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: 23
31
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 09:26 AM
link   
testing





posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jademonkey2k
I can prove evolution isnt true in one sentance......


If all humans evolved from monkeys.......why are there still monkeys?


Peace and love all


If I like pancakes... then why does my sister like hamburgers.

Your reasoning makes no sense what so ever..



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 10:19 AM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 


It's not really evolved then has it?

Allegedly was a lung fish and now still is



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kicking2bears

Originally posted by futuretense
reply to post by Kicking2bears
 


In regards to the story of Noah’s ark……It is worthy to consider marsupials of Australia and other geospecific regional species. For instance, let's take a Duckbill platypus, Kiwi bird and/or the Koala bear........they are only found in one place on Earth.......the continent of Australia.

Regardless of where Noah and his family lived, once they gathered each species on the ark and then landed after the flood seceded, all those animals would appear in areas of the Earth at least within the continent he landed on……..unless the ark landed on the continant of Australia.

But then how would you explain species only found on……. say the islands of Hawaii?

There is little evidence to assume anyone could have loaded all the species for reproduction after the flood and then have them dispersed in such a geospecific region to the exclusions of all others by using an ark.

But I'm open to alternative suggestions if you have any.



Well, as I said I'm a fan of Noah not being the only group of humans saved. But remember according to the biblical account God's purpose was destruction of a corrupted race of man (ish)... He wasn't trying to destroy all life on this planet.

It was "40 days" of catastrophe. During which our only "witnesses" were locked up inside a box. This wasn't a simple rising of the waters. This was earthquakes, volcanoes, monstrous guysers, boulders and mountains flying around... Some of the critters, especially the aquatic ones could have migrated or been "encouraged" to hide out in safe(ish) spots. God being God he could simply have moved them or protected them if he wanted to.

If you read the biblical account and follow the word for word translations you find that it is almost as if much of the earths water was retained in giant underground oceans... (as an example Imagine a swimming pool with a thick layer of clay on top... and then drop a motorcycle into it from 300 feet up... stuff is going to fly everywhere...) In those days the earth was "enshrouded in mist"... and i think it said something about "the fountains of the deep" erupting.


That sound correct to me in regards to the destruction of corruption of man.........but then why save select animal species?



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by MikusAurelius
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


something from nothing has a logical macroscopic sense to it........but what if what we perceive as "something" is really a specific manifestation of "nothing"?..........I know that sound ridiculous without understanding the evidence behind that but it lays in the foundation of particle physics, field forces, and even time as manifestations of higher order dimensions of empty space...........Quantum theory is leading us in this direction and we are finding more evidence in this regard. the big bang in a quantum model is not necessarily a creation but a manifestion of a lower order dimensional reality from a higher dimensional quantum fluctuation.

Fossil records only show what we have found at this point..........many specific environmental conditions need to be met for fossil preservation which contribute to the rarity of finding such evidence, but if it is a reality then in time it may be found......

There are new studies now coming out now showing that primates clearly demonstrate self awareness (serach youtube to see those experiments) and demonstrating communication with a greater being (ie sky ape) when frustrated and/or frightened during lightening strikes for example. The idea of being aware of oneself was thought only exclusive to humans at one time (as was tool making in the past... and before that emotional states) likewise the idea communication with a higher being (which is now being studied with primates). It is beginning to appear that the more we understand about animal behavior we are seeing a common bond with what was once held to be exclusive behavior of a spiritually defined human trait. In otherwords, we are seeing more of a behavior bridge to those animals close to our genetic makeup that was always held in belief to be in exclusion of each other.

All this said, I have a very deep and great respect for those who consider a creator (particularly Judeo/Christian) as a first cause agent to our existence and would love to be assured this is reality and will continue to keep my mind open to any evidence that can be subjected to replication and objectivity.

I am merely pointing out what evidence through the scientific method has found..........that method does not rule out any creator..........it simply searches for objective truth in evidence of which must be altered if new evidence comes along that supercedes it.

