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 would it take for you to accept Darwin's Theory Of Evolution ?

page: 8
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in


posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 11:01 AM
reply to post by nixie_nox

And thank you for the mitten advice.

Yes, we tried mittens, but they stayed on about 10 seconds. Also, baby mittens and baby socks get eaten by washers and dryers and dogs and babies and vacuum cleaners. And yes we had the little silk mesh bags to put them in in the washer.

My post was meant in jest, however it really was a regular discussion my wife and I had when the kids were little. It is at the top of the questions she has to ask God when they meet! "Why do babies have fingernails?"

My first baby actually slept through the night, didn't scratch, didn't cry a lot, ate very well, was a model citizen. The second baby was exactly the opposite! The second baby is now 2 1/2 years old, and he is still a MONSTER! And he is impossible to punish or reason with. He LOVES to be in trouble. If you yell, he yells back and laughs. If you sit him in a chair for time out, he finds a way to harass the dog or his brother, or he starts to disassemble the chair, or the wall, or whatever. If you spank him, he doesn't cry, he frowns, and looks very hurt and says, "that wasn't very nice, no no!" He is extremely cute, and he wins every argument. One day I was extremely mad with him, we were in a car dealership, I sat him on the table in front of me, and I pressed my forehead to his and looked him in the eyes and gave him the meanest and sternest warning I could muster. It scared my wife, because she could see how mad I was.....he started rubbing his head against mine and giving it right back to me in his meanest voice and saying, "no YOU DO dada!" I couldn't stay mad. I have no idea what I am ever going to do with him? Prayer and Pre-Paid Legal Services I guess?

posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 11:18 AM
reply to post by DisappearCompletely

Evolution is all about constant change, whether gradual or in leaps.
Consider a cloud in the sky: it is constantly changing shape due to natural
forces. It might look like, say, a rabbit now, and a few minutes later
appear to be, say, a horse. In between, the whole mass is shifting around.
In a few more minutes it may look like a bird.
The problem for evolution is that you never see the shifting between
shapes in the fossil record. All fossils are of complete animals and plants,
not works in progress or "under construction". That is why we can give
each distinct plant or animal a name. If evolution's continuous morphing
were really going on, every fossil would show change underway
throughout the creature, with parts in various stages of completion. For
every successful change there should be many more that lead to nothing.
The gradual morphing of one type of creature to another that evolution
predicts is nowhere to be found. There should have been millions of
transitional creatures if evolution was true. In the "tree of life" that
evolutionists have dreamed up, gaps in the fossil record are especially
huge between single-cell creatures, complex invertebrates (such as snails,
jellyfish, trilobites, clams, and sponges), and what evolutionists claim were
the first vertebrates, fish. In fact, there are no fossil ancestors at all for
complex invertebrates or fish. That alone is FATAL to the theory of
evolution. The fossil record shows that evolution never happened.

posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 12:04 PM
I'll tell you what it would take:

First, stop stating THEORIES as FACTS.

Second, show me the "missing link"

Third, show me how carbon dating has NOT been proven staggeringly wrong many times.

Fourth, if you accept your carbon dating as "fact", then tell me how they have found skeletons of modern humans up to 100,000 years old and more. Yet no one ever figured out the wheel or anything else for the first 94,000 years?

posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 07:02 PM

Originally posted by CaptChaos
First, stop stating THEORIES as FACTS.

You do not even know what a THEORY is, yet you have no problem making a complete ass out of your self in a public forums. Sorry I just found this humorous.

In the sciences, a scientific theory (also called an empirical theory) comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena.

Gravity is "just" a theory, Atoms are "just" a theory, and of course the germ theory is "just" a theory. Think about this for a second and you should notice how the statement "First, stop stating THEORIES as FACTS." makes you sound like a complete #ing moron.

Sorry, I cannot come up with a more friendly reply to your statement.

Second, show me the "missing link"

I will guess by "missing link" you mean a transitional fossil, and again you have no idea what you are talking about.

Why do you not accept these as "missing links" ?

I think I know why you don't. It is because you have no idea what you are asking for when you say "missing link".

Here is my personal favorite one.


If you search ATS you should find a few post on Tikaalik.

Third, show me how carbon dating has NOT been proven staggeringly wrong many times.

First off that is your claim so you should probally show when is has "been proven staggeringly wrong many times."

Secondly, it is a good thing we have many different tools to do dating.

Uranium-lead dating method
Samarium-neodymium dating method
Potassium-argon dating method
Rubidium-strontium dating method
Uranium-thorium dating method
Radiocarbon dating method
Fission track dating method
Chlorine-36 dating method
Optically stimulated luminescence dating method

to name a few ...

posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 07:27 PM
reply to post by nophun

"You will not get more of a reply from me until you start fact checking."

Fact checking? Ha.

You must have meant THEORY checking. Because that's all you have is THEORIES.

So where is your EXPERIMENT to prove your THEORY?

You need to demonstrate the theory of evolution with an experiment.

Correlation does not prove causation.

posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 07:33 PM

Originally posted by FearNoEvil
reply to post by nophun


So where is your EXPERIMENT to prove your THEORY?

Ahearn, J. N. 1980. Evolution of behavioral reproductive isolation in a laboratory stock of Drosophila silvestris. Experientia. 36:63-64.

Boraas, M. E. 1983. Predator induced evolution in chemostat culture. EOS. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union. 64:1102.

Callaghan, C. A. 1987. Instances of observed speciation. The American Biology Teacher. 49:3436.

