Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Can you prove evolution wrong?*

page: 7
31
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 01:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by FidelityMusic
For you evolutionists:

World population is said to be at nearly 7 billion (6.95 according to the U.S. census)
In the year 1000 there was said to be an estimated 200-300 million people.
According to science, humans are said to have lived on earth about 200,000 years ago.
To conclude all of that... It has taken only 1000 years for the worlds human population to go up by more than 6 billion. Now don't even give me the whole migrating crap or any of that B.S. People were said to have started migrating 160,000 years ago... So if it only took 1000 years to increase population by over 6 billion. Why did the population only increase in the millions over a 200,000 year period. Evolution as we're told is false, science is wrong, point blank. We have a creator, whether you wanna believe it's the God Christians follow or some other creator, even the whole alien conspiracy... Fact is what you evolutionists believe is something you should question very open-mindedly. The earth is not 4.5 billion years old, the fact that science even makes that assumption is funny to me. We didn't start out as small as an atom and become what we are now through evolution and billions of years of evolving. But believe as you please, when death knocks on our door, we will all somehow see the truth, or from a non-creator non-believers point of view, we wont see anything at all.




, 1. hunter gatherers can't live in large groups or they outstrip their food supply. farming and domestication of live stock changed that therefor the human population was able to explode. If the world fell apart tomorrow and we didn't have livestock or farming and had to go back to being hunter gatherers billion would starve to death and the global population would reduce to the millions or hundreds of thousands before it leveled out.

2. Death rate has slowed due to people living longer, but the birth rate hasn't.

This is well researched and documented and there to be read. It would save alot of time if some people would just google something or go to a library before posting a comment bagging evolution. Or perhaps not as creationist have a habbit of not seeing what they don't agree with.
edit on 22-9-2011 by steveknows because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 01:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Elbereth
 


Decent article? Their claims on transitional fossils are assumptions because A) Skull size does NOT equal to brain size, and B) The so-called missing transitional fossils are rare and incomplete and usually just bone fragments and teeth. Judging by the style the wiki article was written it appear it was written by an evolutionist looney certainly not by a palaeontologist or biologist/scientist

The facts are facts and the facts point that our universe is too complex to operate on random coincidental events, I don't think we have obtain enough knowledge to say 100% indeed natural selection is the answer to our origins that is why many people find it's more logical to say we were created by ID and mathematically it would take longer than the traditional 6 billion years

If evolution is correct then it was definitely influenced by ID.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 01:44 AM
link   
How about the common cold or flu? Isn't the reason we cannot completely eradicate it due to it mutating each year? Our bodies learn to fight one strain only to have it change on us so we get sick again, or strains that could previously only infect certain animals evolve to be able to infect humans. I offer this small scale proof because it is easier for us to observe given a shorter timeline. I can't see the tectonic plates move, but they probably do.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 01:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by samaka
reply to post by Elbereth
 


Decent article? Their claims on transitional fossils are assumptions because A) Skull size does NOT equal to brain size, and B) The so-called missing transitional fossils are rare and incomplete and usually just bone fragments and teeth. Judging by the style the wiki article was written it appear it was written by an evolutionist looney certainly not by a palaeontologist or biologist/scientist

The facts are facts and the facts point that our universe is too complex to operate on random coincidental events, I don't think we have obtain enough knowledge to say 100% indeed natural selection is the answer to our origins that is why many people find it's more logical to say we were created by ID and mathematically it would take longer than the traditional 6 billion years

If evolution is correct then it was definitely influenced by ID.



I believe in God and so do most people I know who believe in evolution as I do. I have no problem believing that there is a creator. I just don't believe that it shaped mankind or dogkind or horse kind. I believe it sparked off what was needed to get the universe going and whatever happened happened and we're just one of the many billions of things throughout the universe that happened.

No more than a tree or a star.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 01:53 AM
link   
Diversity of Life
Why is life so diverse? Why are there different colors of people? Why are some people genetically effected by diseases that others are not, such as Sickle Cell Disease.

