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: 37
31
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 23 2011 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Noey777
 


How did he date the footprint?




posted on Oct, 23 2011 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tony4211
reply to post by Noey777
 


How did he date the footprint?


You know the same ol circle jerk reasoning they always use

A. We dated it by the rock it was found in.

Q. How did you date the rock?

A. By the footprint found in it.

Q. How did you date the footprint again?



posted on Oct, 23 2011 @ 08:16 PM
link   
reply to post by ChesterJohn
 


Haha My whole thing is that Creationists say that carbon dating is flawed, so how exactly can they date something to be 10 + million years old? I just wished I knew what their process of thinking is.



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 10:04 AM
link   
Both creationists and evolutionist use the same method of persuasion, trusting in THEIR belief , that their's is not only the better way but the correct way of thinking. Should we put our trust in God or man, that is a choice we all have to make on our own. There are unanswered questions on both sides. What we believe as indivduals is our own truth by choice.



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by OLD HIPPY DUDE
Both creationists and evolutionist use the same method of persuasion, trusting in THEIR belief , that their's is not only the better way but the correct way of thinking. Should we put our trust in God or man, that is a choice we all have to make on our own. There are unanswered questions on both sides. What we believe as indivduals is our own truth by choice.


While its true creationists use methods of persuasion in their beliefs, anyone who accepts evolution doesn't have to, there's evidence to back it up. Relying on mere persuasion to uncover a truth is the last resort of a desperate con artist.

There is one choice we all have to make however, and its deciding if we care whether or not the things we choose to believe are true or not.

Noone gets to choose what its true and what isn't.........


edit on 24-10-2011 by Prezbo369 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 12:25 PM
link   
Evolution as the cause of life is an inherently inductive proof.

THis requires two concepts...

Firstly the process must hold, hence, the process from one generation to another needs to hold. This seems obviously true. Grass in industiral areas where toxicity was almost toally lethal, can grow profusely three generations later, and, likewise, the increasing uselessness of anti-biotics thanks to the growing legion of superbugs again is clear testimony to this. Furthermore, the matching of genes by combining parents of any animal or plant shows that DNA is being constantly recreated. Hence the process is clealry true and it is absurd to suggest than no new DNA has been created.

Secondly, it needs to be proven that this goes back to a starting position of zero. This is NOT proven and leaves the "Theory Of Evolution" in terms of an explanation of how life came to be on thsi planet to be not proven, having clear evidence against it. To the chagrin of many deeply Christians, evidence against evolution causing life can be seen as, apparently debasing many of their views. A LITERAL interpretation of the Bible can be seen as true to the "Ancient Astronaut Theory", in which God becomes simply a smart alien who, for either our benefit, or possibly his own, has manipulated life if not actually caused it from the start.

Evidence AGANST the "theory Of Evolution" includes the following:-

- Over 80% or so of human DNA has, apparently, no reason to be there and many have reasoned that this could be an important database of unknown use, stored for either our or others benefit in the future.
- There are certain traits of DNA which gives the total starting population of any given species. In the case of man and man alone, thisse indicate that the starting population of the world was ONE.
- Evidence from around the world gives many civilizational artifacts date from the end of the Ice Age. Likewise, Biblical evidence also suggests a Garden of Eden site that would only have been above sea level at the close fo the Ice Age.
- Water erosion upon rock creates vertical striations whilst that of sand causes horizontal striations. Standing in the desert, one would expect that the dominant striations on the Great Sphinx would be horizontal therefore, yet, vertical striations are dominant. This geological evidence dates it to an era of hot sweaty climate which dates it to 12,000 BC or so. Given the enormity of this artifact, an alternative intelligence present upon the earth would be necessary to explain it, again facilitating the possibility of mankind being the descendents of alien lab rats.



