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: 9
13
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShakeNBake

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by ShakeNBake
 


We have witnessed minor mutations and speciation in the lab.


Really send me an article. Oh wait you cant, because evolution cannot be scientifically proven in a lab. Just because ur minor 1-inch dick "mutates" into 1.5 inches it doesn't mean anything except ur probably Asian.


How about you google it yourself? Or look it up on Wiki? It's all there, not even hidden in some backwater sites.

Speciation

Look, everyone's entitled to their beliefs. But coming on here randomly stating stuff that just isn't true it only serves one thing: MAKING YOU LOOK UNEDUCATED AND STUPID.

Posting on ATS should be:

1) Do your research.
2) Post.
3) Discuss

...and not...

1) Post random beliefs in an angry manner.

[edit on 25-8-2010 by MrXYZ]




posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShakeNBake
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


snip


Why is science making you so angry?


[edit on 25-8-2010 by elevatedone]



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 09:27 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Science almost always makes Creationists angry.

Take it from a former Creationist


Nothing makes them more angry than being presented with facts that easily refute their arguments and links that instantly decimate their statements. Their blood begins to boil and that's when they usually ad hom the defender of Evolution as arrogant or a brainwashed sheep accepting what scientists say on faith.

[edit on 25-8-2010 by Titen-Sxull]



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 09:30 PM
link   
*** ATTENTION ***

STOP THE NAME CALLING AND BICKERING>

You Will Be Post Banned.



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 09:40 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 




Scientists working in relevant fields accept evolution as fact, it's not something that's really debatable. The only ones debating it are the religious hardliners because it goes against their belief, or so they think.


No they don't, evolution is not a fact, it has never been a fact, the whole story line of it is a theory, the factual details in it, are facts.

Just because it is called the theory of evolution, doesn't mean every detail of it is a theory, and nothing has been proven to be correct. At the same time it doesn't mean all of it is correct, hence it is still called a theory.

Just like there are religious scientists, there are Atheist scientists, and there are Agnostic scientists.

Just because a scientist is an Atheist doesn't mean his account of evolution is correct, the same goes for religious. In the end, it all becomes faith, which scientists do you believe it, hence believe --> belief --> faith-->



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 09:46 PM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 


You don't understand what "theory" means in science. It doesn't mean the same as the word you use on a daily basis.

Scientific theory
And one more...

Evolution is fact...no matter how hard the religious groups are trying to argue "science is just as much faith as religion". Sorry, but religion doesn't have peer reviews



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 09:53 PM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 




it has never been a fact


In the scientific sense it is not a fact, in that facts are just bits of information that help support a conclusion. But in the colloquial sense than yes, Evolution is a fact. It is something that is directly observed. Just look up observed speciation, we have literally observed the divergence of species. We also use evolution of our advantage, we bred certain breeds of dogs according to their characteristics and we bred certain plants, such as Corn and Bananas, to become easier to grow and eat. Selective breeding is Evolution at work as Evolution is merely genetic changes over the course of generations. No one can deny that genetic variation exists between each generation and the next, these variations compound on one another over the course of thousands of generations eventually leading to separate and new species.



Just like there are religious scientists, there are Atheist scientists, and there are Agnostic scientists.


And the vast majority of them fully accept Evolution. Only a few fringe folks biased by religion, or Creation scientists who aren't really scientists at all, deny Evolution and that is based on religious bias and not evidence.



which scientists do you believe it, hence believe


Science works on CONSENSUS and PEER REVIEW, so when accepting something science says you aren't expected to accept the viewpoint of only one scientist. They might view details of Evolution differently or each have expertise in a specific area of Evolutionary Theory but their ideas must make it through peer review to become widely accepted.



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 10:07 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Whats will you and all the wacky cartoons? So now theory means something else. Come on dude, get your stuff straight. I did come across this though.

1. Provide an explanation and evidence of how all life does NOT show a fundamental unity in the mechanisms of replication, heritability, catalysis, and metabolism.
2. Provide an explanation and evidence of how a common descent does NOT predict a nested hierarchy pattern, or groups within groups, and that the tree of life is invalid.
3. Provide an explanation and evidence of how morphological, biochemical, or genetic traits have absolutely NO meaning.
4. Provide an explanation and evidence of how fossil animals DON'T fit in the tree of life; DON'T appear in a chronological order; DON'T show changes consistent with common descent over hundreds of millions of years; and that fossils are instead consistent with sudden creation.
5. Provide an explanation and evidence of how rudimentary, vestigial characters, such as sightless eyes or wings useless for flight, and atavisms DON'T support evolution.
6. Provide an explanation and evidence of how ontogeny does NOT give information about the historical pathway of an organism's evolution.
7. Provide an explanation and evidence of how the distribution of species is NOT consistent with their evolutionary history.
8. Provide an explanation and evidence of how homologous traits (including genes) do NOT reflect evolutionary history.
9. Provide an explanation and evidence of how suboptimal structures and functions are NOT explained by evolution.
10. Provide an explanation and evidence of how speciation has NOT been observed.
11. Last but not least, propose an alternative hypothesis to evolution that is both TESTABLE and FALSIFIABLE


Link



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShakeNBake
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Whats will you and all the wacky cartoons? So now theory means something else. Come on dude, get your stuff straight. I did come across this though.

