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.

 

Debunk evolution once and for all

page: 12
13
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by nottheonlyone
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


You mean do research and links to back it up like you...oh...wait


Read the links I posted, and then edit your posts in shame


I know that you believe you understand what you think I wrote, but I'm not sure you realize that what you read is not what I meant.

I did not need a link to explain the point I was trying to get across. Let me make it clear to you that I do not necessarily disagree with the THEORY of evolution nor the THEORY of creationism. My point is that both are theories and neither can be proven.

Maybe we did not evolve from the "monkey people". Maybe they existed here for a short period of time before or shortly after Homo sapiens - after all one of the biggest arguments to anti-evolution is the fact that so few remains will actually become fossils.

So fun to take the logic and turn it back on itself.

Atheists are funny though - They put their "faith" in science and refuse to call it that. Hundreds of years from now people will look back and laugh at all the silly things we thought we knew. Just like we to to our ancestors today. Back in the day it was easy for people to believe god created everything. Maybe the THEORY of evolution is just today's version of "GOD."

People need to believe in something, even if that something proves to them that there is nothing....

Evolution is an alternative theory to creationism. Anyone that ever went to bible school as a kid knows that. You are not supposed to believe in both according to the bible. Yet people continue argue that fact.

The bottom line is even if the Theory of evolution is correct that still does not answer the question: Where did we come from and what happens to us after we die? If the theory of evolution is correct the only answers it provides is what happened after we arrived and what happens while we are alive. I am always skeptical to both sides. Hey it rhymes!




posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 07:55 PM
link   
And science still does not explain the bumble bee..... Yet we think we understand the creation of all living things.... Yeah, there are some "missing links."



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 08:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by oozyism
 


The whole article is talking about speciation that has been seen in the lab and therefore should be read by someone who claims it hasn't happened. However, since I don't see that happening start at section 5.3 and read to the end.


Well I gave it a try, to understand what it was saying, but I didn't, you turn to read it and tell us what it is saying


This is gonna be interesting.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShakeNBake
So basically the majority of the idiots on this forum believe we are here by chance, right? Because thats what evolution teaches. That everything happened by chance, am I right?


I guess what you say now is actually something that is worth arguing about.

Are we here by chance or is existence created by choice?

Personally i think we exist by choice. I have thought a lot about infinite and finite and visualized the two as two separate dimensions. But where the finite dimensions always must exist within the infinite dimension.

When you compare finite and infinite you will know that the infinite dimension is a constant. The infinite dimension is a dimension that will never change randomly or by chance. The reason for that is, A infinite dimension is as Large as it can get and as small as it can get at the same time. Therefor It has on reason to change.

A finite can not consist of something that the infinite doesn't have. So if you think about our human intelligence. We would never have had intelligence if the infinite dimension didn't have intelligence.

The infinite dimension must have intelligence to be able to form a finite existence. Because the infinite dimension is a constant and has no reason to change unless it wants to.

So in the beginning when only the infinite dimension existed, there was only one intelligent source. Religious believers have given this source a name. And they call It God.

When you observe existence you will notice that the finite dimension consists of solids and emitted energies given of by the solids. Expansion is not just measured by how solids move compare to each other. Expansion is also measured by how a solid emit energy(s). We can measure the energy field for instance, Or light.

When you look at something solid like a rock. You know it consists of compressed energies. When you visualize this on a bigger scale. You will come to a conclusion that existence of finite must have been formed by a compression.

Since the infinite dimension is a Large as it can get and as small as it can get. All finite must exist within the infinite dimension. And only the infinite dimension can form finite, and the dimension did so by compressing it self by choice.


That existence is formed by a compression also explains how finite can expand. And if you think even deeper about this expansion, you know evolution is not random, but intelligently planed.

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to post by nottheonlyone
 


I don't think you understand what science is if you call it "faith". Science is the exact opposite of faith because statements go through a rigorous peer review process and have to be backed up by FACTS.

