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: 45
31
<< 42  43  44    46  47  48 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 30 2011 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by IAMIAM
 





However, no matter how grand we make the story, future generations will look back at us as idiots.



Exactly! The same way people do when referring to ancient gods like Zues or Ra. It's all a joke now. It is all just a joke that continues to change throughout time. So why would you fall for this particular joke?
edit on 30-10-2011 by Tony4211 because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 30 2011 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
But making stuff up isn't LEARNING.


Nope.

Learning is memorizing # someone else made up.

With Love,

Your Brother



posted on Oct, 30 2011 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tony4211
So why would you fall for this particular joke?


If your question isn't rhetorical, you may want to read up on some of my threads.

I do not fall for any jokes.



With Love,

Your Brother



posted on Oct, 30 2011 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by flyingfish
reply to post by IAMIAM
 





If one believes in evolution, prove you are more evolved by ceasing senseless debates without knowing the facts of one's own existence. No man knows all the facts. We do not know enough to even begin the debate of the beginnings of OUR existence.


I agree " No man knows all the facts", but also believe a great deal is understood.
The theory of evolution is based on evidence that has been observed. There are mountains of evidence.
As more evidence accumulates, scientific findings become more and more certain.

In contrast creationism depends only on highly questionable and subjective ideas that DO NOT fit together into a coherent whole. Since their entire world view is threatened by finding disconfirming evidence, they are very, very highly motivated not to accept it. Scientists, on the other hand, welcomes disconfirming evidence.

This is why it's worth debating creationist so that others can decide for them selves what is fact and what is fiction.


I am not your typical creationist so I do not represent group think.

I speak for my own point of view my friend. While it may be nice to debate the group think of others, I present a much greater challenge if you will entertain my arguments for a moment.

With Love,

Your Brother



posted on Oct, 30 2011 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by IAMIAM
 





Learning is memorizing # someone else made up.



Absolutely wrong. Granted, you can learn by someone telling you something, but you can also do so by observing. And you can observe without external aid. For example, I can learn that the stove is hot by touching it. I don't need anyone to tell me. I observed it by burning myself.



posted on Oct, 30 2011 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by IAMIAM
 





I present a much greater challenge if you will entertain my arguments for a moment.


Sorry, I need to be drunk before my wind god shows itself.
edit on 30-10-2011 by flyingfish because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2011 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tony4211
Absolutely wrong. Granted, you can learn by someone telling you something, but you can also do so by observing. And you can observe without external aid. For example, I can learn that the stove is hot by touching it. I don't need anyone to tell me. I observed it by burning myself.


I am NOT wrong my friend, it is you who are in error.

If you were never taught about "hot" from others and you touched a "hot" stove, you would know it hurt.

You might explain the phenomenon any number of ways, but most likely a wail!

Then someone would explain to you that this phenomenon is already called "hot" by others.

This way you can more clearly explain the situation to others in the future.

However, the phenomenon could just as easily be called "cold" if you choose to. You will just be misunderstood by others who have accepted a different word.

What ever the label, the phenomenon remains as mysterious as ever.



posted on Oct, 30 2011 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by IAMIAM
 




If you were never taught about "hot" from others and you touched a "hot" stove, you would know it hurt.


That is what I said. You said learning is memorizing # someone else made up. What I said proves that learning is not relying on things someone else said. Therefore what I said, is correct. We should honestly be discussing the issue at-hand, though. This is meaningless. What are your arguments against evolution? Not philosophical arguments either. I want some evidence for creationism. That is what you support, correct?



posted on Oct, 30 2011 @ 01:47 PM
link   


I think that mathematically speaking, the population of the earth would be far greater than 7 billion if man has been here reproducing as long as the theory of evolution claims we have


Ugh, there are so many holes in this claim.

1. People didn't have huge families in the hunter gatherer era, because they had to be mobile and didn't have surplus food to support huge, stupid families.

2. There was a high rate of women dying in childbirth before modern medicine.

3. People lived shorter lives in general because of poor diet, disease and exposure.

4. In prehistoric times there were more animals that preyed on people than we encounter now.

5. They were more succeptible to natural disasters due to lack of warning systems.

I could probably go on for hours about this, but you get the point.



posted on Oct, 30 2011 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tony4211
What are your arguments against evolution?


Did you not read my initial post. I said quite clearly that I am NOT Anti-Evolution. I simply have an opinion on the matter.

That opinion is that evolution is no more absolute than creationism because neither have enough conclusive evidence to form a final opinion on the matter.

Our existence should be considered from ALL angles to obtain a clear picture. This includes philosophical arguments as well as observable phenomenon.



Originally posted by Tony4211 Not philosophical arguments either. I want some evidence for creationism.


Creationism IS a philosophical argument. It is a contemplation on what lies BEYOND the observable evidence.

Too many Creationists and Atheists can't seem to get this point. The doom of the creationist is believing that this contemplation is restricted to a priest class, just as the scientist believes it should be restricted to the university graduate.


Originally posted by Tony4211 That is what you support, correct?


It will take you 37 years of retracing my steps through life to understand what I support.

It cannot be summed up in a brief sentence that you can then weigh and judge.

You have your views and I have mine. Isn't that grand enough?

