Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

What they won't say about Evolution.

page: 1
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 3 2004 @ 04:12 PM
link   
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]




posted on May, 3 2004 @ 04:14 PM
link   
and you are getting this info from where?

post something. anything. that may back up your claims.

otherwise you lack credibility.



posted on May, 3 2004 @ 05:19 PM
link   
Creationism is bunk.
Special Creationism....Well, that's almost bunk.

There's virtually no support for creationism, aside from that book which is often "thumped" by those who seem to lack the fundamental grey matter to comprehend "ee-vo-lusion." Meanwhile, there are case studies (Hell, go back to Darwin's finches, for goodness sake), from which can be extrapolated that evolution is a very real thing.

Statistically, the universe occupies an infinite amount of space. Thus, even if planets do not occupy this much space, there are still an infinite number of planets, no? Infinity - 1 is still infinity.
So, yes. The staggaring improbability of life evolving as it has is not impossible. It is merely improbable.
That is, if you put enough monkeys at enough typewriters, eventually they'll bang out "Hamlet."

So please make your case against evolution again? kthx



posted on May, 3 2004 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Did you know that Evolution has more flaws in it than MCI?


Every time one chooses to doubt evolution, they pick some of the problems and choose to ignore all the evidence.

Does the words 'mitohondrial DNA' ring a bell ?



posted on May, 3 2004 @ 05:52 PM
link   
The point being made here is that there are major holes in the evolutionary theory, holes that proponents choose (generally) to turn a blind eye to. There are many things supporting evolution, but as Darwin said, "The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find intermediate varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory."

...Out of the millions of fossils in the world, not one transitional form has been found. Archeopteryx, the closest form to this, the theoretical dino-bird, and there is a strong case argueing that it is not a transitional form.



posted on May, 3 2004 @ 06:47 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on May, 3 2004 @ 06:48 PM
link   
What the hell is a "Professional Evolutionist" Flyby?


Is that the "Mythical Beast" that renders this worthy of the Cryptozoology forum?




posted on May, 3 2004 @ 07:03 PM
link   
Well this seems to be a fairly short thread so I'll put in my 2 cents...

I believe evolution as Darwin described it does not happen. That is, a gradual process of slow, gradual, continual changes. What seems more probable to me is this:

A species will only change when outside stimuli force it to change. So until the environment changes, evolution doesn't happen. Because however they are seems to be working or they would have died off. Why change something that works, right? But when the environment does change, the species will begin to change very rapidly in several directions at once. And keep on changing until a set of traits is found that works for the new environment. And all the other "mutations", for lack of a better word, die off.

anyway, that's what i have to say....



posted on May, 3 2004 @ 08:06 PM
link   
www.talkorigins.org
Knock yourself out.

No, seriously.



posted on May, 3 2004 @ 08:16 PM
link   
As I've said in 2 other threads, I don't know what to believe on this issue. Evolution does not have to contradict the Bible.

How can I say this having read Genesis?

What were 7 days to God, before the existance of the earth? The order of development in Genesis coencides with geological and evolutionary development theories. So it is possible that "day" one would be the first stage, the Big Bang and the matter collecting into stars, etc.

I don't know, I don't have the answers. However, I do know that there are a lot more scientificly minded people who believe in evolution as opposed to creationism. No need to try to first insult someone, and insult their entire religion for putting forth a different viewpoint with a scientific backing



posted on May, 3 2004 @ 10:31 PM
link   
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.......



posted on May, 3 2004 @ 11:00 PM
link   

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]



posted on May, 3 2004 @ 11:19 PM
link   
Micro-evolution is true. Macro-evolution is false. Creationism is true. Creationism by 'god as he is known post bible' is false.Micro-evolution was happening long before the bible,and still is today. Macro evolution has never happened and never will.
The real time point of creation is a mystery and always will be. As far as life on this planet it is definately creation but not by 'gods' hands. 'God' should be happy we created him, did we make him with emotions? I cant remember.



