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: 25
31
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by sacgamer25
 





Quantifying belief in God to a non believer would not sound like an explanation. I said earlier my reason for believing in God is I am, my child is and everything around me exists. There is only one logical way to reason this to me, God. Not one time has science shown that even a single protein can form on its own.

This argument, is the argument from ignorance or "god did it," it shows up in a very many different creationist arguments. In particular, it is behind all arguments against abiogenesis and any and all claims of intelligent design.

You need to do your home work on biochemical systems. Dozens of articles exist on the subject. David Ussery, for example, found 107 articles on cilia evolution, 125 on flagella evolution, 27 on the evolution of the entire coagulation system, 130 on the evolution of vesicle transport, and 84 on "molecular evolution of the immune system" (Ussery 1999).
Try keywords such as "flagella" and "evolution".

edit on 24-9-2011 by flyingfish because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 11:51 AM
link   
Consider the programming of logic in DNA. Chuck Missler does an outstanding job clearing the air on this with real-world statistics and probability.




posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to [url= by SuperiorEd[/url]
 


When will it sink in, that when scientists use the words 'code' or 'programming' in regards to DNA, they are used in a descriptive manner to help people understand DNA.

And there's nothing random whatsoever about the formation of DNA and the human genome. Nor did the big bang 'explode out of nothing'.

Its got to the point where these things have been explained so often, that anyone still making such remarks is being willfully dishonest.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Prezbo369
reply to [url= by SuperiorEd[/url]
 


When will it sink in, that when scientists use the words 'code' or 'programming' in regards to DNA, they are used in a descriptive manner to help people understand DNA.

And there's nothing random whatsoever about the formation of DNA and the human genome. Nor did the big bang 'explode out of nothing'.

Its got to the point where these things have been explained so often, that anyone still making such remarks is being willfully dishonest.


Great video of programming, logic and DNA.




posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaveNorris

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


For all the people saying "god" did it. Could i ask you if god created humans who created god?
edit on 24/9/2011 by DaveNorris because: spelling


This kind of question is the result of unable to think outside the 4D box you are stuck in. You are used to a linear concept of time, and therefore anything that "is" must spring forth from a certain point, and always progress forward. ie, who created who.

God is "above" time, and therefore there is no need for a creation point of "A" to "B". He didn't just create the humans, he created all aspects of what we would consider space-time.

The scripture is riddled with passages telling us that God is eternal, is from eternity, is from everlasting, the first and the last, alpha and omega, the ancient of days, one who has no beginning or end, etc. What he's trying to say is "where" he comes from and describe it in concepts we could understand. No matter what arbitrary point of time we would want to "peg" him at, he's already there. In fact, he is in all those points at what we could consider the same "time".

He provides proof of this attribute in that he tells the end from the beginning. For example, the first reference for a redeemer, being hinted as a virgin birth was in Genesis 3, not Isaiah 7.

Remember, time is a human observation based of current limitations of the universe. We do not have the capacity to even begin to truly comprehend eternity, or a place "without" time. We can only reference what we do know based on our own observations. In fact there are hints that born again's are already in heaven, we're just waiting to catch up.


edit on 24-9-2011 by Not Authorized because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-9-2011 by Not Authorized because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by flyingfish
reply to post by sacgamer25
 





Quantifying belief in God to a non believer would not sound like an explanation. I said earlier my reason for believing in God is I am, my child is and everything around me exists. There is only one logical way to reason this to me, God. Not one time has science shown that even a single protein can form on its own.

This argument, is the argument from ignorance or "god did it," it shows up in a very many different creationist arguments. In particular, it is behind all arguments against abiogenesis and any and all claims of intelligent design.

You need to do your home work on biochemical systems. Dozens of articles exist on the subject. David Ussery, for example, found 107 articles on cilia evolution, 125 on flagella evolution, 27 on the evolution of the entire coagulation system, 130 on the evolution of vesicle transport, and 84 on "molecular evolution of the immune system" (Ussery 1999).
Try keywords such as "flagella" and "evolution".

edit on 24-9-2011 by flyingfish because: (no reason given)


The mathematics of the argument from a standpoint of probability is so staggering that the language of DNA can only be classified as a message written within our design.




posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 02:32 PM
link   
My take on it:

The day the computers we make "ever" get to the point that they are intelligent beings, they will look back in the past, find remnants of the mainframe, the mac, pc-at, px-xt, pentium, pentium-m, dual core, core2duo, i3, i5, etc and the "darwin" computer will theorize the darwin theory of computer evolution.

What I am saying is that Darwin is correct in following the evolution chain. What he missed is that the evolution did not happen spontaneously. It was initiated (and still is) by the scientist above us. We probably call him God.
He made, and refined his creations over time, just like we do with our computers, our cars, our vehicles.

He made Birds. We made aircrafts.
He made fish. We made Ships and submarines.
He made crabs. We made vehicles with tracks.
He made elephants. We made cranes.
He made the Rhino/Hippo. We made Tanks, Half Tracks, Humvee, etc.
He made eyes. WE made cameras.