1. Provide an explanation and evidence of how all life does NOT show a fundamental unity in the mechanisms of replication, heritability, catalysis, and metabolism. Why would such a unity contradict evolution?
2. Provide an explanation and evidence of how a common descent does NOT predict a nested hierarchy pattern, or groups within groups, and that the tree of life is invalid. The tree of life is EXACTLY showing the hierarchy and patterns of how species evolved from one to another.
3. Provide an explanation and evidence of how morphological, biochemical, or genetic traits have absolutely NO meaning. What do you mean they have no meaning?? Why don't they have no meaning?
4. Provide an explanation and evidence of how fossil animals DON'T fit in the tree of life; DON'T appear in a chronological order; DON'T show changes consistent with common descent over hundreds of millions of years; and that fossils are instead consistent with sudden creation. Actually, every fossil we found to date fits chronologically and clearly shows how species evolved. Works even for us humans, we know where the human species comes from geographically. We can even take the DNA of anyone and find out exactly which race/tribe his ancestors belonged to. They just did it with Hitler's DNA...his ancestors came from North Africa, which is ironic.
5. Provide an explanation and evidence of how rudimentary, vestigial characters, such as sightless eyes or wings useless for flight, and atavisms DON'T support evolution. That supports evolution, lol. An ancestor of a fish wiht no non-functioning eyes maybe had eyes, or not...and the fish you see now is the "in-between". If he lived in the dark for generations, his body will adapt and EVOLVE and not consider eyesight important anymore.
6. Provide an explanation and evidence of how ontogeny does NOT give information about the historical pathway of an organism's evolution. What? Explain this quesiton better please!
7. Provide an explanation and evidence of how the distribution of species is NOT consistent with their evolutionary history. It actually is...so far every fossil we found and today's species all fit perfectly.
8. Provide an explanation and evidence of how homologous traits (including genes) do NOT reflect evolutionary history. Given that we can test someone's DNA and tell him exactly where his ancestors came from, that statement is scientifically wrong. Genes reflect our evolution very very well.
9. Provide an explanation and evidence of how suboptimal structures and functions are NOT explained by evolution. Suboptimal under which conditions? Evolution doesn't happen from one day to the other, it takes A LOT of time. Changes in the environment can happen a lot quicker. In any case, the fact that we have to breathe through the same orifice as we eat doesn't exactly support an "intelligent" design theory either!
10. Provide an explanation and evidence of how speciation has NOT been observed. You keep on repeating that disinformation. Speciation HAS been observed...multiple times!
11. Last but not least, propose an alternative hypothesis to evolution that is both TESTABLE and FALSIFIABLE Why would I??? We have TESTED and VERIFIED evolution through careful peer reviews. It works, we're using the findings in today's medicine and gene therapy. Evolution works and is a fact.


Link


Also, the fact that you had to copy/paste questions from somewhere else just shows that you ran out of own arguments. Please clarify that one question I don't understand...you might have something there because I don't even understand what you're asking for, lol. The rest of the questions/requests/statements are just plain hogwash.

Nice try though



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 10:46 PM
link   
reply to post by ShakeNBake
 


Hopefully I'm not to off topic with this but, what's really standing out in this thread at the moment. Is that your willingness to be confrontational is getting the better of you. You need to pull back on the reins partner before you get banned from this site. Unless you don't give a damn then, by all means.
You can't possibly represent your beliefs with insults. I don't care if someone ties you up to the back of their car and drags you thru the streets. Persecution is apart of taking up the cross. If you insult people you just might see God wav'in a green flag.



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by oozyism
 


You don't understand what "theory" means in science. It doesn't mean the same as the word you use on a daily basis.

Scientific theory
And one more...

Evolution is fact...no matter how hard the religious groups are trying to argue "science is just as much faith as religion". Sorry, but religion doesn't have peer reviews


Did you know that Genesis Chapter one fits a beginning 100%. If you put in what you know about science.

Have you or anyone ever tried to solve Gods explanation scientifically on your won without Googling. Its easy.

If people who argue here claim to be intelligent, they should have no problems with such a task at all.

In Genesis Chapter 1. God is telling everyone who bothers to read, that Earth and the Sea brings forth life. God even explains the order in which life evolves. God is telling us about evolution.

Science is right, and creationists are illiterates who dont understand what they read.



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 10:53 PM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


Not really, it states birds came before reptiles and we know for a fact that's not true. We also know that men didn't just appear in his current form. We evolved and have scientific evidence of that.

If you really wanna stick to your belief, you could argue god used evolution as a tool. But I'm afraid the Genesis account is wrong for the most part.



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 11:03 PM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 





Science is right, and creationists are illiterates who dont understand what they read.


