It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 20
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in


posted on May, 14 2007 @ 12:48 PM

Originally posted by utellem
Okay, listen up. Of course there is God. Where do you think the singularity came from?

first law of thermodynamics. the matter and energy ALWAYS EXISTED.

However, he created men as men, and did not cause us to evolve from any other species, which is why there is no "missing link".


You can believe the recount of creation that is told in the Bible. It's all good.

the first or second one?

posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 09:53 AM


Wow I cant believe you actually went there...
BTW, Nebraska Man, Piltdown Man,... all of those are hoax! people draw their own pictures, and all evidences are false. they try to fit evolution in the picture and it doesnt work.... a lot of work done in the text books are false evidences.

before you all go big, start out small with the evolution of the bacteria and the Bacterial flagellum.

Many scientists on the internet and in many science videos have said that its impossible for this to evolve on its own.

if you cant even get bacteria to evolve on its own, how are you ever going to get past that? you cant just skip the small stuff.

posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 10:27 AM
Nice to see you back Methman, hope you looked into abiathar and the comma johanneum.

The fossils that MIMS mentions are not hoaxes.

The people who say that it is impossible for the flagellum to evolve have little influence on the real science that is going on in labs all round the world. Indeed, the likes of Behe and Dembski have no support for such a proposal, just their own incredulity.

Although, they do write many popular books and internet articles. Pity that's not the way science is done.

[edit on 29-11-2007 by melatonin]

posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 06:33 AM
reply to post by Methuselah

ok, so two supposed "missing links" were proven to be hoaxes... by the people that originally believed them otherwise and admitted to their mistakes, by the way.

so.. this means we should disregard the other mountains of hominid evidence?

lucy isn't a forgery, the works of the leakys aren't forgeries either.

we have plenty of evidence on this one.

posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 07:04 AM

Originally posted by junglejake
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.

Of these millions of fossils...what percentage of the living animal population do they actually represent?

And check out my "Evolution in Action" thread. People are changing, slowly but surely.

posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 10:17 AM
Lucy isnt a hoax? when her knee was found in a different layer of strata?
Bull @#$%

posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 11:01 AM

Originally posted by Methuselah
Lucy isnt a hoax? when her knee was found in a different layer of strata?
Bull @#$%

OK, seriously, Lucy doesn't have an intact knee. This is a creationist lie that just keeps bouncing round the echo chamber. In fact, the knee was a completely different discovery and unrelated to the Lucy find:

The claim is not only false, it is clearly shown to be false in Johanson's published writings about "Lucy" (e.g., Johanson and Edey 1981, ch. 7-8) and it has been pointed out repeatedly to its proponents that it is false. Despite this, none of the major proponents of the claim has publicly retracted it. One major proponent has privately agreed that it is false, and a few creationists have agreed to stop repeating it. One minor proponent made a public retraction.

In November 1973, during my first major expedition to Hadar, I found a perfectly preserved knee joint (minus the kneecap) at a locality numbered A.L. 128/129. All detailed anatomical analyses and biomechanical considerations of this joint indicate that the hominid possessing it, Australopithecus afarensis, was fully capable of upright bipedal posture and gait.

In 1974, "Lucy" was found in locality A.L. 288, situated some 2-1/2 km northeast of the knee joint locality. "Lucy" preserves a proximal tibia, as well as enough of distal femur, to indicate that the anatomy of this skeleton in the knee joint region was identical to that of the 1973 discovery. Hence, "Lucy" was also capable of fully upright bipedal posture and gait, as her hip and ankle joints also indicate. Stratigraphically, these two discoveries are separated by nearly 70 meters.

Mr. Brown is thoroughly incorrect in saying that "Lucy"'s femur was found 2-3 km away from the rest of the skeleton. As you can see, these are two very different discoveries; the 1973 knee joint in the lower part of the stratigraphic section, and "Lucy"'s skeleton some 70 m above it.

How long will the creationists keep this lie for jesus going?

Witness, bearing, and false come to mind here.

[edit on 30-11-2007 by melatonin]

posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 08:13 AM
reply to post by melatonin

i believe, good sir, that you win at science here.

meth, you've been fed many, many falsehoods about evolutionary theory, please do some research to free yourself from such ignorance.

posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 06:52 PM
Two people can often look at the same thing and come to opposite conclusions. The Grand Canyon is a perfect example. Evolutionists use it as proof that the earth is billions of years old, claiming that the Colorado River carved the canyon over millions of years. Bible-believing Christians interpret the canyon as a spillway from Noah's Flood. One believes it formed slowly, with a little water and a lot of time. The other believes it formed quickly, with a lot of water and a little time. What a stark difference.

