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: 81
31
<< 78  79  80    82  83  84 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 07:47 AM
link   
reply to post by drivers1492
 


you need me at your house leaning over your shoulder saying "now after you click this link click the next link too". there is literally 3 sentances and multiple links inside the link i posted. if you just read that 1 little paragraph and then said "wheres the rest of it?" idk what to tell you man.. i guess dont have a job where you are expected to work independently and figure things out. stick to Micky D's, but stay away from the register. its got lots of confusing buttons..
edit on 20-11-2011 by RebelRouser because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 07:51 AM
link   
reply to post by RebelRouser
 

i also assume that you dont know how to use this "google" thing either. (hint) copy and paste a topic that interest you into the search bar and BAM! even more stories on it!! its crayzzzee



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 07:59 AM
link   
reply to post by RebelRouser
 


Hahahhaha dude I told you what all of your links were and where they went and even posted where they go. Sorry but if you have more than that little blog that links to a contrdiction to its own statements feel free to tie it in. I have no desire to continue a back and forth of useless bs. The lack of scientific support in your article is your problem not mine to spend my day reasearching. Enjoy the rest of your day.



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 08:07 AM
link   
reply to post by drivers1492
 


The Earth’s oldest fossils are said to be bacteria dated around 3.5 billion years ago. However, the following figure shows “Earth’s oldest fossils” are simply fossilized mammalian red blood cells that were moved into the ancient rocks: www.wretch.cc/album/show.php?i=lin440315&b=22&f=1472468111&p=100


Image source:www.tedhuntington.com/ulsf/images/416073a-f1.2.jpg
Original caption and article: www.tedhuntington.com/ulsf/out/ulsf3hiout.htm
(see the 3.5 billion-year-ago event)

More evidence at wretchfossil.blogspot.com/2011/11/earths-oldest-fossils-contained-red_05.html

literally the whole link. idk wtf ur even complaining about in your first post. that you had to click my link then scroll down and have to click another one? why would you repost this www.tedhuntington.com/ulsf/out/ulsf3hiout.htm like it was hard to find?



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 08:13 AM
link   
reply to post by RebelRouser
 


also if you take a second to look a round youd see that the first link with the pics is a gallery of 101. some provide links to other sites about the picture. i started at the same one you did and i got to sites like

this

i cant do everything for you from over here
edit on 20-11-2011 by RebelRouser because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 08:26 AM
link   
reply to post by RebelRouser
 


I posted that because the article states that its the origial caption and article. Which like I pointed out that I read and did not see the claim this article made. Then following other links in yours I posted more stating the same. My point is again, I don't see the support for this from whats provided. I am not claiming that the article is wrong or something else is right simply the evidence isn't there from all the linked material I read. As far as your physorg link, again I see no "fossilized mammalian red blood cells". Thats the point of the article and its not backed up and your actually linking that its hematite from physorg. So now I hope you see the reason for my questions? Claims backed with info that says its hematite. I am makng no claims simply asking questions.



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 08:27 AM
link   
reply to post by RebelRouser
 


yes i can explain it.

Great! Feel free to present your objective evidence that God created biodiversity at any time now. We’ve been waiting for it for the last 80 or so pages of this thread.


you just wont accept it.

Because you have no evidence for it.


i feel like everything here is pretty much purposeless except us. why is that? why does nothing else matter at all. we can kill off everything if we decided to.

We can, but guess how long we’d last if we killed off every other species? Not very.


we are the main attraction to earth, and in my eyes everything was put here for us.

Hubris. If we died out, guess how many other species would go with us? Zero. It was once thought that the particular species of head louse that infests humans would disappear, but they found the same species on chimps as well.


oh wait, thats what the damn book the bible says right?

Lots of books say lots of things. Unless you’ve got some evidence to back up your claim the Bible explains biodiversity, Harry Potter is just as scientifically accurate.



