Have our scientists been able to create life from a non-life or does that violate the theory since it wasn't done 'naturally'? Or by using human intervention have scientists been able to create a new species that was able to reproduce. I guess you could technically call a cross between a horse and a donkey a new species but they are sterile and are not able to reproduce, to my knowledge.

Originally posted by Rockstrongo37
Several of these so called ancient men have turned out to be human remains from people who suffered various bone deficiencies such as rickets, arthritis, and genetic abnormalities. Thats why we havent found mass examples of them around the world (we would have if they were the missing links, there would be millions of examples globaly). Also, several examples of so called "missing links" have turned out to be primate remains or animal remains. Examples are the Piking Man, Piltdown Man, etc. If there were truly missing links like these in the evolutionary stages, we would be seeing millions of fossils around the world and not just these single or handfull of skeletons.

i love how this post was ignored, when it is the most accurate. i find more and more on ats that the best threads are ignored because no one wants to risk being wrong. the same goes for posts. i believe you are right, many of them have turned out to be either fakes, or deseases/abnormalities.

i challenge all of you to pursue the truth, no matter where it takes you. don't be afraid of being wrong. try to disprove what you believe with all your heart.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz

Originally posted by Rockstrongo37
Several of these so called ancient men have turned out to be human remains from people who suffered various bone deficiencies such as rickets, arthritis, and genetic abnormalities. Thats why we havent found mass examples of them around the world (we would have if they were the missing links, there would be millions of examples globaly). Also, several examples of so called "missing links" have turned out to be primate remains or animal remains. Examples are the Piking Man, Piltdown Man, etc. If there were truly missing links like these in the evolutionary stages, we would be seeing millions of fossils around the world and not just these single or handfull of skeletons.

i love how this post was ignored, when it is the most accurate. i find more and more on ats that the best threads are ignored because no one wants to risk being wrong. the same goes for posts. i believe you are right, many of them have turned out to be either fakes, or deseases/abnormalities.

i challenge all of you to pursue the truth, no matter where it takes you. don't be afraid of being wrong. try to disprove what you believe with all your heart.

The post was not ignored. I replied it.

Of course I believe that some of them are indeed malformed peoples remains.
An argument like it would be easily accepted when provided with some evidence

[edit on 4/23/2010 by Sinter Klaas]

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz

Originally posted by Rockstrongo37
Several of these so called ancient men have turned out to be human remains from people who suffered various bone deficiencies such as rickets, arthritis, and genetic abnormalities. Thats why we havent found mass examples of them around the world (we would have if they were the missing links, there would be millions of examples globaly). Also, several examples of so called "missing links" have turned out to be primate remains or animal remains. Examples are the Piking Man, Piltdown Man, etc. If there were truly missing links like these in the evolutionary stages, we would be seeing millions of fossils around the world and not just these single or handfull of skeletons.

i love how this post was ignored, when it is the most accurate. i find more and more on ats that the best threads are ignored because no one wants to risk being wrong. the same goes for posts. i believe you are right, many of them have turned out to be either fakes, or deseases/abnormalities.

i challenge all of you to pursue the truth, no matter where it takes you. don't be afraid of being wrong. try to disprove what you believe with all your heart.

A few of them were the combination of an ape jaw and fragments of a human skull to resemble an ape to prove their theories. Also a tooth from Nebraska Man was just a pig's tooth.

Not a single new species has arisen in the last 6000 years when the theory requires over 2000. Evolutionists admit this (at least the honest ones). Prof. Vernon Kellogg, of Leland Stanford University, in his "Darwinism of Today," p. 18, says:

"Speaking by and large, we only tell the general truth when we declare that no indubitable cases of species forming, or transforming, that is, of descent, have been observed...For my part, it seems better to go back to the old and safe ignoramus standpoint."

Prof. H. H. Newman, of Chicago University, in answer to the writer's question, "How many new species have arisen in the last 6000 years?" wrote this evasive reply:

"I do not know how to answer your questions...None of us know just what a species is.... It is difficult to say just when a new species has arisen from an old."

He does not seem to know of a single new species within the last 6,000 years.

The same question was asked of Dr. Osborn, of Columbia University, N. Y. The answer by R. C. Murphy, assistant, was equally indefinite. He wrote:

"From every point of view, your short note of Aug. 22nd raises questions, which no scientific man can possibly answer. We have very little knowledge as to just when any particular species of animal arose."

In a later letter, he says:

"I have no idea whether the number of species which have arisen during the last 6000 years is 1 or 100,000."

We have a right to increase the pressure of the argument, by introducing into the calculation, the total of 3,000,000 species of plants and animals which would require 6355 new species within the last 6000 years, or an average of more than one new species a year! And they can not point to one new species in 6000 years, as they confess.. Dr. J. B. Warren, of the University of California, said recently:

"If the theory of evolution be true, then, during many thousands of years, covered in whole or in part by present human knowledge, there would certainly be known at least a few instances of the evolution of one species from another. No such instance is known."

It's quite obvious that even the honest evolutionists are certain that evolution is just a theory and not a proven fact as some people who hold strongly to their views, which they are entitled to, so adamantly try to uphold when prevented with evidence. Evidence isn't proof but a basis to draw a conclusion for.