If the Bible is true, and the earth is only about six thousand years old, we should find evidence that debunks the evolutionist theory about the Grand Canyon. We do. For example, the top of the Grand Canyon is over four thousand feet HIGHER than where the Colorado River enters the canyon, meaning it would have had to flow UPHILL for millions of years. Additionally, in contrast to all other rivers, we do not find a delta (a place where washed-out mud is deposited). This alone makes the evolutionist interpretation impossible. Anyone who took Geography in High School could look at the topilogical map and check the elevation's of the area's I mentioned. No opinion here, just plain facts!

The evidence does, however, point to a Great Flood. Was this during Noah’s life? Today, we see two beach lines from what used to be two large lakes near the Grand Canyon. Creationists believe that after Noah's Flood, the lakes got too full and spilled over the top. When water overflows a dam, the weakest point is instantly eroded. Thus, the Grand Canyon would have been formed quickly, supporting the creationist interpretation. This explains why carbon-14 dating has frequently shown that the rock at the top is older than that on the bottom. Archeologists, Paleontologists and evolutionists can't explain that either.

So, which interpretation is right? Knowing that rivers DO NOT flow uphill and no leftover sedimentary deposits are found, evolutionists have a lot of explaining to do when it comes to the Grand Canyon. The Bible, however, says that a great flood covered the whole earth (see Genesis 7:18-20). There is archeological evidence for this over all land masses and even at the top of the tallest mountains. This means we should find places where the water drained. The Grand Canyon is one of those places. It is a washed-out spillway and provides great evidence for Noah's Flood. Plus, nearly every culture in the world has some story from their ancient relatives of the past that speak of a Great Flood happening at the birth of their nation. Interesting.

[edit on 13-8-2008 by Jack Wellman]

posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 07:06 PM

Additonally, evolutionary anthropologists say that the Stone Age lasted for at least 100,000 years, during which time the world population of Neanderthal and Cro-magnon men was roughly constant, between one and 10 million. All that time they were burying their dead with artifacts. By this scenario, they would have buried at least four billion bodies. If the evolutionary time-scale is correct, buried human bones should be able to last for much longer than 100,000 years, like the dinosaurs presumably have, so many of the supposed four billion Stone Age skeletons should still be around (and certainly the buried artifacts). There should be multiple millions of them in fact, given the enormous time-frame, yet only a few thousand bones and fragments have ever been found and these are far too few to fit the Stone Age theory and the thousands of years it was supposed to take place. And certainly out of all those MILLIONS (by their time scale) there ought to be at least one transitional set.

There is a "roaring silence" of evidence to support evolution. Conisder there are over half a million fossils that have been discovered and catagorized. There are 2 & 1/2 millions species, but amazingly, there is still not even one set of a transitional skeletal or fossil chain going from one another speices. This includes humans, mammals, amphibians, etc. Let's count how many......NONE. That would be zero. How amusing to talk of finding "missing links" when they completely ignore the fact that the entire chain is missing! Lizards to birds so they say...not one link! Ape to man...then into another human species. Again, ZERO lines of evidence. They will never find what does not exist.

Final Verdict on LUCY (from Africa) as a link: It has been concluded she was an over-grown female orangatang.

Peeking-Man: He was a old man with severe osteoporosis. Too bad this never is publized. Proves the media has an axe to grind against Christians, even to the point of ignoring objective truths.

posted on Aug, 14 2008 @ 07:37 AM
reply to post by Jack Wellman

The amount of ignorance in that post is truly staggering. Staggering. Clearly you are not ready to learn, only to reinforce that which loved ones have told you. I guess it's easier to shout at strangers than to admit your loved ones have been duped.

The fossil record is not complete, because it takes a very specific set of circumstances for a dead animal to be fossilised. Saying "ooh where are they??" is about as retarded as an argument can get. Three little letters disprove your statement about unknown lineage: DNA. Get over it.

posted on Aug, 14 2008 @ 03:53 PM
The conditions have been just right. Why all of the fossils and no "just right" conditions...that had many chances over the supposed millions of years. How do evolutionists explain (short of their circular reasonings) the Cambrian Explosion. Look this up in any dictionary, wikopedia, whatever and look for yourself at the evidence that contradicts evolution. Rather than a gradual increase of species and life appearing generally slowly over millions of years as the process of evolution so clains, there is a veritable explosion of life. Nothing below this strata, no transitional fossils, no smaller, less complicated life forms. NOTHING. Then BAM, an explosion of life. How would the evolutionist explain that!?