Is there anyway you can reform what you said? I for one would be more comfortable, if instead you made the same point centered around the fact that Genesis can be very vague. I guess cause that's better than being swept away with that dusty old illiterate crowd.


edit to change spelling of there. must be getting senial.


[edit on 25-8-2010 by randyvs]



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 11:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by spy66
 


Not really, it states birds came before reptiles and we know for a fact that's not true. We also know that men didn't just appear in his current form. We evolved and have scientific evidence of that.

If you really wanna stick to your belief, you could argue god used evolution as a tool. But I'm afraid the Genesis account is wrong for the most part.


Well you say this because you dont read your facts properly.

What we know for a fact to day might change tomorrow.



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 11:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by spy66
 





Science is right, and creationists are illiterates who dont understand what they read.


Is there anyway you can reform what you said. I for one would be more comfortable, if instead you made the same point centered around the fact that Genesis can be very vague. I guess cause that's better than being swept away with that dusty old illiterate crowd.


edit to change spelling of there. must be getting senial.


[edit on 25-8-2010 by randyvs]


How would you like it explained?



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 11:14 PM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


I don't know! I was asking you. Was I being to vague?


Nevermind

[edit on 25-8-2010 by randyvs]



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 11:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by spy66

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by spy66
 


Not really, it states birds came before reptiles and we know for a fact that's not true. We also know that men didn't just appear in his current form. We evolved and have scientific evidence of that.

If you really wanna stick to your belief, you could argue god used evolution as a tool. But I'm afraid the Genesis account is wrong for the most part.


Well you say this because you dont read your facts properly.

What we know for a fact to day might change tomorrow.





Well, the scientific facts state reptiles came before birds. We have hard evidence for that and NOTHING that would cast a shadow of doubt on it.

Of course there's the off chance some invisible man secretly made all the bird fossils younger than reptile fossils we found. Not exactly sure why anyone would do that though



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShakeNBake
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Whats will you and all the wacky cartoons? So now theory means something else. Come on dude, get your stuff straight. I did come across this though.

1. Provide an explanation and evidence of how all life does NOT show a fundamental unity in the mechanisms of replication, heritability, catalysis, and metabolism.
2. Provide an explanation and evidence of how a common descent does NOT predict a nested hierarchy pattern, or groups within groups, and that the tree of life is invalid.
3. Provide an explanation and evidence of how morphological, biochemical, or genetic traits have absolutely NO meaning.
4. Provide an explanation and evidence of how fossil animals DON'T fit in the tree of life; DON'T appear in a chronological order; DON'T show changes consistent with common descent over hundreds of millions of years; and that fossils are instead consistent with sudden creation.
5. Provide an explanation and evidence of how rudimentary, vestigial characters, such as sightless eyes or wings useless for flight, and atavisms DON'T support evolution.
6. Provide an explanation and evidence of how ontogeny does NOT give information about the historical pathway of an organism's evolution.
7. Provide an explanation and evidence of how the distribution of species is NOT consistent with their evolutionary history.
8. Provide an explanation and evidence of how homologous traits (including genes) do NOT reflect evolutionary history.
9. Provide an explanation and evidence of how suboptimal structures and functions are NOT explained by evolution.
10. Provide an explanation and evidence of how speciation has NOT been observed.
11. Last but not least, propose an alternative hypothesis to evolution that is both TESTABLE and FALSIFIABLE


Link


The best part of this is that, if you had bothered to continue reading the post you cut and pasted this from, you would have seen that the author of the post was being sarcastic and went on to say:

"Maybe it would be more logical to understand how science provides explanations based on the best supporting evidence, which in this case is extensive and consistent, and it points unambiguously to evolution, including common descent, change over time, and adaptation influenced by natural selection. This is why the theory of evolution is accepted by the majority of scientists worldwide. So basically, not only is your Mom right, you'd need a lot more than just a fossil argument to back up your case against evolution."

Good job on proving yourself to be ridiculous.



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 11:56 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWrongStuff
 



You are right I would like someone to correct me if they can. perhaps my statement was not clear enough. Show me how x species evolved into Y species with less/more chromosomes. This has not been documented at least not since we have been studying this - that I know of. Would we not see the signs of evolution in any species with the advancements of science today. If your reply is going to be that it would take millions of years then the "evidence" of evolution and the time line in which this happens do not add up.

Human beings have 46 chromosomes or 23 pair

Apes and Chips have 48 chromosomes or 24 pair

How do we have sooooo many bone specimens and whole skeleton of different speciees of dinosaurs that existed long long before chromagnum man and soooo few skeletons that are the evidence and supposedly prove the theory of evolution.

Sorry I'm still not convinced.



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by spy66
 


I don't know! I was asking you. Was I being to vague?


Nevermind

[edit on 25-8-2010 by randyvs]


Well i was being specific just for you lol. Anyway, Never mind this topic is a joke to discus with people on ATS. Who probably dont even have a education to get a proper job.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join