First you must understand what DNA is. One way someone could simply define it is as an "instruction manual". DNA contains within itself so much information that some scientists have estimated that our ability have memories has enough spaces to hold at least 295 Exabytes. To put that in perspective it goes Gigabyte, Terabyte, Petabyte, Exabyte. And that's just for memory! Source

So DNA has a ton of information. Within our DNA are all the instructions to make you. We all share the same DNA but since it is read differently by your body you get different results. Otherwise we would get replications of our parents.

For example: With skin color we all contain the DNA for "melanin" and "melanin" acts as a controller for skin color. But for some reason given a particular environment and enough time our bodies adapt. Hence, some are hairy and others not. Some are dark skinned, and others are not. Many people have experienced this themselves, as children you might have a photograph of yourself as a blond hair blue eyed person. But as you aged you became dark haired and maybe even your eye color changed. I personally experienced that.

An interesting example of diversity are Dogs. They're thousands of breeds, yet it is commonly known and accepted that modern dogs came from wolves. What kind of wolf looks like a Chihuahua? That answer is obvious, none. But through selective breeding men and women have been able to engineer dogs to have certain traits that they found desirable. Be it a toy dog like a Chihuahua, or a Mastiff for its power.

Nobody claims that dogs "evolved" because it is also known that wolves and dogs share the same DNA. But dogs look nothing like wolves. Source 2 So the answer is clear, wolves contained within them all the genetic knowledge to make specific breeds of dogs. No genetic information was added, rather, information was selectively read. People who believe in evolution might claim that wolves added traits. But that is in direct contradiction to what scientists have discovered when looking at wolves and dogs genes.

This same concept can be expounded to many different animals.

The Bible says that God created every animal. And I don't dispute that, I just want to clarify that what I said in the above paragraphs in no way contradicts what God created. Did God Create the Chihuahua? Most certainly, was it in the Garden of Eden? Most certainly. Are we capable of genetically modifying animals to glow in the dark? Most certainly, but no one would claim that they created glow in the dark animals because that is not true. You didn't create that animal to begin with. Source 3 Someone changed the way its DNA was read.

Many people get Evolution and Mutation confused; these are very separate ideas.

The Fossil Record

In the Bible it records the events of a global flood. Because of this flood we had rapid fossilization of dinosaurs, plants, people, fish. That would also be a good explanation as to why you find sea shells in the Mojave Desert, or on the tops of mountains. It specifically mentions that the flood waters covered even the highest mountains. There are also interesting anecdotes about miners finding tools buried in rock that is suppose to be anywhere from tens of thousands of years old to millions of years old. Every once and a while some threads are created about that but not to many connect the dots.


I don't believe the Theory of Evolution is correct and here is why:

Moral Reasons:

Evolution implies that there is indeed a superior race, and therefore is an inherently racist idea.

Evolution also implies that eventually we will reach a state of perfection. This is clearly not true. Infact the opposite is true, it seems that as time goes on more and more damaging mutations occur.

Encourages a selfish outlook on life. Why is it that there are no Atheist homeless shelters? Why are there no Atheist Disaster Response Teams? Seems to me religion encourages people to at least try to help those who cannot help themselves.

Logical Reasons:

Evolution contradicts itself; we add genetic information and pass it on. Yet, we use Natural Selection to get rid of weaker genes...
edit on 22-9-2011 by Koinonia because: (no reason given)
edit on 22-9-2011 by Koinonia because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 01:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by colin42
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.


When ever I run into an "evolutionist", I ask which kind do they believe in - Micro or Macro and usually I get a dumb look on their face. Apparently most are taught that they are one in the same.

Most people who are Creationist Christians do not deny the existence of micro-evolution, that is, "evolution" within a species. A good example would be dogs, which have various breeds, but all had came from the same parent canine. Another example; Bacterium and Virii participate in this micro evolution on a substantially accelerated scale, but in the end they are still Bacterium and Virii.

What creationists have a problem with is species 'creating' Macro-Evolution, in which one species jumps into a completely different species. This is where the "missing-link" touted by those that believe in macro evolution fail to deliver, not only in the fossil record but present day where transitional jumps should be observed by a plethora of species. Transitional jumps should be all over the geologic record, from hybrid species to failed transitions for ALL aspects of life.

