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: 24
13
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration
Its sad that the Evo-Heads have reverted to childish name calling...


Pot, meet Kettle.




posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 09:25 PM
link   
reply to post by RevelationGeneration
 


Since you're looking for empirical evidence of one thing becoming something different in a short period of time I assume that means you have tons of empirical evidence showing dirt becoming a man in less than day. I also assume that means you have tons of empirical evidence of being able to take a rib from that same man and having it turn into a woman in less than one day. Now, you're not allowed to use the Bible or any other books you must show us good, hard science that this is capable of occurring and has occurred.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by malachi777
reply to post by ka119
 


I would like to see the scientific evidence of how each humanoid suddenly drastically changed from one human species to another. There is none.



Whoa buddy, Im not saying evolution is correct. I am simply throwing out the absolute fact that NONE of us have proof. Evolution happens to have more proof than religion, thats the way it works.
I am on ATS, I am agnostic. I DENY IGNORANCE. Believing in religion is ignorance, believing in evolution is ignorance.
WE DO NOT KNOW HOW WE GOT HERE.
Stop being ignorant and bickering like little children.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by malachi777
I would like to see the scientific evidence of how each humanoid suddenly drastically changed from one human species to another. There is none.

Did you look at what Xcalibur254 posted?

"Okay, time for this list of hominid fossils we have in chronological order starting with the most recent.

Homo sapiens sapiens
Homo floresiensis
Homo neanderthalensis
Homo heidelbergensis
Homo antecessor
Homo ergaster
Homo erectus
Homo georgicus
Homo habilis
Australopithecus boisei
Australopithecus robustus
Australopithecus aethiopicus
Australopithecus sediba
Australopithecus garhi
Australopithecus africanus
Kenyanthropus platyops
Australopithecus afarensis
Australopithecus anamensis
Ardipithecus ramidus
Sahelanthropus tchadensis "

Now, show us scientific evidence of humans and animals being created out of dirt by an omnipotent deity.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 09:31 PM
link   
reply to post by malachi777
 


www.youtube.com...

its really simple, the evolution of the eye.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by aorAki

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration
Its sad that the Evo-Heads have reverted to childish name calling because they can not give a straight answer as there is no evidence of one animal becoming another animal fish do not become birds and birds do not become rats that become people.

There seem's to be alot of people duped into the pseudoscience of evil-lution.



I find this quite humorous.

I have nothing to add because you refuse to actually read anything I have supplied and have not addressed my proposition to your claim, which is Australopithecus -> Homo.
They are different Genera. That is what you asked for.


Which page did you post this "evidence" I'll be happy to check it out?

Australopithecus is nothing more than an ape like animal though, which we are NOT related to.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 09:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Hydroman
 


I already answered to that reply too. These are not the same human species. Again, I posted a link to show where HUMANS lived among Neanderthal's...two different creatures.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 09:36 PM
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)
All you have to do is look at your fellow man to see the changes in evolution.(I don't know if this has been brought up, but I'm not about to read 20+ pages)

Now, this isn't a genus, like you asked for, cause from the first two pages, you keep shooting down everything, so if you want evidence of evolution, again, look at your fellow man. And if you don;t believe in evolution, than may I ask what these traits of the human body are for?

-Goose bumps
-Jacobson's organ
-Junk DNA
-Extra ear muscles
-Planataris muscle
-Wisdom teeth
-Third eyelid(not third eye)
-Darwin's point
-Coccyx(tail bone)
-Appendix
listverse.com...

Now, if you're going to sit here, and act like some sort of god made humans perfect(physically/out of his image), then I can say your god sure did a horrible job at making some human characteristics utterly useless, and also, the exact same as other animals, except, we don't use them, they are just identified on our bodies. I mean, I'm sure glad we all have a useless appendix, and the planataris muscles is strange, especially how 9% of humans who are born, don't even have one now. How can that be, that people are born without a certain muscle? Any kind of living creature isn't supposed to loose or add certain traits/qualities to them, because that would be *gasp* evolution.

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



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 09:38 PM
link   
Read through the thread mate, and see the links I supplied. I'm not here to do your dirty work just because you're too lazy to follow it up. If you want to badly enough, you will.

