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.

 

What they won't say about Evolution.

page: 17
3
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 15 2004 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by amantine
Well, English is not my first language, but I used perfectly in the sense of 'quite well', which is listed as the second possibility for 'perfectly' in my Concise Oxford Dictionary. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear.


Up here in the pile of rocks we love so much called Norway we would say: That one you would have to walk farther into the fields with. Don't come here and say that you use the dictionary to find a word like 'perfectly' when what you want to say is 'quite good' hehe. But I like your approach hehe. Besides the fact that you showed here that you used an English English dictionary. In other words you opened the book on P and started looking for a word meaning 'quite good' and you found PERFECTLY? You would have needed a damn good lawyer to proove something like that in court. Not to mention how you would have to have been in a US courtroom, since the judges in all other courts in the world would have simply laughed.


I'm sorry for the confusion, but perfect within certain boundaries of error as in 'quite well'. The 0-1 ppm give a too tiny error to be of any influence, because there is always a uncertainty because decay is a random process.


My point wasn't that 0-1 ppm contamination would influence the dating of the specimen, but rather how every rock is contaminated atleast 0-1 ppm, but that many rocks can be far more contaminated, and not even measurable.


Certainly not directly, indirectly is possible, but not of any influence. Theoretically you could smash a free electron, accelerated by a magnetic field, into the nucleus to make it merge with a proton into a neutron, but that takes a huge amount of energy. I doubt that ever happens.


Well, under certain conditions, such as during rock formation and rock transformation, such things can and do happen. However, my point wasn't whether isotopes would receive new neutrons for thereby becomeing a completely new isotope, or even become a regular atom, but we don't know what happens when such things as global polarity reversals occur, and the nuclear processes during eruptions could produce enough heat to create plasma etc. Besides there are much more particles than protons, electrons and neutrons. We have some cute particles called positrons which makes stuff like teleportation possible etc. And the theory of relativity opens for time confusion, and this confusion comes into concideration when it comes to half life of radioactive isotopes. You simply can't use radioactive isotopes in my (ad hominem) opinion to date accurately. Radioactive radiation represents freed energy, though small, it isn't irrelative to the whole body of calculations. You will have to explain things we yet only theorise around to proove the alledged predictability of the half life of these isotopes. You simply don't have the statistic material to do this. And knowing how you treat historic records, I don't ever dare to think about how you would concider old and obsoletely written scientific statistics in a 1000 years. Using the chance of evolution as referance, this is infact more than very likely to be the deal.


We can check our radiometric dating methods with our dating methods and we can callibrate them to changed atmospheric conditions. A different atmosphere leaves chances in rock and ice. If I'm correct, it doesn't matter that much what the exact composition of the atmosphere is when stopping cosmic radiation and particles from the sun. The magnetic field should usually take care of most charged particles and I think most particles will be stopped by any of the different gasses in the atmosphere.


What statistical material do you have to rely on? What do you know about water and how it infuence everything created, the perfect element, composed of two other elements, fire and air? These obsolete ways of thinking are infact highly effective. We are talking molecular mechanics here, and you say that you can accurately enough predict the age with statistical material reaching 50 years back? Which still is being revised? Get real. Until your methods are proven correct, I choose to rely on historic records. If you can't proove the historic records, your methods don't work. Period. I have 6000 years of statistic and historic material for disposal, I evaluate science against that. The day science fits perfectly with the bibliocal records, I'll trust your methods, but until then, I choose to trust witnesses.


It doesn't matter if the rock was once part of the seafloor, as long as the water never reached the rocks. Water doesn't reach the most of the seafloor, basicly everything 10 m below the sea floor. If the water did reach it, there are erosion and chemical traces (NaCl, CaCO3). I'm no geologist though, so my knowledge about this is not that large.


Aren't we talking about sediments here? Look up the word sediment and see what it means. Besides. The Bible explains how the flood made a watery hell on Earth about 5000 years ago. Not long after, just a couple of generations, continental drift started, and the Earth was divided. Science explains that this has happened gradually over millions of years. While a tradition which has shown it's accuracy time and time again, based on first hand witnesses and an accurate calendar, says this happened relatively rapid, about 5000 years ago. My logics say that if eyewitnesses could explain the same processes as science explains by pulling some beast up of the Earth and counting what they don't understand the processes of, and the difference is this striking, well, again, I trust the witnesses. But keep on working, you'll figure it out in the end.


