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: 28
31
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 04:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Immune
 


WOW. You must have been to busy to read even the previous page. All you have proved is that you do not understand Evolution.

Evolution cannot tell you how life started. Cannot explain the first cell. It describes with evidence how life progressed after lif started.




posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 04:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by boony
What a stupid question. The real question based on science is can Science prove evolution is true?
The answer is most definetly a NO.

Science cant even prove the Big Bang as logical and scientific, so how can they build a seriously flawed fundamentalist religion like evolution on no serious foundation.

I dont have to prove evolution wrong. Evolution has to be first proved. I cant prove something that doesnt exist is wrong, its absurd.


No not correct. Evolution is the line in the sand. Science has shown repeatable evidence and facts to back it. If you wish too show it to be wrong then you must challenge it or the evidence it consists of.

The reason why you say it is up to evolution to prove it is because you have no valid evidence to the contrary and the lack of it on this thread show that plainly.



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 05:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Not Authorized

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by Immune
 

What does that have to do with observed changes in allele frequency within a population over time aka evolution?


micro evolution ≠ macro evolution.

There's a difference between the two. Again, micro does not prove macro and any attempt to use it as 'proof' is a fallacious argument known as fallacy of division. You've been taught they are one in the same, that micro = macro = evolution.

We can argue all we want from genetic drift to irreducible complexity, but none of that addresses what he just stated. Biology is clear, that cells only come from other cells. You must address the elephant in the room. How can you get life, from lifelessness? Where did that first cell come from? Where is the documented evidence of such acts happening spontaneously?

It's special to note that even the OP already admitted defeat on this point, with his first post, by trying to steer away from the question where the first cell came from. NO ONE wants to address that, so all the other red herrings from evolutionists (such as micro-evolution) come out to play because they feel it's the only way to 'win' the argument and prove all those silly creationists wrong.

Either way it's the same game.
1.) God either created life.
2.) An updated 20th century version of Gaia worship, in which Gaia is the mother of all (the similarities are pretty striking) and thus "mother earth" has become your god, and you don't even realize it.

Both require faith on how it happened. I can state my belief that God spoke into existence life. You can state your belief that randomness somehow created the first cell in a primordial ooze. The rest is chicken fodder, because both are a system of beliefs, and neither can be unequivocally proven.

Even the current 'experiments' getting RNA to duplicate are in a controlled environment. Ironically it shows Intelligent Design as a valid model, as we are the ones designing and controlling it. But hey, it's all 'random' right? Oh wait, there is no such thing as 'true' randomness, as anyone that works with random number generators in a field such slot gaming knows that there can only be pseudo randomness.

In the past, God was insulted when we ascribed His creation to 'gods' made of wood, stone, or gold. We've found something even better to insult him with, and that is we didn't need him for creation.

I hope that your 20th century version of Gaia worship works out for you.
edit on 24-9-2011 by Not Authorized because: (no reason given)

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


I admitted defeated on how life was created? I never argued the point. I said we are here to discuss evolution which will not and cannot tell you how life started. Hardly defeat.

I am off on business for a few days and I expect this thread will be extinct before I return so I would like to sum up what I have learned from this thread.

Many people still do not understand evolution some because they have not taken/had time to learn it, some purposely close their eyes.

To use a gambling term creationsts have a 'Tell'. They insist on including the creation of life when discussing evolution even though evolution cannot answer that.

I believe it has been shown that Evolution is targeted and attacked not because it has no evidence or facts. It does not try to explain creation of life. What seems to threaten some groups who take their teaching as the word of god is it threatens parts of their creation myths and by default their creator.

This is bourne out by those with faith in a creator/creative force but subscribed to no formal doctrine seemingly having little problems with evolution as a whole or in part.

All creatures that ever was or ever will be created on that one day. No one can explain how that could work even over 6000 years for the young earth lobby or longer for the others.

Evolution shows a common ancestor with other primates and shows the rest of life both animal and vegetable with equal importance. Not that we are special and the favoured of god as they are taught but that all life is special and related.

If that is the only thing evolution shows us it is probably the most important lesson. Each organism that is part of life on this planet is dependant, related and entangled with all other life on this planet. None of us can stand alone.


edit on 25-9-2011 by colin42 because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-9-2011 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 05:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by colin42

Originally posted by boony
What a stupid question. The real question based on science is can Science prove evolution is true?
The answer is most definetly a NO.

