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: 20
31
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 11:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by byeluvolk
reply to post by vedatruth
 


I will put my stamp on this one.. Yes men will eventually evolve into a new species. Does this mean Homo sapiens will cease to exist? Not necessarily, but a new species will eventually develop alongside and possibly co-exist. However due to the nature of man, I am sure these two species will end up going to war with one another and one of them will indeed be wiped out.


Can you also predict then how long will it take, and how this man will look like?
And the reasons for going to war and which one survives?
And hopefully do that in a provable scientific manner.




posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 11:59 PM
link   
Can you prove creation wrong? Maybe they are both correct. Maybe we began life in the primordial soup as spiritual energy created by God in his image and evolved from there. Possibly God knows everything because he is everything from the smallest particle to the vast infinity of our universe. Perhaps we are a part of God, just an extension of the whole.

Religion has faith and written text. Evolution has the scientific method and logic. Both have archaeological evidence and both can be flawed.

Everyone should be allowed to make their own mind up on the subject. I choose to believe I am here due to divine intervention. However if you choose to believe you are here due to evolution I will not have any less love for you as a human.

God has spoken to me only twice in my entire life and wanted me to share all I know with you and others who ask. To answer your question I cannot prove evolution wrong, but does that really matter in the larger scheme of things? Only upon our physical death or through vast amounts of research will we find the true answers we seek. That time will come for all of us one way or the other.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 12:00 AM
link   
reply to post by hudsonhawk69
 


Again another misconception of human evolution. With the onset of technology, humans have stepped outside of the normal bounds of evolution. The new “system” if you will has no basis on “survival of the fittest.” With modern medicine, the ease of acquiring food and shelter, the community taking care of its lame, and sick. All of these things have twisted human evolution into a pit where the “best” traits are not necessarily passed on. People with inherited diseases now live long enough to pass it on. Physically weak and small people can still mate and pass on the smaller/weaker genes. Technology and society have taken human evolution and placed it in a blender. There is no way to predict what traits will be passed on and become dominant in the future. Things like money draw a mate, and money can come from intelligence, physical strength, and even pure luck. There is no longer a passing of genes that “better” the species, but rather a passing of any and all genes. Just look at eye sight. Over the last few hundred years the numbers of people with “defective” eyes is increasing. As people with bad eye sight breed with other people with bad eye sight this once “recessive” trait is becoming the “dominant” trait. If this continues very soon everybody will have some form of eye defect. And I do not see how this can be considered a “beneficial” evolution.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 12:02 AM
link   
reply to post by AwakeinNM
 





When I was in school I distinctly remember the curriculum on Darwin as being referred to as his THEORY of evolution. How all you atheists try to spin it as scientific fact is just downright ridiculous.

The word theory, in the context of science, does not imply uncertainty.
If "only a theory" were a real objection, creationists would also be issuing disclaimers complaining about the theory of gravity, atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, theory of gravity.Evolution is no less valid than any of these.
Besides the theory, there is the fact of evolution, the observation that life has changed greatly over time.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 12:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by flyingfish
reply to post by sacgamer25
 





Evolution and the origins of earth cannot be tested by scientific method.

Science requires that observations can be replicated. The observations on which evolution is based, including comparative anatomy, genetics, and fossils, are replicable. In many cases, you can repeat the observations yourself.
Repeatable experiments, including experiments about mutations and natural selection in the laboratory and in the field, also support evolution.
Industrial melanism can be observe all over the world. Natural selection happening under your very eyes.
All need to do is open them.


If you read all of my comments you would know that I believe in a new earth, creationism, and about 1/2 the story of evolution. The half that can and has been proven by scientific method. Not the part about a bacteria changing into anything other than a different version of the same bacteria based on its environment. It is still a bacteria. Never has a bacteria changed into a more complex organism and science keeps trying.

I guess I should have said that the origin of life and the universe cannot be tested by scientific method, including the claims from evolutionist.
edit on 23-9-2011 by sacgamer25 because: add



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 12:05 AM
link   
reply to post by vedatruth
 


No it is never predictable. As evolution goes it is random changes, and then the random reaction to the environment that these changes then promote that will determine the outcome. The reason for going to war is obvious. Look at humans today all we do is go to war for one reason or another. I see no reason this is going to change… unless that is the mutation that occurs. Humans evolve into a less warlike species. In this case then I predict the new species is the loser when the conflict happens as they have no practice at it, have no heart for it, and have no concept of it. But hey who knows, let’s build a time machine and jump 60 million years into the future and find out.