My regards to all.........
edit on 23-9-2011 by futuretense because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by vedatruth

Originally posted by byeluvolk
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


Actually in the case of viral and bacterial infections it is exactly evolution in it most prominent form. The individual virus or bacterium do not suddenly change to become immune to the vaccine. What happens is there are a few strains of the organism that are and have been immune to it all along. Once the vaccine is applied it kills of those that are not immune to the vaccine. The result is those that have mutated in the past for some reason, and because of this accidentally became immune, are now the only ones left alive. Thus they are the only ones left breeding, and the next generations of the organism are that much more likely to be immune to the vaccine, as this mutation gets passed form the parents to the offspring. This is not a reaction to an encounter with the vaccine causing the virus to change, but rather a random change in the virus made it immune, and therefore it survives to pass this immunity on to its offspring. This is indeed the very definition of evolution.


1. Bacteria multiplies quickly.
2. Read my posts about adaptation of body to the environment in this thread.
3. So in a few generations bacteria will adapt to its new environment.
4. Bacterium is a special case (being a very simple organism), and can combine with other bacterium. Closely related species can mix to produce offspring like white man with chinese woman.
5. Your red blood cell and white blood cell are also bacterium.
6. This theory does not apply to complex organisms.

The bacterium does not transform into a mouse in a million years.
Your argument is invalid.




Bacteria and viruses are examples of profound speed in the process of natural selection.......not evolution. Not matter how many difference strains result from their enviromental variations they remain bacteria and/or viruses. However, natural selection is a driving process in the evolution of a species..........but that evolution takes many millions if not billions of years for such evolution to take place. That time line makes it difficult to find direct evidence but there are many stages of evidence that fit into such a model. Much like it takes billions of years for a star to be formed and burn out but we see various examples of those stages throughout our search of the heavens. In regards to species evolution, fossils, genetics and environmental records are part of those observations.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by byeluvolk
reply to post by outerlimits
 


As I mentioned in my previous post this is the very definition of evolution. In response to your comment on the virus is not alive; they are very much alive. You question the validity as they do not “live” until they encounter the host. Well to this I have to ask; when does a fetus begin to live? Is it the creation of the physical body or the “injection” of the “holy spirit”? The physical body of the fetus is not life as they can obviously die, and in the same fashion the physical body of a virus, may not be alive until it’s “life force” is injected. But even with a virus out of the question look at bacterial and fungal infections. This exact same process happens with these types of organisms as well. This is why people who over use anti biotics soon develop an immunity to them. The person is not developing the immunity per se, but rather the bacteria in their body do, and thus the anti biotic no longer works.


Interesting comment here...........as viruses are very interesting.........life at its lowest form that when crystalized are inanimate objects but when invading a host cell demonstration many of the characteristics of what life has been defined as.

Consider the seed of a plant…………………….is it living when dormant without soil, sunlight and water?

How can a living object like a plant occupy a space and time as an inanimate object such as a seed?

Evolution from inanimate organic molecule structures does not seem so farfetched with compared with a far more macroscopic version of a dormant seed to a living plant.


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



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 02:59 PM
link   


That sound correct to me in regards to the destruction of corruption of man.........but then why save select animal species?


I'm not sure, gonna put that on my list of questions to ask God after everything is said and done.

I have heard theories that had to do with the quantity and types of some of the animals. Such as many of them were intended as "travel rations" and that the mixture of animal types make perfect sense in a rural farming/livestock community. But I can't say for sure.

(Those were just theories... I like the travel rations idea though. There is a fella I read about who was working on or had built a tank on 3 acres of land which consisted of fish, fowl and plants. It was producing approximately 1 million pounds of food per year!... Maybe it was something like that...)



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by Jademonkey2k
I can prove evolution isnt true in one sentance......


If all humans evolved from monkeys.......why are there still monkeys?


Peace and love all


If I like pancakes... then why does my sister like hamburgers.

Your reasoning makes no sense what so ever..


A more accurate analogy would be:

If you evolved from a Pancake... then why are there still Pancake's?

And why am I suddenly hungry for breakfast?



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by flyingfish



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.
reply to post by sacgamer25
 

This is an example of argument from incredulity, because irreducible complexity can evolve naturally. Many of the proteins in the bacterial flagellum or eukaryotic cilium are similar to each other or to proteins for other functions. Their origins can easily be explained by a series of gene duplication events followed by modification and/or co-option, proceeding gradually through intermediate systems different from and simpler than the final flagellum.



Science mumbo jumbo. That’s how they get you. If it sounds smart it must be true. Anyways if it can so easily be explained it should also be easily duplicated. Although I do give you credit for researching a possibility, until it can be duplicated or witnessed it’s only a possibility. After all a flagellum will always be a flagellum, just because there is more than one recognized type does not mean 3 evolved from 1 or that it will ever be anything more than flagellum. These are all assumptions that are used to understand evolution.