It is always good if scientific theories are questioned. Sometimes mistakes are found that can be corrected and it always make you learn new things.


Amen


[Edited on 16-5-2004 by Camelopárdalis]




posted on May, 15 2004 @ 08:57 PM
link   
Uh, someone has seem to lost the THEORY part of the THEORY of Evolution. Evolution is a theory, creation is bs. No proof of creation, just biblical "evidence". No scientific. And for "no transition fossil" There are. Dolphins, Smithsonian has I think 8 fossils showing dolphin evolution from land to water. It shows the blow hole moving up from the fron to behind the head. Then it shows the limbs turn into flippers, so forth. So there is evidence of Macro Evolution. But why did it happen? That is why there is THEORY in the name.

Main problem smart people have with creation is the bible busters say it is fact, damn anyone to hell for all eternity who say different for we are right, a book written by humans hundreds of years apart from each other and edited by the church for their purpose tells us we are right. Now go to hell heathen before we burn you at the stake or behead you.

While science with evolution says THEORY OF EVOLUTION, not FACTS, you disagree, we kill you or condemn you to a place for your soul to be tortured for all eternity, OF EVOLUTION. We smart people look at what may be right, what may be wrong, why it is right or wrong, how to prove if it is right or wrong, if the answer is 100% positive, prove the answer is 100% positive. And if that is 100%? Test both again under dif. settings to see if we get the same thing or not and then test those answers and results. While religon/ignorance is we have no proof. We did no studies or experiments to see if we are right or wrong. We just are right.

Sorry, but will stick with the Theory of Evolution over the ignorance of creation. For Evolution is fun, get to test things, expirement, create new theorys to test when all old ones have been confirmed or denied. Much better then going yep, All Mighty Powerful Invisable People That Live In The Clouds said this, so it is. Good night.

Well, bye.



posted on May, 16 2004 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by James the Lesser
Uh, someone has seem to lost the THEORY part of the THEORY of Evolution. Evolution is a theory, creation is bs. No proof of creation, just biblical "evidence". No scientific.


Yes, there is plenty of evidence that creation is possible. There is no evidence saying the evolution is possible. What's your point? Dissmissing genetic engeneering as discribed in the Bible as "bs." is bs. Dismissing environment creation and manipulation as discribed in the bible is "bs." Science is doing this "bs." even today. Why would this be impossible for a God race? Just because YOU think this is bs. doesn't proove anything, neither does it in any way contribute to discussion. It is not up to creationists to proove our points, our scenario is fully working and more than just possible, it is even being done as we speak around the world, it is up to critics of these proven facts, to proove that anything else is possible or more likely. The most likely scenario is that the lifeforms here and elsewhere were once created. The chance for creation with present knowledge of the universe, scientific development, biology and genetics is 1:1. The chance of evolution is 1:gogols:gogols again. If the blowhole of dolfins have changed, well, then that's evidence of design, not evolution. Just like the front of BMWs have changed over time. It's the result of a creative process, it didn't happen by itself. Why would the blowhole move? It's not a live or die thing at all, it's about convenience. Nothing else. And all creationists say: AMEN! Sela



posted on May, 16 2004 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by flyby
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?


I just want to point out that the crust of the earth has plates. They are created in some places and they go back into the earth in others. Of course you not going to see back that far. It keeps getting recycled



posted on May, 17 2004 @ 07:17 AM
link   
I think I am pretty much done with this topic (but if I am called out of course I will entertain the debate), however I do want to point out one thing. We are all on this board call AboveTopSecret.com to do one thing and that is to Deny Ignorance but for the most part I see people turning a blind eye to clear cut proof that evolution is so damaged of a theory that it should not even be considered. Alot of people say "Yeah but its just a theory" however it does not meet the requirments to be a theory and worse yet it is presented almost always as a fact.

