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.

 

Question for Evolutionist's

page: 10
13
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 05:45 AM
link   
Hey OP, I see that you are using kindergartner logic and arguments. As a result I would recommend to have a look at the life cycle of frogs if you want to see evolution live.




posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 05:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Youji69
 


It is not "just a theory". Not in the sense that you are using the word.

There is a big difference between the scientific use of the word theory and the everyday use of he word.

theory and FACT



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 05:54 AM
link   
Evolution is not a magical trick. One cannot watch an animal and expect to see how it changes into another genus.
The first, who agreed with Darwin's theories where the breeders. They used that knowledge over centuries to breed new races of animals.

So if you want to see evolution at work, it's better to look into that direction, since breeding is like a controlled copy of the otherwise natural process - directed of course, and allowing creatures, which could not survive, if it was real evolution.

But how does the OP think, the wolf became a dog? I don't know any part in the bible that says, God created the dog from the wolf's rib or something like that.
One also has to ignore the genetical relationship between all creatures on earth to deny evolution.

Also evolution can be watched in nature. Birds, that used to fly to the south in the past now stay in the north during winter. In my town we have many parrots, which survive in our rather cold region and get more and more, spreading over more and more towns. It does not make - wooosh! - and they become white winter dragons. Some of them simply survive in the cold and only those of their offspring, which are best prepared for these conditions, survive.
So slowly a natural selection lets grow a population of parrots that can cope with the conditions. And also slowly there will be differences between parrots in the north of the country and the south.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 05:54 AM
link   

Evolutionist's


Now that is hilarious!


OP, did you not say in another thread a few days ago "Deny Ignorance"? Rather than tell others to stand by that rule, you should do yourself.


There is plenty of "evidence" (if you wish to call it that.) about evolution. Yet again all i see is hypocritical claims coming from another religious nut. You state that you don't want:


I don't mean your "stories" and "charts" in evilution textbooks, I mean Scientific Method science.


Yet you have a habit of quoting meaningless text from your "bible" which is nothing more than a fairy tale. I think most people would rather be interested in factual data which could argue against evolution, not some "story" about creationism.

You can only fight facts with facts.

Not all "religious" people take the bible as word for word. There is a line you have to draw at some point

I think you are trying to hard to be "religious" with these silly claims. And in effect you make every other "religious" person look just as silly as you.

No harsh feelings.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 06:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by RevelationGeneration
 


Reallistically, are you actually going to change your opinion in light of compelling evidence? Probably not. Waste of time and bandwidth.



So what you are saying is, you don't have any either. Why did you even post? I think you should have points deducted for saying something that has no bearing on the conversation other than to discredit the OP.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 06:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pumper
Hey OP, I see that you are using kindergartner logic and arguments. As a result I would recommend to have a look at the life cycle of frogs if you want to see evolution live.



You are the kindergartner. Life cycles (stages) are not evolution. It was born a frog and exercises life stages to go from egg to frog. The next thing you know you are going to say butterflies and chickens are proof too. P-L-E-A-S-E.......



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 06:41 AM
link   
So many of you are confuseing adaptation with evolution.

What the OP is asking basically is can any of you show evidence of a Dog becoming a Fish or a Bird becomeing a Bear?

Every scientist will tell you that there is no observable change in Genus, Family, Order, Class, Phylum, Kingdom, Domain, Life... only within species and subspecies have we observed any changes. Everything else is speculation.

"The hierarchy of biological classifications eight major taxonomic ranks are Life, Domain, Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species.
For example, Canis lupus is the scientific name of the Gray wolf, a species, with Canis the generic name for the dog and its close relatives, and with lupus particular (specific) for the wolf (lupus is written in lower case). Similarly, Canis lupus familiaris is the scientific name for the domestic dog."
Canis (genus) lupus (species)

What I think the OP is asking is this... Has anyone ever heard of a dog giving birth to a duck?

No. They haven't. Basically subspecies and species can change but not Genus. (Wolf can become domestic dog but cannot become duck or cow.)

Never has there been any proof or documentation presented of this so called evolution from Genus to Genus or anywhere on up the scale. If it happened in the past it appears to not be happening any more.

en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 15-9-2011 by Kicking2bears because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 06:48 AM
link   
reply to post by RevelationGeneration
 





So i ask a simple question, which should be easy for you to answer as many of you claim creation is just a myth and evolution is a fact, yet you cannot even provide one piece of proof that any genus has become a new kind of animal, then you expect me to believe we can from a fish, then an ape like ancestor etc...?