Has anyone noticed that every argument for evolution minus a creator always has to be accepted with an assumption? That is a lot of assumptions. We might have as many as 100 assumptions in this thread alone. How is an intelligent being supposed to believe this as fact?

Well I guess those of you that evolved from primordial soup may not be as smart as those of us that were created by intelligent design.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griffo
reply to post by Sephiroth1550
 



Really, Genetic Evidence huh. Like we have never heard of that one


The most persuasive evidence for evolution is in the form of genetics, and in the field of genetics, ERVs (endogenous retroviruses) are the most compelling. I'd consider anyone who rejects ERVs without reviewing them, or common descent once they are exposed to the evidence of ERVs to be either purposefully ignorant or just slightly moronic. Consider one or both of the following videos or do some investigating yourself.

ERVs (endogenous retroviruses) demonstrate common descent. Once you understand that evidence, there's no valid response to ERVs beyond agreeing that common descent and thus evolution is a fact.

Evolution: Genetic Evidence - Endogenous Retroviruses

Evidence of common ancestry: ERV's
edit on 23/9/2011 by Griffo because: (no reason given)


Although this is compelling evidence that I would encourage the scientific community to study more, we simply do not know enough about ERV, RNA or DNA to state that this proves anything much less common descent. This article includes another possible scenario. What you state about common descent could also be claimed as intelligent design. The commonality in the ERV could also have occurred to ensure similar life forms had the ability to adapt to similar changes in environment.

www.answersingenesis.org...



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by sacgamer25

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by SN4FU
 


I point you to the lungfish. Long thought to be extinct, we have the fossils. Found to be alive and kicking. I have shown you the stones...... bones....... Fish.

Is that acceptable?


All you can prove with this argument is that a Lungfish exists. And its pretty much the same as it was. Actually now that I put it that way maybe that is more proof for creation than evolution. Go God
you created some really cool animals that didn't evolve and still exist today.


The reply was to a request to show that fossils were even once living animals or as he put it bones. Nothing more



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by sacgamer25
 





Has anyone noticed that every argument for evolution minus a creator always has to be accepted with an assumption? That is a lot of assumptions. We might have as many as 100 assumptions in this thread alone. How is an intelligent being supposed to believe this as fact?

The hypocrisy of this charge cannot be overstressed. Creationists state outright that they accept only what they already assume. Consider part of Answers in Genesis' Statement of Faith: "By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record" (AIG n.d.). The Institute for Creation Research has a similar statement of faith (ICR 2000). Creationists admit up front that their preconceptions, in the form of religious convictions, determine their conclusions.



Science mumbo jumbo. That’s how they get you. If it sounds smart it must be true. Anyways if it can so easily be explained it should also be easily duplicated.

The soundness of the theory of evolution does not rest on mumbo jumbo. On the contrary, scientific papers are written so other scientists can tell what the authors are talking about; they must be as unambiguous as possible. The evidence is overwhelming: evolution is not only a theory; major aspects of it, such as common descent, are also facts.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by sacgamer25
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



Just to put you right.

I never changed the title of this thread or requested it. 'Can you Prove Evolution wrong' how lame and provocative and encourages what I was trying to avoid.

Seems a few precious people were to near sighted to understand the concept behind the original and that was to break the cycle common on this board of creationists cherry picking what they will attack without offering anything in its place.

The title as it is now invites the traditional argument pattern and not discussion and reading through the posts so far (page 20) that is exactly how it has gone/going. I'll follow the thread but I have no real interest in pointless arguing.

Shame really as I still believe that by giving the creationists the chair and evolutionist the floor to field the questions was worth a go to achieve a discussion.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 


I believe that evolution has it's place in the Creation. All living organisms adapt or die out. Creating the heavens and the earth, with all of the minutae required to create life is more than just "poof! here it is!" Who says that God didn't use evolution, and all aspects of science, as the mechanisms to create life? The way the universe formed, the way our solar system came into being, the millions and millions of things that must be just so for life to be created speaks to me more of divine influence than mere happenstance. There are so many indivdiuals who cannot reconcile God and science, when the scriptures state He is a God of laws. That would include all laws, including the laws of science. How then, can people NOT see the Lord's hand in both creation and evolution?