Science cant even prove the Big Bang as logical and scientific, so how can they build a seriously flawed fundamentalist religion like evolution on no serious foundation.

I dont have to prove evolution wrong. Evolution has to be first proved. I cant prove something that doesnt exist is wrong, its absurd.


No not correct. Evolution is the line in the sand. Science has shown repeatable evidence and facts to back it. If you wish too show it to be wrong then you must challenge it or the evidence it consists of.

The reason why you say it is up to evolution to prove it is because you have no valid evidence to the contrary and the lack of it on this thread show that plainly.


I request you to get informed about Veda's account of creation. This predates Bible and Darwin.

I have said several times on this thread that the existence of soul in the body is itself enough to prove that the first body was created by God. After that normal process of procreation kept the line going.

If soul exists, it has a function. It is not a decoration piece in the body. The western thought has not understood the qualities and function of the soul properly, that is the reason of confusion.

It is wiser to believe that horse has come from horse, man from man, both created by God.

Virus and bacteria are not good examples. I shall believe Darwin when science transforms monkey into man.

Thanks and I really enjoyed this thread.



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 06:09 AM
link   
reply to post by vedatruth
 


Thanks in return. I have enjoyed your posts.



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 06:27 AM
link   
being an anti-evolutionist do i really have to tell you evolutionists how evolution is a replacement for the creation of life and that it "does" say how life was created, really do i???

I guess i do...............

Single celled organism, evolution states we came from the sea as single celled organism which evolved into much more complex organisms and eventually a fish and then evolution created legs and arms and then respiratory systems for stabilization out of water. (not in that exact order wise guy!!!!!!)

It seems you evolutionists are battling for a cause you dont fully understand.

Even with this new information in your hands, the flaws of evolution still stand.

If some of you still find what i have written to be untrue then all of what evolution states has been rendered untrue, because then you are telling me that evolution did not exist until man was created/emerged which doesn't make sense with evolution stating it self as a random occurrence, how would evolution know that man was to be created, and how would that of worked if man had never been created/emerged.

time to re-think your belief systems buddies. Unless you hold valid arguments stating otherwise.


Peace



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 06:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by colin42
I would like to pose a scenario.

Let's put all the evidence of evolution to one side for a spell. That Darwin and all that followed were mistaken as some maintain.

I would like the pro Evolution group (that includes me) to take a back seat and give the anti evolution group a chance to explain how life on this planet is the way it is now.

I am not asking how life started just an explanation of the diversity of life from the deep dark depths of the oceans to the blue skies above and pole to pole.

I would like an explanation of the fossil records but it is not essential.

As I say I would like the pro evolution group to resist comments for a while. My guess is there will be few takers but I may be suprised.
edit on Thu Sep 22 2011 by DontTreadOnMe because: *misleading title, formerly was: Evolution proved 100% Wrong



i dont know where i found it but, Darwin himself actually proved it wrong



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 07:16 AM
link   
One doesnt have to prove evolution is wrong.
Science has to prove it is correct, so far science has failed to prove evolution in anything living or non living, never mind uncomplicated becoming complicated in living cells.
Evolution is absurd.



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 08:22 AM
link   
reply to post by boony
 






One doesnt have to prove evolution is wrong.
Science has to prove it is correct, so far science has failed to prove evolution in anything living or non living, never mind uncomplicated becoming complicated in living cells.
Evolution is absurd.



Just because something has not been proven to the fullest extent, does not mean it is wrong? Why is everything so black and white? What do you believe? I am assuming Creationism, right? Yet again, why so black and white? I am not saying that Evolution is THE answer, just the one that is the most accepted and has the most evidence to back up it's claims....the most logical. Like someone said earlier, they just found that the light barrier may have been broken by nutrinos. Personally, I go with the choice that can support it's claims. Creationism; however, has no evidence. Just speculation and regurgitated fallacious argumentative points (which seems to have been put into circulation with people trying to prove their point, rather than actually testing their ideas) which have been proven wrong by the most prestigious of scientists. How can you claim Evolution to be wrong, while being backed by years of evidence and be so quick to embrace Creationism, which virtually has no coherent way of supporting its claims. Why does science have to prove Evolution to be correct, while Creationism lingers, waiting to find evidence? Creationism is absurd.
edit on 25-9-2011 by Tony4211 because: add-in



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by flyingfish

Originally posted by syrinx high priest

Originally posted by Tony4211
reply to post by syrinx high priest
 


Who brought the creature of divinity into fruition that you propose created everything?


gandalf
edit on 24-9-2011 by syrinx high priest because: (no reason given)

Good one! You made me laugh.


good, my posts were getting really boring and repetitive, I thought it was time for some humor.