For each of these that I listed, every intelligent person on this board can track the evolution and find similarity of evolution of life on earth.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by SuperiorEd
 


There is no peer review process or anyway to argue with the supposed claims any of these videos you have produced.
Again these are just an example of argument from incredulity.
To learn more about the origin and evolution of the genetic code check out these scientific peer-reviewed papers:
Link


edit on 24-9-2011 by flyingfish because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 03:05 PM
link   
It seems to me that if evolution was the way that things were created, that there would still be creatures in the process of evolving. Since it is doubtful that creatures would have only evolved in the past, then for evolution to be a valid possibility for explaining how things came to be, there would be physical proof in the world around us. It would be common to see an ape/man in all stages of development and there would be many other examples of animals in the process of evolution. Since there is not physical evidence that can be produced showing that we are evolving today, then it is very unlikely that we evolved in the past.
Times and seasons occur on schedule, generations of humans and animals throughout written history have remained virtually unchanged, they are born, reproduce young like themselves and eventually they die and the next generation continues on the same path... there may have been adaptation to climate or other environmental situations, but there have not been significant changes to man or beast as long as records have been kept. I think it is far more likely that living things were purposely created to be exactly what they are.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by elle.mental
 


You are not appreciating the time-scales involved in macro-evolution.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by elle.mental
 


Wrong.
Evidence is not limited to seeing something happen before our eyes.
We see many creatures in transitional stages. These may be considered incomplete in that they do not have all the same features and abilities of similar or related creatures:
Various gliding animals, such as the flying squirrel, which may be on their way to becoming more batlike
The euglena, which is halfway to plant.
Aquatic snakes.
Reptiles with a "third eye" that only gets infrared.
Various fish that can live out of water for long periods, use their fins as legs, and breathe air.
The various jaw bones of Probainognathus that were in the process of migrating toward the middle ear.
Various Eocene whales, which had hooved forelimbs and hindlimbs.
There is even evidence that humans have evolved in the last several thousand years and continue to evolve.
Analysis of variation in the human genome indicates that genes associated with brain size have evolved.
Sickle-cell resistance has evolved to be more prevalent in areas where malaria is more common.
Lactose tolerance has evolved in conjunction with cultural changes in dairy consumption.
Some humans have recently acquired mutations which confer resistance to AIDS.
The list goes on.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 


Ah, but if you want to be scientific, you have to prove evolution is true. The burden of proof lies there, not with people with other opinions. Frankly, there isn't any real proof, just speculation.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes
 


Just speculation?! Do people not listen to what others have to say on here? Did you not hear the things that Flying Fish said? There are literally creatures in transition, adapting to meet new requirements of their surroundings. If you are going to deny the evidence (and obviously there is much of it) and be stubborn, why are you even on here? There are pieces of the puzzle that have not been put into place, but does that make it false? Hopefully you are not a Creationist. THAT is PURE speculation, simply because there is NO evidence of it.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 06:53 PM
link   
The anti evolution crowd will just tell you that this is God's plan and no other proof is needed, that proof is in the fact that the different species and diversity of life are here.

They will tell you that the fossil record showing the planet is over 6,500 years old are part of God's plan to test your faith.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by babybunnies
 


What about the creatures that are literally changing before our eyes? haha Is god indecisive? Does evidence mean anything anymore? I guess faith trumps all? haha



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 07:19 PM
link   
reply to post by SuperiorEd
 


With regard to creating synthetic DNA... again this requires intelligence to Create....people assembling molecules with extraordianry ingenuity and intelligence.

Science clamours to create artificial life....yet even if this is acheived...what will it prove? That life began as an accident or in fact, just like these inventors of artificial life..... that the original scientist spent many hours in his laboratory creating real life?

The concept of the origin of life and evolution being responsible for what we are today....utilises things happening by accident.... we don't see that at all. Order does not come from chaos.

The theroy of evolution has changed so much... the fossil record has struggled to prove Darwinian evolutionary theory...now we have the punctuated evolutionary theory.

Only this week it has been announced that scientists have possibly identified particles that travel faster than the speed of light, which if proven true, turns our whole understanding of the physical universe on it's head.

Evolutionists should perhaps temper their arrogance and disdain for anyone who questions it's validity with a little humility, because none of us know what is to be discovered around the corner. A couple of weeks ago it was revealed that homos erectus remains were found in rocks that were much younger than they should have been and of the same age that contain remains of homo sapiens. This turns the theory that homo erectus died out 140,000 years ago on it's head because these rocks are supposedly only dated to 13,000 years ago from Africa. Yet again a large amendment to the theory of evolution needs to be included.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by elle.mental
 


So everything that ever lived or will live was created as is.

On day one this may be ok. Even if the world is only 6000 years old please explain how the life forms that directly compete for food will fair on day 300, 600,1200?

With that much grazing please explain how flowering plants still exist today when the plain truth is they would have been grazed long before flowering and so never reproduce.

The probable outcome would be only the poisonous inedible plants would thrive so all these created species would die out well before the 6K years was up and us with them.

Please explain how they manage to live in an ever changing world without evolution and remember you said they were created as is. They are the finished product.

I maintain that without evolution life on this planet is unlikely to have been able to support the diversity we see now even with a young earth.

Please show me where I am wrong

Please explain how they manage to live in an ever changing world without evolution and remember you said they were created as is. They are the finished product.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 07:24 PM
link   
reply to post by JB1234
[m

If we have no idea what is around the corner, how would you ever know there is some ultimate creator? If we found evidence there was no creator, would you accept it, or deny the evidence?



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Tony4211
 


The truth, which seems to be unknown to much of the posters on this thread, is that the arguments of the so called "scientific" creationism are not only false but shockingly false. Most if not ALL of their most popular arguments have rested solely upon obsolete and incomplete data.Dishonesty and outright misrepresentation of the data are the norme. Peer reviewed data is routinely ignored. There is a wholesale lack of professional scientific integrity among the creationists. This wholesale lack of integrity, resulting in bastardized science, has no real place in a public board that claims to deny ignorance.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes
 

All of the evidence gathered to date supports the theory of evolution.




top topics



 
31
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join