The Cambrian Explosion is not a theory (as in evolution's case...still a theory after 150 years!), namely that all the major groups (phyla) of life which we know today appear in the Cambrian strata with no evolutionary ancestors. This is why evolutionists refer to it as an ‘explosion’ of evolution, even though there are no groups which have been identified as ancestral to any of the phyla, and geologically these phyla ‘seem to have appeared suddenly and simultaneously’. The evolutionary conundrum, the deep puzzle to which the Scientific American article refers, is not, however, this absence of ancestors. Each of the phyla represents a basic blueprint, or unique body plan. Evolution’s ‘deepest paradox’, claims Professor Levinton in this article, is that in rock layers above the ‘Cambrian’ NO NEW or different body plans appear.

Why haven’t new animal body plans continued to crawl out of the evolutionary cauldron during the past hundreds of millions of years? According to evolution theory, enormous and radical evolutionary changes have taken place in this time, and evolution has not ceased today. So why no new ‘body plans’ (Grundbäuplane) since the time they all allegedly evolved in the Cambrian? The author of the article in question, Professor of Ecology and Evolution at the State University of New York, wonders, why is it, as evolutionary biologists are still trying to determine, that no new body plans have appeared during the past half a billion years?’ Why indeed?

There's nothing simple about a starfish. It has hundreds of tiny feet which it uses to move along by pumping water through a system of tubes. This is a method we call hydraulics, and which humans use in machinery. But the starfish, still alive today, yet found as fossils in the Cambrian rocks, had it right there in the beginning. There is no evidence the starfish has evolved. When we look at fossils in Cambrian rocks, we find that not only did these animals have no ancestors, but all the main kinds of living creatures were already there. There were animals with backbones (fish), as well as those without backbones, like shellfish, crinoids (sea lilies), and starfish. Some of these Cambrian creatures have died out, but many types are still alive, and have changed little if at all.

Why don't we find fossils of the ancestors of Cambrian animals? Evolutionists often say it is because the creatures they evolved from were too soft to fossilize. But this excuse will not do. Jellyfish are some of the softest creatures of all, and yet they have been found as fossils! The most sensible reason why we don't find transitional fossils of the ancestors of the Cambrian creatures is that they never existed!

[edit on 14-8-2008 by Jack Wellman]

posted on Aug, 14 2008 @ 03:58 PM
The entire set of unique body plans ever created is represented in all rocks bearing substantial numbers of animal fossils. The ‘Cambrian’ creatures, many of which are now extinct, are not ‘primitive ancestors’ to today’s, but are complex creatures in their own right. There remains no trace of evolutionary ancestors in the transitory fossil records, even after a hundred years of looking and they are not below the Cambrian Explosion or below it.

As of today, there is not ONE single set of transition fossils of any kind of species that has ever been found. The conclusion is that these objective facts make it easier to believe in creation than evolution, which lacks any credible evidence (hence, still it is called a "theory" in contrast to the Law of Gravity which proved Newton right not soon after). SO which believe takes more faith? I would say not in the suppositional, theoretical, assumption that is the theory of evolution. Spending time looking for a “missing link” is pointless when the entire chain is missing!

posted on Aug, 14 2008 @ 04:00 PM

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. there are definitely a lot more flaws in creationism than evolution. evolution is still a THEORY as in it's still stubject to change. it's not rock solid until it's called the evolutionary PRINCIPLE. whereas the bible claims that the idea of creationism is rock solid. pfft....we obviously have the common sense (well...most of us anyway) to know that something as big as life on earth can't be created in just 7 days. also, animals are evolving right now. in australia, this monkey just evolved a special omnivorous intestine whereas ten years ago, it had a herbivore's intestine. there are obviously a lot more evidence and common sense supporting evolution than creationism. by the way...considering the fact that the church tried to suppress lots of scientific discoveries, such as the sun being the center and not the earth which the church finally accepted in the early 20th century, the church is obviously a control freak bent on dominating the world. who ever follows the church doesn't deserve to have a voice here. what ever happened to "deny ignorance?" so go kiss a bible, ya lying freak.