Listen pal, the first post after your opening post showed it, and several others. I believe you are confusing your refusal to accept the evidence and a lack of evidence.

Want to see evolution work? Knock your wife up and have a child. That child is a creation based on the merging of dna material, that child is the evolution of you two separate human beings.

I find it laughable that, in light of the ZERO evidence to support any of your creationist theories, you refuse to accept evolution because it takes too long.

You sir are a fool and a troll and this is a thread destined for the garbage bin.

Seriously, post #2 gave you all you need, ignorance of the facts does not equate to lack of facts.

Oh and way to start tossing slurrs around at people, that will surely make people see your point more clearly, because those with facts and proof on their side ALWAYS need to resort to childish antics.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 06:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Kicking2bears
 





Never has there been any proof or documentation presented of this so called evolution from Genus to Genus or anywhere on up the scale. If it happened in the past it appears to not be happening any more.


Unless we were physically there to witness the conception and birth, it would be impossible to prove.

But here lies the problem. Evolution is a slow process of adaptation. That's all it is, adaptation to the environment and circumstances around whatever being is evolving.

But geniuses like the op ignore that and expect a dog to instantly crap out a monkey. And since this isn't how it works at all, they call it false.

But fossil evidence and micro evolution (proven) be damned, actual physical proof is no match for blindly having faith in religious dogma written by, well, we DON'T FREAKING KNOW WHO WROTE THE BIBLE.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 07:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by phishyblankwaters
reply to post by Kicking2bears
 





Never has there been any proof or documentation presented of this so called evolution from Genus to Genus or anywhere on up the scale. If it happened in the past it appears to not be happening any more.


Unless we were physically there to witness the conception and birth, it would be impossible to prove.

But here lies the problem. Evolution is a slow process of adaptation. That's all it is, adaptation to the environment and circumstances around whatever being is evolving.


And that is exactly the point. There is not scientific evidence to support evolution.
Adaptation, yes.
Evolution... just a theory.
(And before everyone begins the bandwagon jumping ceremony... yes... Christianity is also a theory... historical accuracy of many biblical events/persons... yes... divinity of Jesus/existance of God... theory. One I happen to support but still an uproveable theory nonetheless.... just like Evolution.)

Anyone who has bothered to research Evolution scientifically will recognise the OP's question for the trap that it is... There is not any evidence of one Genus transforming into another Genus.

Yes, we can make red roses into yellow roses or we can watch bacteria develop different traits but roses are still roses and bacteria are still bacteria. These are descriptions of speciation and adaptation. The Genus doesn't change. Not that we have observed. There is not proof or documentation of it... Evolution is still just a theory.
edit on 15-9-2011 by Kicking2bears because: typo



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 07:08 AM
link   
I hate to admit it but the OP has a point. you know Darwin himself had doubts about his entire theory. he stated at the time that it was ONLY a theory, and he made the point that it would take generations of study to validate his core points. it unfortunately seems that 150 years later there is still no missing link, no species in flux or transition. i certainly dont belive in creationism i think that is just nonsense but i dont think darwin got it right.Micro evolution certainly exists that is were his ideas originated, his finches with different shape beaks etc, but they were the same species. As far as I know there isnt much proof for cross species evolution and I think at this point Darwin himself may have put his hands up and said "hey guys I may have been Mistaken".
edit on 15-9-2011 by Elvis Hendrix because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-9-2011 by Elvis Hendrix because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 07:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by InsideYourMind

Evolutionist's


Now that is hilarious!


OP, did you not say in another thread a few days ago "Deny Ignorance"? Rather than tell others to stand by that rule, you should do yourself.


There is plenty of "evidence" (if you wish to call it that.) about evolution. Yet again all i see is hypocritical claims coming from another religious nut. You state that you don't want:


I don't mean your "stories" and "charts" in evilution textbooks, I mean Scientific Method science.


Yet you have a habit of quoting meaningless text from your "bible" which is nothing more than a fairy tale. I think most people would rather be interested in factual data which could argue against evolution, not some "story" about creationism.

