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: 39
31
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs
reply to post by Noey777
 


You do realize that footprint hoax was exposed and debunked years ago right?
edit on 25-10-2011 by Barcs because: (no reason given)





I realize that the attempt at debunking was made and an opinion of an evolutionist came to the conclusion , that another set of footprints along dinosaur prints found along a creek bed in texas were called into question . The fact of the matter is their is extensive evidence that these prints are real and they have been found all over the globe.

The prints found in Texas along a creek bed were more escalation was done unearthing more prints debunked your debunker. Further one of your evolutionist. Scientists did in fact go up there wih a hammer and chisel to destroy the evidence. The seed has been planted weather you let the truth grow is all up to you.




posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by firegoggles
reply to post by hudsonhawk69
 


Who made the aliens? If they had to seed this planet to start it all .. then who seed there planet if they evolved as a result of evolution?

next line.. (ya i know it's not a creation thread it's an evolution thread but it's all i got for now hehe)

To the OP: Genesis describes the process of evolution almost perfectly. Including fish from the sea.. whales first (as per science) then creeping out of ocean is described in the Bible (just as science describes) etc etc.. it's all there. You guys just don't want to see it because the NWO has programmed you to reject the creator and embrace knowledge. That's all the dark side really has Gnosis.
edit on 10/25/2011 by firegoggles because: added to OP


Hi

Not sure if you are saying you and genesis agree that evolution is correct?

The Theory of Evolution describes the process of evolution almost perfectly and has evidence to back it.

You may be wrong in believing whales were the first mammal (according to science whales evolved from a small deer like animal that evolved to a marine life).

As for the NWO programming me to embrace knowledge I will take it you never meant to say that.

I accept that there is a chance that all the evidence science states is true and backed up could all be false right up until I go outside my house and look for myself and see evidence in abundance.

On the otherhand there are beliefs that expect me to accept what they tell me, that play on my fears with no evidence at all but blind faith. That to me better describes a NWO.
edit on 25-10-2011 by colin42 because: NWO



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by OLD HIPPY DUDE
 

I agree. And I think it's kind of sad that none of the people who feel that the theory of evolution is wrong have stepped up to the plate and really attempted to provide their own hypothesis on biodiversity that would account for the evidence currently in our possession.



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by OLD HIPPY DUDE
 


I haven't heard anything that has convinced me that evolution is even possible.



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by OLD HIPPY DUDE
 


I haven't heard anything that has convinced me that evolution is even possible.



Then go read it up instead of listening to it and understand without a bias. But the real thread is, can you explain biodiversity without it and provide the same amount of evidence evolution provides as its case? If you can, please share it and be the first to actually do it in this thread, which would leave evolution no room anymore and the new theory would have to be looked upon and accepted as viable among the scientific community.
edit on 25-10-2011 by topherman420 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by jeichelberg

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by steveknows
 

Given that I was talking about a tiktaalik and he replied with comments about a duck-billed platypus without actually saying "duck-billed platypus", I'm as confused as you are.


The point I was making is that you knew exactly what I was talking about given my description...the platypus exhibits characteristics of many types of creatures, yet we know it is what it is and has remained what it is for its existence...Scientists in the future will not point to this creature as a transitional form as proof of transformation, yet scientists now wish to hang their collective hat on a tiktaalik as proof of a transitional form...when in fact, the observable evidence we have in place states beyond all doubt that creatures, although they make adaptations to survive, they survive as what they currently are....lizard, reptile, platypus, mammal, fish, insect...


True it does but you can have completely unrelated animals with similar characteristics. There's a term " parallel
evolution" where you have two unrelated species in different parts of the world which are similar in their design as a result of their habitat but are in no way related. Also you can have different animals which have natural tool which are the same but again it's the result of their habitat. However should that habitat change they have to change with it or die out which is what causes their evolution. If their habitat doesn't change there's no need to change but that doesn't mean they won't as nature often tries new things and sometimes its a benefit. It's the animals which become specialised that run the risk of dissapearing because if their habitat changes and they're specialised and thier habitat changes fast, they're gone.

That's what happened to the mammoth and the wooly rihno, well two things actually one was man the hunter but the big killer was the speed with which the climate changed and mammoth and wooly rhino were so adapted to the cold climate they died out as they were specialised and couldn't adapt fast enough.



