Debunk evolution once and for all

reply to post by Firepac

When a person exhibits this type of behavior we call it schizophrenia.

Funny way to insult someone

Especially coming from someone with fourteen posts and each one of them about Evolution and creationism.

You are hiding something from us

Why do so many members on this wonderful forum feel the need to start a thread on a subject that has been done to death? Seriously, there is even a thread actually titled Evolution vs Creationism: Are we beating a dead horse, here?

Please, use the search function that has been provided to you by the Ats staff and don't just skim through the thread titles. Take some time to read them because you might learn something or worst case scenario use the knowledge you gained from them to better your argument. There is nothing wrong with posting or adding your argument to any old thread. That is the exact reason Ats staff allows you to have access to all threads that have ever been made from the day Ats was born.

I know what your thinking.... " Who are you to come in here and tell us what we should or shouldn't do because I can't recall anyone calling the Ats police".

Well, all I can say to that is, I'm not telling you what to do but merely suggesting that most people are too lazy to take some time and read a single post let alone an entire thread when in fact if they did this forum would be better than it already is (for the record best on the net).

So, because this thread is basically a rant............

Debunk evolution once and for all I'm sick of Atheist and any anti-Religious, or anti-God movement who revolve all their arguments around evolution.

I decided to rant also. My rant is that I'm tired of people not taking the time to read threads or posts but somehow they still feel that everyone should take the time to read theirs. Also, I'm tired of people that come into threads on this forum that demand proof in a way that makes them sound like a parrot that is just repeating what it heard. "Proof" " give me proof and I will shut up". Everyone knows that parrots are annoying animals that only repeat what they hear but no one seems to know when they are acting like a one. So, for all those that want proof that this thread has been done over and over and over and over and over and over again..............

Here is your proof...........................


Evolution vs Creationism

Evolution vs Creationism

Possible Solution to Creation vs Evolution

Why can't Evolution be a mechanism for creation

evolution beats creationism 10 to 3 and thats generous

53% of Americans believe in Evolution.... 66% believe in Creationism

Why Creationism is wrong and Evolution is right

Top 10 scientific facts: Evolution is false and impossible

Creation vs Evolution is pointless

Creationism's Legacy: Anti-intellectualism

This is just a fraction of the threads on this forum. If you really want to know how many times this interesting but extremely overdone topic has been posted then visit this page ATS search

oozyism, don't take my post personal. I don't know you and have never read 1 of your threads nor can I recall having read 1 of your posts(until I read this thread of-course). I posted just to state the fact that this topic has been done extensively on this forum. I just happened to go into a rant not long after you did. Cheers.

I, for one, like seeing people beating a dead horse, so I read this thread.

Click here for more information.

reply to post by oozyism


I was prepared to have to say the truth that you do not have any evidence against evolution. And well, you don't. However I like the analogy, it certainly works for me, somehow I find that funny too. However it is quite serious.

reply to post by rogerstigers


No. Computers don't exactly self replicate. However, as time goes on the computers will evolve, they will eventually be able to self replicate. (They will evolve and humans will become extinct. Some computers will believe that there was a creator, others will believe that it was an accident and they just evolved into what they are)

Originally posted by The Djin

Originally posted by seagrass
reply to post by The Djin

 

What I wonder is how it could be possible that you Djin do not see it "pop in for tea" every day of your life?

The last thing on this planet religious people need is proof of a creator my friend especially their own creator.

I am not a religious person (I wasn't speaking about Jesus "popping in for tea"), so could you explain this to me? Why is it the last thing they need?

[edit on 24-8-2010 by seagrass]

"GOD takes the idea of evolution as an insult to him. I would also be insulted if someone came around and claimed computers and technology came to exist by mere chance."

That is because you have constructed god in your own image. This site is so retarded. Constantly spitting out one random bit of nonsense after another with no real facts presented...for the most part the habitual curse of one debating the tenants of their religon against a mountain of evidence to the contrary...and if you disagree with the OP or the mods then its 5 year old tantrum time.

In America you have the freedom to pick and partake in the religon of your choosing, but so does everyone else. I am certain that your god would be very upset if he knew that you were spending all of this time focusing on message boards instead of religous war, persecution of the masses, and praying to an invisible man in the sky that sits on a throne and watches you go number 2. That's right, he saw that. Apparently everybody does't poop.

reply to post by seagrass

I am not a religious person (I wasn't speaking about Jesus "popping in for tea"), so could you explain this to me? Why is it the last thing they need?

Perhaps I should have said "want" maybe.

Well if it is their deity they readily admit to falling very short of it's standards so it's off to hell.

If it's standards only require a belief then their off to heaven -

WITH ME

reply to post by TheWrongStuff

"GOD takes the idea of evolution as an insult to him.

Did he tell you this , was it channeled ? or did it come to you in a dream ?

How did you differentiate ?

Originally posted by oozyism






I'm arguing that evolution does exist, but it is not random as evidence suggests.

Chance plays a role in the formation of mutations ...... yes , but the genetic variations created by these chance mutations are effected by natural selection. There is nothing random about natural selection.
Those variations which give a greater reproductive advantage to their possessor are retained .There is nothing random about these selection pressures.

Nothing from the OP has debunked evolution and frankly the argument you're trying to use makes absolutely no sense. If you honestly think computers and humans are in any way similar according to their evolution, then you have absolutely zero understanding of science and evolution.

Creationists really need to develop some new arguments that actually have some empirical merit and stop using the same tired, moronic nonsense.