Think about it, consider Deny Ignorance and then consider what you are arguing for. You are defending the single greatest lie ever told to mankind.

The simple truth is that there needs to be research into the true origins of life rather than trying to make everything fit into evolution (any study you hear about these days is trying to figure out how an organism evovled, sure seems like someone thinks evolution is a fact). I beleive in Intelligent Design, not Creationism, because I beleive life is too complex and interdepent to have formed by accident. But that is my view, it may not be the correct view but, we will never know what the truth is until we let go of our preprogramed thought that evolution is the only way.

Please!!!!! Deny Ignorance



[Edited on 17-5-2004 by BlackJackal]



posted on May, 18 2004 @ 10:53 AM
link   
In a very recent article the BBC points out the growing knowledge that Junk DNA once used as evidence of evolution is not really junk.

news.bbc.co.uk...

The article wants to relate DNA similarities in various animals to evolution, as per the statement, "We know this because ever since rodents, humans, chickens and fish shared an ancestor - about 400 million years ago - these sequences have resisted change. This strongly suggests that any alteration would have damaged the animals' ability to survive.”

It is typical for evolutionists to exaggerate speculations, extrapolate simple facts into theories, and turn possibilities into major facts to substantiate evolution. Please note the caution on the page:


Despite all the questions that this research has raised, one thing is clear: scientists need to review their ideas about junk DNA.



Professor Chris Ponting, from the UK Medical Research Council's Functional Genetics Unit, told BBC News Online . . . [added], I think other bits of 'junk' DNA will turn out not to be junk. I think this is the tip of the iceberg, and that there will be many more similar findings.


Remember that DNA codes for things, such as proteins and biochemical functions, are shared by many animals. For example, don't chimps and humans have muscles, lungs, hearts, kidneys, etc., that perform the same functions? Of course! So we should not be surprised that many of the structures and functions in our bodies are coded for in a similar way to other animals that have closely similar structures and functions.

Here are some very good articles about the similarity between the genomes of humans and chimpanzees.

www.icr.org...

www.answersingenesis.org...

www.christiananswers.net...

Is this a true statement: In order for DNA in a cell to evolve, it would have to have evolved into its current organization and form all at once? "Junk" DNA is actually revealing the impossibility of such material being derived from evolutionary processes. The following Links explore the impossibility of chemical evolution, especially the probability of evolving a single protein, much simpler than the DNA molecule:

www.icr.org...

www.icr.org...

www.icr.org...

www.icr.org...

In the conclusion of his article, "Junk DNA," at www.psrast.org... , Jaan Suurkula M.D. writes,


The idea that a major part of our DNA is "garbage" ignored the fact that a key feature of biological organisms is optimal energy expenditure. To carry enormous amounts of unnecessary molecules is contrary to this fundamental energy saving feature of biological organisms. Increasing evidence are now indicating many important functions of this DNA, including various regulatory roles. This means that this so-called non-coding DNA influences the behavior of the genes, the "coding DNA", in important ways. Still there is very little knowledge about the relationship between non-coding DNA and the DNA of genes. This adds to other factors making it impossible to foresee and control the effect of artificial insertion of foreign genes.



[Edited on 18-5-2004 by BlackJackal]



posted on May, 23 2004 @ 06:42 AM
link   
What really surprises me is that the strongest quotes against evolution are coming from famous evolutionists, biologists and palentheologists.
They all seem to agree that there is so little proven truth behind the entire theory, that you shouldn't even call it a theory.

Some quotes:

"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact."

Dr. T. N. Tahmisian, Physiologist, Atomic Energy Commission. As quoted in: Evolution and the Emperor's New Clothes, 3D Enterprises Limited, 1983, title page

"Evolution is a fairy tale for grownups."

Dr. Louis Bounoure, Director of the Zoological Museum and Director of Research at the National Center of Scientific Research in France, J. Rostand, "LaMonde et la Vie," October 1963, p. 31 from V. Long, "Evolution: A Fairy Tale for Adults," Homiletic and Pastoral Review, Vol 78 (1978), no. 7, pp. 27-32

"One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, was ... it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about it. That's quite a shock to learn that one can be so misled so long. ...so for the last few weeks I've tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people. Question is: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, 'I do know one thing -- it ought not to be taught in high school'."

Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist, British Museum of Natural History, London Keynote address at the American Museum of Natural History, New York City, 5 November, 1981

"It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favored by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test."

Personal letter (written 10 April 1979) from Dr Collin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History in London, to Luther D. Sunderland; as quoted in Darwin's Enigma by Luther D. Sunderland, Master Books, San Diego, USA, 1984, p. 89.

"Biologists are simply naive when they talk about experiments designed to test the theory of evolution. It is not testable. They may happen to stumble across facts which would seem to conflict with its predictions. These facts will invariably be ignored and their discoverers will undoubtedly be deprived of continuing research grants."

Professor Whitten (Professor of Genetics, University of Melbourne, Australia), 1980 Assembly Week address.

"In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit in with it."

H.S. Lipson, FRS (Professor of Physics, University of Manchester, UK), 'A physicist looks at evolution'. Physics Bulletin, vol. 31, 1980, p. 138.

'With the failure of these many efforts science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past.'

Loren Eiseley, Ph.D. (anthropology), 'The secret of life' in The Immense Journey, Random House, New York, 1957, p. 199.


'Our theory of evolution has become, as Popper described, one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus "outside of empirical science" but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have attained currency far beyond their validity. They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training.'

Paul Ehrlich (Professor of Biology, Stanford University) and L. Charles Birch (Professor of Biology, University of Sydney), 'Evolutionary history and population biology'. Nature, vol. 214, 22 April 1967, p.352.

'One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom, a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith, has not yet been written.'

Hubert P. Yockey (Army Pulse Radiation Facility, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, USA), 'A calculation of the probability of spontaneous biogenesis by information theory'. Journal of Theoretical Biology, vol. 67, 1977, p. 396.

'The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory - is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation - both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof.'

L. Harrison Matthews, FRS, Introduction to Darwin's The Origin of Species, J.M. Dent & Sons Ltd, London, 1971, p. xi.

"It is a more reasonable belief of faith that intelligence is eternal and created matter, than is the faith of atheists & evolutionists that matter is eternal and it created intelligence."

Arthur Dowell, Physics Professor, Florida College

The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of the fossils."

S. J. GOULD, Harvard, Nat. His., V.86, p.13

"....innumerable transitional forms must have existed but why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? ....why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain, and this perhaps is the greatest objection which can be urged against my theory".

Charles Darwin, ORIGIN OF THE SPECIES.

[Edited on 23-5-2004 by Jakko]



posted on Jun, 14 2004 @ 01:48 AM
link   
I am a Christian, I believe in God, and I believe he was the creator of the earth. I have noticed that a Christian has to walk very carfully in these forums, because poeple will twist anything you say to fit their perspective of "judging, mean, un-intellegent religious people" So witht that said , time to step on some toes.
It is very evident that being Christian nowadays is not "cool" take a look at hollywood. Its almost like being a republican, lol. But anyhoo, I have been through everything all of you guys have said, all this has been beat to death. So let me present a simple question with a not so simple answer.

How are we, and everything around us here. I know, I know, what a "new" question. LoL but lets all think about it. Lets not put it into a religious sect. but instead just focus on the possibilty that the universe had a "Divine" Creator. Somthing we all would call a God.

Now lets try and skip through the things we all know, or think, such as...
The big bang, string theory, ect.. ect.... lets take the universe back before the big bang. take it back even further, lets stop at the point where there is nothing but dust floating in a limitless space. Or hell, whatever was there.

Where did it all come from. I am going to assume that although we have a massive amount of knowledge pertaining to the universe. We haven't went all the way back. Why? Because we don't know where to go next.

