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.


Evolution Is Fact, Not Theory

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on May, 21 2004 @ 10:22 AM
Read Icons of Evolution by Johnathan Wells. You can get it at

You will see just how bogus alot of the claims of the Theory of Evolution really is...alot of cover ups and lies goin on in the scientific world. By the way Christianity is the most freeing faith there is...not at all binding. Real science just proves God exists....many scientists are now claiming that there had to be a thinking mind behind the cosmos it couldn't have just happened. Another good book is Why Religion Matters by Huston Smith (don't worry he's not a christian) he talks about the religion of science.

posted on May, 23 2004 @ 04:35 AM
Yeah I have read some similar books, but thanks for keeping me up on new ones, I see seapeople never wanted to respond. guess the debate goes unfinished.

posted on May, 26 2004 @ 07:37 AM
Ok, I just read an article that supported my statement. Earlier in this thread, Infovacume said this:

"Evolution wuold generate a whole other set of DNA Structers containing new info. "This is extremely lamens turms"

Now, this statement was made in an attempt to differentiate evolution from adaptation. What he was trying to say is that for evolution to exist, new genes (DNA) would have to be created for it to be evolution. In other words, when we encourage a dog to have certain traits over the years, that does not change its DNA. So when I speak about the Pug, that is simply not evolution according to him. According to adaptation.

This is a quote from the article I am about to post:

"By analyzing genetic samples from dogs of many shapes and sizes, a Seattle-based research team has shown how a dogs genes can reveal its breed."

Explain to me, how we are able to see a difference in the genes of a collie, and a Pug (a Pug that was changed by its environment), if the genes did not change?

The last thing I would like to ask you to do is to go back through this an other threads regarding evolution. Pull out all the statements and descriptions you have made regarding "Adaptation". Then I want you to compare those statements with the information you find in this encyclopedia article. There is some really interesting information regarding the Lung Fish in here.

posted on May, 27 2004 @ 05:42 PM
I see your point, but it does not prove evolution, if it did, well people would be running around saying that they finnaly solved it. To answer your 1st question, the same way genetic science can show you what portions of other races you have in you. Lol I will try and find the article but some guy, was curious about his heritage, he sent a blood samble to a florida based clinic that can find out what races you are mixed with. This guy was black, with black kids, and a black wife, black family, and all. Sample comes back, he has 0% african american in him, rofl. Thought that was funny. But getting back to the point, do you want to continue. Lets go tic for tac, and see hopw that goes ok.

posted on Jun, 2 2004 @ 08:20 PM
So are we gonna do this or what, if you need time to study up, thats cool , but don't make me wait, lol

posted on Jun, 3 2004 @ 03:40 PM
What do you mean tic for tac?

I think you mean this:

I provide a fact, and you try to prove it incorrect.

The Samari Crab.....If evolution does not exist....then how did that face appear on its back?

posted on Jun, 3 2004 @ 03:46 PM
Nothing can be proven....

It is just a matter of time till evolution gets replaced by other theories.

right now, it is a good explanation, but there will be a better one. In the sixteenth centurey people thought that frogs came from rain, at that point that was the "truth"

and tell me something, how did evolution start? and dont say the big bang, because how did that start? I mean how did everything start? How did the specs of dust that "started the bang" get there?

exactly, it is beyond our understanding

I know that we don't and can't know


posted on Jun, 3 2004 @ 03:51 PM

Well, I am not talking about the mental ability to learn. Of course I can learn I new language, but I can't learn how to grow gills and flippers.

No, but you can develop more webbing in your hands and feet, and the ability to hold your breath longer, if you are constantly diving underwater. Over generations, you probably would develop other traits, like larger lung capacity, less hair (or at least hair that responds better in water), etc. just as some humans developed lighter skin and hair to deal with colder climes, etc.

This adaptation/evolution thing is simply semantics. The bottom line is that organisms change to suit their environment over time, and in essence, this is evolution. When you can see vestigal leg bones in whales, wonder what the appendix ever did, etc. and not believe in evolution, then you're only fooling yourself.

posted on Jun, 3 2004 @ 09:19 PM
Ummm about the leg bone thing, didn't they prove that the bone was for reproduction, isn't wrapped in muscle to allow thrusting or somthing. Thats a pretty lame argument, so are you saying what appears to be a leg bone proves evolution. Isn't that unscientifical, isn't that the argument people like me get when I question a theory that is plagued with holes?

posted on Jun, 4 2004 @ 06:44 AM
Well infovacume, yes the appendage is used now for reproduction I believe. That is definitely not why it is there. There is clearly shoulder structure. It is used almost like a really short hand, to stimulate/ hold onto its mate. Thats because it is the only remaining function, and I would wager that eventually that visible leg structures go away.

Gazrok brings up a good point. Snakes are not the only animals that do not have legs, but have the remnants of shoulder structures.

posted on Jul, 21 2004 @ 12:15 PM
For anyone that believes they can prove evolution.

Good Luck

posted on Jul, 21 2004 @ 10:32 PM
You see, that right there is what the problem is. He says prove without a reasonable doubt that evolution exists. The he says option 3 must be proven. Option 3 states that you must prove a way life can be formed through non living chemical processes.

It doesnt matter how life started when it comes to evolution. If the life that is here evolves...evolution exists...nomatter how the life got here. I can assure you that the man would be losing his 250 grand if he actually would accept proof of evolution. Ugh...this stuff is almost like listening to liberals try to explain economic processes.

Putting these restrictions on evolution (I.E. proving the beginning of the universe was through natural processes, proving life evolved from non-living matter) is ludicrous. These things may never be known. These things are how the belief in God can still exist. If we could figure these out... then there wouldn't be a religion section on this forum. Here is a question. Relative to an observer: A ball whips over a man's head and continues to gain distance from him until he can not see it any more. The man did not see where the ball came from, or ultimately where it was going. All he saw was it moving relative to his position. By the idiotic guidelines that the moron who wrote that website gave above, we could not conclude that the ball was moving, because we did not see where it came from, and therefore could not prove who or what threw it. What kind of assinine thought process is that. Evolution can still be occuring whether or not life was created by a creator, or came from natural chemical processes. Just because we don't know how it started, does not exclude the possibility that it is happening. head hurts from this.

[Edited on 7/22/2004 by Seapeople]

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in