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by syrinx high priest
 


Haha I wasn't trying to sound like an ass saying that. I am not sure what your views are, but that was hilarious and made my day!



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Not Authorized
 


oh right, so hes everywhere and nowhere but noone can prove or dissprove that, so obviously he must exist.

im not saying its impossible, just improbable. but then i am limited by my perseption of time and space lol



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Not Authorized
 


micro evolution ≠ macro evolution.

There's a difference between the two. Again, micro does not prove macro and any attempt to use it as 'proof' is a fallacious argument known as fallacy of division. You've been taught they are one in the same, that micro = macro = evolution.

Same processes, different scale. Both have been observed.


We can argue all we want from genetic drift to irreducible complexity, but none of that addresses what he just stated. Biology is clear, that cells only come from other cells. You must address the elephant in the room. How can you get life, from lifelessness? Where did that first cell come from? Where is the documented evidence of such acts happening spontaneously?

That's a discussion for biogenesis vs abiogenesis, not evolution.


It's special to note that even the OP already admitted defeat on this point, with his first post, by trying to steer away from the question where the first cell came from. NO ONE wants to address that, so all the other red herrings from evolutionists (such as micro-evolution) come out to play because they feel it's the only way to 'win' the argument and prove all those silly creationists wrong.

Because it has nothing to do with evolution. The red herring is from creationists trying to conflate abiogenesis and evolution. It's like saying that the heliocentric theory is imperfect because it doesn't contain the blueprints for a Ford Model T.


Either way it's the same game.
1.) God either created life.
2.) An updated 20th century version of Gaia worship, in which Gaia is the mother of all (the similarities are pretty striking) and thus "mother earth" has become your god, and you don't even realize it.

A false duality that, again, has nothing to do with evolution. This is the same kind of logical fallacy that creationists use to try and push intelligent design into classrooms.


Both require faith on how it happened. I can state my belief that God spoke into existence life. You can state your belief that randomness somehow created the first cell in a primordial ooze. The rest is chicken fodder, because both are a system of beliefs, and neither can be unequivocally proven.

Yes, abiogenesis is only a hypothesis at this point. It's a hypothesis with some evidence behind it, but still only a hypothesis. Evolution, on the other hand, is both an observable fact and a scientific theory.


Even the current 'experiments' getting RNA to duplicate are in a controlled environment. Ironically it shows Intelligent Design as a valid model, as we are the ones designing and controlling it. But hey, it's all 'random' right? Oh wait, there is no such thing as 'true' randomness, as anyone that works with random number generators in a field such slot gaming knows that there can only be pseudo randomness.

Again, abiogenesis, not evolution.


In the past, God was insulted when we ascribed His creation to 'gods' made of wood, stone, or gold. We've found something even better to insult him with, and that is we didn't need him for creation.

Why should I be worried about insulting a being that I don't believe in? Assuming you believe he exists, shouldn't you be more worried that he would be insulted at you assuming that he couldn't work through evolution?


I hope that your 20th century version of Gaia worship works out for you.

And wrapping up with a strawman argument.



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 01:17 PM
link   
i think 'evolution' and 'creationism' should both be in schools, one in SCIENCE and one in RELIGIOUS STUDIES, although religious studies should cover all religions and children should be able to make up their own minds on what they want to beleive, and NOT have it pushed on them by their parents.



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by addygrace
 

I love it when creationists waste their time and energy refuting a sixty year old experiment and ignore all of the experiments that followed. Abelson and Holland refined our understanding of the primordial atmosphere in the 1960's and even Miller said that his assumptions about the atmosphere at that time had been wrong. And what happens when you replicate the Miller-Urey experiment with an atmosphere that more closely models the primordial atmosphere as it is understood now? You not only get amino acids, you get nucleotides and nucleotide chains. But no creationist ever mentions the subsequent work that followed Miller-Urey that actually gave better results. I'm not sure if this is because they're unaware of it or that they ignore it. I mean, it's only over sixty years old. You'd think they'd have just as much fun trying to poke holes in current research. I guess they'll catch up eventually.