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 08:56 AM
link   
reply to post by RebelRouser
 


what im saying is dung beetles, ants, cockroaches, termites, etc. were specifically made for cleanup, nothing more…

Ants can be predators, scavengers, and herbivores. Beetles are the same, though you decided to cherry pick a single species of beetles out of the thousands that exist. Cockroaches are also omnivorous. Termites are the odd bug out in your little list here, as they will eat anything cellulosic, not just dead trees. So you managed to name three omnivorous groups of insects. You know what else is omnivorous? Us. Being able to eat just about anything is a good survival trait.


clearly were capable. look at the grizzly population when the settlers moved across the states. it dwindled to practically nothing. that would go for all endangered species. what would happen if we weren't told to protect them? shouldnt they evolve and not let that happen? let me guess "they were much weaker than you cause we are far superior" even though according to you we came from them.. makes no sense

Evolve into what, exactly, in that short of a time frame? You’re ascribing characteristics to evolution that don’t exist in order to argue against them. It’s called a straw man argument.


Protozoa, Gastraeada, Helmintha, Prochordonia, Arcania, Cyclostoma and Selachii Se`la´chi`i
n. pl. 1.An order of elasmobranchs including the sharks and rays; the Plagiostomi. Called also Selacha, Selache, and Selachoidei. and if im reading that jumbled tree wrong i should started at Cyclostoma. (which is not far off from sharks but you jump all over it like "woah woah woahhh.. we were never sharks.. we were bonless slimy fish get it right" yet you defend it still like its not just as ridiculous) again you jumping all over the small errors

You’re misreading the chart. The branching off for the invertebrates occurs between Cyclostoma and Selachii. Of course, you are working off of a family tree with little detail that’s over a century old.

so what was the deal with us? monkeys are still here. couldnt of been that rough for them…

If you’re asking why we diverged, here's some information, complete with references.


heres where i got the temperature. but i shoulda said the atmosphere.idk how much can change in the atmosphere that would make life want evolve in a crazy fashion, besides temp, humidity, and oxygen/nitrogen to ratio. besides, if it started in the water what would that matter?

You’re underestimating how different the early atmosphere of Earth was compared to today’s atmosphere. Free oxygen wasn’t even present until about 1.7Bya.


just to set you guys straight, im not against science like its the "devils work" obviously i agree. everyone in the world does. it just doesn't explain why we were monkeys. sorry.. the only beef i have with evolution is it putting us pretty much a shade above a monkey when i know that theres never been any proof of us ever being one besides some micro evolutionary finds leading you guys to that conclusion. as far is proof goes. again. you cant explain why everything is as diverse as it is. like explain color, and appreciation for it, or for anything for that matter. explain love, but most of all explain why if everything else in your evolution idea, meshes together forming us into what we are. why do we not just do our one purpose like everything else and contribute? why did we excel and everything else paled in comparison? like we were special or something. nothing does what we do.. point out an animal and all show you 5-10 just like it. but humans.. not too much like us huh? thats why you jump right to your monkey conclusion cause its all you can come up with

The evidence has been presented to you, you choose not to accept it. As you like to point out, you have a chip on your shoulder. It’s an argument from personal incredulity.



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 10:38 AM
link   
I think both sides have a piece of the puzzle. It seems to me that an intelligent designer has incorporated evolutionary principles into a planned and ordered creation. It appears that living elements of our world may need to evolve for survival, but the basic design of our world is based on principles that are predictable and do not evolve. Our world overwhelmingly contains ordered and predictable design elements that are used in the fields of science and math. One example of this is how the "divine proportion" shows consistent and predictable elements occur throughout the design.

goldennumber.net...
keplersdiscovery.com...

I have always wondered why the majority of evolutionists are adamant that a world filled with well ordered and predictable design elements cannot have a creator, and why the majority of creationists cannot fathom that God could have applied evolution to His creation. Early scholars discovered the various rules that already existed to form the predictable basis of their respective fields of science and math.

The bible tells us that one day in God's time is one thousand years to us. (2Peter 3:8,10). (Psalm 90:1,3,4) That means if you live to be 100 years old you have only lived the equivalent of 10% of one day in God’s time. Putting that in perspective, if someone only lived 10% of our 24 hour day, it would amount to living only for 2.4 hours. So it appears that even a full lifetime to us is very insignificant to God, in fact, it appears that we are all in infancy to Him even when we die in old age in our timeframe.

