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.

 

A simple and understandable counter to every anti-Evolution argument.

page: 1
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 11:10 PM
link   
Done in comic form by an artist named Darryl Cunningham. It covers arguments like "why are there still apes?" and "how could something like the eye evolve?".
I say that it is a nice way for someone to hear about the truth than just from videos by Dawkins.

I'll post a select few pages, there are 8 in all.

darryl-cunningham.blogspot.com...









posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 11:16 PM
link   
reply to post by SG-17
 


It's a lost cause. You cannot persuade someone who already has their mind made up.



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 11:18 PM
link   
Your sig says it all. Let the religious people be religious, they are generally better people for it. If you want to look down on them then please by all means continue but other people will see you as small and insecure for doing so in an open forum.

And for the record, I do believe in evolution but I also believe in religious tolerance.
edit on 27-6-2011 by BrianC because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 11:24 PM
link   

When one listens to biologists, and especially paleontologists, it sounds as if the fossil record is well established so that it demonstrates a gradual step-by-step development of lower animal life into more and more complex forms that lead to man and the various animals now walking the earth. Since the development of the animals currently roaming the earth would dictate many, many transitional animals from one "branch" to the current "tip of the branch", one might even expect the number of intermediate transitional fossils to outnumber those of extinct animals as well as those currently alive.

And that leads us to the dirty little secret of the evolutionists: There are no (AKA zero, cipher, zilch, nothing, nada, goose eggs) "missing links" or intermediate fossils of creatures that were in the process of developing from one type of animal to another. Yes, it is possible to group animals into similar families, and even neatly arrange the fossils so they appear to be evolving from one group to another, but the fossil records don’t reflect this.(4)

According to evolutionists, there should be about 100-million-years worth of "missing links" during the time it took for fish to evolve from invertebrates, for example. Instead there are no intermediate fossils, only full-sprung fish or well developed invertebrates. No fossil that looks even remotely like an invertebrate on the road to evolving into a fish has ever been discovered.

Evolutionists claim it took upwards of 50 million years for a fish to evolve into an amphibians. But again, there are no transitional forms. Not a single fossil with part fins/part feet has ever been discovered. That there would be 50 million years of creatures living and dying without a single fossil being produced again stretches the credibility of those defending evolution by an enormous factor.

Fossil ants look like today’s ants; fossil cockroaches look like today’s cockroaches; etc., with no intermediate "ancestors" leading up to their appearance. Fossils that scientists claim are 50 million-year-old bats have the bone structure that is identical to today’s bats. This pattern remains true with every major plant and animal line. All higher categories of living things, such as complex invertebrates, fishes, amphibians, reptiles, flying reptiles, birds, bats, primates and man, appear abruptly without any "missing links" preceding them.


Research

The following link goes into much more detail than what I have posted here, and I was too lazy to type the parts of this information that I already knew, and the article will explain the problems with the theory of evolution much more eloquently and in-depth than I ever could.
edit on 6/27/11 by JiggyPotamus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 11:39 PM
link   
reply to post by JiggyPotamus
 


There are no missing links? Let me introduce you to the Archeopteryx.


As well it seems that the author of that article is assuming that all life becomes fossils, when in reality it is quite the opposite. Only a marginal fraction of all life on Earth is ever fossilized. There are very specific requirements for fossilization to occur. As well seismic activity and other catastrophe can easily destroy fossils.

Also the author seems to assume that evolution is only addition, when in fact most of it is subtraction as well.



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 01:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by JiggyPotamus
And that leads us to the dirty little secret of the evolutionists: There are no (AKA zero, cipher, zilch, nothing, nada, goose eggs) "missing links" or intermediate fossils of creatures that were in the process of developing from one type of animal to another.

Ignorance is a bliss. Oh how I love creationists, they make my life so much more fun!


edit on 28/6/11 by Thain Esh Kelch because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 02:27 AM
link   
Given the totality of the data, both from science, myth and alien reports, I am of the opinion that the human race goes through "revisions." Like some kind of long-term laboratory experiment. We are designed by the greys, and allowed to reproduce and develop while they study our progress and accomplishments, or maybe just our genetic progress/integrity. At some point, for whatever reason, we are wiped out en-masse (by global flood or other methods), some of us are saved (maybe for genetic extraction but probably as live breeding stock for future revisions) and once the slate is wiped clean on Earth, they plop down their newer revision and start the experiment anew. This explains the following:

- gaps in human fossil record
- unexplained "unique chromosomal differences" only in humans and not in any other living thing on earth
- common global religious myth of early flood, and of apocalyptic end-times
- alien abduction with focus on reproductive/genetic extraction
- reports of abductees and live humans imprisoned at Dulce
- unexplained megaliths with little clue as to who made them or how
- twin-snake as the symbol of medicine in ancient times = DNA, how would any primitive person know that??
edit on 28-6-2011 by Observer99 because: addition



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 02:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Observer99
This explains the following:

- gaps in human fossil record

Did you see the post above?