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Sinny
 


The first humans left their testimony for all to read. Sitchin lays it out for us. God (the Annunaki/Elohim) created humans with gene splicing and The Adam was born. so actually both are right sort of. "god" created man from an evolved homo erectus. Sitchin is more right than wrong because he explains how Egyptian people settled in the Americas, built pyramids, had advanced knowledge of the stars, told stories of gods just like the Sumerians did. How else did Africans built giant African looking heads in Mexico (Olmec)? How did they have knowledge of elephants? They made elephant toys for their children? Sitchin critics can't possibly explain the many things the Sumerians claim and his proof is too vast to deny. Evolution is overwhelming even without the missing link (Annunaki genes). 3 undeniable things prove evolution: fossils, fossils, fossils! The best opposition to fossils from the Christy types is childish & lacks logic: God put them there before man was created and/or the devil put them there to fool us. Hahahaaha. Sitchin/Sumerian deniers have a huge mountain of evidence to overcome when you take into account of the deluge (Sumerian not the Old Testiment version) spread of pyramid technology and beliefs on every major continent along side super knowledge of the star movements centuries ahead of other civilizations. China confirms, America confirms, Mexico confirms, South America confirms, Japan confirms, Cambodia confirms, India confirms, the middle East confirms what Sitchin tells us the Sumerians wrote. Those who deny Sitchin do so because of the interpretation of one word: Shem.
The proof is out there, deny ignorance and dogma.



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by DaveNorris
 


The teaching of creationism does not belong in public schools because creationism has NO science to teach. It is based on personal religious beliefs, not on evidence. Creationism can be made fit with anything we find, making it unscientific. anywhere creation models do make specific predictions that can be tested against evidence, they fail ALL tests. Asking for equal time is asking for non science to be taught in science classes.

Creation traditions from other religions and cultures, are way to vast to even consider teaching. you would need another school just to begin to touch the mountains of dogma.


