130 zero's comming after to 1. Sir Fred Hoyle and Professor
Chandra Wickramasinghe calculated the probability of life at 10^40000 to 1
The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that disorder must increase in a closed
system with time. Yet the order of the universe as a whole has stayed the same.
The Law of the Conversation of Angular Momentum forces all matter to stay at a
course. How can the Big Bang Theory explain for the order and the planetary motion
that we see today?

[Edited on 17-5-2004 by John bull 1]


reply posted on 3-5-2004 @ 11:00 PM by silQ
Originally posted by Camelopárdalis
Anyone who says creation is bunk denies reality. Most of what God was supposed to have done 6000 years ago, we are able to do today, the rest of what he did, we will be able to within the near future. And concidering that the average star in our galaxy is 1 billion years older than our own Sun, meaning that if there evolved a civilisation somewhere in our galaxy most like our own, that civilisation would most likely be one billion years older than our own. Where would we be in a billion years you think? Well if we're still around, we will most likely know how to commit interstellar, even intergalactic, perhaps even inter universal or inter dimentional travel, and we would have found the solution to life and freedom of disease etc. Very little of what the Bible says about God's creatiuon is unlikely. Infact nothing, if you just put on the right glasses.

Evolution theory, however, has never been proved. There is no proof indicating that one species has become another. Creation, however, has been done a bunch of times. The first successful cloning happened about 50 years ago. Where do you think they are now? Do you really think they are honest when they deny having cloned humans? Maybe even created "aliens" by combining human DNA and reptile DNA.......

HAHHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! o that's rich! i needed a good laugh. actually, all ur so-called "evidence" for creationism is based on what a story book mixed in with some of thoughts and ideas of urself or other people. the only reason as to y u believe in the bible was probably cuz ur parents told u to. but the more educated person would form their own opinion and break away from the system. christianity isn't the only religion u know. there are tons of other religions out there with their own idea as to how the earth was created and blah blah blah. i for one would never listen to a 1000 year old book that was translated by HUMANS, namely King James who translated the bible into english, and we all know that humans never lie and they're always honest? pffft....YEA RIGHT! how do u know king james didn't put some other stuff in his version of the bible?!?! how do u know that he translated it correctly? u also said that there was no evidence of evolution. well that's because u follow a dumb cult who's members are too stupid to find their own @ss! there are tons! in one case, an certain population of amoebas was infected with bacteria. those who survived the illness actually learned how to harness the bacteria into an energy factory and thus, a new species of amoeba was born. there is also the monkeys which i have stated in my previous posting under this topic.

P.S. personally, i wouldn't trust a cult who tried to claim that the earth was the center of the universe until the early 20th century. they also suppressed many scientific findings of newton, gallileo, and other famous scientists many of whom had theories that later proved to be correct! christianity has been trying to cover its flaws and fallacies by using science as a scapegoat! i'm sure that u heard about the meeting of bishops to discuss the sex scandal done by priests. u know what they did? they decided to bar homos from becoming priests! like that's gonna help! the church always finds a scapegoat to hides its own mistakes! therefore, the church is wrong, false, evil, and bent on controlling our daily lives!

P.S.S. It's still called the THEORY of evolution. a theory is subject to change! a theory doesn't become rock hard fact until it's known as a PRINCIPLE so in order for the theory of evolution to become hard fact, it has to become the principle of evolution. unlike creationism where it's written as hard fact in the best selling book in the world for #ing god sake! and since it's taught as fact AND it has many many many flaws, the idea of creation is debunked and is a complete lie.

[Edited on 3-5-2004 by silQ]


reply posted on 4-5-2004 @ 04:50 AM by amantine
Why does a discussion about evolution always also include a discussion about abiogenesis and cosmology? This is supposed to be discussion about evolution (hence the title). Abiogenesis, how life started, has nothing to do with the validity of evolution. Abiogenesis described how the lifeform got there and evolution says what happened from there. If abiogenesis is false, evolution doesn't have to be false.

No transistory fossils? The transition from reptiles to birds is described by a list of 23 species: Eoraptor, Herrerasaurus, Ceratosaurus, Allosaurus, Compsognathus, Sinosauropteryx, Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, Velociraptor, Sinovenator, Beipiaosaurus, Sinornithosaurus, Microraptor, Archaeopteryx, Rahonavis, Confuciusornis, Sinornis, Patagopteryx, Hesperornis, Apsaravis, Ichthyornis, and Columba (
source). That link also contains the examples from reptiles to mammals, from apes and humans and land-mammals to marine mammals, with references and examples.

Human evolution? Hominid species evolution with fossil examples.

How do creationists explain that species which evolution says have evolved from the same ancestor have the same retrovirus-DNA still in their DNA? The trees made with retrovirus DNA are the same as the trees made from morphological and DNA comparisons. Differences in cytochrome-DNA also show the same trees. Did God make all those things exactly so it would seem like evolution was true?

Symbiotic organisms were not symbiotic before they were together. When they started living together, they evolved to be symbiotic.

[Edited on 4-5-2004 by amantine]


reply posted on 4-5-2004 @ 06:16 AM by jlc163
I don't have time to take care of all this right now, but I have the reasonable proof on some of this.

First, there are two separate types of evolution. One is adaptation within a kind: i.e. a coyote is a wolf is a pitt bull is a poodle--they are all some type of dog and CAN be interbred--even if sometimes they wind up sterile. Both Creationism AND Evolution AGREE that this happens (that is why Noah took KINDS into the ARK, not every single Breed of dog). What they do NOT agree upon is the changing of one species into anoter (over millions of years) into another. THAT VIOLATES THE LAW of BIOGENESIS. This THEORY VIOLATES a LAW. ONE, as it stands HAS TO BE WRONG. I choose to believe a LAW over a THEORY.

NOW, they SAY that the GRAND CANYON was made over MILLIONS OF YEARS, but it couldn't have been.

Why?

Look where the Colorado River begins. Do you intend to tell me that it cut UP through mountains to get to California? Water flows down and it had the WHOLE MISSISSIPPI PLANE TO FLOW INTO, DOWN from the Colorado, instead of cutting up over a mountain. Now, then how did that big GOUGE happen to get there for the waters to flow through? The only reasonable explanation for this one, that I've seen, is in the BIBLE. There was a BIG FLOOD and MAJOR UPHEVAL. You want creationists explaining what they believe--look into APOLOGETICS. Some of it covers Religion and the rest covers the thought of EVOLUTION and CREATIONISM. Don't call something stupid when you’ve only heard one side of the case. It makes the mocker look like a moron, AND I MEAN BOTH SIDES OF THIS DEBATE. You want to be seen as intelligent, don't degrade the person until you are sure you have a clean shot.

I've been warning that I was going to start posting on things like this--go look it up.
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>    ^^TOP^^



EVOLUTION - Did YOU Know?
  Posted 16 days ago with 24 member flags
"I was raised an atheist"- Professor František Vyskočil
  Posted 6 days ago with 5 member flags
Evolution. Not a theory, but a fact!
  Posted 18 days ago with 4 member flags
Evolutionary theory: Gaps and not yet understood phenonemon
  Posted 17 days ago with 3 member flags

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:

Alien Grey caught in photo ?
  Aliens and UFOs, Posted 6 hours ago, 57 replies
Santorum wants more fracking!!!
  US Political Madness, Posted 15 hours ago, 53 replies
Pass Me My Rifle
  World War Three, Posted 11 hours ago, 52 replies