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.

 

Can you prove evolution wrong?*

page: 12
31
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by yourmaker
its like asking someone who believes the earth is still flat,
"so, why do you think the earth is still flat?"
it's not, it never was. just like any other theory on how the earth is flat.

evolution is the only answer i'm afraid, the god folks will salvinate from the mouth with this thread.


As if God is beyond creating the means for creatures to evolve...lol...

He created the universe...but evolution...well that's just too difficult! lol




posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz

Originally posted by SuperiorEd
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 


Your assumptions are based on the implications of evolution. Consciousness is pre-existent. All that we are arises form consciousness. Science proves this more and more each day. In the Bible, God calls unbelief blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is consciousness. In other words, blasphemy is saying that matter was first. Idol worship is representing God as matter and not the other way around. The true idol is self making pride the same as saying God does not exist. Evolution always includes bias against a creator. You will never find one apart from the other. Creationism presupposes consciousness as predating matter. Science proves consciousness comes first.



edit on 21-9-2011 by SuperiorEd because: (no reason given)


i don't think you really understand what i was saying, but ok.

look up the double slit experiment. if human consiousness is a fluke, why do the laws of the universe change when we observe things?

my point was that the laws of the universe seem written around humans, and other sentient beings. that wouldn't be the case if we're just a fluke like evolution claims.


I suppose we both need to go back and read the others statements. We are saying the same thing. Human consciousness is not a fluke. It pre-exists us as the consciousness of God.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by vedatruthI request you to quote 2-3 points which you feel are very strong in favour of evolution, since your linked information is very large, and possibly cannot be exhaustively argued here in this thread.


That's the wrong approach. Evolution is proved by the accumulation of a wealth of evidence covering myriad different fields. There is no lazy way to approach the subject, learn the lot, and you'll see why evolution is a fact. Look at a couple of tidbits or snapshots of evidence, and you'll be unconvinced.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by capzzz

Originally posted by yourmaker
evolution is the only answer i'm afraid, the god folks will salvinate from the mouth with this thread.


Did you forget the subject about nothing can come out of nothing.. So what was the first thing ever? What started evolution? Til that is no proved there is a change that god made it in some point and gave us evolution too to progress. You can't prove anything in this matter.


what about the possibility that it has always been? that it's always just been, something.
evolution seems like a universal constant.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by humphreysjim

Originally posted by CharlesBronson
If evolution is correct then why are there still apes? And why has man not continued to evolve?


Firs, we both evolved from an ape-like ancestor.

Secondly, why wouldn't there still be apes, anyway? The fact you asked that question tells me you don't understand evolutionary theory. You seem to imagine that every single member of a species would spontaneously mutate in exactly the same way at exactly the same time!?

As long as a new species does not prevent the old species from surviving, it will continue to exist, and reproduce.

Also, man HAS continued to evolve.
edit on 22-9-2011 by humphreysjim because: (no reason given)


When you say 'ape evolved into human' - this is exactly what I am trying to refute. It is just a statement which is not supported by facts. Just having several types of apes, and a primitive man does not conclusively proves that modern man - you and me - evolved from apes.

Second issue 'man continues to evolve' - in which sense. Is man becoming physically stronger, or man's mental faculties are improving? or what else?

Is man going to turn into something else with passage of time?



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 10:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Heehaw
 


Oh, and you know for a a fact all those snake species werent around millions of years ago. Wait went they supposed to have feet millions of years ago. give me a freakin break.

Wheres all the snaked with legs fossils? Why do so many species of insect seem virtually unchanged in millions of years?

Im still waiting for proof of evolution? yet again you havnt provided any, just attacked resonable logic, becuase you cant comprehend a universe where we might not be mutated monkey offspring...

and what was with the cake analogy...

And what evolutionary process would chose to "evolve" to use half our brains as primapes but have 10 times the resoning skills, why evolve to have all that extra brain matter with added potential, to only have it unused? Why did evolution chose us to lose our "monkey" hair from everywhere on our bodies but our head, and on our chests, where most primapes have none?

I beleive in evolution to a point. But i call it mutation. If two similar species were to concieve it could take on features of either parents, creating a newer sub species, kinda like how we have a million types of dogs. Was this an evolutioary process? No. And just like inherated diseases, if these sub species were to mate with other similar sub species, the dominent fetures of the "newer" species would become genetic traits that would be passed on ot there offspring.