creation traditions from other religions and cultures, including, but not limited to, the Aaragon, Abenaki, Acoma, Ainu, Aleut, Amunge, Angevin, Anishinabek, Anvik-Shageluk, Apache, Arapaho, Ararapivka, Arikara, Armenian, Arrernte, Ashkenazim, Assiniboine, Athabascan, Athena, Aztec, Babylonian, Balinese, Bannock, Bantu, Basque, Blackfoot, Blood, Bosnian, Breton, Brul, Bundjalung, Burns Paiute, Caddo, Cahuilla, Catalan, Cayuga, Cayuse, Celt, Chehalis, Chelan, Cherokee, Chewella, Cheyenne, Chickasaw, Chinook, Chippewa, Chirachaua, Choctaw, Chukchi, Coeur d'Alene, Columbia River, Colville, Comanche, Congolese, Concow, Coquille, Cow Creek, Cowlitz, Cree, Creek, Croat, Crow, Crow Creek, Cumbres, Curonian, Cu#e, Cut Head, Da'an, Devon, Dihai-Kutchin, Diyari, Dogon, Duwamish, Egyptian, Elwha, Eritrean, Eskimo, Esrolvuli, Eta, Even, Evenk, Flathead, Fijian, Fox, Fuegan, Gaul, Gooniyandi, Gond, Govi Basin Mongolian, Grand Ronde, Gros Ventre, Haida, Han, Haranding, Havasupai, Hendriki, Heortling, Hidatsa, Hindi, Hmong, HoChunk, Hoh, Hoopa, Hopi, Hunkpapa, Hutu, Ik-kil-lin, Inca, Innu, Intsi Dindjich, Inuit, Iroquois, Isleta, Itchali, Itelemen, It-ka-lya-ruin, Itkpe'lit, Itku'dlin, Jicarilla Apache, Jotvingian, Kaiyuhkhotana, Kalapuya, Kalispel, Kamchandal, Kansa, Karuk, Katshikotin, Kaurna, Kaw, Kazahk, Ketschetnaer, Khanti, Khoi-San, Khymer, Kickapoo, Kiowa, Kirghiz, Kitchin-Kutchin, Klamath, Knaiakhotana, K'nyaw, Koch-Rajbongshi, Kolshina, Kono, Kootenai, Koyukukhotana, !Kung, Kurd, La Jolla, Lac Courte D'Oreille, Lac Du Flambeau, Laguna, Lake, Lakota, Lao, Latgalian, Leech Lake Chippewa, Lemmi, Lower Brul, Lower Yanktonai, Lowland Lummi, Lummi, Malawi, Makah, Mandan, Maori, Maricopan, Martinez, Mayan, Mazatec, Mednofski, Menominee, Meryam Mir, Mesa Grande, Mescalero Apache, Metlakatla, Miniconjou, Mission, Moallalla, Modoc, Mohawk, Mojave, Morongo, Muckleshoot, Murrinh-Patha, Nadruvian, Nagorno-Karabakh, Na-Kotchpo-tschig-Kouttchin, Nambe, Namib, Natche'-Kutehin, Navajo, Nes Pelem, Neyetse-kutchi, Nez Perce, Ngiyampaa, Nisqualli, Nnatsit-Kutchin, Nomelackie, Nooksack, Norman, Norse, Northern Cheyenne, Nyungar, Oglala, Ogorvalte, Ojibway, Okanagon, Okinawan, Olmec, Omaha, Oneida, Onondaga, Ordovices, Orlanthi, Osage, Osetto, O-til'-tin, Otoe, Paakantyi, Paiute, Pala Mission, Papago, Pawnee, Pazyryk, Pechango, Penan, Piegan, Pima, Pitt River, Ponca, Potowatomie, Prussian, Pueblo, Puyallup, Qiang, Quileute, Quinault, Red Cliff Chippewa, Red Lake Chippewa, Redwood, Rincon, Sac, Saisiyat, Sakuddeis, Salish, Salt River, Samish, Samoan, Samogitian, San Carlos Apache, San Idlefonso, San Juan, San Poil, Santa Clara, Sartar, Sauk-Suiattle, Selonian, Semigolian, Seminole, Senecan, Sephardim, Serano, Serb, Shasta, Shawnee, Shiite, Shinnecock, Shoalwater Bay, Shoshone, Sikh, Siletz, Silures, Sinhalese, Sioux, Siskiyou, Sisseton, Siuslaw, Skalvian, S'Klallam, Skokomish, Skyomish, Slovene, Snohomish, Snoqualmie, Soboba, Southern Cheyenne, Spokane, Squaxin Island, Steilacoom, Stillaquamish, Stockbridge, Sunni, Suquamish, Swinomish, Tadjik, Takhayuna, Tala, Talastari, Tamil, Tanaina, Taos, Tarim, Tasman, Tatar, Tesuque, Tlingit, Toltec, Tpe-ttckie-dhidie-Kouttchin, Tranjik-Kutchin, Truk, Tukkutih-Kutchin, Tulalip, Tungus, Turtle Mountain, Tuscarora, Turk, Turkmen, Tutsi, Ugalakmiut, Uintah, Umatilla, Umpqua, Uncompagre, U-nung'un, Upper Skagit, Ute, Uzbek, Vietnamese, Viking, Vunta-Kutchin, Wahpeton, Walla Walla, Wasco, Wembawemba, White Mountain Apache, Wichita, Wik-ungkan, Winnebago, Wiradjuri, Wylackie, Xhosa, Yahi, Yakama, Yakima, Yakut, Yanamamo, Yankton Sioux, Yellowknife, Yindjibarnd, Youkon Louchioux, Yukaghir, Yukonikhotana, Yullit, Yuma, Zjen-ta-Kouttchin, and Zulu. (from Leipzig, n.d.)



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 11:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by byeluvolk
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.


I think most scientists would say what you have said, with confidence, but personally, I am not so sure of that myself. "Wishin' and a hopin'" might be more efficacious than modern science believes. There is so much that we don't know about DNA. The purpose(s) of "junk" DNA for example.

Is it possible that adaptations we make through personal effort are cued up in our DNA somehow, during our lives and transmitted by procreation? I wouldn't say something like that is impossible. If we rule out possibilities, particularly in a profound study like evolution, we may not see signs of them if they do occur.

edit on 25-9-2011 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 01:18 AM
link   
reply to post by flyingfish
 


thats why i said it should be in religious studies lol try reading my post again

and as for teaching other religions, they dont have to go into detail, just teach the basics in all the mainstream religions, when i was at school they told us about several religions, and always refered to them as beleifs and not fact (secondary school anyway, i went to a C of E primary school so you can guess what they focused on lol)
edit on 26/9/2011 by DaveNorris because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 01:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by flyingfish
reply to post by DaveNorris
 


The teaching of creationism does not belong in public schools because creationism has NO science to teach.


I do not think schools should only teach things which science has been able to replicate. I think there is value in teaching kids about "non-proven" topics as well. If we only teach scienctifically supported historic events school would be a very poor reflection of life.

PS: feel free to elaborate on why you disagree with me.



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join