The more I learn about our world and space, how intertwined and intricate the various ecosystems are, the more I am convinced that we are a part of a world put into motion by intelligence still beyond our comprehension, much like infants that cannot yet comprehend the world they are a part of.



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by TZela
 


No one ever said it was all random, unless they are using old science. New science has accepted that there is an order to chaos, because while certain things may seem random, they actually serve a purpose essentially, because selection and long term reactions will cause continual gravitation towards what has been repeated.

It's kind of like a "if it ain't broken, don't fix it." In this way, organisms will adopt similar survival traits and evolve in similar fashions, because it was successful before, and it will continue to be successful in other organisms.

It still no more argues for a creator than our guts having bacteria argues for our creation of the bacteria. Something being here doesn't mean someone put it there.

Now, the idea of a non-interfering god, who set the universe in motion as some sort of creation force, but played and plays no part in the universe whatsoever... that's far more sensical, as there is no current evidence that god ever has existed or ever will exist in the realm of reality. It is always in the psychology of Man, which is prone to making stuff up.



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 


ill humor you read these real quick then read my theory

1)Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.

2)Then God said, “Let (us) make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” hen the LORD God formed a man from the ((dust)) of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.( formed man from dust) does that sound like God making man blinking like on i dream of genie making him. or is it kinda telling you about the origins? also the (us) thing. later in "revelations" john is in front of gods throne and surrounding his throne is 24 elders. God has help and he does thinks in a way you and me cant conceive.

3)Look, he is coming with the clouds,”and “every eye will see him even those who pierced him”;and all the tribes of the earth will beat themselves because of him..” (what believers in science will be doing when God comes back, that is after the anti-christ, (which in my opinion) might end up being aliens..

4) These are the things you are to teach and insist on. If anyone teaches otherwise and does not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching, they are conceited and understand nothing..They have an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions and constant friction between people of corrupt mind, who have been robbed of the truth and who think that godliness is a means to financial gain. I charge you to keep this command without spot or blame until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, which God will bring about in his own time—God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords, (who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see). (corrupt churches and scientist make loads of money)

5) I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty
we were put for Gods glory. all for him so to speak. he wanted us to worship him not out of guilt, or because we had to. he wanted us to freely choose. like the way we freely choose between right and wrong. so pretty much he made an ant farm so to speak, but in this ant farm the ants have morals an idea of how they got there, but were in a serious-style ant farm that isnt just glass that you can peer out of to confirm it. so just like ants, we dont know why were in there. but we know we're alive in in here. so we go about our business, but the whole time thinking about how we got here. ants dont do this. ants dont give a fu%$ about why there in there. they dont look at a light bulb which would be a sun to them and wonder how it does what it does then build a space ship to get to it. God knew we would get smart enough to do this one day too. hence the the universe. but back to the diversity.. so he made this huge im gonna call it an "ant farm". so because of what i sad about not knowing but freely choosing. he knew he would never be able to show himself to us so he cant just open the lid and drop apple slices in here for us to eat. he had to create a diverse ecosystem that was self sustaining. i feel like some common misconceptions of God derive from man being narcissistic an thinking "hes important" so what you do is start putting God on a mans level, picturing a guy walking the earth and planting seed-by-seed, the entire world. then clapping his hands together and rubbing fast, making all the animals and man. A lot of this isnt your fault, the media is amazing at its job. take family guy and south park for instance. i cant tell you how many times people have brought up family guy or south park to prove points. like with 9/1, God, and right down to a personal opinion on something. hell, i already read a bob ross point made trying to compare God to bob ross like a ma. just knowing what you do about how complex things are i have to bring up the bomb being blown up in a pile of scrap metal turning into a 747" cause its so true that you too damn stupid to see it.evolutionist are great at taking inches and turning them into miles. its what they do best. you love pointing out a small change then turning that into a crazy transformation with time as your excuse on to why it cant be done now. not to mention its constantly changing.