The only people trying to argue science is based on "faith" are creationist and religious groups. Why you ask? Easy: If they get their followers to believe science is based on faith, they can "offer" them the choice of 2 beliefs...and guess which one they're gonna choose. It's an easy way to keep their followers dumb enough to disregard facts.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 08:35 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


To tell you the truth, everything bows down to faith, hence not all of us are doctors, nor all of us are engineers, nor all of us are physicist, nor quantum physicists, nor Chemists, nor Computer programmers, or Network Designers, or Astronomers, but we are believers.

We decide whether to believe doctors or not, why do we believe them? Because we seen the evidence, that doctors can heal us


Why do we believe Engineers? Because we seen Engineers build things.

Why do we oppose Evolutionists? Because they haven't created a new specie yet. We don't want them to stop their pursuit, but we are waiting for their results.

Once they do, I'll guarantee that I'll be the first to jump in line, and say it is not a theory any more.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 08:52 PM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 


So you are comparing applied sciences like medicine and engineering to observed sciences like evolution? You do realize that "evolutionists" isn't a profession, right? Scientists working in related fields use the knowledge we gained from the theory of evolution in their fields.

In medicine, they use evolutionary knowledge to create new vaccines, so technically they are building things. Same thing in gene technology.

The evidence for evolution is just as strong as the evidence for the function of the liver. Not a single thing contradicts evolution as of today. Every new fossil "fits" perfectly, and we actively use findings in modern science. If it were wrong, all those things like many vaccines would totally fail.

And being a "believer", as you call them, doesn't mean you should completely disregard facts. At least I hope it doesn't...otherwise we'd have to deal with a ton of very irrational and illogical people.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 09:08 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


What evolutionary knowledge are you talking about? Which is used in Medicine?

Many things contradict evolution, like the fossil findings totally goes against gradual evolution.

I can guarantee you are a believer, I bet you haven't seen inside a nuclear power plant? And I bet you haven't seen the empirical evidence of the claim that nuclear energy can be turned in to electricity.

Until you do, you are a believer like me.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 09:11 PM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 


Actually, every fossil we found so far perfectly fits the "tree of life".

As for the use of evolution in medicine: LINK



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 09:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by badw0lf
I have an inkling that someone saw the last episode of Futurama and thought "That's a good idea!"

It was afterall about how Professor Farnsworth got sick of earth and it's incessant arguing over evolution, said "I cant live here anymore" and flew to a distant planet with his nano bots that could turn toxic stuff into green products - which when set free, started to evolve. They discovered trilloBots in the lakes which kept on evolving.

Eventually, a race of intelligent robots captured the prehistoric 'bio-organisms' of Farnsworth and crew as proof of evolution and the same arguments went on, but this time from the slant of the robots having a creator, as opposed to evolving.

Till farsnworth says "Yess, it was I who made you, uhh from my nanotbots!" and the robot equivalent of farsnworth said "I cant live on this planet anymore" and flew away to a different planet.

Poor Oozy, plagiarizing Fox....



I rarely watch Futurama, but I make sure never to miss an episode of Family Guy


This idea is not plagiarism, but simply a scenario which reveals the fallacies of evolution.

I guess you don't know what plagiarism means



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by oozyism
 


Actually, every fossil we found so far perfectly fits the "tree of life".

As for the use of evolution in medicine: LINK


Lol, the tree of life, I've heard of that, but it seems you don't know much about fossils findings and how it is supposed to be used as evidence for evolution, I already made a scenario about it previously, have a good read:



The transitional fossils would be the dead robot species from the past also created, the thing you have to remember, this scenario would only be correct if there was thousands of different species of Robots created at one time.

After a long period of time, only some robot remains will survive, since there are thousands of species people would find specie (A), at time frame (1), specie (b), at time frame (2), and not in time frame (1). Does that mean that specie (b) didn't exist in time frame (1), therefore concluding that specie (b) must have evolved from (A)? There has to be extensive fossil record to prove this.