Now lets say that all the dust "I say dust when generalizing minerals aloft in space" came from 'A" , A, being the "thing" or string of events that led to the creation of the dust. Now lets do this for all of the other variables, we will name them "B, C , D , E"

Now lets say ABCDE cam from "A1" and so on and so on. Keep going back for eons. But at some I point, from my logical perspective, not saying others with different opinions are illogical, don't want anyone to have a hissy fit, but from my perspective you have to hit a wall. A theoretical wall where somthing , just comes from nothing. Explain to me how this is possible. And don't give any off the shelf science, as I have said, I have went through this numerous times. I have yet to get a logical answer. This is in no way a challenge, or a attempt to "stick it" to ya guys. I just want to know.


[edit on 14-6-2004 by infovacume]



posted on Jun, 16 2004 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlackJackal
I think I am pretty much done with this topic (but if I am called out of course I will entertain the debate), however I do want to point out one thing. We are all on this board call AboveTopSecret.com to do one thing and that is to Deny Ignorance but for the most part I see people turning a blind eye to clear cut proof that evolution is so damaged of a theory that it should not even be considered. Alot of people say "Yeah but its just a theory" however it does not meet the requirments to be a theory and worse yet it is presented almost always as a fact.
[Edited on 17-5-2004 by BlackJackal]


It is the best explanation we have. Think about the alternative, it isn't a serious theory it is a damn fairytale. "God made it", thats the lazy mans way of explaining everything, devoid of any facts or reason whatsoever.



posted on Jun, 16 2004 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by SiRiNO
It is the best explanation we have. Think about the alternative, it isn't a serious theory it is a damn fairytale. "God made it", thats the lazy mans way of explaining everything, devoid of any facts or reason whatsoever.


My point all along is not to destroy evolution just so Creationism can be pushed forward. My point is clear, quit attempting to make a round peg fit into a square hole. The evidence against evolution is so strong yet so many continue to attempt to make everything fit into the theory of evolution like it were a fact. Why not take that energy and direct it into reasearching a new theory on the origins of life?

Scientists today treat evolution as a law and spend most of their time defending a fruitless theory. The time has come to move on and discover the truth.



posted on Jun, 16 2004 @ 11:10 AM
link   
Evolution isent realy so you think . Well I can easly PRove evolution is realy . ONE anyone here have a dog ? mabby even a shizu or chawa? Or poodel?
Were did these dogs come from ? lets see O yes they evolved from wolfs.
Every dog in the world came from there. A new type of animal can be deseribed when the new animal can no longer mate with its forbearers.
Try mating a poodel with a wolf. Regardless to say this is a MAN made evolution of a animal but still is evolution as evolution is CHange .
Animal two Chicken also a man mad animal but again visable Proff of evolution the chicken was a bird that could fly less then ten thousand years agaio.
Three a wild animal .Evolution is no real you say? TRY this whals dolphains and other animals of this type . It is very easy by looking at there skellatin to see FEET bones in there flipers compleat with toe bones.
Another animal is the pengwin wich everone knows is a BIRD a flytless bird . Wich at one time could fly .
Theres hunderds of animals that are living proff of evolution the only reasion why we (humans) even try and use creatisum is because we would no longer be anything special. Just another animal. After all if you except evolution then you have to conside that mabby just mabby we evolved and wernt created .
Would put a whole new twist on a Monkeys uncial wouldent it?lolol
Ps sorry about my spelling it bites .Im still trying to evolve .



posted on Jun, 16 2004 @ 06:32 PM
link   
Well, as said, it is the Theory of Evolution. Yet the religous nuts have the "One and only truth, creation. You disagree, we kill you." The TOE is a scientific theory to be tested, have exp. go on, and for scientists to prove or disprove. Creation is "Death to anyone who disagrees with us. We need no proof, we have god, an all mighty powerful invisable person who lives in the clouds tells us we are right. Now don't make me get a stake and some gasoline." Sorry, now if there was proof, or maybe even study to creation, it might be more accepted. But they never do studies, they just tell you that you are a ignorant heathen and only way to keep them from killing you for being a godless heathen is to agree with them 100% and follow blindly like a sheep they order people to be.



posted on Jun, 16 2004 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackJackal
My point all along is not to destroy evolution just so Creationism can be pushed forward. My point is clear, quit attempting to make a round peg fit into a square hole. The evidence against evolution is so strong yet so many continue to attempt to make everything fit into the theory of evolution like it were a fact. Why not take that energy and direct it into reasearching a new theory on the origins of life?