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by RebelRouser
 


Lots of people have creation stories. That one is no more valid than this one:


Long ago, before there were any people, the world was young and water covered everything. The earth was a great island floating above the seas, suspended by four rawhide ropes representing the four sacred directions. It hung down from the crystal sky. There were no people, but the animals lived in a home above the rainbow. Needing space, they sent Water Beetle to search for room under the seas. Water Beetle dove deep and brought up mud that spread quickly, turning into land that was flat and too soft and wet for the animals to live on.

Grandfather Buzzard was sent to see if the land had hardened. When he flew over the earth, he found the mud had become solid; he flapped in for a closer look. The wind from his wings created valleys and mountains, and that is why the Cherokee territory has so many mountains today.

As the earth stiffened, the animals came down from the rainbow. It was still dark. They needed light, so they pulled the sun out from behind the rainbow, but it was too bright and hot. A solution was urgently needed. The shamans were told to place the sun higher in the sky. A path was made for it to travel--from east to west--so that all inhabitants could share in the light.

The plants were placed upon the earth. The Creator told the plants and animals to stay awake for seven days and seven nights. Only a few animals managed to do so, including the owls and mountain lions, and they were rewarded with the power to see in the dark. Among the plants, only the cedars, spruces, and pines remained awake. The Creator told these plants that they would keep their hair during the winter, while the other plants would lose theirs.

People were created last. The women were able to have babies every seven days. They reproduced so quickly that the Creator feared the world would soon become too crowded. So after that the women could have only one child per year, and it has been that way ever since.


Or any of these for that matter:
www.crystalinks.com...



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 





One hypothesis for this mechanism is that part of the population of the common ancestor became geographically isolated from the rest of the population over a long period of time, perhaps owing to a barrier such as the Rift Valley, or mountains or rivers. Such geographic isolation would prevent the process of gene flow from the population on one side of the barrier to the population on the other side. Over time, different mutations would accumulate in the two populations, resulting in different evolutionary paths and ultimately in an inability to interbreed. Once populations no longer interbreed in the wild, there can be no gene flow between them and each will follow its own divergent evolutionary path. This process is known as allopatry.

Let’s assume that evolution could be true. As all animals and plants could be traced back to a common ancestor, the common ancestor must be one that has to be capable in asexual reproduction. The only living things that could be found to be asexual reproduction are archaea, bacteria, protists, algae and fungi. As all these living things are either micro-organisms or the selected plants instead of any other living things, it implies the common ancestor could be either micro-organism or the selected plants. There are a few queries have to be raised pertaining to the reliability of the source that has been used to support the evolution:

also read a,b, and c. on my new post on pg 80

and did mountains spring up cutting off this species from its generalize area? then the mountains must have slowly surrounded the generations of apes in that one group over time making it an inescapable place... r you kidding me? this is a joke.. why would they get trapped? by mountains. only way would be a monkey island kind of scenario, but apes dont swim, so they are not exactly gonna be jumping into a flowing river or lake to get trapped on an island in it. why would they not be able to go back to somewhere they came from?



Another hypothesis is that different subgroups of the same species, for some reason such as sexual preference or specialisation to a particular narrow niche, stop interbreeding and eventually become incapable of doing so – speciation results but without geographic separation. This is known as sympatric speciation.



One type of sympatric speciation is potentially caused by major mutations that prevent successful interbreeding between parts of the population that have the mutation and parts that do not: mating between the two groups either does not result in offspring or in hybrid offspring which are themselves sterile (whilst breeding within each group – that with and that without the major mutation – is fully fertile). It would be interesting to know which of these mechanisms led to the divergence of human and chimpanzee lineages all those millions of years ago.



One of the best examples of sympatric speciation in animals is with the 200 different species of cichlids that inhabit Lake Victoria in East Africa. Sympatric speciation has occurred here as a result of variations in available resources, as well as selective mating based on coloration. This idea was tested by a group of scientists at Holland’s University of Leiden using P.pundamilia (blue back) and P. nyererei (red back). Although females of the P. pundamilia species only mated with males of the same species in normal lighting, they mated with the P. nyererei males in monochromatic orange lighting which made the two species appear identical. The resulting hybrids between the two species were still fertile. Mate choice based on coloration led to sympatric speciation within the cichlid species in this case.

en.wikibooks.org...