Micro evolution does not violate Genesis 1:11-25 in which God made life to perpetuate itself after its own kind. In fact, Genesis 1:11-25 is a general statement on micro evolution long before Darwin was even an itch in his great great great grand daddies loins. I would question would did Moses know about micro-evolution when the concept was not formulated until the 20th century, but I digress.


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


Age of the Earth and Geological stratum is inconsequential to the evolution/creation debate.

First, fossil record dating is entirely dependent on the assumption that radioactive decay has been constant. However, there is no way to empirically measure how fast radioactive decay was a million years ago, or really, any decay up until the 20th century. There are issues with various forms of decay based dating, and many assumptions take place in that process. In fact, we have no observed evidence for what the Universe was like Pre-Curse. Every observation we have today is based off the Post-Curse world.

Instead in regards to geological strata, you get the argument in which X fossil found at X depth must be X time, because at X depth X fossil must be X years old. It's a circular logic. Example, Paleontologists will say the Dinosaurs are X old due to the stratum that they are found in, and the geologists will say the stratum X old because the dinosaurs were found in it.

Second, if the Earth is more than ~10,000 years old we do not know certain things from a Biblical perspective.
1.) How long did Adam and Eve spend in the Garden of Eden, a day, centuries, millions to billions of years? The Bible does not state how long, as it's focus throughout it's 66 books is on the redemption of man. Yeshua stated "the volume of the book is written of me", not geologic history.
2.) Even if the Earth is only ~ 10,000 years old, there is the Gap Theory of Gen 1:1-2, that could explain "age" of the universe, but not life. Life found on Earth was created only after the Gap Theory would have taken place.

Just like issues with decay based dating, there are also assumptions on the age of the Earth that simply are not present in the Bible. Adam's age of 930 years simply is an unknown where Moses began to count his years -- after or before the fall.

In summary, Micro-Evolution is indeed a valid measurement of change with in the species, that does not violate biblical scripture. However, Micro-Evolution does not prove Macro-Evolution. When you assume that Macro evolution exists, because Micro evolution is observed you are participating in an argument known as fallacy of division. Geologic strata and fossil records are simply not conclusive proof.

What I find it sad is that YHWY in the Bible was very offended when people would ascribe creation to false gods and idols made with human hands. Yet today, we have found something even more offensive, in which creation and life is attributed to nothing.
edit on 22-9-2011 by Not Authorized because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 01:57 AM
link   
So what about our Junk DNA?

www.nytimes.com...



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 01:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Not Authorized
 


I think it's pretty normal people do not understand if you ask them about macro or micro. Those are technical terms not used in informal communication. If would personally not label someone as dumb because they do not think in such technical terms.
edit on 22-9-2011 by BlueSkies because: spelling



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 02:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlueSkies
reply to post by Not Authorized
 


I think it's pretty normal people do not understand if you ask them about macro or micro. Those are technical terms not used in informal communication. If would personally not label someone as dumb because they do not think in such technical terms.
edit on 22-9-2011 by BlueSkies because: spelling
''

That wasn't the statement, as I did not say said person was 'dumb'. It was a generality showing those that have been spoon fed evolution, more than likely have not given it a second thought sans whatever was on Discovery last night while eating dinner.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 02:08 AM
link   
1)The odds of just one single lone Lifeform X evolving from goo is astronomically slim. Probably very close to zero.
- how did it reproduce ? It would have to asexual reproduction. Then we have to believe that each of these copycats had to individually evolve into everything we see today. Next to impossible.

2) if the probability of one individual Lifeform X evolving from goo was next to zero, and it was not a "source" for all other species, then the probability that MILLIONS of distinct species evolving from goo is Nil.

"Nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense, not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by facts. This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views. In all this great museum, there is not a particle of evidence of the transmutation of species." (Dr. Etheridge, Paleontologist of the British Museum)

"Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make it absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favorable properties of physics, on which life depends, are in every respect DELIBERATE... It is therefore, almost inevitable that our own measure of intelligence must reflect higher intelligences.. even to the limit of God." (Sir Fred Hoyle, British mathematician and astronomer, and Chandra Wickramasinghe, co-authors of "Evolution from Space," after acknowledging that they had been atheists all their lives)



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 02:13 AM
link   
I dont know is the best answer...and people who respond so negativly to open discussion are the most contradicting, confused and ignorant people..those who act like they know it all dont know much...thats why were here.....but on the subject...evolution has the most supporting evidenence but comes with many holes like...if evo were the case then where are the intelligent lizards and birds and aquatic animals who have been here far longer than us....another possibility besides god is aliens...we could have been dropped here...maybe some advanced beings removed the dominating dinosaurs from earth and placed an entire zoo of species who support eachothers existence.. but i stick to idk



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 02:16 AM
link   
Alien ideas don't get enough credit mainly because there is apparently no physical evidence, but I ask you, if a man can be executed based on two eyewitnesses claiming that he is the murderer, than why is it considered crazy to believe aliens exist if there are millions of people who have claimed they have been abducted.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 02:41 AM
link   
There is a theory that explains bio divesity from a creationist point of view...

It is believed that the first dog had all the possible types of dog dna and through natural selection and futher down the track interbreeding.. the different types of dogs came about.

So to create the bio diversity that we have now you wouldn't need as many different types of animals



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 02:47 AM
link   
reply to post by micmerci
 


straight off the bat you've left out all the various and wonderful forms of death there are, so mathematically your up s.. creek without a paddle to begin with!



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 02:47 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.


I shall pose a simple question to you "Do you believe SOUL exists?"

We shall take it up from there.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 02:49 AM
link   
reply to post by vedatruth
 


Are you saying that if you have a soul then you can't believe in evolution?!??!



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 03:14 AM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 


What if both creation, and evolution exist?

Evolutionists can't really demonstrate how life really started, and they have tried.

But what if at least some intelligent, humanoid lifeforms have always existed, and some of them in their exploration of space helped integrate more intelligent lifeforms, such as humans in planets such as Earth?

Why is it that we don't see at least some monkeys in these times evolved into a more advanced, and intelligent lifeform by themselves?

Monkeys have existed for hundreds of thousands, if not millions of years yet have have we seen them evolve into a more humanoid lifeform?

If such dramatic evolution happened in the past by itself, we should be able to see such evolution now as well, and I am not talking about monkeys learning to take a shower by watching humans, or such, but dramatic physical changes.

IMO evolution are only small changes, not large changes that would transform one species into another, unless that species is able to procreate with more advanced species.

Some "jumps" in evolution comes from the interbreeding of different species, not because the same species dramatically changed physically on it's own.

Other than that imo at least some of the more intelligent lifeforms were helped along the way to become more advanced.

As for the reason why humanoid lifeforms would create other intelligent lifeforms? we can only speculate.


edit on 22-9-2011 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 03:21 AM
link   
im a strong believer of evolution but it's not that i don't have a spiritual side i just think that science might have to admit one day that there is a higher power not refferring to god.. but in the beggining something came from nothing and that just messes with my head
edit on 22-9-2011 by killuminatiXIII because: (no reason given)
edit on 22-9-2011 by killuminatiXIII because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 03:23 AM
link   
uurggh!

tricked into another thread by another ridiculous misleading title



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 03:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by killuminatiXIII
im a strong believer of evolution but it's not that i don't have a spiritual side i just think that science might have to admit one day that there is a higher power not refferring to god.. but in the beggining something came from nothing and that just messes with my head
edit on 22-9-2011 by killuminatiXIII because: (no reason given)
edit on 22-9-2011 by killuminatiXIII because: (no reason given)


But most, if not all Atheists believe in the Big Bang, and the Big Bang is creation out of nothing, which is also a religious belief.

In fact the Big Bang is the same as creatio ex nihilo.


To Alfven, the Big Bang was a myth - a myth devised to explain creation. "I was there when Abbe Georges Lemaitre first proposed this theory," he recalled. Lemaitre was, at the time, both a member of the Catholic hierarchy and an accomplished scientist. He said in private that this theory was a way to reconcile science with St. Thomas Aquinas' theological dictum of creatio ex nihilo or creation out of nothing.

public.lanl.gov...
edit on 22-9-2011 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join