- unexplained "unique chromosomal differences" only in humans and not in any other living thing on earth

Such as?


- common global religious myth of early flood, and of apocalyptic end-times

Good thing we have Hollywood to keep them going!


- alien abduction with focus on reproductive/genetic extraction
- reports of abductees and live humans imprisoned at Dulce
- unexplained megaliths with little clue as to who made them or how

Uhm... Yeah... O_o


- twin-snake as the symbol of medicine in ancient times = DNA, how would any primitive person know that??

Seriously? Wow. I assume drawings of mushrooms also means that primitive persons knew about nuclear power?



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 03:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thain Esh Kelch

Originally posted by Observer99
This explains the following:
- gaps in human fossil record

Did you see the post above?


I saw it. There are still large gaps and 'evolutionary dead-ends' -- at least it is commonly accepted as evolution. It's just as possible that those are failed/ended genetic experiments. We limited humans have even started dabbling in genetics -- we can do things like make deadly plagues (oh joy) and clone animals and people, and we're still in technological infancy, or at best childhood. Surely, if you claim to be a person of science, you wouldn't deny that if we as a civilization continue to survive and progress, that we could certainly one day (probably in the next couple centuries) begin to fully manipulate and even create species from scratch. 100 years ago that notion would have seemed ludicrous. Today, due to the advancement of technology and decoding of genes, it is something which is clearly a possibility on our horizon.

Surely, then, any civilization advanced enough to have the kinds of craft which are reported by the hundreds of thousands, if not millions of UFO reports worldwide, would also have the ability to easily modify DNA, and tinker with a bunch of apes.

Thus, I've clearly established both the means, and the opportunity. The motive is speculative, but I believe clearly grounded in theoretical logic. Once you've mastered the cosmos and have access to as much raw resources as you need, DNA and species manipulation seems like the endgame (together with totalitarian control of space), at least to this hairless ape who has spent many hours playing many simulation video games.




- unexplained "unique chromosomal differences" only in humans and not in any other living thing on earth

Such as?


We have 23 chromosomes, all apes have 24. "Two fused to make 23 thus enters man" -- this is still unexplained from an evolutionary standpoint. 1.) We can't breed with apes. 2.) Tons of extra information is contained in that chromosome. Biblical creationists say this was proof of the act of God. I say it is proof of the "creation" act of aliens. Rewrite a bit of chimp DNA, fuse a chromosome, a bit of simple cloning and set your experiment loose. Very easy for an advanced civilization.




- common global religious myth of early flood, and of apocalyptic end-times

Good thing we have Hollywood to keep them going!


Relevance? None. Fallacy? Yep.



- alien abduction with focus on reproductive/genetic extraction
- reports of abductees and live humans imprisoned at Dulce
- unexplained megaliths with little clue as to who made them or how

Uhm... Yeah... O_o


Emoticon as substitute for refutation = fail. Why would you even visit this site if you're so blind as to discount all UFO reports, even from military officers and police, some from people who were entrusted with classified government data and our nation's nuclear security? If you can't believe those people, why would you believe ANYTHING OR ANYONE on here?



- twin-snake as the symbol of medicine in ancient times = DNA, how would any primitive person know that??

Seriously? Wow. I assume drawings of mushrooms also means that primitive persons knew about nuclear power?


Yes. Seriously. Did you even doubt your dogma for one moment to consider the improbability of this?

Drawings of mushrooms, no. Drawings of giant mushrooms in the sky with people running from it, very possibly.

Snakes are poisonous and associated with death. Why pair them up and twist them into a helix, and associate that with life? Scoffing and incredulity is not a refutation of evidence, sorry:




posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 05:28 AM
link   
Hey man,

Cheers for the share and I'm with you all the way but posting a the 1st chapter of a highschool biology text book in comic form doesn't really counter many arguments....

Oh, and this ones for JiggyPotamus
List of Transition Fossils



edit on 28/6/2011 by 1littlewolf because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 06:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by JiggyPotamus

When one listens to biologists, and especially paleontologists, it sounds as if the fossil record is well established so that it demonstrates a gradual step-by-step development of lower animal life into more and more complex forms that lead to man and the various animals now walking the earth. Since the development of the animals currently roaming the earth would dictate many, many transitional animals from one "branch" to the current "tip of the branch", one might even expect the number of intermediate transitional fossils to outnumber those of extinct animals as well as those currently alive.