Why does there have to be a "right" answer here?

With Love,

Your Brother



posted on Oct, 30 2011 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by IAMIAM
 





The doom of the creationist is believing that this contemplation is restricted to a priest class, just as the scientist believes it should be restricted to the university graduate.


There is no science in fables and their certainly is no faith in science. So I see nothing wrong with saying they should be separated. Mixing the two only causes confusion between reality and myth.



posted on Oct, 30 2011 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tony4211
There is no science in fables and their certainly is no faith in science. So I see nothing wrong with saying they should be separated. Mixing the two only causes confusion between reality and myth.


Today's reality gives birth to tomorrows myths.

I'll leave you to those more willing to go rounds with you my friend.

With Love,

Your Brother



posted on Oct, 30 2011 @ 02:05 PM
link   
i really don't see how we can be compared to apes myself, we stand out obviously. Just the way we are made in general but this is just speculation considering human origin is greatly disputed and unanswered .



posted on Oct, 30 2011 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by IAMIAM
 


This IS a debate forum after all.



posted on Oct, 30 2011 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by bottleslingguy

Originally posted by Nosred

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
How did cystic fibrosis or any of the other diseases that kill children not disappear from our species? How would it survive if it kills the child before puberty? Did we inherit that from our pre-human ancestors? How is that a successfully adaptive trait?


Confirmed for not knowing what a recessive gene is.


www.nytimes.com...




What seems clear is that when Homo sapiens began displacing Neanderthals throughout Europe 40,000 years ago, they brought the cystic fibrosis mutation with them, and it was distributed more or less homogeneously across the subcontinent, said Dr. Luigi L. Cavalli-Sforza, a geneticist at Stanford University who has used molecular techniques to study the migrations of prehistoric peoples.


The timing fits just fine with Intervention Theory.


But you have ZERO proof for that intervention...you're just speculating.


But scientist have no explanation for it. They have no idea why it would be mostly race specific. They have no explanation for it and it doesn't make sense in the Darwinian model so it makes perfect sense it was put there artificially probably as a mistake. Why does our species have so many defective genes to begin with? Doesn't fit the model you guys cherish. Makes perfect sense to people who are willing to accept it.



posted on Oct, 30 2011 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 





But scientist have no explanation for it


So that means Evolution Theory is wrong? Unanswered questions do not equate a dismantled theory. After all, it does have a little more than 150 years of scientific research to back what it claims.



Darwinian model


Try calling it what it is. Evolution Theory. Darwin studied natural selection, which is a fraction of the entire model. It helps your argument if you know what you are talking about.



posted on Oct, 30 2011 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by IAMIAM

Originally posted by Tony4211
Absolutely wrong. Granted, you can learn by someone telling you something, but you can also do so by observing. And you can observe without external aid. For example, I can learn that the stove is hot by touching it. I don't need anyone to tell me. I observed it by burning myself.


I am NOT wrong my friend, it is you who are in error.

If you were never taught about "hot" from others and you touched a "hot" stove, you would know it hurt.

You might explain the phenomenon any number of ways, but most likely a wail!

Then someone would explain to you that this phenomenon is already called "hot" by others.

This way you can more clearly explain the situation to others in the future.

However, the phenomenon could just as easily be called "cold" if you choose to. You will just be misunderstood by others who have accepted a different word.

What ever the label, the phenomenon remains as mysterious as ever.



And now you're confusing stuff with semantics


The phenomenon of something hot isn't "mysterious", we know why stuff is hot, down to the molecular level.



posted on Oct, 30 2011 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
The phenomenon of something hot isn't "mysterious", we know why stuff is hot, down to the molecular level.


And you know this because you have seen the evidence of what is happening at a molecular level and formed your own opinion on the matter?

What about beyond the molecular level?

With Love,

Your Brother
edit on 30-10-2011 by IAMIAM because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2011 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 

Because it's autosomal recessive. If you're going to try and refute the genetic evidence for evolution, you're going to have to do much better than that. I learned about autosomal recessive traits before I even got to high school.

And that was in the 80's.

In the United States.

In a rural town that wasn't exactly known for its academics.



posted on Oct, 30 2011 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


How did you come to this conclusion?

Go read up on the chimpanzee genome project, no genes were lost in the fusion. Did you think that humans are the only species we’re going to have a complete DNA sequence for?


What do you mean based his work, they don't even talk about the same things. I have never found Sitchen or daniken talking about DNA.

Do you think Pye came to his conclusions about aliens because of the DNA evidence, or that he came to his conclusions about the DNA evidence because he believes in aliens? Note that I’m giving Pye the benefit of the doubt for actually believing in what he’s claiming.


OMG

That's hardly an answer. My Bible starts at Genesis 1:1. Yours has a preface?


If it takes you a century and a half to piece together an easy puzzle, your doing it wrong!

You seem to be laboring under the misconception that science has a predefined end point at which everyone just says “enough” and stops researching. Every answer leads to more questions in every field of research, not just evolution.

It’s also ironic that you would make a statement like this, since you claim to have been at it for 30 years but still can’t produce a single piece of objective evidence to support your claims.



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 42  43  44    46  47  48 >>

log in

join