EDIT****

Here is a link to a Nat Geo article about a new skeleton found the even pre dates Lucy. This is estimated at about 4.5 million years and is very near to the fabled "Missing Link" So I guess our time machine may not need 60 million years worth of fuel. We can try maybe for 10 million and see what happens.
edit on 23-9-2011 by byeluvolk because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-9-2011 by byeluvolk because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 12:09 AM
link   
reply to post by CharlesBronson
 


Niche habitat would require little evolution. When overpopulation occurs the weaker of the species dies or moves on, and in doing so dies or evolves to suit new habitat. Apes remained apes in their niche habitat, where pre-humans evolved, and are continuing to do so to this day. Consider the lengths of humans digits, skin colour, accuity of senses etc.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 12:10 AM
link   
Yes, I can prove evolution wrong, at least for humans. Let me start this off by saying that we cannot have an effect without a cause. If we cannot agree on that, then this discussion on evolution is pointless. In otherwords, we cannot get something from nothing, which includes the so-called "Big Bang" theory. There is nothing in the fossil records that would indicate that one species came from another, i.e., an ape from a horse, or a spider from an ant, or a human from an ape. what separates humans from all the other animals is a "moral choice," and the ability to advance beyond their enviroment. Not so with animals.

MikusAurelius



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 12:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration
For all the people saying "aliens" did it. Could i ask you if aliens created humans who created the aliens?


Could have been survivors of a civilization that moved to another star system, or they themselves were part of a selection process to create more intelligent life on another star system.

IMO there is no beginning, and no end, "life finds a way" and our spirits seek to experience life in it's many flavors and colors.

We are just experiencing one cycle of the infinite cycles the universe and multiverses go through.

What many people see as the end is nothing more than the end of a cycle from which a new one will begin.

According to the Vedas mankind has existed on Earth for millions of years. We fought battles which put most of mankind back to the stone age.

It is very possible that some of the ufos people see are from survivors of past human civilizations who either saw what was to happen and evaded or escaped the wars, or were just lucky enough to escape the wars and destruction.

According to many cultures we go through life cycles, and I agree with them.

As for how long has life existed? imo always. There was no beginning, and there will be no end. Life will find a way.



This earth is one of the planets where God created life. There are interactions between civilizations over very large periods of time, and so the society evolves.

The Western people read too much into facial and bodily traits. Our tradition is based on morals and spiritual qualities.

Veda treats all humans equally whether terrestial or non-terrestial, as being craeted by God, and subject to universal laws as defined by God.

Times is beginningless and endless, but earth (and universe) has a certain limited life span. As human body becomes weak with age, so is the planet. It needs renewal after a certain age.

It is not about battles, it is about learning. ETs have come to Earth for learning in the past. It is only in modern times we have this wierd situation.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 12:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by flyingfish
reply to post by AwakeinNM
 





When I was in school I distinctly remember the curriculum on Darwin as being referred to as his THEORY of evolution. How all you atheists try to spin it as scientific fact is just downright ridiculous.

The word theory, in the context of science, does not imply uncertainty.
If "only a theory" were a real objection, creationists would also be issuing disclaimers complaining about the theory of gravity, atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, theory of gravity.Evolution is no less valid than any of these.
Besides the theory, there is the fact of evolution, the observation that life has changed greatly over time.


We can observe life changing over time. We cannot observe a protien forming from amino acids alone. So we can't prove life can come from nothing. And we have not observed a signifigant enough change to assume that any organism has done anything other than change to adapt to its environment. Bacteria cannot become more complex forms of life, only a slight variation of the same bacteria. To say this proves that over enough time they would, takes more faith than God, in my opinion.
edit on 23-9-2011 by sacgamer25 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by flyingfish
reply to post by AwakeinNM
 





When I was in school I distinctly remember the curriculum on Darwin as being referred to as his THEORY of evolution. How all you atheists try to spin it as scientific fact is just downright ridiculous.

The word theory, in the context of science, does not imply uncertainty.
If "only a theory" were a real objection, creationists would also be issuing disclaimers complaining about the theory of gravity, atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, theory of gravity.Evolution is no less valid than any of these.
Besides the theory, there is the fact of evolution, the observation that life has changed greatly over time.


Really? So record keeping has been impeccable for millions of years? Fossils are definitive proof of evolution? Fossils? And carbon dating? Really? And a lot of guessing? What other hard evidence do you have in your bag o' proof?

If you believe evolution then you must certainly believe that aliens and UFOs exist because there is certainly more proof of that being true than there is for evolution being true.

Let me add this: When I was in elementary school, dinosaurs were cold-blooded scaly lizards who dragged their big heavy tails along the ground. Now they are maybe warm-blooded, carried their tails off the ground, and likely had feathers. That's quite a difference in people's belief in the truth.

So now you want me to believe that we evolved from some kind of ape... because of a book published in 1859? Really?



edit on 23-9-2011 by AwakeinNM because: Really?



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 12:18 AM
link   
reply to post by MikusAurelius
 


Actually there are many such demonstrations. I posted a link to a PDF a few posts ago you may want to read. It is talking about reptiles specifically. This post also mentions a type of “legless lizard” that people would assume to be a snake at first glance. But in reality this is indeed a legless lizard. This shows right now in living critters the idea of “show me a snake with legs” but in reverse here is the “lizard with no legs.”



