Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Can you prove evolution wrong?*

page: 2
31
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by camaro68ss

Originally posted by micmerci
I have a question for the pro evolutionist. I think that mathematically speaking, the population of the earth would be far greater than 7 billion if man has been here reproducing as long as the theory of evolution claims we have. Can someone validate/refute this mathematically?


just like i posted below. where are the billions of "man" bones that should litter the planet with each step of evolution?


before i can answer this question my friend you must first prove that ancient humans in fact had bones.




posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 04:29 PM
link   
I believe in evolution. But I also believe in Creation. I think life evolves in the same way machines evolve. There's a feedback process going on which allows the designer to improve on his last effort and adapt to new obstacles.



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 


Stupid title for a stupid thread



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 04:35 PM
link   
I think its interesting that people will beleive fully in either of the options.

What is there to say that it wasn't both?

In hinduism, for example, the cosmos is considered to be just the dream of a god, which makes everything in the cosmos a creation of this god. This does not discount evolution at all, and still means we were created by a god.

Even from a christian perspective it can be argued that god created evolution to further enhance life and make the world a bit more interesting. The biggest problem with the abrahamic view on the subject is that in their pseudoscience the earth is only around 5700 years old. Which I can not, as a rational and cognitive being, accept. God putting fossils and other contrary proof on earth to "test our faith" is not an acceptable answer to this.

You can also look at it from a different point of view. Humans are of a higher consciousness than dogs, and we have purposefuly altered dogs. This means that the evolution of dogs has been guided by a higher consciousness, us.
Who is there to say that there was never a higher form of life than humans that had a hand in turning us into what we are now; either terrestrial, extra terrestrial or inter dimensional?



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 04:47 PM
link   
Pro evolutionists still resisting comments?



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by hudsonhawk69
 


Natural Selection is a part of Evolution. (en.wikipedia.org...)

Sorry to OP - from reading the thread it seems the godly-folk are barely getting a word in - or just not posting. I didn't think the title was misleading and thought the idea was good.



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by micmerci
Pro evolutionists still resisting comments?


Yes it very un natural but stop goading us.



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 05:00 PM
link   



There you go. That's what happens.

Besides that, I would love to see a theory that accurately explains all the fossils and genetics we take as evidence for intelligent design. A true "Theory", as in, in tune with all the evidence. I've yet to see a logical one that did that. "God dun it" doesn't give logic behind so much of how things are.



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 


Honestly I am not goading. I really would like a legit answer to the question. Thanks in advance.



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by micmerci
I have a question for the pro evolutionist. I think that mathematically speaking, the population of the earth would be far greater than 7 billion if man has been here reproducing as long as the theory of evolution claims we have. Can someone validate/refute this mathematically?


Do you understand anything about the history of agrarianism, city states, or the effect of weather variations on human evolution? That's your answer in a nutshell. Pick up a copy of "Guns, Germs, and Steel" by Jared Diamond - everything is explained quite well in his book.
edit on 21-9-2011 by jimbo999 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by micmerci
reply to post by colin42
 


Honestly I am not goading. I really would like a legit answer to the question. Thanks in advance.


Unfortunately - there are none.


Unless you want to go with the mystical, magical god theory that is...



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by jimbo999
 


I do not know the history of those things. Thank you for the book suggestion.



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimbo999

Originally posted by micmerci
reply to post by colin42
 


Honestly I am not goading. I really would like a legit answer to the question. Thanks in advance.


Unfortunately - there are none.


Unless you want to go with the mystical, magical god theory that is...


I would think it would take more faith to belive everything came to be magically from a big bang out of no where then from a all powerful god. but if you want to belive everything came to be magically from nothing and we are here because of a series of random events then be my guest and belive



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Celestica
 


Thanks for the support. So far I have learned some evolutionists are a bit precious. Some appear to understand the point. One thinks I am stupid and many do not read further than the title.

There appears to be no explanation of the diversity of life on this planet without evolution. So I guess the point is made.

The evidence for evolution is attacked and we defend but hardly ever is an alternative put forward and to be honest at times the supporters of evolution are to eager to jump over alternative view before it is made which would allow us to test these views instead of defending ours.

I suppose restrictions are off but would ask if the thread remains live we let others put forward alternatives, the defend thing has been done to death.



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 05:15 PM
link   
oh I believe in evolution, just not the kind of evolution most people believe in.

-your title is misleading/ambiguous



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 

In the year 2245, your scientist will find out that their carbonating analogy was off by 345 million years.

In 2027,a scientist will bring proof that its no way that a ape or mans ancestor could still be living in the same time, going to see ones relatives at the zoo.

In 3015 scientist will find out that the big bang was not even close to what the early scientist have claimed it to be.

In 2012, a man will explain what the alpha 1 and the 0 omega really meant.

Everything evolved…everything, ‘Even sound’

In addition, in 2167, a scientist will discover a way to reprogram eyesight, and with that being, he will discover that there are other realms inside the very realm we live.

Evolution is good for this period of learning but its more to it then meets the ‘EYE’

edit on 21-9-2011 by LogiosHermes27 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 05:18 PM
link   
With all due respect, I posed a question that potentially could go against evolution theory and have still not received an answer. I was asked a question in response and was suggested some additional reading that would answer my question. But I have not received an answer.



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 05:19 PM
link   
Your welcome. He explains it way better than I ever could, but in a nutshell, he basically explains how the anthropological record shows that until man discovered the art of agrarianism (the cultivation of wild plants for mass food production purposes) human population centers remained tiny and fragmented. Places where agrarianism never developed remained that way almost up until modern times too (New Guinea, Australia, South America etc).



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Celestica
reply to post by hudsonhawk69
 


Natural Selection is a part of Evolution. (en.wikipedia.org...)

Sorry to OP - from reading the thread it seems the godly-folk are barely getting a word in - or just not posting. I didn't think the title was misleading and thought the idea was good.


Yes natural selection is a part of evolution

BUT natural selection IS NOT evolution...



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by fedeykin
I think its interesting that people will beleive fully in either of the options.

What is there to say that it wasn't both?



This is the most intelligent quote on this thread yet.





new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join