I don't think that this is a 'religion' junky trying to force any religion on any reader. The OP is presenting data that the 'evolution' people seem to always turn a blind eye to. These were all points that we discussed in a couple psychology classes so I can understand the argument. However, creationism also has its flaws. Mainly no proof.

Neither side has 'SOLID' proof that either is right. Would be kind of interesting to find out that the true answer is probably a mixture of both. Evolution spurned on by creative interferrence. By God? Who knows. By E.T.? Who knows.

posted on Aug, 14 2008 @ 04:10 PM
Just because something is "fossilized" does not mean that it is millions (or even thousands) of years old or conditions have to be "just right". All it takes are proper conditions for a bone to become filled with minerals fairly quickly (or fossilize). The main ingredients are:

Quick burial (like a giant worldwide flood or volcanic ash)
Water, in the right amounts (sufficient pressures for compression)
Suitable minerals (under seas/oceans, volcanic ash, etc.)

Conditions necessary for fossilization to occur during a catastrophic, worldwide flood are absolutely ideal for "fossilizing" millions of animals and plants. In fact researchers have found that chicken bones and wood can be replaced with minerals in just five to ten years. A big dinosaur bone might take hundreds of years to completely mineralize. It all depends on the burial conditions over the years. In fact, plant and animal fossils have already been unearthed, formed under the ashes of the Mt. Saint Helen's 1980 eruption! These fossils took less than 30 years! Not millions or hundreds or even 100.

Many dinosaur remains are still not completely turned in to rock. More than half of the fossil is still original bone, not stone! Some even have chemicals from the living animals (proteins and amino acids which were not thought to be able to survive millions of years)! Some fish fossils still have a fishy smell when first uncovered. Some of the plants buried during the Flood are not fossilized either. In New Jersey, large amounts of wood from trees that were growing at the same time as dinosaurs can be found in the dirt.

They are preserved, but not turned to stone at all. In England, fragile plant hairs and tiny details of the plant's cells can be seen. The plants are not turned into rock. They are just flattened and blackened. Since the earth is not millions of years old, these types of discoveries are not surprising. These are not opinions (ie, evolution) but observable, objective facts. Creation is a KNOW-SO, while evolution [like being stood up at the prom for 150 years!) is a HOPE SO!

[edit on 14-8-2008 by Jack Wellman]

[edit on 14-8-2008 by Jack Wellman]

posted on Aug, 15 2008 @ 12:19 AM
reply to post by Methuselah

Not even Behe, the biggest proponent of Irreducible Complexity, argues that the flagellum is impossible. He admits in his book "Darwin's Black Box" that such a thing is possible via an indirect route.

posted on Aug, 15 2008 @ 01:18 AM

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

Originally posted by utellem
Okay, listen up. Of course there is God. Where do you think the singularity came from?

first law of thermodynamics. the matter and energy ALWAYS EXISTED.

*sigh* Do they even teach elementary logic at all anymore? And my answer would be The 2nd law prevents the first law from being effective in your scenario, given the conditions listed.

In other words, if matter and energy ALWAYS existed, then it would have ALREADY reached maximum entropy.

posted on Aug, 15 2008 @ 01:20 AM

Originally posted by Octocat
reply to post by Methuselah

Not even Behe, the biggest proponent of Irreducible Complexity, argues that the flagellum is impossible. He admits in his book "Darwin's Black Box" that such a thing is possible via an indirect route.

He does absolutely no such thing! (Unless my memory is way off on that one)

Please cite pages numbers and quote the entire paragraph for context please.

Edit to add:

Actually, here is what he DOES have to say, from

(emphasis added is my own)

What has biochemistry found that must be explained? Machines--literally, machines made of molecules. Let's look at just one example. The flagellum is an outboard motor that many bacteria use to swim. It consists of a rotary propeller, motor, and stationary framework. Yet this short description can't do justice to the machine's full complexity. Writing of the flagellum in Cell,2 Lucy Shapiro of Stanford University marvels, "To carry out the feat of coordinating the ordered expression of about 50 genes, delivering the protein products of these genes to the construction site, and moving the correct parts to the upper floors while adhering to the design specification with a high degree of accuracy, the cell requires impressive organizational skills." Without any one of a number of parts, the flagellum does not merely work less efficiently; it does not work at all. Like a mousetrap it is irreducibly complex and therefore cannot have arisen gradually.