[edit on 24-8-2010 by DisappearCompletely]

reply to post by oozyism


Nice job, Star and Flag, but I feel you are in the valley and no one is listening. You are walking amongst those that can believe aliens have created man, but to think God created everything is ridiculous. Keep up the good fight.

Hey OP. I respect your tenacity, but I think you are confusing a couple terms.

1. Evolution - There was a post in all of this mess that explains it. You are confusing evolution with change. Change happens to everything all the time. Change is not evolution.

2. God - You are confusing the unknown for God. "Everything around you is evidence of God". That is not true. Just because you run into an unknown doesn't mean that it's because of God. If you go through a causation chain and get to the point where it can't be answered, the default is not God. It's simply unknown. You are attributing all unknowns to God. This is just a belief on your part and not evidence.

As has been said, this argument has been done to the nth. At the end of the chain is simply "unknown" and that's where everyone just has to insert a belief to have it make sense.

Understand?

Do I believe in God? I would say yes. Do I attribute every unknown to God? No way. If you believe in God, it doesn't have to be in opposition to investigation and logic. That's all.

reply to post by oozyism


Regarding your OP, and assertions/conclusions: Your thinking is flawed, and selective.

WATCH, think and LEARN!:

Originally posted by oozyism
The point is, they still evolve.

Therefore it is still called evolution.

The change observed in the cosmos is called "evolution" only by those who are, or have been, misinformed. Proponents of creation and/or "intelligent design" tend to errantly lump cosmological events into the field of evolution -- such tendencies are incorrect and betray an agenda of deception.

You have to process so much data in order to conclude whether the Universal structures are adopting to facilitate survival of Universal species or not

The apparent transformations observed in cosmological objects and systems as a result of entropy change can easily be classified as events that do not favor life.




If you believe in intelligent design, perhaps you might explain why an "intelligent design" created flawed bodies? As a species, our bodies are far from perfect, and some systems (our back and digestive systems) prone to easy disruption.


(typo correction)

[edit on 24-8-2010 by mister.old.school]

reply to post by oozyism

how would we know it is built by humans without any human presence.

What do you mean without any human presence? Do you mean we're going to release these reproductive machines into the wild? Do you know how infinitely destructive that would be to the eco-system? Or do you mean these machines would occur naturally? I assure you that what we think of as a computer could not occur naturally and cannot reproduce.

There would be genetic evidence

Of an evolutionary lineage of reproductive machines but there would still be evidence of the human intervention in order to create those machines. For instance, in the actual fossil record we can trace life all the way back to simple micro-organisms, but with robots that can reproduce the first species would likely have to be very complex to start with.

The transitional fossils would be the dead robot species from the past also created

No, because if the robots could reproduce they would have evolved on their own. We humans would not have to intervene or create anything. I'm not sure how this example, of machines that can reproduce, would help your case. Even if we humans could create such machines it wouldn't prove that life here on Earth was created. It might suggest that life was created at its base form but after that evolution would need to take over. That's fine with me, believing that God created the initial spark and then let it evolve doesn't bother me in the slightest.

There has to be extensive fossil record to prove this.

The fossil record on Earth is fairly extensive, and we're lucky we have as many fossils as we do since fossilization is a process that happens under very specific circumstances. What we do have are creatures at varying levels of strata, the lower we go the more primitive and basic life becomes. Not only do we observe that things become more primitive but we also see recurring themes in fossils, tetra-pods, for instance, have been very successful at surviving but before they appeared on land there were fish with four fins that could push themselves up from beneath the water.

Tiktaalik

There are dozens of other transitional forms and all fit in a hierarchy, an evolutionary web of life

Is time frame used similar to the above example

I would think that the age of the fossil matters a lot less than similarities of the fossil with other known specimens. So it would be more about morphology and transitional forms.

Morphology

List of Transitional Fossils





[edit on 24-8-2010 by Titen-Sxull]

How does arguing a small point in evolution prove God?

If evolution was false, why do scientists seem to agree that we will all eventually lose our little toes as we no longer need them. The only reason we have toes is because at one point in our distant past, we used our feet like our hands, just like monkeys. Why do we have a TAIL BONE if we never had a tail? Riddle me that

If God created us in his image, why would he give us traits that would eventually become useless? Surely god doesnt go around like a monkey, swinging from trees with his feet......

If you really think about, most creatures on this planet have altered themselves over long periods of time out of necessity and survival. If God was the one making these changes, why wouldnt he have just made these creatures perfect the first time, instead of making them wait tens of thousands of years for their bodies to finally change slightly.

If God created wolves, why wouldnt he have also created dogs? Mans best friend. Man befriended wolves and over thousands of years of living together the dogs became different, eventually branching off into hundreds of different breeds, some looking nothing like the original wolf. This was a physical as well as mental adaptation to their surroundings. Basically the precursor to evolution.

We didnt always look the way we do now, and in a million years, if we are still alive as a species, I promise you we will be different as well. Explain THAT with some weak analogy!

[edit on 24-8-2010 by WhiteDevil013]

reply to post by oozyism


And yet another thread that clearly shows how little some creationists actually know about evolution.

People seem to think because there are different versions of human beings, somehow it all came together by chance.

Evolution isn't based on CHANCE! It's all about adaption to your environment, and that's NOT based on chance. Please go to Wikipedia or any science website and learn what evolution is before making weird claims here. At least if you want people to take you seriously...

Also, you do realize there's a difference between inanimate objects and living things such as humans...right? Even IF we were able to create something technological that's comparable to ourselves (and so far we can't), that still wouldn't prove we were created. There is ZERO hard scientific evidence that some super being created us.

There's no nice way of saying this, but the OP's statements are based on ignorance and a severe lack of knowledge in biology/evolution.