And that is the only form of evolution. Fish didnt just grow legs, walk out on land, become a cow with 4 stomachs, just to walk back into the water, lose its legs and grow fins again and become a whale.

To actually believe in darwins theory of evolution, you have to be stupid enough to believe the above sentence is actually plausable. Are you all really this stupid? is it all really that hard to beleive that another bi-ped species created us in there image through genetic splicing? like how we make corn with pestecides built in from animal dna, or was that just evolution too?

If we can do it now, im sure far more advanced species could easily create all the dominent species species we have on earth, which in turn would interbreed for millions of years because having similar dna and gnomes would make this possable. Creating all the subspecies we have now.

Sounds allot more plausable then "God did it" or "it just happened". But no, Aliens cant exist! I have to create this all powerfull being that lives in the coulds or another dimension and has the abilty to create all we see, and grant us wishes like a genie. Because its far more plausable to believe someone like that exists and he created us all with love, farts and fairy dust...

So which do you believe?

And dont ask me where "life" came from, because thats the only undetermened factor that gives the creation theory any credit. Answering a question with a question is for idiots who cant comprehend the truth.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 10:55 AM
link   
reply to post by yourmaker
 


where else would you "salvinate" from......?



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 10:56 AM
link   
If you believe in science then you accept the DNA theory. But, DNA is a "language". There are 64 "codons" in the alphabet of DNA that mark out the 20 amino acides in the protein molecules. Think of the English language, it has 26 letters used to form words, phrases, and sentences. The letters of the English alphabet represent "sounds", and when put together they form words of sound. In the same way, every molecule has its own characteristic "vibration", and when molecules are put together in a chain they form words, phrases, and sentences of vibration.


The DNA then, is a language, like the English language, that when "spoken" manifests in physical form.

Thus all life is "created" by some intelligent being "speaking".

And God "said" --Let there be Light...[Genesis 1:3]etc...God creates the world by "speaking it into existence".



And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. -- John 1:14 KJV



The sequence of DNA that defines each man when spoken is his "name" . It is a "WORD" that represents the man, containing all the instructions for his physical form to manifest in this world. The word is made flesh.

Scientists are arriving at the point where they can begin to understand the scriptures. But, they are not all there yet.

Long ago, the Jews refused to believe that Jesus could be born of a virgin. They accused him of having more than one father, by inference, claiming that they had one father only. [ John 8:41 ]

It is only in our current time that we can believe that a man could be born of a virgin. Sex is no longer required for conception. The doctors fertilize the egg in the lab today and implant the fertilized egg into the woman, and she could very well be a virgin. So, today we can begin to believe the possibility of these things.

If man can create new life by stringing along sequences of molecules to form its DNA instruction, why can't there already be an intelligent being who does the same thing?

There's no evolution, only creation.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by humphreysjim
 

1.Examples of Mans evolution from ape to now and its continued process?
2.Please factually state what species of ape did man originate from and were the fossil records to prove such claim?




posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 10:58 AM
link   
I don't believe in creation in the biblical sense, I remember getting punished in Sunday School for openly asking where the dinosaurs were in the Bible. As a creature of logic I accept evolution. I also believe in God, not in the Christian sense. I believe that there is a creationary force behind the Universe, to what extent I don't know. I can't accept the fact that the Universe has existed in a perpetual state of expansion and contraction without some point of origin where it was actually created by something. I believe that life on Earth originated from an ideal set of circumstances. I don't believe God simply created everything here. So I'll offer a theory.

God, or some sort of sentient force created this universe or created the circumstances for the universe to form. The universe formed. Our planet and solar system form. Simple organic life popped up here and slowly evolved into more complex life eventually leading to the human race. All without direct intervention from the creator. He's a kid with an ant farm. The universe may simply have been a cure for perpetual boredom.

The simple fact is the Bible and how it was manufactured and by whom can be picked apart so that a logical man doesn't believe it. And a person of faith will always believe it as faith is the opposite of logic. To those folks everything that Jesus shared with the other messiahs doesn't matter. They don't care that almost every story about him from birth to death appears to be stolen from some other figure. The excuse is generally that anything that conflicts with their faith is a test of their faith and that in itself is taught. And that precludes a true person of faith from looking at the science of the situation and logically studying the items that contradict their religious beliefs. It's an impossible cycle and a waste of time. Almost as big a waste of time as trying to convince a logical atheist that there could be a creator from whence the universe originated.