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 12:21 AM
link   
I wish people would studyy history and understand their particular brand of religion is most likely entirely unoriginal or at least has origins very similar to other religions theyconsider "blasphemy". Im drrunk.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 12:26 AM
link   
reply to post by darkest4
 


LOL! Yes, I posted this in a thread a few days ago. Every religion on the earth is basically the same at their core. I guess you could say their DNA shows signs of a common ancestor. Thus we can assume all religions have EVOLVED from a single source. Be it God or Man, they all seem to have the same common ancestor.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 12:36 AM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 


reply to post by colin42
 


I should start one of these threads.

Can anyone prove creationism wrong?
Can anyone prove the accuracy of Carbon Dating?
Can anyone prove the earth is 4.5 billion years old?
Can anyone prove the universe really (9,460,730,472,580.8 x 14,000,000,000) Miles in Diameter?
Approx 132,000,000,000,000,000,000 Now that’s either a big ruler or big assumption.

I would but unfortunately for all of you who believed your science books were filled with facts would just quote said facts. The only problem with said facts is that not 1 of them is actually a fact and not 1 of them can be proven. The simple fact that not one of these can be proven strengths my faith each day.

My goal was never to prove evolution wrong, but to prove that it is not a fact.

occam's razor
(Theory based on many books with many assumptions) (Theory based on 1 book 1 assumption)
I love science



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 12:56 AM
link   
It is a lively discussion though a mix of many different belief systems.

Let me spice the discussion somewhat.

The indian folklore talks of a place called Pataal. Pataal is nothing but America.

The folklore tells of interactions between society of ancient India with society of ancient America.

I believe the island of Atlantis to be real. The remains of atlanteans fled to Egypt and set up a society there.

There is a continuity from civilization of Pataal to civilization of Egypt.

The current 'red-Indians' of America are not related to Atlanteans, and came later.

There are many factors to evolution of human societies. ETs are definitely a factor. Next is mixing of races and migrations.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 12:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by darkest4
I wish people would studyy history and understand their particular brand of religion is most likely entirely unoriginal or at least has origins very similar to other religions theyconsider "blasphemy". Im drrunk.


Quotes from Genisis.

Genesis – NIV Translation
6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.

1 Now the whole world had one language and a common speech. 2 As people moved eastward,[a] they found a plain in Shinar and settled there.

3 They said to each other, “Come, let’s make bricks and bake them thoroughly.” They used brick instead of stone, and tar for mortar. 4 Then they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves; otherwise we will be scattered over the face of the whole earth.”

5 But the LORD came down to see the city and the tower the people were building. 6 The LORD said, “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. 7 Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.”

I had given this much thought. Then one day it occurred to me that God does not say anything in the bible about the knowledge that had been given to man prior to mosses. Actually, God paints them to be very intelligent with knowledge of the heavens. Adam and Eve did eat from the tree of knowledge. Angels were actually permitted to come and take human wives and created the Nephilim, possibly Neanderthal as we know them. I’m sure the angels would have brought some knowledge with them.

So the fact that the creation account and the flood account appear to have similarities to Sumerian/Babylonian text could simply be proof that knowledge of God and creation existed prior to mosses but had been lost to man. This does not in any way prove that the bible account is inaccurate. I believe all the other religions with similar accounts come after mosses in mans timeline.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 01:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by sapien82
...
However there is direct evidence from observation that everything in the universe at one point was condensed into a singularity and then suddenly exploded into the universe. These observations have been backed up by many scientists and right now is our best understanding of how we came to be!

Sure we can argue what was before the big bang , god and he opened his mouth !
but I dont think that either .

I dont as such believe in the big bang , I think its our best attempt to explain how the universe came into existance , but there is obviously something far greater yet to be discovered.
...


Hate to break it to you, but the Big Bang was a theory made up to reconcile science with religion. I even gave an excerpt from one of the scientists who was present when the theory was first contrived.

Creatio ex nihilo is the same as the Big Bang theory. The only difference is that in the Big Bang theory it is not mentioned from where so much matter and energy came from.

In fact, the Big Bang theory is less possible than a theory of creation. BTW, I don't agree with the Christians who say mankind, and the Earth has only existed for 4k-6k years. However, there had to be something before the known universe could be created, or transformed.

The Big Bang theory makes less sense than a theory of creation, more so when there are so many inconsistencies about the Big Bang theory and observable phenomenon in the known Universe.

Of course, imo there was no creation, but rather transformation from one stage of energy/matter to another.

In the words of Hannes Alfven:

"There is no rational reason to doubt that the universe has existed indefinitely, for an infinite time," Alfvén explained. "It is only myth that attempts to say how the universe came to be, either four thousand or twenty billion years ago."

public.lanl.gov...


edit on 23-9-2011 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 01:14 AM
link   
reply to post by MikusAurelius
 


dna
we have proof of evolution in dna. go wiki it or dont if you dont really care if your beliefs are true,



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 01:17 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


the big bang didnt necessarily have to create everything. it just explains that the universe is growing away from itself. and we DO have proof for the big bang. there's Hubble and background radiation. wiki is your friend.



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join