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 12:33 PM
link   
One fo the major spanners in the works for Christina thinking is an absurd argument dating from the 17th Century. It was argued at that time that God does not create faulty goods, hence, nothing could or would die out naturally, hence the dinosaurs could not have existed. This is absurd as it suggests that the only reason for something to exist is to breed. In reallity, there are many reasons for something to exist. Consider, a young soldier who dies in battle to help protect his country. Does his decision to do this mean that his life has been pointless? No. Or a woman who donates he kidney to help a sick child only to find that she is one of the 15% who cannot survive on less that two kidneys and dies shortly afterwards as a result. Was she a waste fo space? Of course not. If the dinosaurs died out long ago, it does not mean that they were faulty - their existence and death might still be of key important use to mankind and life on earth, particularly if it warns up of the risk of an asteroid strike. If dinosaurs were not :"faulty" by dying out, then why should then not have existed? And were they really lizards? Evidence is now piling up that they were actually much closer to being flightless birds. Hence a more apporopriate term is dragon and indeed, in the Bible it states that God is the one who slayed the dragon.



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 12:42 PM
link   
...................evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life, abiogenesis attempts to explain this.

Dinosaurs were not lizards.................why is it that folk who do not have even the most basic education and understanding of science, attempt to educate others?



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Prezbo369
 


Noone gets to choose what its true and what isn't......... Really?

And you did not choose to post what you believe is true ?



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Prezbo369
 


...................evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life.

Evolution is not just physical, it's mental and a way of life ie.: adaptation. to survive.
Man was either born knowing how to adapt or was taught .



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by OLD HIPPY DUDE
reply to post by Prezbo369
 


...................evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life.

Evolution is not just physical, it's mental and a way of life ie.: adaptation. to survive.
Man was either born knowing how to adapt or was taught .


Or reacted and adapted to our environment is a positive way. The grass was too high or the ground was too wet so we stood up right. that's evolution.



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Prezbo369
...................evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life, abiogenesis attempts to explain this.

Dinosaurs were not lizards.................why is it that folk who do not have even the most basic education and understanding of science, attempt to educate others?


No but they were reptiles, so birds of a feather so to speak. Perhaps the confusion comes though because the ward dinosaur means terrible lizard.



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by sceptredisle
Evolution as the cause of life is an inherently inductive proof.


Not at any time does any field of science say that evolution is the cause of life. Science knows what the building blocks are but no one, Including you, knows what caused life.

The moment you made that first statement, everything else you said was not worth reading as you have failed to grasp at the most basic level what evolution means.
edit on 24-10-2011 by steveknows because: Typo



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 04:56 PM
link   
Even though we've been removed from nature, evolution still applies today. It's not about adapting to the forest and being hunter gatherers anymore. Today, the key factors to human survival are intelligence and understanding how to make money. The poor have much higher crime rates, and a much lower survival rate overall. It really is about adapting. Adapting comes naturally and can't be taught. Knowledge can be taught, however, and that is what is imparted to the youth. Some will learn it, some will question and study it, and some will ignore it or not care about it. The knowledgeable ones will have the greater chance to survive. We all owe our existence to the most extreme creatures that survived the various extinction level events on earth. They were not taught how to do it. They survived because they were best equipped to survive the drastic change in environment at the time. Evolution definitely applies today.

With that said, evolution does not contradict genetic manipulation of our DNA in the past. I do see a lot of evidence that suggests aliens visited the planet in the past. I do not think it only goes back some 7000 years, however. There is more evidence to suggest humans have been on the planet around 200,000 years, besides the age of our DNA. The oldest homo sapien fossil found was around 195,000 years old. If aliens did indeed do that, it probably happened around that time, unless it was a slow gradual process. As we know, humans have evolved quite a bit in 200,000 years. Various races of human are a direct result of adapting to various environments for long periods of time. I do often ponder about a lot of the things in itsthetooth's post. The bible itself dates back at least 10,000 years, due to the references to the great flood aka the end of the last ice age, but the stories could go back even further than that. Humans very well could have been a slave species that were modified over the years and eventually given "free will" when the aliens decided to leave. I used to read the bible a lot when I was a kid, thinking the stories were literal, but reading it again today opens up a whole new perspective.

If aliens didn't visit the earth in the past, then ancient humans were much more advanced than we thought. If you think about it, in less than 6000 years the human race has gone from caveman to flying in space; from being unaware of other continents, to having a global communications network. Humans have been around 200K years, a similar technology and knowledge boom could have happened some 100,000+ years ago but a global disaster ended it. The pyramid builders could have been remnants of this very civilization that has been lost with time. The pyramids were built using advanced mathematics, which supposedly did not exist at the time, and I very much doubt they weren't done without high tech tools and advanced knowledge.
edit on 24-10-2011 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by CaptChaos
 


Evolution is complete bunk. It makes no sense.

