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.

 

EVOLUTION IS FALSE!! Mathematics proves everything is created

page: 7
12
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by mamaloney
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 

Nope. The big bang was expansion, not explosion.


A explosion is also a expansion. You have to define expansion if you want to separate the two from each other.




posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 09:22 AM
link   
See guys? This is what happens when 10 year olds spend too much time on wikipedia.
String theory and M-theory are almost completely speculative.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 09:33 AM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 

I meant that it was Universe -> bigger universe, not no universe -> universe.
Everything is just expanding and cooling down.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by addygrace
 


It would also be impossible, unless you can get a camera that lasts a few hundred thousand years and set it up, but then who knows if the human race will even exist by the time the Tibetans evolve into another species?

And yes adaptation IS evolution, they are one and the same, evolution is small changes (microevolution) but over time those small changes compound, and after thousands and thousands of generations you have a new species. The only difference between micro and macro evolution is time.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


Except that atheists don't believe that, so you've set up a strawman.

I'll willingly admit that I don't know where the singularity came from before the Big Bang but inserting God is just a God of the Gaps fallacy. The honest answer is that before the Big Bang we don't know.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by megabytz
 


If chimps and humans "evolved" from the same ancestor, why are there still chimps?
Why isn't there some creature that would be in between chimp and human?

Do you want to explain how DNA is retrieved from fossils?
Yes, I know what science is trying to prove; but they haven't.

Why is it that all other Eartly species "evolved" in such a way that they are better able to deal with their environment? It seems that we "evolved" into a much weaker creature.
We have 4000+ heritable defects.
The apes have 1. (albinism)
Why don't humans in northern areas have protective hair?
Why don't we have thick pads on our feet?
Without weapons we have no way to protect ourselves from predators.
These things don't say much in favor of evolution, do they?

Me a religious fool? Someone once said, "Insult is the last refuge of the outargued."
By the way, I am an atheist.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


Except that atheists don't believe that, so you've set up a strawman.

I'll willingly admit that I don't know where the singularity came from before the Big Bang but inserting God is just a God of the Gaps fallacy. The honest answer is that before the Big Bang we don't know.


Why cant God by a argument for some as long as you dont know what was before the big bang. You have no grounds to argue against a God period.

Why do you people get to say what is and what isn't?



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by spy66

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


Except that atheists don't believe that, so you've set up a strawman.

I'll willingly admit that I don't know where the singularity came from before the Big Bang but inserting God is just a God of the Gaps fallacy. The honest answer is that before the Big Bang we don't know.


Why cant God by a argument for some as long as you dont know what was before the big bang. You have no grounds to argue against a God period.

Why do you people get to say what is and what isn't?


It's all good, of course they have the right to believe in god...or purple unicorns farting the universe into existence...whatever makes them happy. The only issue is that they often try to sell that BELIEF as fact, when it really isn't given that it isn't based on logic/rationality. Or they claim "their god hypothesis" is just as credible as scientific theories like evolution, which is of course complete and utter nonsense



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by OhZone
 


Since evolution is so patently false would you care to explain how we have been able to observe speciation in a lab environment?

Observed Instances of Speciation
Some More Observed Speciation Events

Of course I expect the Creationist crowd to ignore these once again and claim that evolution has never been replicated in a lab.


What those article describe is not evolution. The author is a bit confused. He keeps referring to his new breed as a new species, which it is not. It is still a plant or a fly or a fish or a mouse.
No proof of changing into another Species. Yes, I understand the thing about them being sterile to each other, but maybe not to a parent. Mules are the product of donkey+horse. They are still equine.(equus)

They are Really grasping at straws there.

And for your information, I am not a creationist.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by OhZone
 


That's the thing. They're not sterile to each other. These offspring are capable of reproducing with one another, but are incapable of reproducing with the previous generation. The reason mules are not considered a separate species is because they are completely sterile.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by OhZone
 


You will never see a duck turn into a crocodile...which judging from your post, is the only thing that would convince you


Clue: That's not how evolution works...



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by spy66

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


Except that atheists don't believe that, so you've set up a strawman.

I'll willingly admit that I don't know where the singularity came from before the Big Bang but inserting God is just a God of the Gaps fallacy. The honest answer is that before the Big Bang we don't know.


Why cant God by a argument for some as long as you dont know what was before the big bang. You have no grounds to argue against a God period.

Why do you people get to say what is and what isn't?


It's all good, of course they have the right to believe in god...or purple unicorns farting the universe into existence...whatever makes them happy. The only issue is that they often try to sell that BELIEF as fact, when it really isn't given that it isn't based on logic/rationality. Or they claim "their god hypothesis" is just as credible as scientific theories like evolution, which is of course complete and utter nonsense


I understand your point. I have 2 people from Jehovah's witnesses at my house once a week where they try and convince me of their facts.
And each time they come by, I have to tell them that they are not giving me facts, but just resiting written words from a author who lived a few thousand years ago.

For every question i have asked these people, I have never been given any facts in return, just gossip from a book.
I ask them: How do you people expect me to believe and have faith in something you people cant explain?

The answer they gave me was: God has told us to have faith!

My reply was: Do you people expect me to have blind faith in God based on what you are telling me?

They said yes, the Bible is the word of God.

I said: Prove it.

I want to have prof just as much any one else. I am not a person who can just blindly believe in somethings just because its written on a piece of paper.










edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by OhZone
 


You will never see a duck turn into a crocodile...which judging from your post, is the only thing that would convince you


Clue: That's not how evolution works...