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by colin42

Originally posted by sacgamer25

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by SN4FU
 


I point you to the lungfish. Long thought to be extinct, we have the fossils. Found to be alive and kicking. I have shown you the stones...... bones....... Fish.

Is that acceptable?


All you can prove with this argument is that a Lungfish exists. And its pretty much the same as it was. Actually now that I put it that way maybe that is more proof for creation than evolution. Go God
you created some really cool animals that didn't evolve and still exist today.


The reply was to a request to show that fossils were even once living animals or as he put it bones. Nothing more

hint : the best part of this (quasi-silliness) is at the end of my post...

Okay, I've had a thought... just a premise... no scientific evidence... probably ludicrous and going to be laughed at... but anyhow here goes... it's a series of what-if's that could explain dinosaur bones...

1. what if ancient man was at least as intelligent as modern man.
2. what if "giants" or "nephalim" really did exist.
3. what if (just like our modern civilization) ancient man rose to a pinacle of engineering and technology
4. What if (unlike modern civilization) ancient man built all of his technology to be environmentally friendly and biodegradeable.
5. What if ancient man were also involved in gene spliceing.
6. What if ancient man has been around pretty much since the beginning in one form or another.
7. What if after wipeing out the giants, ancient man decided to combine giant/nephalim dna with his favorite meal of brontosaur steaks etc... which allowed for the unusual size (both large and small) of many dinosaurs.
8. What if ancient man were an expert in disposal of human remains (remember environmentally friendly and biodegradeable) and that's why we haven't found much evidence to support them being around at the same time.

Another supposition based on many of the same premises:

What if he considered dino' skeletons art only ancient man was so good at producing his art that thousands, millions or billions of years later they look and act like fossils.

Maybe he didn't figure out microscopes and he wanted a good look at what the inside of a bone looked like therefore he needed to grow the creature large enough to see with the naked eye...

Even in this day and age lab experiments can get loose... and maybe he didn't care... just because we try to practice strict experimental protocals doesn't mean they've been around forever...

Oh yeah, and what if mankind in all his ancient, highly evolved, biodegradeable wisdom decided that he wanted to get to all that water which was in the underground oceans... What if he caused the great flood by triggering seismic events in just the wrong place or places...

You will love this bit...

And this Noah guy and his cohorts around the globe were the ATS-ers of the time... trying to warn everybody that useing that ancient version of HAARP could lead to a catastrophe of epic proportions...

I know, it's silly and unproveable, but it is a logic chain with tons of supposition and no evidence. But if 98% of the worlds population dies out and the only people left are ATS-ers... I wonder what stories we would invent to tell our ancestors? Would they be a mixture of facts and myths or would we have the courage to "deny ignorance"?



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by sacgamer25
 





What you state about common descent could also be claimed as intelligent design.

According to the definition of design, we must determine something about the design process in order to infer design. We do this by observing the design in process or by comparing with the results of known designs. The only example of known intelligent design we have is human design. Life does not look man-made.
Design does not require a god like designer. Designs appear in clouds, for example, with no more of a designer than uneven heating, evaporation, and other natural causes.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by AwakeinNM
 




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?

The supposed problems in your statement are misunderstandings, ignorance, or fraudulent claims about what the science says.



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.

The evidence is extensive and consistent, and it points unambiguously to evolution, including common descent, change over time, and adaptation influenced by natural selection. It would be preposterous to refer to these as anything other than facts.
For the record I do believe in alien life.



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.

The reason some findings change is because they get corrected. This process of correction helps make science one of the most successful areas of human endeavor. The people who cannot be trusted are those who are always right.



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

What we want does not determine what is. To believe that reality will bend to our wishes is a form of hubris.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 07:09 PM
link   
Define the parameters on how you observe something and come to the conclusion that is created and you will find your answer.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by ipsedixit
 


The problem with this thinking is that you can’t make a conscious effort to change your DNA. You can’t decide one cold night, after the ice age rolls in, that it would be nice to have a thick coat of fur and suddenly start growing one. The process is that when the ice age rolls in, those that have more body hair seem to survive better, so they live to pass on the hairy gene. Over time more and more people are born with this hairy gene, and eventually the humans of this era all start to develop more hair.




top topics



 
31
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join