And that leads us to the dirty little secret of the evolutionists: There are no (AKA zero, cipher, zilch, nothing, nada, goose eggs) "missing links" or intermediate fossils of creatures that were in the process of developing from one type of animal to another. Yes, it is possible to group animals into similar families, and even neatly arrange the fossils so they appear to be evolving from one group to another, but the fossil records don’t reflect this.(4)

According to evolutionists, there should be about 100-million-years worth of "missing links" during the time it took for fish to evolve from invertebrates, for example. Instead there are no intermediate fossils, only full-sprung fish or well developed invertebrates. No fossil that looks even remotely like an invertebrate on the road to evolving into a fish has ever been discovered.

Evolutionists claim it took upwards of 50 million years for a fish to evolve into an amphibians. But again, there are no transitional forms. Not a single fossil with part fins/part feet has ever been discovered. That there would be 50 million years of creatures living and dying without a single fossil being produced again stretches the credibility of those defending evolution by an enormous factor.

Fossil ants look like today’s ants; fossil cockroaches look like today’s cockroaches; etc., with no intermediate "ancestors" leading up to their appearance. Fossils that scientists claim are 50 million-year-old bats have the bone structure that is identical to today’s bats. This pattern remains true with every major plant and animal line. All higher categories of living things, such as complex invertebrates, fishes, amphibians, reptiles, flying reptiles, birds, bats, primates and man, appear abruptly without any "missing links" preceding them.


Research

The following link goes into much more detail than what I have posted here, and I was too lazy to type the parts of this information that I already knew, and the article will explain the problems with the theory of evolution much more eloquently and in-depth than I ever could.
edit on 6/27/11 by JiggyPotamus because: (no reason given)



Get jiggy with this poty... Platypus venom confirms the convergent evolution theory for venom.

Now these strange creatures are one of the few called Monotremes. They lay eggs as they don't have a placenta but do secret milk to suckle their young.
A placenta is apparently a combination of a bacteria and a fungus.A placenta is apparently the combination of oxygen loving bacteria and a fungus. Very interesting findings documented in Frank Ryan's book... 'Virolution'.

We are part virus. This bizarre yet inescapable fact has been revealed over the past 30 years, as scientists have spelunked their way through the human genome and encountered stretches of DNA with the telltale chemical signatures of viruses. All told, they've found 100,000 such segments so far. As Frank Ryan explains in "Virolution," these pieces of virus DNA ended up in our genome through a peculiar kind of infection. From time to time, viruses slipped their DNA into the eggs and sperm of our ancestors. Parents then passed down the virus DNA to their offspring. These viruses could no longer escape their hosts, but they could still make new copies of their DNA, which were then inserted back into our ancestors' genomes. And so it is that, after millions of years of infection, viruses now make up at least 8% of the human genome. Our "own" genes—the genes that encode the proteins that constitute our bodies—make up a measly 1.2%.



Back to the Platypus... these creatures, once they reach adulthood, have an amazing resistance to bacteria and although they do have a do have a uterus, its is possible due to their anti bacterial qualities that they they did not evolve into a full typical mammal having internal embryonic development using a placenta... hence the reptilian/bird egg embryo. These creatures are more closely related to birds yet studies showed that it was closer to eutherian mammals (sheep, cows and man) rather than the marsupials (kangaroos, koalas).

The aliens could turn out to be the, non living, virus particles and prions (information) mutating and evolving with bacteria and fungi. Yet ... the how or the who put it there is very interesting to research and/or debate, even if we are discussing beliefs or the genetic information available to the questioner as it leads to new truths. I guess after that point, what you believe in depends upon how flexible your beliefs are, or how stubborn one is to hold on to a belief.

Life is a force, an angel unto itself, yet a messenger that creates the gateway to a higher consciousness that can be aware of greater forces at work. I don't have answers, and something tells me its not really about the answers but rather the questions asked that lead to faith. The key is to keep asking questions, stay curious while not becoming arrogant or magnanimous in one's belief. We are all on a journey, taking many paths. No need to throw rocks at someone travelling an alternative road.Taking the high road is the illusion and so is your target as it really is you who you throw stones at. Gettin' zen koan there.



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 02:20 AM
link   
reply to post by SG-17
 


A simple question to you about your "simple and understandable counter to every anti-Evolution argument".