I know how you think it works. Your old bones and fossils still do not prove that one creature became another that was totally different. All creatures have the same basic structure...., torso, limbs. and all have much the same DNA. You will find the same true for all creatures in the whole universe. It's just that it is an efficient form. This is not proof of evolution; ony proof that there are different forms of creatures.

Survival of the species dictates that the most efficient form survives and thrives. Certainly then all creatures living in any one certain area should all have the same form and all look alike. And yet we have hundreds of different creatures all in any one area. If efficiency is the key to survival why aren't they all alike?

Humans have the least efficient form of all. We wouldn't need shoes and various layers of clothing, nor special forms of shelter if we had evolved via the survival of the fittest. So just how did we get to be such puny defective creatures. Pound for pound the ape family has 4 times the muscle power.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 06:32 AM
link   
reply to post by OhZone
 





Your old bones and fossils still do not prove that one creature became another that was totally different.


In reality, they do...especially considering DNA fully backs it up.




All creatures have the same basic structure...., torso, limbs, and all have much the same DNA


Which is further proof of evolution





You will find the same true for all creatures in the whole universe.


Which is a statement you can't prove given that we don't even know for sure if there's other creatures in the universe...




This is not proof of evolution; ony proof that there are different forms of creatures.


Not if you can trace the ancestry as detailed as we can...




Survival of the species dictates that the most efficient form survives and thrives. Certainly then all creatures living in any one certain area should all have the same form and all look alike. And yet we have hundreds of different creatures all in any one area. If efficiency is the key to survival why aren't they all alike?


Adaption to the environment is key...and they all look different because they EVOLVED from different ancestors.




Humans have the least efficient form of all.


I wouldn't call having disposable thumbs "inefficient". Also, our brain (also evolved fyi) makes up for a lot of the other shortcomings.




We wouldn't need shoes and various layers of clothing, nor special forms of shelter if we had evolved via the survival of the fittest.


Humans don't only live in one geographic location with one specific climate. So having fur would really suck if you lived in the Sahara desert. Our evolution allows us to ADAPT to whatever environment we come accross.




So just how did we get to be such puny defective creatures. Pound for pound the ape family has 4 times the muscle power.


Yes, but they don't have the brain power we have. They are better adapted to life in the jungle for example, but in a city, they'd be helpless. It's all about adaption to your environment, and if you're geographically dispersed as a species, you can't specialize as much to one specific environment.

In short, please read at least the Wiki entry on evolution, as you post makes it pretty clear you don't really know what you're talking about. Not an attack, just stating a fact



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


I don't assert that there is no God, I'm asserting that there's no logical or evidentiary support for one and that inserting one into the Big Bang or Evolution as an explanation is a fallacy. There might be a God but I've yet to come across any evidence for one or any compelling arguments for one.



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by spy66
 


I don't assert that there is no God, I'm asserting that there's no logical or evidentiary support for one and that inserting one into the Big Bang or Evolution as an explanation is a fallacy. There might be a God but I've yet to come across any evidence for one or any compelling arguments for one.


It is only a fallacy theory within scientific terms and definitions. And that disproves nothing.

It only means that the scientific community have taken authority on what "is" and what "isn't" a legitimate theory in present time. They can not prove or disprove the theory at present time.
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by mamaloney
 


String theory and M- theory are theories that were created by people with such a higher standard of knowledge than you (what I imagine by seeing your comments) could possibly understand. Does speculative mean it is wrong? Obviously not! Gravity is speculative.



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 05:24 PM
link   

edit on 19-9-2011 by Tony4211 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


The theory of evolution can only be proven in the colloquial sense, since PROOF deals with math or logical proofs in more technical terms. However the theory of evolution is a well established one backed with over a century and a half of evidence. The basic idea of evolution, genetic variation in a population over time, is undeniably real, the only thing being argued over, really, is the extent that those small changes can change a species. Genetics, the fossil record, and the age of Earth support the idea that species can become other species if enough microevolutionary changes occur, contrary to the belief of creationists there is no real difference between micro and macro evolution other than the number of generations that pass. A million small genetic changes, a million generations, and chances are you aren't looking at the SAME species you once were.

No one has to disprove God, the burden of proof sits with the believers. No one has to completely disprove or debunk fairies to disbelieve in them, the ones who posit the existence of such supernatural entities are the ones who must provide evidence and until that point the default position is to withhold belief.
edit on 20-9-2011 by Titen-Sxull because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by spy66

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by spy66
 


I don't assert that there is no God, I'm asserting that there's no logical or evidentiary support for one and that inserting one into the Big Bang or Evolution as an explanation is a fallacy. There might be a God but I've yet to come across any evidence for one or any compelling arguments for one.


It is only a fallacy theory within scientific terms and definitions. And that disproves nothing.

It only means that the scientific community have taken authority on what "is" and what "isn't" a legitimate theory in present time. They can not prove or disprove the theory at present time.
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)


They also can't disprove unicorns, flying crocodiles in space, and the remote possibility of a giant purple turtle with yellow dots farting the universe into existence...doesn't mean it makes sense to believe in those things


The hilarious thing is, billions of people follow some religion, and pretty much all of them are mutually exclusive. That means, even if one of the religions is the "right one" (and we have ZERO evidence of that), then billions of people are basically believing in a fairy tale. THINK about that for a second and let it sink in




top topics



 
12
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join