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.

 

ok creationists answer me this please

page: 3
2
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 07:00 PM
link   
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.




posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 07:48 PM
link   
reply to post by ashanu90
 


Ah then you are just like me


I didn't want to bug you or anything. Personally I don't care.
Unfortunately people can be real jerks about it.
'

I believe your fossil remains are very interested.
I personally believe that there were humans walking the Earth way before Sumer. Entire civilisations of them.

Those early humanoids vary in age from 5 to about 1 million years ago. ( Correct me if I'm wrong.) I am a creationist and I believe our concept of time does not help us to comprehend creation or evolution. for a new species to arise there could pass 1 or 10 maybe even 15 million years...

Let's say there are about 2000 generations in a million years.
We can barely understand what it's like to have a great great grandfather.

It's easier to believe in a story then it is to imaging 10 generations. let alone 2000.


I see God as life as He is all around us. creating everything. Including any previous alive humanoids.



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 08:40 PM
link   

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.



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 10:06 PM
link   

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]



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 10:22 PM
link   

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]



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 10:47 PM
link   

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.



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 10:54 PM
link   
reply to post by ashanu90
 


Good question Ashanu90, I have a question for the creationists that is an add on to yours.

If human beings didn't evolve from apes, if we were created, why do we share undeniable physical, genetic and behavioral similarities with apes?

I used to be a Christian and one of several hundred issues with led to the downfall of my blind ignorance was that question. The Bible says NOTHING about why God decided to make birds similar to dinosaurs or why he made apes similar to humans. The only logical answer and the only answer supported by the fossil evidence (and the overwhelming genetic evidence) is that we evolved. The Creationists can accept that and come into the blinding light of obvious truth or they can go on believing that God was just uncreative on the day he made man in his own image and decided to just upgrade a Gorilla



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 10:54 PM
link   

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.



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 11:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by ashanu90
 

If human beings didn't evolve from apes, if we were created, why do we share undeniable physical, genetic and behavioral similarities with apes?


Similarity (“homology”) is not an absolute indication of common ancestry (Evolution) but certainly points to a common designer (creation). Think about a Porsche and Volkswagen “beetle” car. They both have air-cooled, flat, horizontally-opposed, 4-cylinder engines in the rear, independent suspension, two doors, boot (trunk) in the front, and many other similarities ('homologies'). Why do these two very different cars have so many similarities? Because they had the same designer! Whether similarity is morphological (appearance), or biochemical, is of no consequence to the lack of logic in this argument for evolution.



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 11:06 PM
link   
reply to post by novastrike81
 


You're using vehicles which are designed by man to make a point about natural evolution? Surely the Volkswagen's of the past cannot pass down traits to their offspring, cannot have offspring at all. Remember that evolution relies on passing down genes and variation over many many many many generations. Cars have only been around about a century.

You are right though, the physical similarities cannot, by themselves, prove common ancestry BUT when combined with the fossil record, the fact that we are genetically most similar to apes and behaviorally most similar to apes there can be no other conclusion. Right now Evolution is the only conclusion which has the evidence to back up its claim. The DNA is the key, because genetics is all about ancestry.



[edit on 23-4-2010 by Titen-Sxull]

[edit on 23-4-2010 by Titen-Sxull]



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 11:09 PM
link   

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?



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 11:32 PM
link   

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]



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 11:39 PM
link   

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]



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by novastrike81
 


You are right though, the physical similarities cannot, by themselves, prove common ancestry BUT when combined with the fossil record, the fact that we are genetically most similar to apes and behaviorally most similar to apes there can be no other conclusion. Right now Evolution is the only conclusion which has the evidence to back up its claim. The DNA is the key, because genetics is all about ancestry.


Since there are different percentages between what percent we are than a chimp, 97%, 98%, and 99% lets look at some numbers to prove that just because we are genetically similar doesn't mean we evolved at all.

The amount of information in the 3 billion base pairs in the DNA in every human cell has been estimated to be equivalent to that in 1,000 books of encyclopedia size. If humans were 'only', roughly, 4% different this still amounts to 120 million base pairs, equivalent to approximately 12 million words, or 40 large books of information. This is surely an impossible barrier for mutations (random changes) to cross.

Also, the chimp DNA has not been fully sequenced. Where did the “97% similarity” come from then? It was inferred from a fairly crude technique called DNA hybridization where small parts of human DNA are split into single strands and allowed to re-form double strands (duplex) with chimp DNA. However, there are various reasons why DNA does or does not hybridize, only one of which is degree of similarity (homology). Interestingly, the original papers did not contain the basic data and the reader had to accept the interpretation of the data “on faith.”

Even evolution is based on "faith" the term strictly condemned to religion.



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 11:48 PM
link   

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!



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 11:57 PM
link   
reply to post by novastrike81
 




This is surely an impossible barrier for mutations (random changes) to cross.


The barrier is only one of time and by the way the mutations are not generally random but are driven by environmental stimuli for the most part. For instance, human beings used to, due to malnutrition, be short and scrawny, ever notice how small the doors are on a REALLY old house? Now our environment is rich with easily accessible food and we've grown larger. This isn't actually direct evolution until the environmental factor is ongoing enough to alter our genetics and given that this increase in prosperity has only been in the last 200 years it makes sense that we are only seeing the very beginning of how our species will change (immediate environmental effects).

Also, you are aware we did not evolve from chimps or gorillas or any living ape, we are only related to them. That is why we are not genetically identical, if we were we'd be the same species, but we are genetically similar. There is no alternate explanation for this. And, as I said before, when combined with all the other evidence it can lead to only one conclusion, we evolved. Whether there is a God or not we evolved. If there is a God and he did create us Evolution was the process by which that was achieved.



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 12:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by novastrike81
 




This is surely an impossible barrier for mutations (random changes) to cross.


The barrier is only one of time and by the way the mutations are not generally random but are driven by environmental stimuli for the most part. For instance, human beings used to, due to malnutrition, be short and scrawny, ever notice how small the doors are on a REALLY old house? Now our environment is rich with easily accessible food and we've grown larger. This isn't actually direct evolution until the environmental factor is ongoing enough to alter our genetics and given that this increase in prosperity has only been in the last 200 years it makes sense that we are only seeing the very beginning of how our species will change (immediate environmental effects).

Also, you are aware we did not evolve from chimps or gorillas or any living ape, we are only related to them. That is why we are not genetically identical, if we were we'd be the same species, but we are genetically similar. There is no alternate explanation for this. And, as I said before, when combined with all the other evidence it can lead to only one conclusion, we evolved. Whether there is a God or not we evolved. If there is a God and he did create us Evolution was the process by which that was achieved.


Well I have to say you're the first person who defends evolution to say we didn't decend from apes but share a common ancestry. So, where did we evolve from if it wasn't from apes?



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 12:49 AM
link   
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.



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 12:52 AM
link   
reply to post by novastrike81
 


I never said we didn't descend from apes, I said we didn't descend from living apes. Research evolution, there isn't a single evolutionary scientist who believes we evolved from chimps or Gorillas, they'd have to be morons in order to do so. In fact anyone with even a general overview of knowledge on the subject of evolution knows we did not evolve from chimps, orangutans or Gorillas.

We did evolve from apes.

We did not evolve from any of the ape species that are alive today, we simply share a common ancestry.

[edit on 24-4-2010 by Titen-Sxull]



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 01:17 AM
link   
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.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join