Before Organic Evolution occured where did the very first life came from? What or who created it?

ty,
edmc2



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 02:34 AM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Chemical reaction created it. The building blocks (carbon, oxygen, water, iron) were all present in the primordial soup, organic chemicals formed (like amino acids), they formed simple proteins, they formed the first life.



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by SG-17
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Chemical reaction created it. The building blocks (carbon, oxygen, water, iron) were all present in the primordial soup, organic chemicals formed (like amino acids), they formed simple proteins, they formed the first life.


Thanks SG-17 for responding to my query.

Now according to research there are few more elements that makes up the human body.

Below is a list I found using google search:

1.Oxygen (65%)
2.Carbon (18%)
3.Hydrogen (10%)
4.Nitrogen (3%)
5.Calcium (1.5%)
6.Phosphorus (1.0%)
7.Potassium (0.35%)
8.Sulfur (0.25%)
9.Sodium (0.15%)
10.Magnesium (0.05%)
11.Copper, Zinc, Selenium, Molybdenum, Fluorine, Chlorine, Iodine, Manganese, Cobalt, Iron (0.70%)
12.Lithium, Strontium, Aluminum, Silicon, Lead, Vanadium, Arsenic, Bromine (trace amounts)

chemistry.about.com...

But for simplicity lets just stick to the four you've listed: C, O, H2O and Fe.

My next Qs are:

Out of all the known elements found on earth and the universe – what or who selected these chemical elements and made them come together?



Did these chemical elements come together accidentally, blindly by chance or was there someone that brought them together?


In other words, what or who mixed these lifeless chemical elements together to form them into a living thing?

Based on the drawings you've posted - here's the rest of the picture according to your interpretation:



ty,
edmc2


edit on 29-6-2011 by edmc^2 because: sim



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


I think your rehash of SG-17's Evo Tree is missing a few thousand branches before it gets to the roots but otherwise your right in my eyes.



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


It was accidental. The necessary compounds (which to make simple proteins was mainly just carbon and water) were present in the same location at the same time and interacted with each other, probably as charged ions, and combined to form the first amino acids, which formed the first proteins.

Now we don't know whether this happened only once on Earth (and thus all life being descended from one single organism) or if it happened multiple times and life just converged on Earth, but scientists think that it would be a fairly common occurrence.



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by SG-17
 


I simply ask someone who completely discounts evolution to explain the human appendix.

- Why is it there?
- If we were created solely by a divine act, why would something unnecessary be included in the human body?
- If God is infallable, why did he create us with something that by 99% of expert views is needless? Now there are some who believe that the appendix serves to store "good" bacteria, but there have been no conclusive evidence to prove that, despite the fact that proving it would be extremely simple. Most medical experts side on the notion that the appendix is a remanent of evolution and at one point in our evolutionary history did in fact serve a legitimate and necessary function, but that it no longer does, due to the evolution of the modern gall bladder, endrocine system or some other organ/system in the body.
- If it is divine, what happens if it is removed?

They typically have a tough time answering that simple question. Now some may counter with intelligent design and that there is in fact evolution, and thats fine, but the hard core creationists can not answer the appendix question, at least not in my experience and I've probably asked it 15 times.



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Observer99
We have 23 chromosomes, all apes have 24. "Two fused to make 23 thus enters man" -- this is still unexplained from an evolutionary standpoint. 1.) We can't breed with apes. 2.) Tons of extra information is contained in that chromosome. Biblical creationists say this was proof of the act of God. I say it is proof of the "creation" act of aliens. Rewrite a bit of chimp DNA, fuse a chromosome, a bit of simple cloning and set your experiment loose. Very easy for an advanced civilization.

How is it unexplained exactly?



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2
Out of all the known elements found on earth and the universe – what or who selected these chemical elements and made them come together?

Heavier elements are born inside stars, as stars go supernovae these atoms spread around.



Did these chemical elements come together accidentally, blindly by chance or was there someone that brought them together?

Laws of physics.



In other words, what or who mixed these lifeless chemical elements together to form them into a living thing?

Laws of physics. Seems to have happened maybe 3.8 billion years ago on our planet, so we can never tell the exact way it happened. However, many valid hypotheses exist (to me the deep sea vent one sounds the most plausible, but I'm not a chemist all thou I took numerous inorganic, organic, and biochemistry courses during my undergrad years).
edit on 29-6-2011 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 06:57 PM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 



Heavier elements are born inside stars, as stars go supernovae these atoms spread around.


I've heard this explanation before, some scientist say that we were made from the "dust" particle of the stars.

Question is - which came first, the elements or the stars?

In other words, did the dust came first or the star came first?

ty,
edmc2


edit on 30-6-2011 by edmc^2 because: spell




top topics



 
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join