Hot off the press: www.calgaryherald.com... scientists+study+rare+dinosaur+proto+feathers/5409197/story.html


“What’s interesting about the proto-feather is that it’s made of the same material as normal feathers but it’s basically a single strand or a clumped bunch of strands, and these are structures that are not known from any modern bird type.”

The proto-feathers most likely came from theropod dinosaurs, the group most closely related to today’s birds, Wolfe said Thursday.

Read more: www.edmontonjournal.com...

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

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



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 09:39 PM
link   
reply to post by bennygrass
 


The key word is light sensitive cells. How did these light sensitive cells end up being on the head? Why weren't they on the armpit or foot? It is still scientific opinion. Thanks for reading my post.




posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 09:39 PM
link   
Please explain the similarities in DNA amongst animals. I haven't seen an explanation for that yet, unless I missed it.

If evolution were true, what would you expect to find in dna amongst animals? You would expect to find EXACTLY what is found today.
edit on 15-9-2011 by Hydroman because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 09:41 PM
link   
It took me just a few minutes to find this, so I didn't search too hard, but this is about the extent of the time I will spend digging for "evidence" of "evilution".

The first one I could find = a place for you to start.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

It's in an open journal = free for anyone

There are plenty more examples on pubmed - I won't list them - I don't "need" anymore evidence

I doubt you will read it, or understand it (troll intended).

Please if you "reply to this post" include some sort of smack down that indicates you read the paper (or anything like it) and include some counter arguments - maybe a lambasting of the paper itself

You put in some effort and maybe I will take 20 minutes to counterpoint


edit on 15-9-2011 by halocleptic because: link



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 09:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Hydroman
 


I'm still waiting for my empirical evidence of dirt to man in a day and man-rid to woman in a day. Surely if he expects there to be empirical evidence for a process that takes thousands to millions of years then surely there should be empirical evidence for an event that takes less than a day.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 09:43 PM
link   
reply to post by malachi777
 


www.time.com...

neanderthals are still somewhat around....



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 09:44 PM
link   
reply to post by ka119
 


Actually thinking that we can never find TRUTH is IGNORANCE

Why be so quick to dismiss Christianity when you have not even truly researched it.

Sure some things may sound wild in the bible when you first hear them, but actually reading it will show you that these things did happen and there are multiple witnesses for each event.

Putting Christianity into the same boat as other "Religions" is a GRAVE mistake.

There is absolute truth to be found in this universe, and i believe God revealed that to us in the Holy Bible.

Evil-lution is just prideful man's poor attempt to make sense of the world. Which clearly has FAILED.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 09:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration
Sure some things may sound wild in the bible when you first hear them, but actually reading it will show you that these things did happen and there are multiple witnesses for each event.

Show us the multiple witnesses to the creation of the universe, including but not limited to the earth and all of the creatures on it.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 09:46 PM
link   
reply to post by aorAki
 


I read that earlier today and this was already discussed. A bird is believed to have been from the same subspecies of dinosaur. They have evolved according to natural processes to adapt to the earth and it climate. A dinosaur may be a bird and a bird, a dinosaur. It is possible, but something of intelligence had to have created it. The Bible does state that the earth and all living things were destroyed more than once from what I have heard. Maybe God did not like the art he produced and decided to destroy it and make it more pleasing to his eye.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
Which came first .............

The chicken or the egg?

If you believe in evolution the answer is the egg

If you believe in creationism the answer would be the chicken

But how can you get a chicken without it coming from an egg??




edit on 15-9-2011 by MathiasAndrew because: add text


Because on the third or fourth day 'he" created animals, no mention of eggs at all.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by malachi777
Maybe God did not like the art he produced and decided to destroy it and make it more pleasing to his eye.

Hey, this could be true. It would also mean that this god isn't all-knowing, because he would have known that he wasn't going to like it, and wouldn't have created it anyways.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 09:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Hydroman
 


The key word is similarities between animals. All these similarities were created because those are the ingredients needed for it to work. Cars are all made out of the same ingredients but they are all still different.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join