thats the best example of that^. lol now i can say i disagree with you even more after reading your points. the best example is a fish.. nice. cold-booded, lay eggs, and filter oxygen with gills.. yea im gonna go ahead and say a dolphin is closer to proving evolution wrong then that statement proving you right. as far as swimming creatures go a dolphin is the closest to us. but for some reason it never made it all the way to a man.. they you say "but these cold blooded egg layers over here, they are the real deal" they aren't even mammals.. well obviously you believe this out of proof. oh what? no proof besides small changes into the same but slightly different species? no missing link of how fish got to land? you guys are missing every crucial species that made the next step transition to us. id like to believe that at least one of those species wold have made it.. like frog to monkey. thats a huge change. there should be like 10,000 different species between monkey and them. now show me a monkey frog.


edit on 20/11/11 by masqua because: 'ex' tags and a link to external content



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 12:16 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 12:32 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 





If you’re asking why we diverged, here's some information, complete with references.


btw it really doesnt mean $h!t to me when you throw out things as evidence and every sentence begins with "One hypothesis" "Another hypothesis", and full of "its believed" and "Could it be's?" and "as this model goes". which all say the same thing.. "somebody made this # up and we cant test it or prove it. bet let me tell you im 100% sure im right. its proven that 60% of the time it works everytime..
edit on 20-11-2011 by RebelRouser because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by RebelRouser
reply to post by iterationzero
 





If you’re asking why we diverged, here's some information, complete with references.


btw it really doesnt mean $h!t to me when you throw out things as evidence and every sentence begins with "One hypothesis" "Another hypothesis", and full of "its believed" and "Could it be's?" and "as this model goes". which all say the same thing.. "somebody made this # up and we cant test it or prove it. bet let me tell you im 100% sure im right. its proven that 60% of the time it works everytime..
edit on 20-11-2011 by RebelRouser because: (no reason given)


Why are you so upset in this thread all of a sudden? Your emotional state has no bearing on the facts about evolution.



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 12:49 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 12:57 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by RebelRouser
reply to post by colin42
 





You did not answer any of mine though. Not even ,if Termites and ants are just clean up crew, nothing else, Explain what the Queens, Drones, Soldier, Worker (also acts as nursemaid, food gather, nest builder).


oh my bad. i forgot you need the stupid things explained.. queen- you need the queen to make more ants. really? soldiers- protection. drones - scouts that look for more food. idk why im going into why any of those are in a colony of ants. i thought t was pretty self explanatory that you need all those things to ensure a colony to survive and thrive.if anything your proving yourself wrong by saying


We have this thing called intelligence, and we are the most intelligent species on the planet. That is the reason we seem to have power. Because we can think and make decisions. It wasn't some magic that allowed us to this. It is our brains. Intelligence is the #1 survival tool today for humans.


clearly all things have intelligence and its the #1 survival tool for EVERYTING you stooge. my point is ants were here to be ants, monkeys monkeys, people people, and so on. like it was specifically designed to do something or be there as easy prey for another species to enable it to thrive, yet have such an abundance of itself and be so meaningless that it works out perfectly. like fish for instance. to a tard they would say "wow thats cool what are the odds" literally over 100.,000,000,000,000 times" but to anyone that uses that intelligence we posses you have to look at it like "wow it just happened to be like that? no way, entirely too complex." a good line i just heard was "evolution is like putting a bomb in a pile of metal scrap and blowing it up, then out fly's a nice bowing 747"
edit on 20-11-2011 by RebelRouser because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-11-2011 by RebelRouser because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-11-2011 by RebelRouser because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-11-2011 by RebelRouser because: (no reason given)


Please link to where I wrote:-


We have this thing called intelligence, and we are the most intelligent species on the planet. That is the reason we seem to have power. Because we can think and make decisions. It wasn't some magic that allowed us to this. It is our brains. Intelligence is the #1 survival tool today for humans.


I have looked and found nothing. It does not look like my style at all. I actually believe you have quoted someone else and seeing as though you called me a stooge I believe you need to back up your words.




top topics



 
31
<< 78  79  80    82  83  84 >>

log in

join