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by steveknows
 


And yet another term..."parallel evolution," which does absolutely nothing in terms of science...just somebody else's two cents that is not backed up by anything empirical...Which actually describes the whole evolution theory...as more things get discovered, science rewrites itself and adds more crapola interpretations...and definitions...one more time with clarity....A platypus is a platypus....a tiktaalik was a tiktaalik...nothing more...nothing less...biodiversity is explained by adaptation...and adaptation, whether you want to lay claim to it or not, is NOT equal to transformation (i.e., a reptile becoming a bird or a bird becoming a reptile)...also, in response to whether a whale came first or not...*Evolutionists and paleontologists would have us believe life started in water, migrated to land, and then returned to water...

edit on 10/25/2011 by jeichelberg because: Misspelling of *Evolutionists



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by jeichelberg
 


Care to explain why a whale was created with a pelvic bone?



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 


I cannot explain why a whale was created with a pelvic bone...you would need to ask a paleontologist who has imagined many wondrous things simply on the basis of one bone...



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 04:54 PM
link   
This is a tired old argument.

Can the anti evolution group prove it wrong. Evolution is a THEORY, hence why it's called "The THEORY of Evolution", it is widely accepted (myself included) but remains unproven.

Asking someone to prove something false that hasn't been proved true is a misnomer.



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by jeichelberg
 


To be honest that one bone being part of the skeleton of a totally equatic animal does need to be explained if you believe there is no way whales evolved from a land based animal.

It also appears that legless lizards also have pelvic bones and this an animal that lives a slithering type of lifestyle.



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by babybunnies
 


Implying evolution doesn't have any proof.




Edit: What are you, twelve? Shouldn't you be in school? You obviously haven't covered biology yet.
edit on 25-10-2011 by Nosred because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by babybunnies
This is a tired old argument.

Can the anti evolution group prove it wrong. Evolution is a THEORY, hence why it's called "The THEORY of Evolution", it is widely accepted (myself included) but remains unproven.

Asking someone to prove something false that hasn't been proved true is a misnomer.


I agree. Exactly why the original heading and OP asked. Explain the diversity we see around us without using evolution. Dont mean this unkindly but please read the OP not the heading



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 


There are many animals with many, what would appear to be, excess parts...again, this does not equal prior existence in another environment...I used to have an appendix and tonsils...granted, they had a use...but there are people born without them...besides, if the pelvic bone of which you speak was antiquated and had no use, it would make more sense if that bone were gone by now...but then, there would be no argument...



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 05:10 PM
link   
People say environmental stress leads to a species having mutated offspring that can adapt to the stress so then why don't endangered species turn into something else?



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Nosred
 


Nosred, just a thought...Would/could you please refrain from personal attacks...thank you.



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nosred
reply to post by babybunnies
 


Implying evolution doesn't have any proof.




Edit: What are you, twelve? Shouldn't you be in school? You obviously haven't covered biology yet.
edit on 25-10-2011 by Nosred because: (no reason given)







You must have missed math class because the odds of life forming from some bubbling ooze of chemicals is impossible by any standard, yet it exists and not by evolution.



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 05:24 PM
link   
reply to post by jeichelberg
 


You not having your having tonsils and an appendix is not the point. You could also live on with one lung, kidney.

I dont see how you can dismiss these pelvic bones as nothing as they surely ask questions of your belief that all animals were created as they are and can only adapt.

Who is to say that the whale will eventually lose the pelvic bone as it further evolves and if not having one gives it an advantage. Those with your views ask where are the intermediate animals could the whale in its present state be one?

Nose777. Keep it nice. There is no need for personal comments. Chill
edit on 25-10-2011 by colin42 because: Nose777



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by jeichelberg
reply to post by Nosred
 


Nosred, just a thought...Would/could you please refrain from personal attacks...thank you.


It's not my fault if you're too lazy to do any research on the subject, then have the pretentiousness to come on here saying things like "there's no proof for evolution".


Originally posted by Noey777
You must have missed math class because the odds of life forming from some bubbling ooze of chemicals is impossible by any standard, yet it exists and not by evolution.


First of all: Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution. Proving the former wrong would have no effect on the validity of the latter. The theory of evolution does not attempt to explain how life formed on Earth, it only explains the diversity of species after life was already here.

Second of all: There are roughly 100000000000000000000000 stars in the universe. We'll say that on average each star has one planet (some don't have any, some have several; this is a pretty conservative estimate). That would mean you would only need a .0000000000000000000001% chance of life on any given planet at any given time for life to be existing somewhere right now. The real chance of life appearing on any give planet is actually much higher, at .01%.

ATS' motto is "Deny Ignorance", I suggest you keep that in mind before insulting someone's skills without having done the actual math yourself. You only make yourself look a fool.



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Nosred
 


Implying evolution doesn't have any proof.

Edit: What are you, twelve? Shouldn't you be in school? You obviously haven't covered biology yet


Your post offers no facts or evidence to support evolution or any intelligence and class.
Try again.



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join