Scientists today treat evolution as a law and spend most of their time defending a fruitless theory. The time has come to move on and discover the truth.


I think you are missing my point. Evolution is just a theory, but it is the best one we have and has alot of scientific backing. For example:

Fossil records
- Fossils are the distinguishable remains of long-since dead organisms. Over any course of time, long or short, a different species of animals can be seen to progress by looking at the fossils. Fossil records show the progression of species of animals. Scientists date the fossils through either radio-carbon dating or uranium dating, which tend to be fairly accurate.

Analogous structures
- Analogous structures are outwardly similar body parts in unrelated organisms. The body parts, though outwardly similar, may be very different internally because the unrelated organisms have not descended from a common ancestor, but have adapted because of similar environmental pressures.
For example, the wings of flies and birds look very similar outwardly, but they serve much different purposes and are different internally because they only evolved due to similar environments.

Homologous structures
- Homologous structures are structures that may differ in function but have similar anatomy, due to a common ancestor. For example, the forelimbs of birds and mammals are used for many different functions but have very similar bones.

Vestigial structures
- Vestigial structures are structures that serve no apparent purpose, such as teeth in bats or the appendix in humans. The structures are a type of "evolutionary baggage" that have been left over from the time when the ancestors of these organisms needed them.

My question to you BlackJackal is how does creationism explain the "evolutionary baggage" left over in organisms which serve no purpose.



posted on Jun, 16 2004 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by amantine
I've always wondered if creationists have a problem with microevolution.

(grin) Well... yes and no. You see, they've been forced to admit that microevolution exists. So they announce proudly that microevolution is okay and then "smoke and mirrors" it to say "but it's not REALLY EV-IL-LUTION!!!"

Truly. I was astounded to see it, but they really do this.



posted on Jun, 16 2004 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by SiRiNO
I think you are missing my point. Evolution is just a theory, but it is the best one we have and has alot of scientific backing. For example:

My question to you BlackJackal is how does creationism explain the "evolutionary baggage" left over in organisms which serve no purpose.


To start with I have an analogy for you. Lets say that you used a formula to calculate your business expenses but it continually produced incorrect results. Would you say well its the best one I've got and stick to it or would you try to find a formula that produced correct results? Same deal with evolution your formula is broken.

The fossil Record

The problem with the fossil record is that it does not support evolution. Most work in the study of evolution has shifted to DNA evidence and many not finding evidence there have shifted there studies to Proteomics.

and about those dating techniques I have covered them before.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Analogous and homologous structures

This argument can be looked at one of two ways one being a common ancestor and the other being a common creator so just a word of advice this is not a good path to take to conclusively prove evolution.

Vestigial structures

In the past 20 years scientists have explained away almost all vestigial structures by assigning purpose to them. Like I said earlier this is no longer the proving grounds for evolution it has moved to genetic and proteomic research. Pick up a newer biology book or read a scientific journal and you will see these do not exist.

The appendix in particular contains lymphatic tissue and has a role in controlling bacteria entering the intestines. It functions in a similar way to the tonsils at the other end of the alimentary canal, which are known to increase resistance to throat infections, although once also thought to be useless organs.

Also I will say it once more. I am not trying to push creationism just push for real research into the real origins of life whatever that might be. Evolution is damaged and needs to be replaced for the sake of science.



posted on Jun, 17 2004 @ 12:10 AM
link   
Ok, so it gets the wrong answer. But it is better cause they try to figure out the expense account. If you used creation in the same example it would be..."Your expense account is five dollars. We have no proof it is, we never did anything to see if it was. We just had an all powerful mighty invisable person who lives in the clouds tell us it was five dollars. If you disagree with this we will kill you." I will stick with the theory of evolution and see what scientists come up with. And yes, they finally admit that microevolution exists cause they had facts and scientific studies shoved down their throats. They were forced to admit it existed. Just like when they had the facts and scientific studies shoved down their throats that the earth was round and not the center. But they say there isn't any proof of macroevolution, yet their are fossil records, studies, so forth to prove parts of it. Now yes, they are still studying other parts of it, and that is why evolution is believeable. It has facts and science supporting it. Now parts of it is wrong, and that is why they study it to see why it is wrong and what the right answer is. With the account example, they would see why it was wrong, and try to see if they can find the real amount. Not kill you for questioning them. Or putting you under house arrest if you admit you are wrong so you aren't killed.(A Mr. Galileo Galilae(sp?) if you might recall)