These threads are a waste. Neither side will ever convince the other, the nature of their beliefs will always prevent it from happening. Why would a perfectly good atheist even care about convincing a creationist that evolution is right? YOu can't do it and it serves no purpose other than to start an argument. Is their having faith such a bad thing? If they are true to their faith a follow the ten commandments and the teachings of Jesus they are living a good life and not bothering anyone. What's so wrong with that? For the Creationist trying to convince the evolutionist, why bother? Your argument is faith based not fact based and that will prevent the atheist from ever agreeing with you.

Agree to disagree. Neither side will ever convince the other. Short of a divine being coming down and explaining how it all happened. Let it be. What's the point in a perpetual argument where both sides know they'll never convince the other which side is right? The problem is that everyone feels the need to cram their opinions down everyone elses throat. And they seem to enjoy tormenting the other by perpetually trying to prove them wrong. If you do convince that one christian that your right all you've succeeded in doing is destroying their belief structure and the foundation for their being. Why would you want to do that?



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by vedatruth

Originally posted by humphreysjim

Originally posted by CharlesBronson
If evolution is correct then why are there still apes? And why has man not continued to evolve?


Firs, we both evolved from an ape-like ancestor.

Secondly, why wouldn't there still be apes, anyway? The fact you asked that question tells me you don't understand evolutionary theory. You seem to imagine that every single member of a species would spontaneously mutate in exactly the same way at exactly the same time!?

As long as a new species does not prevent the old species from surviving, it will continue to exist, and reproduce.

Also, man HAS continued to evolve.
edit on 22-9-2011 by humphreysjim because: (no reason given)


When you say 'ape evolved into human' - this is exactly what I am trying to refute.


We both evolved from an ape-like ancestor.


It is just a statement which is not supported by facts.


Wow, yes it is. A LOT of them.


Just having several types of apes, and a primitive man does not conclusively proves that modern man - you and me - evolved from apes.


No one said it did?


Second issue 'man continues to evolve' - in which sense. Is man becoming physically stronger, or man's mental faculties are improving? or what else?

Is man going to turn into something else with passage of time?


Yes.

www.time.com...



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by CharlesBronson
reply to post by humphreysjim
 

1.Examples of Mans evolution from ape to now and its continued process?
2.Please factually state what species of ape did man originate from and were the fossil records to prove such claim?



I just replied with some of this info in my last post, but am stopping here because this thread is becoming THE EXACT OPPOSITE to what it was supposed to be.

This thread is not about proving evolution, it is about the creationists stepping forward to prove their version of events.

Not copping out, just trying to stay on topic.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 


Evolution is BS (bull#) we still live in a Myth and they are changing it slowly



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 11:21 AM
link   
Why cant there be a God or Gods or creator and evolution



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by kman420
 


read mythology and you will get your answers



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 11:23 AM
link   
I don't have the time to read every comment, so I don't know if this has been thought of, yet...

What if we didn't actually come from this planet?

What if our ancestors are actually aliens from other planets that happened to come across a planet that could sustain life. If this is the case, then it is possible that they brought various species of animal with them to inhabit this planet.

Just a thought, no proof involved. I don't believe one way or the other. I just felt like typing this....



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 11:26 AM
link   
someone explain to me where the prokaryotes and eukaryotes came from and why there is no intermediate species leading up to them not to mention they were here when the Earth was still partly molten hardly a place for any biotic soup to form.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 11:29 AM
link   
if u can first do the opposite il play
also dont forget to mention how the universe looked like before the bb
and before that and that
and a trillion years multiplied by pi b4 that and so on for a million years and before that
if u answer that i will play promise



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 11:32 AM
link   
What if you believe we were created from aliens in their image?

Techincally if we evolved from apes the apes wouldn't exist.

Only the evolved form of the ape. Which would be us.

Plus our brains grew way to fast to evolve from apes.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by hudsonhawk69
 


You are correct in that all science is based on making certain assumptions, i.e. postulates, and assuming the postulates are true. Unlike evolution, there is no evidence anything in the bible actually occurred. Science is backed by evidence. We have fossils and other evidence to support it.

The only "proof" we have that the garden of Eden, Zeus, or the flying spaghetti monster ever existed are all textual. You cannot find any tangible evidence of the garden of Eden. There are no fossils of a snake that once walked. There are no seeds left from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.




top topics



 
31
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join