Crossley, S. A. 1974. Changes in mating behavior produced by selection for ethological isolation between ebony and vestigial mutants of Drosophilia melanogaster. Evolution. 28:631-647.

del Solar, E. 1966. Sexual isolation caused by selection for positive and negative phototaxis and geotaxis in Drosophila pseudoobscura. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (US). 56:484-487.

Dobzhansky, T. and O. Pavlovsky. 1971. Experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila. Nature. 230:289-292.

Knight, G. R., A. Robertson and C. H. Waddington. 1956. Selection for sexual isolation within a species. Evolution. 10:14-22.

Weinberg, J. R., V. R. Starczak and P. Jora. 1992. Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory. Evolution. 46:1214-1220.

McPheron, B. A., D. C. Smith and S. H. Berlocher. 1988. Genetic differentiation between host races of Rhagoletis pomonella. Nature. 336:64-66.

Yen, J. H. and A. R. Barr. 1971. New hypotheses of the cause of cytoplasmic incompatability in Culex pipiens L.

[edit on 20-7-2010 by nophun]

[edit on 20-7-2010 by nophun]

posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 07:37 PM
oh and this again for the 7th time in this thread.

Observed Instances of Speciation

Some More Observed Speciation Events

[edit on 20-7-2010 by nophun]

posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 07:40 PM
reply to post by nophun

Damn Nofun, you had that ready didn't you? Let me research your supposed proof and I'll be back to comment.

Think about adding links.


posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 07:56 PM
You know every biologist on earth relies on evolution as a framework of sorts.

Think of as learning all about the sun, moon and Earth but your teacher not mentioning gravity.

Surely you can understand how silly this would be.

posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 08:08 PM
reply to post by nophun

Let me take them one at a time.

"Boraas, M. E. 1983. Predator induced evolution in chemostat culture. EOS. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union. 64:1102."

Nothing but an observation – no experiment

posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 08:52 PM
reply to post by nophun

oh and this again for the 7th time in this thread. Observed Instances of Speciation

Why yes, yes you have. I for one have read the evidence cited here, and as I have said, for I believe the third time now, I find this evidence lacking, and unsubstantiated.
In an effort to be nice, it seems I have been too vague; I shall now correct this.

ALL of the observed instances of speciation that your link cites are bunk, moot, negated.... ALL of the subjects in these experiments were acted upon by an intelligent outside force. The title is incorrect. It should read: "Caused Instances of Speciation" i.e., cross breeding.

It is your failure to respond to this, which is why our debate has made no headway.
To respond to your previous post to me, Yes I fully understand the process which were being discussed, even answering your "question" correctly...However, you still ignored the above problem with your own argument.

Further, while yes I understand your concept behind the nature of theories, laws, and facts; I find the current accepted model to be highly inadequate. To accept a collective group of mens best guesses, i.e. Theories, is to assume that no solid truth can ever be had on a matter, and settling for something that sounds good.

If you are not familiar with Descartes' method for discovering a truth, i'll attempt to simplify it: When one comes to a crossroads in a decision, you have three options. You may proceed straight, turn left or turn right. Lets say you decide to turn right.

While traveling down this road of assumption you make many more turns(assumptions). If at any point down this road you learn that one of these was incorrect, you must take the theory all the way back to the original cross-roads, and choose a different path.

This is where the current model for discovery fails, because instead of actually seeking the truth, and admitting a fallacy, men would rather bend the facts to their will. Blame it on the ego, or perhaps the psyche, either way the fact remains; following the wrong assumption, however appetizing, will never lead you to the Truth.

[edit on 20-7-2010 by blood0fheroes]

[edit on 20-7-2010 by blood0fheroes]

posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 09:04 PM
reply to post by FearNoEvil

oh my head hurts.
I think it is best is I just keep this very simple.

First off it called a observational study, a natural experiment if you will.

Do you know what the would empirical means ? The theory of evolution is a empirical theory a.k.a scientific theory. Just l like every other "Theory" of science it has to empirical .

The word empirical denotes information gained by means of observation, experience, or experiment.A central concept in science and the scientific method is that all evidence must be empirical, or empirically based, that is, dependent on evidence or consequences that are observable by the senses.

You see that observable if it is observable it is known and testable ... you know because it is OBSERVABLE !

I am trying to understand how you say something (evolution) does not happen, yet from your last post I assume you just read a paper on a unicell organism evolve into a multicellular species ...

[edit on 20-7-2010 by nophun]

posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 09:07 PM
reply to post by blood0fheroes

I got one wanting a controlled environment and the other wanting a natural environment .. Get you # together boys.

blood0fheroes I skipped your posts TBH I thought someone was already learning you. when I get back I will back read.

[edit on 20-7-2010 by nophun]

posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 09:16 PM
reply to post by nophun

I am quite learned already, thank you sir. Simply disagreeing with a fallacious argument does not make me ignorant.....Continuing one, once it is shown to be so, does.

posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 09:20 PM

Originally posted by blood0fheroes
reply to post by nophun

Biological Evolution of the Galapagos

Evolution of Antibiotic Resistance

I will just keep adding to this post

Oh your the why does my baby have finger nails dude, and you were not joking ? oh wow. I thought for sure you were a poe in those first two posts
No, I am not joking.

[edit on 20-7-2010 by nophun]

[edit on 20-7-2010 by nophun]

[edit on 20-7-2010 by nophun]

posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 06:59 PM
reply to post by getreadyalready

*laughs* ok I sympathize because I have one of those as well.
If it's any consolation, the trying ones are very smart and if you can manage to herd them well, they can be very successful and ambitious people.

top topics

<< 5  6  7   >>

log in