You can only fight facts with facts.

Not all "religious" people take the bible as word for word. There is a line you have to draw at some point

I think you are trying to hard to be "religious" with these silly claims. And in effect you make every other "religious" person look just as silly as you.

No harsh feelings.

"no harsh feelings" against what, your harsh words? What a B####!







posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 07:27 AM
link   
Well its like the grand canyon
Formed over millions of years of erosion from phase to phase.

In essence you could say the Grand Canyon "Evolved". Going from a class 1 rapid to a class 1 wonder of the world.

I didnt see it happen...but i know that it had to happen, because if it didnt....there would be no grand canyon.

There would be no us. Once a river, but now a canyon. Hell, once a stream if you really wanna get picky.

In the end though i feel as if this should go into the rant forums. It reeks of the after affect of losing a religious argument
edit on 15-9-2011 by mthgs602 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 07:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration
reply to post by josh2009s
 


Like i said if this is true:



The change takes place over a long amount of time in slight increments.


Then why do we not see plants with growing legs???

It takes long amount of time right? well the world's been around milions of years according to the evolutionist, so we would atleast see this process taking place over time, yet not one plant has acquired intelligence or limbs.


And according to theory, its the fish that grow the legs. Plants grow legs, acquire intelligence? Maybe teeth and a taste for meat but i have never fathomed having a conversation with a plant.


edit on 15-9-2011 by mthgs602 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 07:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration
reply to post by Youji69
 


So there's nothing actually observable? We have to just believe that one fossil became another without seeing it happen? I know its supposed to take "millions and millions of years" but if that's the case wouldn't we see animals even today evolving and becoming a knew kind? How come we never see this? I think it takes alot of faith to believe one animal genus became another with no one ever seeing it happen.




By asking this question and not getting an answer please don't think you're anywhere near disproving evolution. There's too much other evidence showing evolution is what's happening. Also, the rate of evolution is too slow to just 'see' animals evolving. You're gonna have to face up to it one day, evolution is real, the evidence is overwhelming and anyone who denies it is real is in denial and I seriously mean no disrespect by that.
edit on 15-9-2011 by Hawkwind. because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 08:00 AM
link   
reply to post by RevelationGeneration
 


i have a question for you...this is like the 3rd or 4th thread by you in as many days, attempting to debunk evolution, atheism and anything nonchristian... do you have any other interests that aren't religious? why is a former admitted atheist asking questions about things that supposedly, they already understand? other than flaming i cant see the point.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 08:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration
Question - where is the SCIENTIFIC evidence for one genus EVER becoming another genus? (Kind)

I don't mean your "stories" and "charts" in evilution textbooks, I mean Scientific Method science.

Thanks.
edit on 14-9-2011 by RevelationGeneration because: (no reason given)



You seem to confused. The bible is a group of stories as where science findings are based on fact.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Elvis Hendrix
I hate to admit it but the OP has a point. you know Darwin himself had doubts about his entire theory. he stated at the time that it was ONLY a theory, and he made the point that it would take generations of study to validate his core points. it unfortunately seems that 150 years later there is still no missing link, no species in flux or transition. i certainly dont belive in creationism i think that is just nonsense but i dont think darwin got it right.Micro evolution certainly exists that is were his ideas originated, his finches with different shape beaks etc, but they were the same species. As far as I know there isnt much proof for cross species evolution and I think at this point Darwin himself may have put his hands up and said "hey guys I may have been Mistaken".
edit on 15-9-2011 by Elvis Hendrix because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-9-2011 by Elvis Hendrix because: (no reason given)



I have never read anything so wrong about Darwin. Where do you get your info from? A guess? Yes I think it's a guess.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 08:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by UniverSoul
reply to post by windword
 





I want to know more about dinosaurs and birds. What was the age of mammals, after the extiction of the dinosaurs?

what exactly do you mean?
i think from the top of my head birds evolved from dinosuars and this is anatomicaly quite obvious..
mammals and birds were around with the dinosaurs if im not mistaken


Yes you are correct. Mammals were around at the same time as dinosuars but were on the menu and lived in holes in the ground. It was the dying out of the dinosaur that allowed us to come out and rule and then of course some mammals replaced the dinosuar at the top of the food chain.




top topics



 
13
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join