posted on May, 3 2004 @ 11:21 PM
link   
For silQ: I would suggest you go through the reasoning in my post and try to come up with some reasoning around why anything of what I just said is untrue. Your assumption that I was brought up a Christian is totally false. I found Jesjuah myself at the age of 22. Neither of my parents would concider themselves Christians. Atleast not Church Christians. They may have some faith, but I dont know much about that. And to claim the Bible says the Earth is the center of the Solar System, that is not correct. It was science which said the Earth was the center of the universe. And the common of the time monopoly of education, the world view of Plato was held as being the correct world view, until Pope John Paul II cancelled the curse uppon Copernicus, and admitted the Church had been wrong in their judgement of him. Using the bible, especially Job, you see that the Bible does infact suggest that the earth is "hovering in the empty space" that it orbits something "God sits above the circle/orbit of the Earth". Etc.

[Edited on 3-5-2004 by Camelopárdalis]



posted on May, 4 2004 @ 12:12 AM
link   
all evolutionists please describe the mechanism of symbiotic and complex ecosystem evolution. how can one half of a symbiotic pair, or symbiotic ecosystem 'evolve' without the other half?
all evolutionists please show the evolution, complete with 'missing links' of homo sapiens.
all evolutionists, please pray tell, reference the 6000 yr. crap to all creationists. that is the calculation of one guy, isn't it? it does not represent the people who have CREATED 'new' theories of the development of life.
try memes, the noosphere, codons, and multidimensional light frequencies. it's still 'god'. we are being reintroduced, for those of us who can break our institutionlised, cookie-cutter, programs. try the idea that psychic energies can alter physicality.
(you know, the experiment with the random number generators?)

to me, the most important line in the bible is, "in the beginning was the WORD'.
the wyrd. the word. the wierd. see?
everything is in a 'state' of constant vibration. the dance of shiva. the constituent parts of 'you' are only probably there.

evolve is evlove, backwords.



posted on May, 4 2004 @ 12:27 AM
link   
Wow dude! That's truely amazing


By using a calendar, and the approximate years for the Biblical creation, and the Birth of Jesjuah, and used the filter one day for God is like 1000 years for us, I managed to pinpoint the time of creation of Heaven (Void) and Earth (Matter) at about T minus 17 billion years. The Light would have been turned on a couple of billion years later, which would represent the Big Bang I think. This timeframe is just about the exact same the figures modern science are working with. I made a thread about this earlier on under another nick. Time is relative with God. It can mean alot of things.



posted on May, 4 2004 @ 04:50 AM
link   
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]



posted on May, 4 2004 @ 05:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by silQ
here we go again.....another pathetic religion junkie that's trying to convert us all into believing a cult that goes by lies. ........ what ever happened to "deny ignorance?" so go kiss a bible, ya lying freak.


SilQ, you are an offensive and ignorant creature. As far as he and I are concerned you are a misinformed, pathetic human, blinded by the lies of Satan using a system of lies perpetuated by those who have twisted science to support an agenda. However, we see you as pathetic as we see us all; weak and subject to Satanic lies. The way you call him names, it is clear you are merely a caustic little creature, and one who'd return love with hate. This guy is more concerned with you buying into lies and going to Hell, and you, being the typical anti-Christian, return it with foul words.

FlyBy, yes, evolution is more flaw-fouled than almost everything, but to say moreso than MCI...I'm not sure that is accurate.



posted on May, 4 2004 @ 06:06 AM
link   
Thomas Crowne, now you're just being a bit of a hypocrite. You select a certain offensive part of Silq's post, a post which also contained argument valuable to the debate, and reply with a post that is almost only insults and has no value for the debate at all. Silq shouldn't have included a insulting sentence in a post that almost contained some good information. This is no reason however for you to do the same. I would have expected better of a Super Moderator.

(prepares to get insulted as well)



posted on May, 4 2004 @ 06:16 AM
link   
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.





new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join