posted on Jun, 17 2004 @ 02:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlackJackal
To start with I have an analogy for you. Lets say that you used a formula to calculate your business expenses but it continually produced incorrect results. Would you say well its the best one I've got and stick to it or would you try to find a formula that produced correct results? Same deal with evolution your formula is broken.


Evolution is a theory, and as such it is constantly changing and 'evolving'. If evolution was the forumla you speak of it would be changed with the infux of new information and ideas, and would therefore work for the better.


Originally posted by BlackJackal
The fossil Record

The problem with the fossil record is that it does not support evolution. Most work in the study of evolution has shifted to DNA evidence and many not finding evidence there have shifted there studies to Proteomics.


Through Whale fossils we can see how they have come far from their land dwelling ancestors and gradualy became more and more adept at life in the sea. Whales did not turn into fish. Inside every flipper is found the bones of the mammalian hand. They swim like otters by undulating the mammalian spine. The tail fluke is not a fish fin. They also have lungs and give birth to live young. Evolution works by modifying existing body plans to fit new conditions of life, and is often constrained by developmental pathways. No longer limited by gravity and strength of bones, whales could become giants of the sea

Monotremes may be considered living transitional animals because they are egg-laying mammals.

Here is a good site with loads and loads of transitional fossils and their characteristics listed.
www.holysmoke.org...


Originally posted by BlackJackal
Also I will say it once more. I am not trying to push creationism just push for real research into the real origins of life whatever that might be. Evolution is damaged and needs to be replaced for the sake of science.


What do you suggest it be replaced with?



posted on Jun, 22 2004 @ 07:24 PM
link   
So what you are saying is that the formula will fix itself with new information coming in. Not likely if you have a bad base. If you keep throwing info into a bad base you are going to continue getting incorrect results.

As for Whale Fossils knock yourself out

www.trueorigin.org...
www.answersingenesis.org...
www.answersingenesis.org...
www.answersingenesis.org...
www.answersingenesis.org...
www.answersingenesis.org...

As far as Monotremes are concerned JungleJake said it best in this very thread about them.


Platypus
In 1797, when it was first discovered, it was sent to England, where the British scientists believed it had been stiched together by Chinese taxidermists and was a fraud. A bill like a duck, a beaver like tail, hair like a bear, lays eggs like a turtle, feeds it's young milk like a mammal, has spurs like a rooster, and has venom like a snake. It was assumed for a while (not anymore) that this was a transitional species. So why and how would an animal like this evolve and from what? It was designed to do what it does do and it does this well.


www.answersingenesis.org..." target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>



What do you suggest it be replaced with?


To be honest with you I don’t know because I don’t have all the necessary tools at my disposal but I am toying with the idea of a research project on this very topic.



posted on Jun, 23 2004 @ 01:28 AM
link   
evolution is its own religion, get over it you lamers.



posted on Jun, 23 2004 @ 05:29 PM
link   
Well, the thing is, Evolution, unlike people believe, isn't making the animal better, but makes it better to survive. A Chimp is far stronger than a human, but a human is better able to survive due to it's ability to adapt. A Chimp in a cold place will die. A Human will be able to adapt by creating clothing to keep it warm. So a Platypus is an animal that evolved to better survive. The creature may have been stronger or faster, but it wasn't able to survive. A Elephant is able to survive in Africa. It Evolved into an animal that can live and survive in Africa. But put it in Siberia? It would die quickly. But if millions were in the same area, it would evolve to grow long thick hair to keep it warm. A mammoth! Or opposite way, cold to warm loses the hair and size to adapt in warm weather.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join