Quite the opposite, especially given the whole of modern biology makes no sense except in light of evolution. But let's see what you have to try and make your case...


Even Darwin himself recanted his THEORIES in the end.

Actually, that's a complete fabrication. Even creationist websites recognize that this is a lie. Strike one.


And remember, it is just a THEORY, and a very weak one at that.

Ah, the "just a theory" chestnut. You need a better understanding of what constitutes a scientific theory:

From the American Academy for the Advancement of Science:

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.

From the US National Academy of Sciences:

The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed.

So not only is evolution not "just a theory", but it's one of the most well-supported scientific theories. Strike two.


Those who are stating there is EVIDENCE to support evolution: where is this evidence? The fossil record in no way supports evolution. Not only is there a "missing link" from apes to man, there is an equally missing link for every species. We have found plenty of bones of wooly mammoths, for example. Explain to me how they "evolved" into a smaller and weaker version, the elephant. Where are some bones of the in between stages? They do not exist.

Apparently, one day a wooly mammoth gave birth to an undersized and under-furred baby, then keeled over and died. This baby then gave birth to more exactly like itself, nothing like their grandmother. Explain that one to me?

The fossil record contradicts evolution in every way. There are no in between stages of anything.

So this boils down to "there are no transitional forms". You're probably right. There can't be any fossils of transitional forms. Nope, not one.

Strike three. Sorry, but if you can't be bothered to actually research your claims to make sure that you're not spouting things that are demonstrably incorrect, why should I? Maybe you should go back and fact check your post and at least try and find some links that support your claims.


dateline: Whenever...Scientists discovered fossilized remains of what appears to be duck-billed mammal...not only that, but the mammal appeared to be capable of laying eggs!!! So much for your tiktaalik...First, it is not transitional, simply because it exhibits characteristics of other creatures...Second, do not put up some stupid ARTIST rendering of what some scientist thought the creature looked like and expect that will suffice to satisfy scientific method...no matter how much you desperately want for it... it does not...Everyone knows that most of the bones present in recreated skeletons on display are MANUFACTURED by man and placed where someone THINKS it should go...



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChesterJohn

Originally posted by Tony4211
reply to post by Noey777
 


How did he date the footprint?


You know the same ol circle jerk reasoning they always use

A. We dated it by the rock it was found in.

Q. How did you date the rock?

A. By the footprint found in it.


Q. How did you date the footprint again?



If you red the article to the link it was dated mich older by the university , they estimated the rock to be around forty million years old. The fact that a human.footprint is in rock destroys the theory of evolution, even if the rock is much younger . I am no geologist but I imagine it takes a very long time for mud or ash to turn into rock. There are numerous other examples from around the world of human foot prints in stone some along side dinosaur footprints .



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 


I think your getting off topic.
I never said evolution dosn't apply at anytime .
What you are discussing is survival , which all living things must learn to do.
One must evolve to be able to learn to survive.
(Adapting comes naturally and can't be taught.) Really ?
So soldiers going into a war zone in a foreign country need no training?



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 05:53 PM
link   
No, I cannot prove evolution wrong, as its definition and contextual use have changed and altered over time in order to fit whatever view the current crop of scientists offer up as a guess for "why is this?"



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by jeichelberg
 


The scientific community has changed the meaning of "theory" to mean "fact."
To support their claims and win arguments in their own minds.
I guess one must be careful when one uses the word "theory".
the next thing ya know polititions will lie to us.
edit on 24-10-2011 by OLD HIPPY DUDE because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 06:13 PM
link   
The fact that we are destroying earth is yet another clue, that earth is not our home. Taking things out of the delicate balance so that we can survive on this planet is all to clear. Evolutionists would disagree and say this things happened because of choices we made. Which is true, however the main point might be missed. We make choices to suit our needs. If someone or something was smart enough to make us, they would also be as smart to make a planet that could accommodate us without these types of problems. So you see, on our home planet, we would not be dealing with these types of issues.




top topics



 
31
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join