The rotary nature of the flagellum has been recognized for about 25 years. During that time not a single paper has been published in the biochemical literature even attempting to show how such a machine might have developed by natural selection. Darwin's theory is completely barren when it comes to explaining the origin of the flagellum or any other complex biochemical system.

The sterility of Darwinism indicates that it is the wrong framework for understanding the basis of life. As I argue in my book, an alternative hypothesis is both natural and obvious: systems such as the flagellum were intentionally designed by an intelligent agent. Just as in the everyday world we immediately conclude design when we see a complex, interactive system such as a mousetrap, there is no reason to withhold the same conclusion from interactive molecular systems. This conclusion may have theological implications that make some people uncomfortable; nonetheless it is the job of science to follow the data wherever they lead, no matter how disturbing.

[edit on 15-8-2008 by sir_chancealot]

[edit on 15-8-2008 by sir_chancealot]

posted on Aug, 15 2008 @ 01:02 PM
reply to post by sir_chancealot
Top of page 66. Admittedly I haven't read the book so I can't say for sure, but he definitely admits this in the Dover trial.

Q. You say, Even if a system is irreducibly complex and thus could not have been produced directly, however, one cannot definitively rule out the possibility of an indirect, circuitous route, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And by indirect, you mean evolution from a pre-cursor with a different function than the system being studied?

A. Yes, different function, perhaps different number of parts, and so on.

posted on Aug, 15 2008 @ 04:28 PM
I love the "life's too complex!" argument to disprove evolution.

What you don't conceive of is time. For 3.8 billion years, the earth was a wasteland. Nothing happened here. Then, because there had been 3.8 billion years of potential life, eventually, it happened. Improbable, yes, impossible, no.

And the great thing about being the first life form is that you have absolutely no competition at all. So when you break out into the universe, you become the myriad of strange and wonderful things that eventually became multicellular organisms. These eventually became austrolapithecines (sp?) which eventually became you.

And you know what? It's not the fault of the rational, scientific mind for seeing the evidence and coming to this conclusion because it is the only conclusion the evidence permits us to find.

Religious types: If your God did do everything you claim he did then he made it this way, he created evolution and he set the whole thing up to trick us, in the most unrealistic and elaborate hoax you can imagine, otherwise it must be he has no control over it at all.

I swear I just want to start worshipping Satan. There's a guy with some balls!

"Hey this God guy is an asshole, what's he ever done for you? Other than the universe full of pain and suffering and embarrassing personal hygene problems during puberty? This totalitarian fraud with a serious case of short-man complex is not worthy of veneration, so don't bother! All-forgiving my ass! What happened to Moses? He didn't go to heaven, he got buried. What makes you think you'll be any different?"

"But..God is all loving?"

"Is he hell! Why don't you ask the Israelites crossing the desert how all-loving he was then? How much forgiveness did he preach to the Amelekites? Why does he act like such an impotent little boy, who must destroy his toys in order to get his own way? Why can he create the universe, the past, present and future in all forms and yet can't stop the Israelites from worshipping a sacred bull? If he is so damn great, why must he rule by fear alone?"

"I can't listen to're Satan!"

"You're damn right I am! I'm Lucifer, the Light Bringer, the one who has come to free mankind from the tyranny of this oppressive bully. I am Prometheus, who took pity on mankind and gave you fire when you were cold. And do you know what thanks I get? I get my name dragged through the bloody mud in the New Testament! All the way through the Torah I was his faithful servant, his wanderer upon the earth, but when I spoke up and said "Hey, God, don't you think you're being a little harsh on those guys? They're doing their best", he casts me out for pointing how how much of a knobend he is being to humanity. Next thing you know, everyone hates me because I just tried to help them out. What a bastard, right?"


"Hey, look at our kill count. Israelites killed by Satan: zero. Israelites killed by God: an entire generation, crossing the desert, 250 killed by fire by the tents, and dozens upon dozens killed by the Ark of the Covenant and various other plagues and curses God invokes upon humanity. Have you ever stopped to think that God does not really like the human race very much? Would you build an ant farm only to then pour fire over them when they prostrated before an idol? What kind of being creates a universe and everything in it with the sole purpose of them bowing down and worshipping him?

"La-la-la-la-la! I'm not listening! La-la-la-la!"

But anyway, I digress...

top topics

<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in