[edit on 23-4-2010 by novastrike81]

Originally posted by novastrike81
Have our scientists been able to create life from a non-life or does that violate the theory since it wasn't done 'naturally'? Or by using human intervention have scientists been able to create a new species that was able to reproduce. I guess you could technically call a cross between a horse and a donkey a new species but they are sterile and are not able to reproduce, to my knowledge.

There have been several cases of speciation, but not abiogenesis, especially in plants, here's one for you, courtesy of talkorgins.org.

While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas.
Fascinating stuff.

Originally posted by hippomchippo
There have been several cases of speciation, but not abiogenesis, especially in plants, here's one for you, courtesy of talkorgins.org.

While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas.
Fascinating stuff.

So it seems to prove that we as a human species can create new species but does that prove evolution? I found the definition to say evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations. So technically it doesn't prove anything for such an accomplishment in the field of science.

Originally posted by novastrike81

Originally posted by hippomchippo
There have been several cases of speciation, but not abiogenesis, especially in plants, here's one for you, courtesy of talkorgins.org.

While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas.
Fascinating stuff.

So it seems to prove that we as a human species can create new species but does that prove evolution? I found the definition to say evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations. So technically it doesn't prove anything for such an accomplishment in the field of science.

I know you want to disregard evolution in the face of evidence, explain to me then, why simple life forms appeared on the earth long before complex ones, was God warming up?

Originally posted by hippomchippo

Originally posted by novastrike81

Originally posted by hippomchippo
There have been several cases of speciation, but not abiogenesis, especially in plants, here's one for you, courtesy of talkorgins.org.

While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas.
Fascinating stuff.

So it seems to prove that we as a human species can create new species but does that prove evolution? I found the definition to say evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations. So technically it doesn't prove anything for such an accomplishment in the field of science.

I know you want to disregard evolution in the face of evidence, explain to me then, why simple life forms appeared on the earth long before complex ones, was God warming up?

Well I guess that depends on if you believe in God or not. If you don't then the answer is trivial and illogical to the discussion. However, for the purpose of the question, God created life in the order of plants > animals > man. Don't take it out of context I'm trying to save time. His plan was to show priority in nature. Plants were to possess unconscious life. Animals were to posses conscious life. Man was to posses self-conscious life. We see this kind of trend today.

If you don't believe then it doesn't really matter you've made up your mind.

So explain to us how the universe came into being and where all the matter and energy came from? I'm sure if the evidence is abundant on Earth then it's abundant else where.

[edit on 23-4-2010 by novastrike81]

Originally posted by novastrike81
Have our scientists been able to create life from a non-life or does that violate the theory since it wasn't done 'naturally'? Or by using human intervention have scientists been able to create a new species that was able to reproduce. I guess you could technically call a cross between a horse and a donkey a new species but they are sterile and are not able to reproduce, to my knowledge.

currently we cannot create life or new species, but when our tech advances, eventually we will, once we find a way to separate and bind molecules who knows? maybe you will have a pet t-rex, (with vegeterian genes for safetey reasons) or maybe you will have yourself a tree octupus in your backyard, or a tank full of moose fish(im getting a little wacky but eventualy it will be possible)

have you played master of orion 2? all sorts of tech that maybe one day we will have them all? or most of them, i dont like the idea of death spores but its possible

another thibng terraforming is theoretically possible, and they are thinking up ways to make mars habitable, first by making pollution plants to warm up the atmosphere, then by introducing bacteria, then fungi, then water, grass, shrubs, trees, animals its all possible, it will just be a long long time

[edit on 23-4-2010 by ashanu90]

Originally posted by ashanu90

Originally posted by novastrike81
Have our scientists been able to create life from a non-life or does that violate the theory since it wasn't done 'naturally'? Or by using human intervention have scientists been able to create a new species that was able to reproduce. I guess you could technically call a cross between a horse and a donkey a new species but they are sterile and are not able to reproduce, to my knowledge.

or maybe you will have yourself a tree octupus in your backyard

I lol'ed; the thought of a tree octupus is quite funny. I would definately save up for one of those!

Hello,
You ask a good question...
My answer to you is; Jacob and Esau. Esau was covered from head to foot with hair. Is that a genetic mutation, or an act of God, or both? And how are your thoughts pertaining to the possibility that God created evolution? Things don't just happen because some guy named Murphy said so.

Sorry if I come-off kind of rude, I don't mean to.

Many creatures reproduce asexually. Why would animals abandon simpler asexual reproduction in favor of more costly and inefficient sexual reproduction? Sexual reproduction is a very complex process that is only useful if fully in place. For sexual reproduction to have evolved complimentary male and female sex organs, sperm and eggs, and all the associated machinery in tandem defies the imagination. I'm not sure evolutionists can explain that logically.

By definition, something must be eternal (as we have “something” today and something cannot come from “nothing”, so there was never a time when there was “nothing”). Either the universe itself is eternal, or something/someone outside of and greater than the universe is eternal. We know that the universe is not eternal, it had a beginning (as evidenced by its expansion). Therefore, God (the something/someone outside of the universe) must exist and must have created the universe. Einstein showed that space and time are related. If there is no space there is no time. Before the universe was created there was no space and therefore no concept of time. This is hard for us to understand as we are space-time creatures, but it allows for God to be an eternal being, completely consistent with scientific laws. The question “who created God” is therefore an improper/invalid question, as it is a time-based question (concerning the point in time at which God came into existence) but God exists outside of time as the un-caused first cause.

Just some thoughts but then since I'm against evolution I must be delusional or of irrational thinking.