And in regards to your medicine use, that failed because:


Some of the most useful applications of evolution often do not use evolutionary theory directly; instead they use technologies developed by evolutionary biologists


Your own source.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 09:51 PM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 


They have created new species. I gave you a whole page of them. Just because you didn't understand the site doesn't mean that those observed instances of speciation never happened.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by oozyism
 


They have created new species. I gave you a whole page of them. Just because you didn't understand the site doesn't mean that those observed instances of speciation never happened.


I just want to know if you understood, or are you just faith based, and believe what ever they said.

Once again, do you understand what they are saying, if they do, please explain in layman terms.

EDIT TO ADD:
Also tell me what new species have they created?

[edit on 26-8-2010 by oozyism]



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 09:55 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


I already told you I do not support either theory. There is not yet a label for what I believe.... So don't try to label me. I am not a creationist and I am not a member of any religious organization. (I'm not an Atheist or an Agnostic either.) So to your comment that those are the only people apposed to the Theory of evolution.. That is a pretty bold statement - you sure about that?

Again my point is that it is a THEORY. If it was fact then we could call it that. Backed by fact or based on fact put it how ever you want. At the end of the day we cannot call it truth because it is still strung together by an idea or hypothesis.

I can play your game though.... Only an Atheist would argue the fact that science does not come down to faith.

You have faith that the scientists have their facts strait. You have faith that the links you post are unaltered and true. These things only make sense to you because someone told that is how it works. You have faith in others - through your faith in others you end up with faith in your beliefs. Deal with it.

Not going to argue any of my other points...? Too mad at faith huh?



[edit on 26-8-2010 by nottheonlyone]



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 10:12 PM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 


In the most basic terms, these are studies where scientists have started with one species, usually a species of fly. Then through selective mating they are eventually able to produce a generation of flies that cannot breed with the original species, but are able to breed with each other. This is what speciation is, the divergence of a species into at least two species.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by oozyism
 


In the most basic terms, these are studies where scientists have started with one species, usually a species of fly. Then through selective mating they are eventually able to produce a generation of flies that cannot breed with the original species, but are able to breed with each other. This is what speciation is, the divergence of a species into at least two species.


OK, thanks for the simplified version, now can you copy and paste the example of the above claim.

Thanks in advance, this is not just for me, but for everyone who is gonna read this thread.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 10:27 PM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 


So Your point has been made. Although I do not quite agree with the original computer example. You have proven that evolution and creation of a species as we know it today is not a random act of nature and they still cannot prove it is - even after creating a new species of fly. This happened in a lab by a creator and not in nature....



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by nottheonlyone
reply to post by oozyism
 


So Your point has been made. Although I do not quite agree with the original computer example. You have proven that evolution and creation of a species as we know it today is not a random act of nature and they still cannot prove it is - even after creating a new species of fly. This happened in a lab by a creator and not in nature....




Nope, that is not my point, we are waiting for him to post the examples..
...



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 12:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Titen-Sxull
 





No. As others have explained evolution is not by random chance. There a great many factors that can guide evolution - environmental factors for instance.


Alright now wait just a darn toot'in. If there is no guiding hand in all that is,
then that means everything happened by chance.
The earth being just the right distance from the sun so evolution could have it's infinite amount of time needed to do it's hocus pocus without a
magician. The fact that science can explain it all and make sense of it really dosn't mean a whole lot. When you start adding up all the special
circumstances, chance happenings, and there are a great many checks and balances so to speak that have so much precision involved. You guys I think need to come clean with some truth here . IMO.
That's where we all part ways. Op dosn't stand a chance of debunking evolution for good. But for me and many many other human beings.
There is far less chance that all that is, is by chance. Than there is for a supreme being giving rise to it all.



In the most basic terms, these are studies where scientists have started with one species, usually a species of fly. Then through selective mating they are eventually able to produce a generation of flies that cannot breed with the original species, but are able to breed with each other. This is what speciation is, the divergence of a species into at least two species.


You know what X? The Damn thing is still a freagin fly man.
Turn a fly into a spider and you will have my undivided attention.



[edit on 27-8-2010 by randyvs]

[edit on 27-8-2010 by randyvs]



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 02:39 AM
link   
Can anyone explain how "AWARENESS" came into being ???




top topics



 
13
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join